(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)
Objection: Global temperatures have been trending down since 1998. Global warming is over.
Answer: At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analyses. In fact, it blew away the previous record by .2 degrees C. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!)
According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking at CRU's graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in black.
Clearly 1998 is an anomaly and the trend has not reversed. (Even the apparent leveling at the end is not the real smoothing. The smoothed trend in 2005 depends on all of its surrounding years, including a few years still in the future.) By the way, choosing the CRU analysis is also a cherry pick -- NASA has 2005 breaking the 1998 record, though by very little.
Now, this is an excusable mistake for average folks who do not need the rigors of statistical analysis in their day jobs. But any scientist in pretty much any field knows that you cannot extract meaningful information about trends in noisy data from single-year end points. It's hard to hear a scientist make this argument and still believe they speak with integrity in this debate -- seems more like an abuse of the trust placed in them as scientists. Bob Carter is just such a voice, and was the first to trot out this argument in an article in the Daily Telegraph. Since then it has echoed far and wide and been used by Richard Lindzen as well as a host of skeptic websites.
Interestingly, Bob Carter seems to know what he is doing. He tries to pre-empt objections in his article by insinuating that any choice of starting point (say, 1978) will just be a cherry pick with the opposite motive! But cherry picking is about choosing data for the sole purpose of supporting a pre-conceived conclusion. It is not the simple act of choosing at all. One must choose some starting point. In the case of his example year, 1978, it's often chosen simply because it is the first year that satellite records of tropospheric temperatures were available.
So what choices are there? What are the reasons for those choices? What conclusions we can draw from them?
- As mentioned above, you could choose to examine the last 30 years -- that is when both surface and tropospheric readings have been available. We have experienced warming of approximately .2 degrees C/decade during this time. It would take a couple of decades trending down before we could say the recent warming ended in 1998.
- You could choose 1970 in the NASA GISS analysis -- the start of the late 20th century warming, and as such a significant feature of the temperature record. The surface temperature over this period shows .6 degrees C warming.
- You could choose 1965 in the CRU analysis -- when the recent warming started in their record. It shows around .5 degrees C warming of the smoothed trend line.
- You could choose 1880 in the NASA record -- it shows .8 degrees C warming.
- You could choose 1855 in the CRU record -- it shows .8 degrees C warming. As with the trend above, we can not say it is over without many decades more data indicating cooling.
- You could choose to look at the last 500 years in the bore hole record analysis -- that is its entire length. It puts today about 1 degree C above the first three centuries of that record. In that kind of analysis, today's record will be hidden from view for many decades.
- You could choose to look at the last 1,000 years, because that is
as far back as the dendrochronology studies reliably go. Then the conclusion is:
Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
- You could choose to look at the entire period of time since the end of the last ice age, around 10,000 years ago. Then the conclusion is that GHG warming has reversed a long and stable period of slight downward trend, and we are now at a global temperature not experienced in the history of human civilization -- the entire Holocene. It will be many centuries until such a long view of today's climate is available. The situation is a bit more urgent than that!
That about covers any period of time relevant to today's society. "It has stopped warming" is only supported by selecting a single year out of context and using a seven-year window to look at multi-decadal trends in climate. That's a classic cherry pick.
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
Jon Stewart praises ‘SuperFreak’ author
The big stories out of Tuesday’s Senate hearing on Kerry-Boxer
Comments
View as Threaded
Delay And Deny Posted 3:10 am
07 Nov 2006
First the narrator says that the ice of some lake was frozen "year round". But then the guide for the explorers says it was free "a few months a year". Well, never mind, because now it's ice free almost all year round. And guess what -- the native people there love it! Now they have free passage and trade.
The funny part is the hapless "environmentalists" who go through the village trying to get someone to say what a bad thing it is...and yet, everyone of the Aleuts seems to be liking the warm weather and open water!
There's one fellow, who they really try to arm twist. He says how its getting warmer and warmer there every year.
"Well, how do you feel about that?" says the environmentalist, a foot from the guy's face, with his enviro-buddies right behind him...looking like a bunch of hoods asking "you want this loan, don't cha?".
The guy nonchalantly says "oh, I think it's good. We're poor and warm weather means we'll spend less on fuel".
"But, but" sputters the environmentalist, "what about the polar bear!?!"
"Oh", says the Aleut, "he can go North...to where it's colder".
See, this was the first time I ever had sympathy with a tunda person, because he reacted and spoke like every other person that I know -- he likes warm weather and he likes to save money. He didn't go into some epileptic fit about "Shamanadoda" and start decrying the spirit of the Polar Bear. Nope. He wanted to sip pina coladas and watch the ice melt!
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:13 am
07 Nov 2006
Well, how come you can ignore a hockey stick in 1998 and a downtrend in 2005 and say, you have to wait to see what's happening a few years in the future and yet, Al Gore gets to project his chart up through the ceiling?
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.
Permalink
angelune Posted 3:34 am
07 Nov 2006
Permalink
atreyger Posted 4:35 am
07 Nov 2006
Permalink
atreyger Posted 4:40 am
07 Nov 2006
It's just that when you consider the style of conversation and obvious lack of understanding of the issue, jabailo's posts are nearly equal to a yahoo discussion:
you fag libs
you stupid cons
morons...
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 3:50 pm
07 Nov 2006
:)
Permalink
Bob Wilson Posted 12:20 pm
26 Dec 2006
Bob Wilson
Permalink
blueberrymuffin Posted 3:28 am
11 Feb 2007
While your story may be true, you could at least link to it or something. Climate change skeptics gloat over and massage anything that contradicts climate change theories, its effects, or its possible negative repercussions. All of it is presented as evidence of a conspiracy pushing climate change, communism, anti-Americanism, um ... communism ... Well, if the preponderance of evidence indicates that climate change is occurring and that it will negatively affect the world in X and Y ways, then I guess it could look like a conspiracy to someone who simply refuses to look at the evidence and, instead, attacks the messengers.
Permalink
snedunuri Posted 2:19 pm
01 Mar 2007
Anyway this post is really idiotic and beside the point. Rather than addressing the issue of global warming it seems to be saying "hey I'm doing fine here in Bumblef**k, Texas so y'all should enjoy it too"
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:44 am
05 Mar 2007
The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.
That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.
Permalink
trickytank Posted 1:38 pm
15 Jun 2007
Alot of those arguments in that article seem rather weak. I'll comment on that page.
Permalink
amtr Posted 8:39 am
09 Apr 2008
Permalink
manacker Posted 10:35 am
19 Apr 2008
Several years ago Danish scientists, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen proposed a theory linking global climate with the activity of the sun, via cosmic rays.
Svensmark's subsequent lab results demonstrated an observed link between cosmic rays and cloud formation. Whether the CLOUD study now underway at CERN will confirm this on a larger scale is a matter of conjecture at this point.
Critics of Svensmark's theory point out that, while it may have shown fairly good correlation with global temperature in earlier years the link after around the mid-1980s is poor.
This is often referred to as the "fatal flaw" in Svensmark's theory.
This argument may be valid, but it raises the question:
Is there an actually observed link between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature?
The Hadley Centre has a published record of "monthly globally averaged land and sea surface temperature" that goes back to 1850.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ... ...
Actual measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration only started in 1958.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.htm ... ...
IPCC estimates based on ice core readings go back to pre-industrial times. These show an estimated gradual increase from around 285 ppm in 1850 to 315 ppm in 1958, when actual measurements started. See the IPCC 2007 SPM report:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
CO2 concentrations have risen steadily over the entire period. The rate of increase has accelerated slightly over the period, particularly following WWII.
Global temperatures have risen over the period, but a closer look at the record shows that this has been anything but steady.
Period.......Trend....Years..Change
1860-1879 +0.196 20 +0.39
1879-1906 -0.047 27 -0.13
1906-1940 +0.161 35 +0.56
1940-1976 -0.020 36 -0.07
1976-1998 +0.175 22 +0.39
1998-2008 0.000 10 .0.00
Trend is linear decadal trend in degreesC/decade
Change is linear change over period in degreesC
Over the past 150 years since the record started temperature has increased by around 1.1C.
Between 1850 and around 1860 there was a slight cooling trend.
This trend reversed to a warming trend for the next 20 years until around 1879 (at +0.196C per decade this period shows the highest decadal rate of increase since records have been taken) and represents around 30% of the total warming recorded since 1850. There was essentially no increase in CO2 during these "horse and buggy" years.
This was followed by another cooling trend until around 1906 (-0.047C per decade).
Then came another warming trend until around 1940 (+0.161C per decade), representing around 40% of the total warming recorded since 1850.
This period was followed by a slight cooling trend until around 1976 (-0.02C per decade), during the post-war boom period of rapid increase in CO2
Following this, we had a trend with the second highest decadal rate of increase (+0.175C per decade) from 1976 to around 1998. This trend occurred during a period of rapid CO2 increase and represented 30% of the total warming from 1850 to today. This period has gotten a lot of attention as evidence of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW).
Since the end of the 20th century, this rapid warming trend has stopped. Over the ten-year period since 1998 there has actually been a very slight cooling trend, despite the continued high rate of increase of CO2. Starting the trend with the year 2001 rather than the strong El Niño year 1998 shows the same flat to slight cooling trend.
In summary, there were three warming periods that contributed to the overall warming plus two periods of cooling and the most recent "plateau" showing essentially no change.
And it appears that last 25 years of the 20th century provide the only observed link between CO2 and temperature.
The immediately preceding period had CO2 increase with cooling.
The immediately ensuing period since the end of the 20th century shows slight cooling with high increase in CO2.
The late 19th century warming period showed the highest rate of temperature increase of all periods recorded, with essentially no CO2 increase whatsoever.
The early 20th century warming period also showed warming, with relatively small increase in CO2.
In summary, the actually observed data show that there does not appear to be a very "robust" link between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature.
IPCC has used the late 20th century warming cycle to demonstrate the anthropogenic cause stating in its AR4 WG1 report Chapter 9 (p.681):
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1- ...
"The simulations also show that it is not possible to reproduce large 20th-century warming without anthropogenic forcing regardless of which solar or volcanic forcing reconstruction is used,... stressing the impact of human activity on the recent warming."
In other words, since no other cause can be identified to explain the observed warming other than anthropogenic forcing (from greenhouse gases), this must be the cause by default.
This assumption is based on the rather weak foundation of greenhouse theory, 25 years of observation, model studies, and conjecture.
Most damaging for this assumption is the fact that no analysis has been made of the two prior warming periods in order to support this suggestion, despite the fact that these periods together count for 70% of the warming observed over the entire record.
Strangely IPCC does not even mention the late 19th century period that showed the highest decadal rate of temperature rise of all periods since measurements started. Nor has an analysis been made to determine the causes for this period of rapid warming. It is obvious that it could not have been caused by increased CO2, as there was no significant increase. Sunspot records show no unusual solar activity that could have been a factor. What, then, were these "unexplained" causes? Why have they not been investigated?
As regards the warming period of the early 20th century, IPCC states (p.691):
"Detection and attribution as well as modelling studies indicate more uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th-century warming than the recent warming."
Again there are apparently "unexplained" causes resulting in "uncertainty", but, again, no studies have been made to clear up this uncertainty and attempt to understand how large an impact these "unexplained" causes might have had.
Could these same "unexplained" causes have been the principle forcing factor for the late 20th century warming, rather than the assumed "anthropogenic forcing" from greenhouse gases? How can we be sure this is not the case?
Only by making these analyses and clearly identifying that there were no major "unexplained" factors in the two earlier warming periods can one make the claim that AGW is the predominant forcing factor for late 20th century warming
To simply assert that this is so "by default" since no other explanation can be found is no argument at all.
Is this the "fatal flaw" in the AGW theory?
Max
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 11:10 am
22 Apr 2008
J. Bailo, your arguments are petty and small. What an eskimo thinks of climate change has no bearing on whether his ecosystem will successfully transition through rapid changes. A rapidly changing ecosystem is most likely an unbalanced one, and an unbalanced ecosystem is ripe for invasive species, disease, extinctions, drought, flood, and famine.
amtr, "those pushing this junk science" are many hundreds of scientists all over the world who publish in peer-reviewed journals. Not ONE article in the legitimate scientific journals over the last ten years has refuted global warming, and not ONE has strongly doubted there is at least an anthropogenic component. About half of the hundreds of climate-change-related articles in these publications the last decade have asserted that man's contribution to the problem is somewhere between likely and nearly certain. If you can't trust that, then I suppose nothing can convince you.
Manacker, thank you for presenting a smart counterargument. My thoughts on all this:
(1) On a macro, philosophical level, scientists don't form a consensus for their health. Any scientist would be happy to be the one to make a final proof for or against something as huge as climate change. The scientific community tends toward facts and proofs since the work of any one scientist rests on the foundations established by the others, and it invalidates one's own work if the foundations are proven unsound. So scientists like to check each others' work and explore new possibilities. I cannot believe that your arguments have not been specifically addressed to some extent in studies up to this point. I don't have anything to point to to back it up, though. Take a look--I bet it's out there.
(2) More specifically, I understand our climate to be one of cycles on many different levels. Ice ages operate in the tens of thousands of years, sunspots in eleven-year turns, etc. So why is it at all surprising to you that the data isn't in a straight line? I think that specific matter is addressed in the section of the IPCC report you linked to.
(3) The environment is a more complex system than most skeptics (yourself excluded, I imagine) seem to realize. There are innumerable climatalogical and meteorological cycles to consider, along with countless factors from cow methane to deforestation, water vapor to glacial movement. Any computer model of this sort of system will be imperfect, and I feel uncertainty from fifty to a hundred years ago is likely due to the fact that we now measure and track so many things in so many more ways than we did then. And all this aside, CO2 is just one of those many factors being studied (and potentially blamed) for warming. Looking on page 684 of the IPCC report you cited, there are a couple of graphs that would seem to suggest that when all anthropogenic factors are considered (not just CO2), only since about 1935 has there been any trend away from what the climate might be doing without our influence. So apparently your CO2 vs. temperature chart alone doesn't paint the bigger picture that these scientists are seeing.
(4) I am waiting for someone to discover that this tremendous upturn at the far right side of the graph is due to some oversight in measurement, recordkeeping, tolerances, or calibration, but it seems extraordinarily unlikely given the number of people now studying the problem. Have you seen the number of different ways that past climates are being studied and quantified? Tree rings, ocean salt content at various depths, animal and plant fossil records, core sampling, and on and on and on. There are lots of checks and balances here.
Again, good to hear from a skeptic who's at least thinking about it. It's good brain exercise to have a quality argument with someone you disagree with.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 12:22 pm
22 Apr 2008
That statement challenges me at two levels. First of all, I tend to think of an Eskimo as primarily a human being...an intelligent adaptive sentient person. You seem to think of an Eskimo as a species that might best be kept in a zoo...that he can only live in one ecosystem unlike all other people. As far as "his ecosystem" again, he is a person. As long as he can get on a 787 and fly to Hawaii then that is his ecosystem too and I'm sure he'd have a ball there just like you and me (well, me anyway).
A rapidly changing ecosystem is most likely an unbalanced one, and an unbalanced ecosystem is ripe for invasive species, disease, extinctions, drought, flood, and famine.
Nature is never balanced. Nature is dynamic and ever changing. Have you read "The World without Us" (short form, rent "I Am Legend")? Left to its devices, Nature, by nature, is "invasive".
J. Bailo
Participant
Texeme.Construct()
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 6:38 am
23 Apr 2008
You have to be able to see it's not the Eskimo I'm worried about. He'll be fine if it gets a little cooler, or a little warmer. Or probably even a whole lot warmer. But your arguments reflect a startling lack of understanding that other animal species, which lack clothes, insulated structures, tools, and such, are slower to adapt. And plants are even slower, as it takes an enormous amount of time for one habitat to replace another. Even if animals can keep up with rising water, shifting weather patterns, and temperature changes, their food supplies somewhere down the food chain cannot. On top of that are enormous logistical problems posed by rising sea levels. If that theory pans out, there may be a period of such rapid sea rise that tens of millions of people need to relocate in an impossibly short amount of time. And not just that, but the infrastructure (roads, homes, factories, gas stations, chemical plants, oil refineries, sewage systems) they leave behind will be underwater, leeching toxins into the sea on an unprecedented scale.
So what we're talking about here is not a normal imbalance of nature. Nature is normally quite balanced on the scale we're talking about--years and decades. Wildfires and invasive species remake localities, but it is only with the influence of man that we see massive destruction of habitats, extinctions of species, and now, probably, climatological shifts.
Please don't try to use philosophy, guesswork, or spring break as rationales to ignore science.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:28 am
23 Apr 2008
Putting aside some of the extreme imaginations in your post above, here are a couple of questions for you:
How did polar bears manage to survive the MWP, and other warm periods (warmer than today) in recent millenia? How do they survive in warm climate zoos....are they fed live seals?
The UK was mostly covered with ice during the last ice age, but several species continue to enjoy staying-on there. They still have signatures of their ice-age background. For instance, baby grey seals still have white fur, but seldom see any snow.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:50 am
23 Apr 2008
How did polar bears manage to survive the MWP, and other warm periods (warmer than today) in recent millenia? How do they survive in warm climate zoos....are they fed live seals?
And what (during the pre-Warming days) was the maximum temperature differential between day and night? Between summer and winter?
Today it was 35F when I woke up and 50F at midday. I survived a 15F temperature increase! And I will do the same tomorrow!
J. Bailo
Participant
Texeme.Construct()
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 8:17 am
24 Apr 2008
As for "extreme imaginations," I suppose you think that at we won't get to a point where a sea level rise of one foot is catastrophic? Or do you believe that our government will succefully plan for the mass migration of coastal folks and the careful dismantling and cleansing of all the potentially toxic facilities and infrastructure near the ocean? I only see these scenarios as extreme if you believe one of these two things.
Or maybe you imagine you'll just hop on a plane to somewhere that's "not affected" by what's going on.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:28 pm
24 Apr 2008
You commented in part to Max in your comment 14:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329#com ...
"4) [A] I am waiting for someone to discover that this tremendous upturn at the far right side of the graph... [B]...is due to some oversight in measurement, recordkeeping, tolerances, or calibration, ...[C]... but it seems extraordinarily unlikely given the number of people now studying the problem... [D]... Have you seen the number of different ways that past climates are being studied and quantified? Tree rings, ocean salt content at various depths, animal and plant fossil records, core sampling, and on and on and on. There are lots of checks and balances here.
Since Max must be busy elsewhere, and we often work together in these debates, I could not overlook your point 4:
[A]: You must be referring to the first graph, which does not show actual temperatures but what is known as an anomaly from an arbitrarily selected level. One could just as well have set the zero base-line to 1850, but then all the vertical blue and red lines would be different, and mostly red. Or, if it had been set at 1908, they would ALL be red. OK, let's ignore the red and blue bars entirely, and just trust the black wiggly line as their average, starting at say 20 degrees C in 1850. Perhaps copy the figure into a graphics or picture editor (e.g. MS Paint), and remove the red and blue.
Now look at the black line between ~1908 and ~1941 and compare it with your so-called tremendous upturn at the far right side of the graph.
What made you think it was a tremendous upturn?....it isn't unusual is it, regardless of CO2! Think about!
There are at least three other more difficult things that could be discussed about this graph, but I want to see if you are receptive to this simple rational info first.
[B]: The published global surface temperatures are what everyone uses and accepts at least in the short-term. However, there are definitely a variety of problems with much of the surface instrumentation in terms of quality variation, and temporal and spatial concerns. If you are genuinely interested, there are some interesting references available.
[C] Not sure what you mean by [C]
[D] The topic is the global surface temperature record, as has been measured and arbitrarily averaged. I don't think any of the proxy records you mention are relevant, and for instance the tree-ring divergence problem which is contradictory, has not yet been resolved as far as I know
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:26 pm
24 Apr 2008
Aha, so it looks like you agree that the polar bear, so oft pitifully pictured marooned on a splinter of ice lapped by cruel waves would do fine, even if all the ice melts. What about those poor arctic seals that currently hide under the snow though? Crikey! Well, they'd have to adapt the same way they did in the past. (Somewhat like the UK grey seals), Of course they would have to birth on rocks, and the predators would flourish, but they will probably survive in reduced numbers. Of course, mankind can step-in and interfere with nature and set-up survival zones for the seals, if the activists were sufficiently active, as undoubtedly they would be.
Meanwhile, with warming oceans, at the top of the food chain, photosynthetic life would flourish in ever increasing areas, coral would grow in new areas, and so-forth. Looks pretty rosy to me!
I must quote your next bit of debating with intelligence:
"...Or do you believe that our government will succefully plan for the mass migration of coastal folks and the careful dismantling and cleansing of all the potentially toxic facilities and infrastructure near the ocean? I only see these scenarios as extreme if you believe one of these two things. Or maybe you imagine you'll just hop on a plane to somewhere that's "not affected" by what's going on..."
I don't think those thousands of scientists that you worship at the IPCC have gone that far have they? Got any references?
PS Your penultimate sentence context, and the first few lines not quoted are not entirely clear to me
Permalink
Michigan Pete Posted 5:14 pm
25 Apr 2008
A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining, because of mankind's interference in the environment.
In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.
"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.
His findings back the claims of Inuit hunters who have long claimed that they were seeing more bears.
Just like the environmentalists claimed the Caribou population would be wiped out by the Alaska pipeline the Caribou population has exploded upward from 5000 to 25000 since the pipeline was built because the Caribou are far more "amorous" when they are near the heated pipeline. Looks like the Polar bears are now laying some pipe of their own !
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:23 am
27 Apr 2008
Hope you have been enjoying your global warming in Michigan!
This report on a proposed cull of overcrowded kangaroos, may make you smile.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Outrage at kangaroo cull
Sharri Markson; Sydney Daily Telegraph
March 16, 2008 12:00am
JAPAN is using the slaughter of hundreds of eastern grey kangaroos in Canberra to undermine Australia's anti-whaling crusade.
Japanese television and radio yesterday covered a small protest over the culling of as many as 500 kangaroos in the northern suburb of Belconnen.
Tokyo Broadcasting System reporter Hiroki Iijima said Japanese people would regard the kangaroo cull as hypocritical.
Read Full Story @
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23381 ...
~~~~~
BLOG Responses; 59
I am ashamed to call myself an Australian and we all should be this is a bloody disgrace.
Posted by: Sarah of Glenmore Park 5:16pm today
Comment 59 of 59
~~~~~
Most foreigners believe there is only one type of kangaroo rather than the 47 or so different ones. Not all are endangered and some, like the eastern grey are in plague numbers. And just a little reminder to the the Japanese, humpback whales are an endagered species !
Posted by: sg of syd 5:14pm today
Comment 58 of 59
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 6:21 am
28 Apr 2008
[A]
First of all, I can't tell if you don't understand this yourself, or if you think I don't understand it, but we need to be clear that a graph is either accurate or it isn't. In the case of anomaly, the absolute levels reflected are accurate (within stated "uncertainty" values) regardless of what zero level is chosen or what color the bars go. The bars themselves are only useful for representing the value of this arbitrary anomaly; but the endpoints still represent temperature averages for each year.
The "tremendous upturn" refers to the fact that if there were a cycle--one can imagine a cycle about every fifty years, with a low in 1860, a low around 1910, and a low near 1950 or 1960--then where is the next trough? Wouldn't it be right about now? Instead of continuing in a predictable cycle or persisting in a statistical range of temperatures that has held true since 1850 (and according to various long-term records, for thousands of years) there has been a long upswing since around 1940. And much of what has happened the last 20 years has been entirely outside of the range of even the extremes anywhere in the prior 130 years (and again, maybe much much more). So, in terms of pure, unadultered statistics and statistical averaging, can you find a cycle that leads you to believe it is likely temperatures will fall significantly anytime soon? I don't see any. But again... not a scientist, not a statistics guru.
In other words, you compare the right side of the graph (which for you, I think, meant since perhaps 1970 or 1980?) to the period between 1908 and 1941. Here's the difference: The upswing between 1908 and 1941 (a) fell in a range of temperatures that seems to be consistent with long-term recent history, and (b) was followed by a downturn (albeit a smaller one). We cannot, on the whole, say the samething for the period from 1950 to the present. It travelled well outside the expected range and the trend has not yet reversed. Of course, I understand this year is so far looking much cooler, so if that kept up, it could be the start of a downturn.
[B]
No thanks, I've read a few things and it's not something that interests me. Just saying it would be nice to know we're wrong about rising temperatures for some simple, clearly explainable reason.
[C]
Well, inaccuracies persist only when they are allowed to--when no one questions them. There are so many scientists in so many fields studying climate change that if there were problems with the fundamental methodology, techniques, or equipment associated with things like temperature records, I hope they would have surfaced by now. So I don't think that technical inaccuracies will be found to account for the theory of AGW.
[D]
Other temperature records are entirely relevant in that the climate works in cycles, and statisticians work in averages. If all we have to work with is the past 150 years, we may be missing cycles that can explain this warming, or we may be comparing our ranges and averages to a period of time which is itself an anomaly. We need a longer-term point of reference to truly know the significance of our short-term observations.
A few simple examples: what if some proxy record suggested the past 200 years were actually colder than average (an anomaly), and that we're just now getting back to a level that's been generally consistent for at least a few thousand years? That would probably cause us to stop looking at our situation as a crisis, wouldn't it? Or what if upswings of this rate and magnitude we part of a few-hundred-year natural cycle of some sort? The Hadley record could not reveal things like these. So it's important to view the more accurate surface temperature record in the context of as many longer-term records as possible.
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 7:17 am
28 Apr 2008
First of all, I don't agree that the polar bear would do fine. I have no idea and I'm not qualified to predict these things. Apparently in some areas, they're doing very well. That's great for them. Again, I'm asking for a more sophisticated view of ecology, habitat, and change, on that acknowledges our interdependency as human beings, species, and ecosystems. Let's say the polar bears stay put the course of the next ten years as temperatures rise further. They begin to adapt to their new habitat. Babies that can't adapt die, and evolution speeds up a bit to give us: polar bears that do fine birthing on rocks, feeding on foxes, antelope babies, different kinds of fish than they're used to, or whatever. But as temperatures change everywhere, species of all types will be either adapting, migrating, or becoming extinct. Not being much of an ecology professor, I can only throw out speculation... let's assume that some new animals and plants migrate into the polar bears' territory. Some may be predators looking for habitat or food, and they then compete with these bears. Some may be insects, diseases, algae or other organisms that can plague a habitat or a body of water and cause rapid changes. Furthermore, some of the prey the polar bear was hoping to chase down begins to die out because its food is no longer available, or its habitat no longer suits it, and it cannot adapt quickly enough.
Now this is just one very hypothetical situation, yet it echoes the sorts of changes that happen on a regular basis in response to multi-year weather patterns, pests, contaminated water supplies, etc. If it happens every day on a small scale in response to small adversities, can you not see that it seems likely to happen on an enormous scale if temperatures continue to fairly rapidly?
And if this happens, can you not see that farms, hatcheries, fishing operations, lumber operations, parks and conservationists all suddenly have widespread rapid change to cope with? That new animal populations will bring new problems to human populations with an increasing rate of speed? That human and animal populations will be exposed to unfamiliar pollens, toxins, predators, pests, and diseases more and more?
Add to that the complications from a rising ocean. We may have several decades or more before this becomes urgent, but if I ignore any selfish temptation to bequeath this issue to my daughter, and I find myself wondering... As the ocean invades sewer systems, gas stations, treatment plants, refineries, military installations, chemical plants, and other toxic structures and infrastructures that might happen to be near the coast, what happens? What happens in Sacramento? New Orleans? Venice? How does that impact the surrounding ecology? The economy? The more heavily burdened infrastructure? The more strained health care system?
And while all these problems (aside from seeming like a pipe dream to some people) might appear less daunting living in a first-world country, imagine the death and destruction if a few diseases, plagues, or droughts hit the third world. Wait... that's happening now, and it's causing war, famine, and enormous refugee migrations.
I don't know if scientists are thinking about these things. These are at least as much about policy as about science; I think such decisions must be based in science, but beyond that are entirely up for debate. In other words, policy-makers must look at science to describe what is happening analyze what has happened before, and predict what may happen in the future, and then they need to set a course of action. Hopefully as evidence mounts for AGW, people will begin planning for realistic scenarios based on predictions of rising sea levels due to rising temperatures.
J. Bailo referred to these scenarios as extreme. I would like to think so. I have to wonder though, if a few degrees of temperature change occurs in a relatively short time span, won't it be enough to trigger exactly this sort of natural-disaster-type response from our environment? That last paragraph you questioned was a response to J. Bailo's skepticism. Assuming you believe the sea level will rise a fair amount, then to me the only reasons to be skeptical that the environment (and we) would be severely affected by this are (1) if you thought that the predicted amounts of sea level rise really wouldn't cause any damage like I've postulated, or (2) if you thought we could plan our way out of it, efficiently relocating many millions of people, relocating or replacing industries from the coast, and effectively mitigating or preventing the release of unspeakable amounts of toxins being leeched into the ocean, all before any disaster did actually strike.
I personally don't belive we're proactive enough as a culture (certainly here in America) to plan sufficiently ahead of time (see: Katrina) and I do believe that the predicted sea level rise will be enough to cause enormous problems. This makes me think the disastrous scenarios I posed may not be so "extreme."
Hopefully I cleared that up. Far from my most eloquent writing, sorry! I think I've covered all the posts I care to answer, so... see y'all later.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:13 pm
28 Apr 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49/#60 ...
Hopefully as evidence mounts for AGW, people will begin planning for realistic scenarios based on predictions of rising sea levels due to rising temperatures.
Realism is usually based on past behavior. That is the basis for all global warming predictions. Based on that, you'd have to look at the "sea level rise" during the period of "earth's most intense global warming -- on record".
The effect: not much. In fact, there are many areas of the world were the seas have been receding.
J. Bailo referred to these scenarios as extreme. I would like to think so. I have to wonder though, if a few degrees of temperature change occurs in a relatively short time span, won't it be enough to trigger exactly this sort of natural-disaster-type response from our environment?
Here in Kent it's been around 50 every day. Then, Saturday it went up 70F. Somehow we survived. You have to say how hot for how long. Remember, every winter to summer we experience tens of degrees of "climate change" in a 6 month period....some how the world manages....
That last paragraph you questioned was a response to J. Bailo's skepticism.
I am not a "skeptic". I present an equally compelling model and theory to explain the data.
I am a competitor -- so I expect name calling and calumny rather than rational discourse.
That's the price of being in the ring!
(1) if you thought that the predicted amounts of sea level rise really wouldn't cause any damage like I've postulated, or (2) if you thought we could plan our way out of it, efficiently relocating many millions of people, relocating or replacing industries from the coast, and effectively mitigating or preventing the release of unspeakable amounts of toxins being leeched into the ocean, all before any disaster did actually strike.
The Bailo Model predicts sea levels falling. So I wouldn't do any of that stuff.
Texeme.Construct(Participant)
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:43 pm
28 Apr 2008
see y'all later.....
What you really mean is that you'll take sneaky peekies but not comment; right?
So we can still fondly imagine that you are there!
Oh!
Oh!
Oh!
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 11:03 pm
28 Apr 2008
How did you end-up here; poor thing?
Should we try to find you some medical help?
Do not be alarmed, help is at hand, and there are others like you, so do not feel alone:
Josullivan58
Atreyger
Pangolin
Jbullfrog
To name off-hand but four!!!!
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:36 am
10 May 2008
In your lead article you illustrate a global temperature graph from 2005, whilst there is a background discussion of an evident plateau in temperatures over the past decade.
Here is a 2008 version to which I have attached some comments.
Why did you not use the 2008 version instead of 2005?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:37 am
10 May 2008
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:23 pm
22 May 2008
In your lead article you illustrate a global temperature graph from 2005, whilst there is a background discussion of an evident plateau in temperatures over the past decade.
Here is a 2008 version to which I have attached some comments.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2461371188_3f2ee147fa ...
Why did you not use the 2008 version instead of 2005?
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 6:05 am
30 May 2008
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 6:17 am
30 May 2008
The questions scientists must try to answer are whether this LONG-TERM trend will continue (they feel it will likely do so), whether we humans are contributing to it (they feel it's likely we are), and at what point the consequences of such a continuing trend become undeniably negative for us in any way.
The existence of another little trough in the graph doesn't change its overall direction.
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 3:51 pm
15 Jun 2008
Firstly, it's my understanding that the period is too short to establish a climate shift - 30 years is the minimum recommended by the WMO. In that regard, I don't think the period covered in this topic is sufficiently long. Nevertheless..
This is the simplest way I can think of to establish a trend. I do not know if there is a shortcoming in the methodology (aside from a too-short period), and I hope that if there is, someone knowledgeable will point it out to me.
Take the five tears from 1998 - 2002 (inclusive), add up the global temperatures and then divide by 5 to get an average.
Take the five years from 2003 to 2007 (inclusive) and do the same thing.
Here are three different sources for the data;
UK Met Office
NCDC
NASA
All show a warming trend, even limiting the data to the last ten years, with the first year being the very high 1998. That is, the average the the last five years is higher than the first five.
The amplitude of trend falls short of that projected by IPCC (1995, 2001 and 2007 - although the latter is not strictly applicable to this time series, being published towards the end of it), but then I would recommend that the results are skewed by starting from the anomalously high 1998.
Comments?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:54 pm
15 Jun 2008
"Firstly, it's my understanding that the period is too short to establish a climate shift - 30 years is the minimum recommended by the WMO. In that regard, I don't think the period covered in this topic is sufficiently long. Nevertheless.."
I would recommend that you do not select short spans of data from tabulations. (and 5 years is definitely too short!). It is much better and easier to understand trends from graphical representations on a less selective and wider time-span, both sides of what you are considering.
I present to you a link to a marked-up version of the relevant Hadley (UK Met Office) data which may better explain what appears to be happening over the last ten years, compared with what appears to be a remarkably similar event around 1940
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2131/2458648692_1701416471 ...
It will take a year or three to be absolutely sure or not, but I can also show strong evidence of a regular periodicity, that appears to be breaking-over right now.
Please note that the Hadley graphical data comes with an arbitrary 20-year (or 21-point) smoothing, which breaks-down in the final ten years. To apply the same code logic through to say 2007, data is required through to 2017, which of course is impossible. Thus, debatable methods are used by Hadley for the last ten years.
That will do for now. If you would like to digest this and then ask any questions, please do.
Regards BobFJ, (AKA Black Wallaby)
Permalink
vincentcarragher Posted 7:09 pm
15 Jun 2008
So what! water vapour is more important - big deal. global warming stopped - fantastic great news!
well done on this significant and revealing and very topical dare I say sexy presentation of facts.
Did you consider what impact water vapour has on human consumption or maybe related depletion of natural resources. Hey here's one for you to argue 'depletion of natural resources is not related to human consumption'. Lets see you rap data around that argument.
Now that should keep you busy for awhile.
Levels of carbon dioxide happen to be an important metric for assessing human impact. Human consumption has many diverse impacts making it difficult to report to the public. Carbon dioxide happens to be a tangible and probably currently the only decent indicator.
Knock Knock - who pays your bills then?
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 7:32 pm
15 Jun 2008
No argument that the period is too short. I was working from the meme this thread is about, replying, as it were, to a common skeptical POV in the semi-popular literature. Quoting from the top post; "Global temperatures have been trending down since 1998. Global warming is over." Coby has already dealt with that well in the top post. I was interested in finding a way to work out a trend over the ten years in line with the skeptical constraints. I'm not aware of a more sophisticated (skeptical) approach dealing with the trend over the longer term.
Is there a particular reason why the 1940 down-curve was chosen in comparison? Why not the 1875-1880 curve, or the downturn just before 1900, or the one around 1960, which appear, at least to the naked eye from that Hadley chart, to better match the curve of the current trend?
If I get the gist of that chart correctly, it is being suggested that the 1940 downturn is something that might be occurring now, but I see no reason for that. The comparison seems arbitrary, perhaps even a little opportunistic if whoever put that graphic together is trying to suggest that we may headed for a mid-century-like cooling period.
I'm afraid my skills at statistical analysis are about as sophisticated as my initial attempt demonstrates. My maths is poor, but I'm pretty good at grasping things conceptually. If you can educate me in line with my strengths, I'm very much up for it.
Questions:
If we do constrain the period to that as put by the skeptical meme (last ten years), is my attempt satisfactory?
If the last five years is on average hotter than the previous five, should not a smoothed analysis recommend we're still warming? I believe this applies for any number of years larger than five to present, whether decadal, dodecadal (I may have made up a word here) etc.
Can you explain (without arcane math symbols) how the downward trend is arrived at in the last few years of the Hadley trend?
I realize this is all probably statistics 101.00001, but if you've the patience, I'll commit to applying myself.
From your user name; you're an Aussie? I am, posting from wintery Bondi, Sydney.
Cheers, mate!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:09 pm
15 Jun 2008
The climate has more than one variable affecting it
1998 had a lot to do with the El Nino that year
2008 had a lot to do with the La Nina that year
2008 had a lot to do with the PDO which coincided with the La Nina
That cherry picking trendlines dominated by either of those two years, and insisting that "Aha! See CO2 rise isn't causing a direct 1-to-1 correlation to temperature, therefore it's wrong." Is absolutely an unscientific argument.
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 3:50 am
16 Jun 2008
2008 is only halfway done. Aren't you jumping the gun a bit?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 12:33 pm
16 Jun 2008
This is my lunch time quickie:
I would say that most people who deal with data and graphs, if asked to draw a trend-line through the following would draw a horizontal line at 0.6C
This is from GISS.....the notorious alarmist James Hansen is head guru http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
Also, La Nina's and O's, have been frolicking around for a long time, and that in the following graph from Hadley, 1998 is not unusual as spikes go, and such events are just part of the noise in the data.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
Look carefully and you will see that almost every time that there is an up or down spike, it is followed by a two-year correction, or reversal. For example 1998 is a high spike, but then 1999 and 2000 are a sharp reversal. Because this is typical of the 150-year past record, it is statistically significant to say that the spike of 1998 is not important, because it is corrected by 1999 and 2000. Hence we are on a plateau.
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 1:05 pm
16 Jun 2008
Elsewhere I put it that 1998 is an anomaly and it would be statistically valid to excise it (and other spikes downward or upward similar in magnitude) from the profile in order to get the underlying trend. For the same purpose, in some reconstructions the ENSO signal has been removed - el Nino and la Nina - to reduce the amount of noise from 'weather'.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in ...
(3rd graph)
How do you arrive at the conclusion that we've plateaued? Perhaps you are not speaking of trends but of recent movement in interannual variability. I hope to learn something more of statistical analysis. Eyeballing graphs is ok for starters, but no good for getting down to brass tacks.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:20 pm
16 Jun 2008
As a matter of principle, I do not open links to SkepticalScience or RealClimate (or Tamino/RayPierreH references), because in the first instance, I hold little credence for what they claim and manipulate. Furthermore, the last thing I want to do is give them any benefit by increasing their website hit-count.
However, I will quickly answer what you wrote, quote:
"Elsewhere I put it that 1998 is an anomaly and it would be statistically valid to excise it (and other spikes downward or upward similar in magnitude) from the profile in order to get the underlying trend. For the same purpose, in some reconstructions the ENSO signal has been removed - el Nino and la Nina - to reduce the amount of noise from 'weather'."
How much do you excise and under what rules? Regardless, you cannot "legally" do that unless you also excise the typical two year reversals which follow such spikes. How do you do that? Add a bit on? How much for year 1 and year 2? Please study the Hadley graph more carefully, and you should be able to see that the repetition of this internal "correction" over the 150 years is so remarkable and frequent, that 1999 and 2000 is just more of the same, and 1998 is just a typical spike. The net smoothing of each spike with the following 2-year reversals is in effect an internal correction to the noise you worry about. As far as I am aware, Hadley and others issue the raw data and apply smoothing techniques without excising anything. Why do you think that Hadley and even GISS, and others are not smart enough to do the excising that you discuss?
Is it Tamino(?) trying to pull a fast one over you!
BTW, I posted @ 7:33 PM blog-time, and you responded @t 8:05 PM. Even if you saw my post instantaneously, which would be "lucky", that would give you a max of 32 minutes to digest the information I gave, go and find your reference, compose a reply, and post it. Please demonstrate a little more care-time if you would like me to continue explaining things to you. It took me about half an hour to do my quickie post....I was watching the clock.... but it was easy and all in my head, and I had immediate access to my links.
Let's see how we go here before I respond to some other points that you raised.
Regards BobFJ (AKA Black Wallaby) (Of NE Melbourne Oz)
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 1:20 am
17 Jun 2008
Ok.
Out of curiosity, where do you go to get a scientific understanding of the mainstream view? Are there sites you do visit that are not climateaudit, Pielke's site, or any of the skeptical sites? For balance, I mean. I go to Pielke Snrs site and climateaudit to get a skeptical view that seems reasonable. Where do you go for the mainstream view?
How much do you excise and under what rules?
Oh I'm no expert, but I'll dabble at an answer.
I guess you could pick a certain value, one that is a significant swing. Let's say we excise all annual temperature swings over 0.16C (+ or -). I'm guessing it's an odd way to do 'smoothing', but it would reduce the amount of noise and reveal the underlying trend, I suppose. This is the result of excising ENSO from the series. ENSO events produce periodic swings in the data. I've read that the 1998 el Nino added 0.2C to that year's temperature. As long as you take out the upswings and the downswings to the same value, I can't see how you'd be corrupting the underlying trend, just revealing it more.
Regardless, you cannot "legally" do that unless you also excise the typical two year reversals which follow such spikes.
If you think that it is needful to excise this two-year downswing, then fine by me. Perhaps you could try that. If you're a dab hand with graphics, maybe you could post the results.
How do you do that? Add a bit on? How much for year 1 and year 2?
I don't know. My method is simpler (and naive). I'd just excise them completely if the downswings are an artefact of the upswing. Not my thesis, but I say go for it if you think it's important.
I'd be happy for you to explain more about your thesis.
Please study the Hadley graph more carefully, and you should be able to see that the repetition of this internal "correction" over the 150 years is so remarkable and frequent, that 1999 and 2000 is just more of the same, and 1998 is just a typical spike.
To my eye, there are periods as you describe, as well as many other changes that don't fit that profile; spikes followed by a much smaller swing in the same direction, spikes followed by a retrogade change and then the next year reversing again, spikes followed by more than two years of the opposite direction in temps. It seems somewhat random. The only constant in the general trend upwards.
But let me come along with you a bit more. If there are regular periods where a big spike is followed by two years opposite swing, what is the minimum value of the initial upswing that gets the trio into your set? If you give me a figure, I'll check out the Hadley graph again and see for myself. (eg, is it an upswing of +0.15C or something else that qualifies as a contender for the profile you're talking about?)
As far as I am aware, Hadley and others issue the raw data and apply smoothing techniques without excising anything.
Yep. I certainly wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was following my own line of thinking - well, not my own, really. I thought of it before I came across examples on the web.
Why do you think that Hadley and even GISS, and others are not smart enough to do the excising that you discuss?
I don't understand the question. I never meant to imply that Hadley have/could/should knock any of the big swings out or saying anything about their ability to do so.... reading back on my posts, I see that I haven't implied that at all.
BTW, I posted @ 7:33 PM blog-time, and you responded @t 8:05 PM. Even if you saw my post instantaneously, which would be "lucky", that would give you a max of 32 minutes to digest the information I gave, go and find your reference, compose a reply, and post it.
I didn't look for a reference. I looked at the graph for about five minutes, looked at some of the down trends, compared the recent downturn with others that appear after spikes and concluded that the 1940 spike was a sharper profile than the recent swing, and that there were better fits elsewhere in that record, and that's what I told you. You hadn't posted about your two-year response to spikes at that time.
Please demonstrate a little more care-time if you would like me to continue explaining things to you.
Read your first post to me and see if there was something I should have got from looking at the graph that was made clear in that first post. We may be talking at cross purposes. I refer you to my initial post. I've been assuming we were talking about trends and how they are worked out. Are you more interested in talking about this two-year drop hypothesis? That's cool. I'll try to follow, but I'd like to know if you're going to reply to the questions you invited me to ask.
It took me about half an hour to do my quickie post
I read your post twice - about four minutes, checked the graph, five minutes, and then composed my reply - ten minutes, including preview checks. About 20 minutes in all, I guess.
While I'm all for taking time and care with reading and replies, I see no profit in comparing our response times. Hopefully you'll see from my replies that I try to think carefully about the matters at hand.
From your previous post:
Look carefully and you will see that almost every time that there is an up or down spike, it is followed by a two-year correction, or reversal.
I don't see that happening "almost every time". I see it happening occasionally. But I'd need to get a better fix on how big the spike is you're working with. Let me know and I'll check it out and report back.
Meanwhile, if I haven't disappointed you yet, I'd be grateful for any thoughts on the questions I raised.
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 1:55 am
17 Jun 2008
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 3:02 pm
17 Jun 2008
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl ...
I looked for any spike of 0.1C (+ or -) or greater.
I included all years that showed a spike of that magnitude or greater, whether or not they appeared as part of the opposite trend in a potential trio.
In the 157 year record there were 43 instances of a temperature change of 0.1C (+ or -) between one year and the next.
The years nominated below are all the first of the trio - the year which saw the spike occur.
Most of the trios that fit your profile (spike followed by two year correction) occur in the 58 years from 1950.
2 of the two year corrections from 1850 onwards show the first year correction being larger than the initial spike (1983, 1996).
2 of the two year corrections are very slight - not much correction (1879, 1987).
From 1850:
13 trios fit your profile.
30 trios do not.
From 1900:
10 fit your profile.
22 do not.
From 1950:
9 fit your profile.
12 do not.
I chose a value of 0.1C because it was easer to work with. If you are thinking of a greater magnitude, post it here and we can test it against the record.
It would seem at first dip that the profile you recommend does not occur most of the time in the temperature record.
The years fitting your profile are (first of the trio marked for each);
1859, 1879, 1898, 1929, 1964, 1969, 1971, 1983, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1996, 1998.
The years not fitting your profile are;
1851, 1862, 1863, 1864, 1977, 1979, 1889, 1890, 1896, 1902, 1905, 1907, 1914, 1916, 1918, 1922, 1933, 1937, 1946, 1951, 1954, 1957, 1972, 1974, 1977, 1979, 1984, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001.
The years not mentioned, of course, were years where the temperature changed by less than 0.1C.
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 3:26 pm
17 Jun 2008
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:53 pm
17 Jun 2008
This site we are on is mostly fundie in its authorship, but I like it because it allows a surprising range of strongly opposing views. I have only one experience of having a set of posts deleted, I don't think because of the text but because of an unpleasant photograph of a shot grolar bear, (polar-grizzly hybrid). It was central to a longer discussion on polar bear adaptation, such as they did throughout the MWP, and also genetic diversity and learning. The surrounding text was OK, but not anything to do with the photographic evidence!
However, the two prominent physicists here that I commonly debate and whom post lead articles, Andrew Dessler and Joseph Romm, simply ignore any questions that are difficult and contrary to the IPCC view, or you might get: Go read the IPCC report, (1600 pages), when they should have the info right at their fingertips. Romm also has his own website, but he is famous for blocking any post or commenter that he does not like, as are RealClimate and others that I don`t go to.
Otherwise of course there is the IPCC AR4 WG1 report and its references, together importantly with the expert review comments, and the broader scientific literature, some of which the IPCC does not include.
It may surprise you to know that ClimateAudit has a bulletin board (BB) where it is a free-for-all, mostly amongst academics, and you might be interested in this thread, entitled:
The expert versus expert dilemma:
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4& ...
I think it embraces some of the issues we are discussing, and you may be surprised at the to-and-fro between these scientists
THE OPENING POST:
"Well, we seem to be at a stalemate in the climate science world. We have reputable physicists saying that the GHGs will significantly increase temperatures, due to "radiative imbalance" caused by the increases in CO2 (the so-called consensus position). We even have textbooks that expound this position (which are probably selling well). But we also have reputable physicists saying that this is not true, for one reason or another. And both "sides" look relatively rational, to a non-physicist. Even to a scientist who has considerable training in physics. Experts vs. experts.
So, what can be concluded? For one thing, the science is definitely not settled. For another, there is obviously no clear empirical evidence for either position, or the matter could be settled quickly. And it follows, I surmise, that we still just don't know much about our planet as some think.
So what do we do now? Act irrationally, or study more and wait? I say, study more and wait." END...................
There is an immediate political response to this fairly neutral opening position from a fundie physicist and it develops into quite a lively debate for 367 posts, although we currently wait for one of the fundies to come back on another technical question he may find difficult. BTW, I join-in on page 2 under the ID Bob_FJ
The main blog at ClimateAudit is a different thing, and Steve McIntyre asks people to shuffle-off to the BB if things are going too much off topic or too elementary whatever
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barry, concerning your or Tamino's (?) idea of excising spikes, I'll be blunt; there is no scientific or statistical basis for doing it. That is why Hadley, GISS, et al don't do it. The reasons for not doing it include that there is no way of determining the composition of the spike(s). The el Nino's a's have varying strength and duration. For instance I think the 1998 should be described as 1997/8. Some have even been attributed to some millennial civilization collapses. If you know any reputable scientific source that lays claim that 1998 El Nino contributed 0.2 degrees, I would like to see the theory and maths behind it.
I think it is an excellent idea to tag say the Hadley bar chart with oceanic oscillations and volcanic events, but the raw data should NOT be touched in any way.
Incidentally, The Hadley graph I linked to was global average air T at the surface. The following link will take you to a very new post on the BB, and shows a comparison with the SST (which should be the driver from an el Nino), and a short exchange of views which you may find interesting
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6& ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's see how you go with these two thingies before I respond to your other stuff.
Please take your time!
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 5:21 am
18 Jun 2008
It is actually quite difficult to find a website that supports a moderate view of the AGW debate...
Are you saying that there is no site representing the mainstream view that I can reference that you would approve of? That doesn't leave me with much.
I don't have a problem with realclimate. I think the tone is sometimes too dismissive. I prefer Pielke's site for reasonable discourse, but I'm in no position to judge authoritatively the quality of the science of any of them. I am, however interested in learning and testing what I've learned - why I go to pro and anti sites. The science is what matters. Realclimate presents science mostly in line with the IPCC. Climate Audit and Climate Science do not so much.
I for one believe that there IS some warming caused by anthro effects, but that it is rather trivial.
This is a common skeptical viewpoint, one I like to see explained so that I can test it against mainstream theory.
For instance, there is clearly a regional variation in the Arctic which is warming, but then at the same time there is an opposite regional variation in the Antarctic.
Yes. But that is the beginning, not the end of discussion. I would point out in a discussion on it that the warming signature in the Arctic region far exceeds the cooling signature in the Antarctic, and that the Arctic cooling (almost flat-lining, really) is not unanticipated. That's not the end of the story either.
Regarding your comment on the IPCC being thrown at you, how much of it have you read?
I've read about 60% in the last year as I've researched and discussed various topics.
One bit from something you quoted caught my eye.
On GHGs raising temps/not;
there is obviously no clear empirical evidence for either position
I think that's flat out wrong. First, definitions;
Empirical
1.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
There most certainly is empirical evidence for AGW. The premise of the whole theory is based on an experiment that can be done in any well-equipped school laboratory. Shine a beam of (infrared) radiation through a volume of atmosphere. Record the amount that is emitted through the other side. Add CO2 to the volume. Perform the same test. Unless the parameters are unrealistic, less radiance passes out the other end of the volume when more CO2 is added. Therefore, increasing CO2 in a volume of atmosphere traps more radiance or heat.
This is the empirical basis of AGW theory. It is an empirical observation, not a theory, a test performed many times.
How this translates to the actual atmosphere is another matter, in which case the author might say that there is some a priori evidence that renders AGW theory questionable, but it is definitely not correct to say there is no empirical evidence.
Also, the contributor (a climate scientist? Really?) asserts that some 'reputable' physicists disagree that GHGs will lead to warming. I know of none that take this view. A small number (can't vouch for their reputations, though) consider that the effect will be less significant than the IPCC, but none that I've heard of make the claim that increasing GHGs in the atmosphere will have no effect (or produce cooling).
There is an immediate political response to this fairly neutral opening
Seeing as you agree that GHGs will have an effect (you state you believe it is 'trivial'), and pysicists all seem to agree on GHGs affecting temps, how do you cast this contribution as neutral? And seeing as the contributor concludes his remarks with this...
So what do we do now? Act irrationally, or study more and wait? I say, study more and wait.
...giving an unqualified opinion, and positing the alternative to more study is 'acting irationally' how on earth do you credit the post as 'neutral'?
It's hard to credit that whoever wrote this is a "scientist". Judging by their misuse of the word 'empirical' I'd hazard a guess that they are not a critical thinker of any kind.
Just so you know, I can spot the difference between politics and science easily. Your post above is mostly political. Do you realize that?
The main blog at ClimateAudit is a different thing, and Steve McIntyre asks people to shuffle-off to the BB if things are going too much off topic or too elementary whatever
I have very much enjoyed the concentrated effort to assess the US temperature plot under the rubric of contaminated/non-contaminated sites. I recommended that particular thread elsewhere on this site.
Barry, concerning your or Tamino's (?) idea of excising spikes
Please, I'm not interested in politics. I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to align me with someone else. I post my own thoughts based on what I read. If I had picked up this theme from Tamino, I would have said so and probably cited him. Can we drop the name-dropping?
OTOH, if Tamino has posted something along the lines I've been dabbling with, I'd be grateful for a link.
I'll be blunt; there is no scientific or statistical basis for doing it.
Sure. The statistically valid way of removing noise (weather) is to smooth or remove well-identified signatures (noise). I do not know if the ENSO signature is sufficiently well-identified to feasibly remove from the trend. I posted the graph on it upthread (not from Tamino's site AFAIK) because it was somewhat in line with what I was thinking - an example of sorts. I'm keeping an open mind on it for now.
If you know any reputable scientific source that lays claim that 1998 El Nino contributed 0.2 degrees, I would like to see the theory and maths behind it.
To be frank, I am surprised that you are unfamiliar with this well-known factoid. I've never seen it generate a skeptical response, but kudos to you for not accepting it on faith.
Here's a page with seasonal stats:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring ...
Check 1997-98.
Another with yearly departures from norm (includes links to studies):
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/#ElNino
Detailed SST anomalies (per day)
http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/ocean/results/pastanal.htm
An alternative methodology resulting in similar 0.2C anomaly for 1997/98 ENSO event (Multivariant ENSO - MEI)
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/table.htm ...
And a few other studies and analysis with links provided. you will find some statistics to work the math on some the of these references.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/press/2006-12-cet-records/fu ...
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid ...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/1998/enso/10 ...
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1941004
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/Nino_3_3.4_in ...
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/TNI_N34/index ...
Other reading.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/1459
Let's see how you go with these two thingies before I respond to your other stuff.
This is the second time you've sent me on a quest with the promise of responding to my earlier points on my return. If you don't mind, I'll wait until you've responded to my old points before looking at the links you posted. Once bitten twice shy and all that.
The points outstanding that I'm interested in are;
1. If we are constrained to measure a trend over ten years, is the methodology I employed satisfactory?
(I agree that 10 years is not ordinarily sufficient - I'm looking for an answer within the bounds set by the thread topic, and one commonly set my the skeptical milieu- "The earth has been cooling since 1998". This particular question gets us back on topic)
2. What do you mean when you say temps have 'plateaued' recently? Do you mean the long-term trend or something shorter?
3. Do you agree that the two year correction following a spike does not happen "almost every time"? (Or will you post a value range for spikes so that I can test your thesis?)
I will attend to your other points and references when you've responded to these.
Hope it's warmer where you are. It's getting mighty chilly in Bondi.
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 5:33 am
18 Jun 2008
It is actually quite difficult to find a website that supports a moderate view of the AGW debate...
Are you saying that there is no site representing the mainstream view that I can reference that you would approve of? That doesn't leave me with much.
I don't have a problem with realclimate. I think the tone is sometimes too dismissive. I prefer Pielke's site for reasonable discourse, but I'm in no position to judge authoritatively the quality of the science of any of them. I am, however interested in learning and testing what I've learned - why I go to pro and anti sites. The science is what matters. Realclimate presents science mostly in line with the IPCC. Climate Audit and Climate Science do not so much.
I for one believe that there IS some warming caused by anthro effects, but that it is rather trivial.
This is a common skeptical viewpoint, one I like to see explained so that I can test it against mainstream theory.
For instance, there is clearly a regional variation in the Arctic which is warming, but then at the same time there is an opposite regional variation in the Antarctic.
Yes. But that is the beginning, not the end of discussion. I would point out in a discussion on it that the warming signature in the Arctic region far exceeds the cooling signature in the Antarctic, and that the Arctic cooling (almost flat-lining, really) is not unanticipated. That's not the end of the story either.
Regarding your comment on the IPCC being thrown at you, how much of it have you read?
I've read about 60% in the last year as I've researched and discussed various topics.
One bit from something you quoted caught my eye.
On GHGs raising temps/not;
there is obviously no clear empirical evidence for either position
I think that's flat out wrong. First, definitions;
Empirical
1.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
There most certainly is empirical evidence for AGW. The premise of the whole theory is based on an experiment that can be done in any well-equipped school laboratory. Shine a beam of (infrared) radiation through a volume of atmosphere. Record the amount that is emitted through the other side. Add CO2 to the volume. Perform the same test. Unless the parameters are unrealistic, less radiance passes out the other end of the volume when more CO2 is added. Therefore, increasing CO2 in a volume of atmosphere traps more radiance or heat.
This is the empirical basis of AGW theory. It is an empirical observation, not a theory, a test performed many times.
How this translates to the actual atmosphere is another matter, in which case the author might say that there is some a priori evidence that renders AGW theory questionable, but it is definitely not correct to say there is no empirical evidence.
There is an immediate political response to this fairly neutral opening
Seeing as the contributor concludes his remarks with this...
So what do we do now? Act irrationally, or study more and wait? I say, study more and wait.
...giving an unqualified opinion, how on earth do you credit the post as 'neutral'?
Just read the first page of that link and it seems that jae originally said that "world-renowned" physicists disagree that "GHGs will increase temperatures". Jae reduced 'world-renowned' to reputable and added the word "significantly" (reduce temperatures).
It's hard to credit that whoever wrote this is a "scientist". Judging by their misuse of the word 'empirical' I'd hazard a guess that they are not a critical thinker of any kind.
If you don't want me to cite realclimate, fine. Please reciprocate by citing only reputable science sources, not this amateurish stuff.
Just so you know, I can spot the difference between politics and science easily. Your post above is mostly political. Do you realize that?
The main blog at ClimateAudit is a different thing, and Steve McIntyre asks people to shuffle-off to the BB if things are going too much off topic or too elementary whatever
I have very much enjoyed the concentrated effort to assess the US temperature plot under the rubric of contaminated/non-contaminated sites. I recommended that particular thread elsewhere on this site.
Barry, concerning your or Tamino's (?) idea of excising spikes
Please, I'm not interested in politics. I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to align me with someone else. I post my own thoughts based on what I read. If I had picked up this theme from Tamino, I would have said so and probably cited him. Can we drop the name-dropping?
OTOH, if Tamino has posted something along the lines I've been dabbling with, I'd be grateful for a link.
I'll be blunt; there is no scientific or statistical basis for doing it.
Sure. The statistically valid way of removing noise (weather) is to smooth or remove well-identified signatures (noise). I do not know if the ENSO signature is sufficiently well-identified to feasibly remove from the trend. I posted the graph on it upthread (not from Tamino's site AFAIK) because it was somewhat in line with what I was thinking - an example of sorts. I'm keeping an open mind on it for now.
If you know any reputable scientific source that lays claim that 1998 El Nino contributed 0.2 degrees, I would like to see the theory and maths behind it.
To be frank, I am surprised that you are unfamiliar with this well-known factoid. I've never seen it generate a skeptical response, but kudos to you for not accepting it on faith.
Here's a page with seasonal stats:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring ...
Check 1997-98.
Another with yearly departures from norm (includes links to studies):
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/#ElNino
Detailed SST anomalies (per day)
http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/ocean/results/pastanal.htm
An alternative methodology resulting in similar 0.2C anomaly for 1997/98 ENSO event (Multivariant ENSO - MEI)
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/table.htm ...
And a few other studies and analysis with links provided. you will find some statistics to work the math on some the of these references.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/press/2006-12-cet-records/fu ...
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid ...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/1998/enso/10 ...
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1941004
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/Nino_3_3.4_in ...
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/TNI_N34/index ...
Other reading.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/1459
Let's see how you go with these two thingies before I respond to your other stuff.
This is the second time you've sent me on a quest with the promise of responding to my earlier points on my return. If you don't mind, I'll wait until you've responded to my old points before looking at the links you posted. Once bitten twice shy and all that.
The points outstanding that I'm interested in are;
1. If we are constrained to measure a trend over ten years, is the methodology I employed satisfactory?
(I agree that 10 years is not ordinarily sufficient - I'm looking for an answer within the bounds set by the thread topic, and one commonly set my the skeptical milieu- "The earth has been cooling since 1998". This particular question gets us back on topic)
2. What do you mean when you say temps have 'plateaued' recently? Do you mean the long-term trend or something shorter?
3. Do you agree that the two year correction following a spike does not happen "almost every time"? (Or will you post a value range for spikes so that I can test your thesis?)
I will attend to your other points and references when you've responded to these.
Hope it's warmer where you are. It's getting mighty chilly in Bondi.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:02 pm
18 Jun 2008
Just a couple of tips, and quick parting points:
Long posts such as yours that contain many links are often put into the mediation/spam queue, so you need to wait rather than re-post.
It is best not to split out individual sentences as quotes, and debate them out of full context....It can be quite irritating to the other party.
Blogger JAE over on the BB is I understand, a chemist in background but has extensive knowledge of physics including quantum theory. He is a valuable contributor to the science under debate there on many threads. If you would like to express your views on his scientific competence as you have here, why not post there? To be fair, you should!
Please note that when you quoted me: "There is an immediate political response to this fairly neutral opening"; that `fairly neutral' does not translate to `totally neutral'
Yes I have read 3AR and AR4 WG1 with the exception of some chapters which I deem unimportant. I have also read the AR4 WG1 expert review comments to the first and second order drafts, which are huge. (~11,000 comments?) These are important too, you know, including the stuff which was "ignored" by the IPCC authors.
In your search for the truth you might also be interested in "List of errors and omissions etc in IPCC AR4 Report"@ http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3& ...
If you are looking for a debating site where you will be heard, (and not edited out), there are a bunch of guys there that are feeling lost, because two ardent alarmist AGW warming physicists have departed the site, leaving them alone. May I suggest you take a look @
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=63#comment-146
It's gone a bit dull lately because there is no one to debate.... You would be most welcome.
Sorry Barry, you are obviously very keen and hardworking...... I admire it, but it is more than I can spare in my priorities!
Permalink
314159265 Posted 8:25 pm
18 Jun 2008
but if you're still debating the temperature trend:
Forget about smoothing, cherrypicking, statistics, etc. - just throw your eyeballs on a 50y graph. That should suffice, except you don't trust your eyes (but then you should bother a psychiatrist).
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 2:14 pm
19 Jun 2008
Permalink
314159265 Posted 6:58 pm
19 Jun 2008
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:38 am
21 Jun 2008
Looks like there are still a few folks out there that have a hard time accepting observed facts (ex. Hadley surface temperature anomaly record).
These facts show that it has warmed over the past 150 years in several multidecadal warming/cooling cycles and an underlying warming trend of 0.6 to 0.7C per century.
Notable warming cycles were from 1858-1879, 1910-1944, 1976-1998. In between these we had cycles of slight cooling plus the most recent plateau.
The cycle from 1976-1998 is the "poster cycle" for AGW proponents, because there was a rapid increase in temperature at the same time as human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose. Other cycles do not present a very convincing correlation.
This site starts out discussing the thesis "Global warming stopped in 1998".
There is no doubt that the observed facts (from all four records) show that this is precisely what has happened for now. That is not to say that global warming may not start again some time in the future, but for now all records show that it has either flattened out or reversed slightly since 1998 (or 2001, if one prefers not to start with the all-time record ENSO year).
The attached graphs show pretty clearly what is going on.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3232/2590412265_d7f734577c ...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3134/2591260894_011a1a6c9c ...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/2591268046_fa0d4057e9 ...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3108/2590437485_805bc7a960 ...
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:38 pm
21 Jun 2008
"I'm currently reading on key developments in physics (gravitational theory, relativity, quantum physics and string theory"
So what are you doing here on Gristmill?
You might learn a lot more talking to a scientific community such as on the Climate Audit BB as I mentioned earlier..... here is their index page; http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/index.php
In particular WRT your recent claim that the 1998 El Nino is worth 0.2C. Do you mean the 1997 El Nino? See:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3129/2594459373_1afff907be ...
This is not an invitation to discuss it here, because this is not a science-based site
For a fuller discussion on this graph go to;
"Surface Record"....UHI effect indicator?
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 3:07 am
23 Jun 2008
I checked out the website you linked to - it's not my cup of tea. Where people are calling each other 'deniers' and 'alarmists', the talk is mostly political in nature, not scientific. There is a bit of science attempted, but it is rooted in agenda and not very sophisticated. Too much focus on 'sides'. I much prefer McIntyre's main site where the numbers are crunched and very little name-calling goes on.
Max, I refer you to both Black Wallaby's and my comments saying that a ten year period is too short to register a climate trend. Black Wallaby has left off the conversation, but you'll see he agrees upthread.
But even within the constraints you are working with (trend analysis from 7/10 years of data), I think the trend lines may be wrong. If you'll go upthread to my first post, I wonder what you make of my simple methodology for establishing a trend. It shows warming whether you use GISS, Hadley or NCDC.
Actually, I'll save you the trouble and spell it out again.
For the last ten years alone, a simple trend line can be established by averaging the first and then the last five years. If the average of the last five years is greater than the first, global temperatures have risen over the decade, no?
Please show in detail how you arrived at the cooling trend line. What's your math?
(I will treat your comments outside this paradigm of 'sides'. I will endeavour to address the substance of your posts, not dismiss you as being driven by some sort of agenda or ideology. If you can return the respect, we can have a conversation)
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 3:20 am
23 Jun 2008
Are we conversing again? If so, good.
The el Nino that caused the high temps in 1998 ran through both 1997 and 1998. I refer to 1998 in line with the topic of this thread, which itself runs off a common skeptical meme - that the temperature trends have been declining since 1998. Your point is taken, but it makes no difference to the topic being discussed (the topic of this thread, that is - you've introduced some others). I could be more precise, but then my posts would be even longer and nobody, least of all me, wants that.
:-)
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 3:48 am
23 Jun 2008
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:55 pm
23 Jun 2008
You asked: "Please show in detail how you arrived at the cooling trend line. What's your math?"
It is precisely the same "math" used by IPCC in AR4 or SPM 2007 in arriving at a 0.74C linear temperature increase over the 100-year period 1906-2005, or the "math" used by IPCC when they state that the "linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13C [0.10C to ).16C] per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years".
Take the data as observed and published (without any smooting, adjusting or averaging) and draw a linear trend line.
That's all, Barry. Just observed facts and the same trend analysis used by IPCC.
Now I'll admit that 100 years tells us more than just a 10-year trend (even a "20th century" that has been shifted by IPCC in somewhat "cherry-picked" fashion in AR4 from 1901-2000 with a linear increase of 0.65C per Hadley to 1906-2005 with a linear increase of 0.74C - by replacing a 1901-1905 cooling trend with a 2001-2005 essentially "flat" trend and somewhat naughtily insinuating with the word "therefore" that this apparent increase was due to adding in "end of the record" warming, rather than by cutting out "start of the record cooling").
It also tells us more than IPCC's higher "trend over the last 50 years".
The 30+ year 1910-1944 period that showed a linear trend of +0.53C (with little increase in CO2) probably tells us about the same as the 30+ year 1944-1976 trend of slight cooling (with significantly more increase in CO2) and a little more the shorter 20+ year 1976-1998 linear trand of +0.37C (with a much higher increase in CO2), but together with the most recent 10-year (or, if you prefer 7-year) plateau, they all paint a picture.
And this picture raises serious doubts about CO2 (with assumed positive feedbacks) causing a "climate sensitivity at 2xCO2 of 3K, which is the whole rationale for the alarming AGW suggestion.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 10:45 am
24 Jun 2008
But I keep letting myself be drawn away from my query.
I began on this thread, and am still interested in a response to my simple attempt for the last ten years. Because it is so simple, I am surprised that it hasn't been addressed in the posts since I put it forward. What is wrong with it (apart from the obvious shortcoming that 10 years is too short to establish a climate trend)?
The average temperature of the last five years is greater than the average temperature of the previous five, therefore the trend for the decade is warming.
If you can point out the problem with my very simple analysis, I can take a step down the road to learning better on this subject. I'm not so good at math, but I'm quick to grasp things conceptually.
I'm off to learn about linear regression and least squares. I'm afraid the maths is over my head, but maybe I can get the concepts.
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:33 pm
24 Jun 2008
You're right.
IPCC uses a more sound analytical method (linear regression over many years) than just taking short-term spot values for comparison. The danger is always with "cherry picking" to prove a point, especially when comparing shorter-term with longer-term records.
IPCC stated that "second half 20th century (redefined to exclude 5 years of cooling from 1951-1955) showed a higher linear trend of entire century (redefined to exclude 5 years of cooling from 1901-1905).
Sounds like something significant is happening toward the end of the century due to increased CO2 emissions (that is the intended message, of course).
Now if you turn that short-term/long-term comparison around, you can show that warming slowed down over the course of the 20th century, just as CO2 emissions accelerated.
Taking a look at the IPCC's cherry-picked "20th Century", starting with 1906, and breaking it into the first 25 years (1906-1930), the first 50 years (1906-1955) and the whole 100-year period, confirms this:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2295/2536244611_d817a54dea ...
The steepest linear trend was for the first 25 years at 0.11°C/decade, followed by the first 50 years at 0.08°C/decade. The slowest rate of increase was observed over the entire 100-year period, (including the most recent warming period) at 0.07°C/decade.
So based on this analysis one could paraphrase IPCC with, "the linear warming trend over the first 25 years, 1906-1930 (0.11°C per decade) is 50% higher than that for the entire 100 years, 1906-2006 (0.07°C per decade)".
Obviously, this analysis is just as phoney as the one made by IPCC, but it just goes to show how figures and graphs can be manipulated to get any story across.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:49 pm
24 Jun 2008
I began on this thread, and am still interested in a response to my simple attempt for the last ten years. Because it is so simple, I am surprised that it hasn't been addressed in the posts since I put it forward. What is wrong with it (apart from the obvious shortcoming that 10 years is too short to establish a climate trend)?
The average temperature of the last five years is greater than the average temperature of the previous five, therefore the trend for the decade is warming.
If you can point out the problem with my very simple analysis, I can take a step down the road to learning better on this subject. I'm not so good at math, but I'm quick to grasp things conceptually.
The quick simple answer I have is that your method of analysis is too simple.
Furthermore, if you can show in your belief system that there is a slight incline in T over the last decade, so what?
Let me draw a comparison with mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. Most people will agree that atop this massive, it is a plateau. However, if you try to walk across it, it will be far from flat and quite exhausting!!!!!!!!!
(nevertheless, it IS a plateau)
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 3:05 am
25 Jun 2008
You wrote, Max:
IPCC stated that "second half 20th century (redefined to exclude 5 years of cooling from 1951-1955)
[...]
Taking a look at the IPCC's cherry-picked "20th Century", starting with 1906
The very first thing said in the IPCC chapter on Observations of Climate Change is this;
"Global mean surface temperatures have risen by 0.74°C ± 0.18°C when estimated by a linear trend over the last 100 years (1906-2005). The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C vs. 0.07°C ± 0.02°C per decade). Global mean temperatures averaged over land and ocean surfaces, from three different estimates, each of which has been independently adjusted for various homogeneity issues, are consistent within uncertainty estimates over the period 1901 to 2005 and show similar rates of increase in recent decades. The trend is not linear, and the warming from the first 50 years of instrumental record (1850-1899) to the last 5 years (2001-2005) is 0.76°C ± .19°C."
(PAGE 237, first comment - pdf)
IPCC states "last 100 years" here, not "20th Century", and measures 1906 - 2005.
If you know where in the IPCC it says what you state, could you please provide a link and page number?
I note also that the IPCC averages from the 3 main instrumental temperature records, not just Hadley. I get skeptical when Hadley is the sole source for skeptical commentary. It has a slightly lower trend than the other two, and it is the only one of the three showing 1998 as the warmest year on record. Is there a sound reason why this profile is preferred? It is fit for the topic of this thread, but I don't know why it is the sole source for the particular topic you've brought up. Has the same analysis you iterated been performed using the other two profiles?
Black Wallaby and yourself post graphics from http://farm3.static.flickr.com. When I go to that site, this is all that appears on the screen.
photocache313.flickr.sp1
So it's an image bucket. There are no references to whoever made the plots, and neither you or BW have attributed authorship. You both present them as if they're authoritative. Can you understand that it's hard to give them credence?
You've stated upthread that you use IPCC trend methodology. If I assume this is the case with the graphs you have referenced, how am I to reconcile the first 25 or 50 year higher trend with this;
"The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C vs. 0.07°C ± 0.02°C per decade)."
Either you, your source, or the IPCC is in error. I don't have the skills to do any analysis to see for myself whether this
Obviously, this analysis is just as phoney as the one made by IPCC
is true. But I think it's more reasonable to trust the IPCC trends over anonymous graphs, and not reasonable to credit claims that are demonstrably at odds with the source referenced (IPCC - but I'll wait for direction from you re IPCC statements that match your assertions).
If you have more information on these two items I will follow the trail to better understand.
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 3:32 am
25 Jun 2008
I've no doubt of that. I would just like to know why. Seems you and I both are not statisticians.
Furthermore, if you can show in your belief system that there is a slight incline in T over the last decade, so what?
"Belief system"?
I don't deal in faith.
As to your question, I refer you to the topic of this thread.
I realize you have other fish to fry, but we should batter them up in a different kitchen.
Towards the topic of the thread, here is the Australian Bureau of Meteorology study I posted at the other place.
http://www.aussmc.org/documents/waiting-for-global-coolin ...
"The easiest way to remove year-to-year variations in order to reveal any underlying trends is to replace each annual temperature with the simple average of a number of annual values centred on that year. For global temperature data, an average calculated over the year itself and five years either side will remove most of the year-to-year variations. This procedure produces a time series of "unweighted" 11-year average temperatures."
The conclusion being that the last ten years has shown warming.
I feel that we've exhausted the thread topic. See you at the other place.
Cheers,
barry.
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:04 am
25 Jun 2008
Thanks for you long post. I'll try going through it point by point.
First you state, "I often find that values attributed to the IPCC are at odds with what it actually says."
This checks with my experience, as well, in both directions, as a matter of fact.
But I have also found that those who want to "believe" in the IPCC message often tend to overlook errors, omissions, exaggerations or outright inconsistencies in the IPCC reports, rather that to identify and challenge these, as a rational skeptic should do in following the scientific process.
To your next point.
In the TAR (2001) IPCC made reference to 20th century warming, which it defined as the period 1901-2000 (i.e. the "20th century, as we know it). It referred to the Hadley surface temperature anomaly record in saying that this showed a linear warming of 0.6C over the century. Now, if one actually checks the linear increase over the period 1901-2000 according to the Hadley record, one sees that this was actually 0.65C, rather than 0.6C as reported by IPCC. A minor error.
Now to the latest IPCC SPM 2007 report.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
You will note that IPCC (p.5) now states:
"Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). The up-dated 100-year linear trend (1906 to 2005) of 0.74°C [0.56°C to 0.92°C] is THEREFORE" [caps. by me] "larger than the corresponding trend for 1901 to 200 given in the TAR of 0.6°C [0.4°C to 0.8°C]. The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C [0.10°C to 0.16°C] per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years."
Now, by the use of the word "therefore" (which I capitalized for emphasis), IPCC is conveying the impression that the 100-year increase of 0.14°C, from 0.6°C to 0.74°C (which should actually have been an increase of 0.09°C, from 0.65°C to 0.74°C) was caused by adding years 2001-2005 with rapid warming).
A detailed look at the Hadley record shows that this is not true.
The increase of 0.09°C over the 100-year period (not 0.14°C as erroneously reported by IPCC) came from removing a cooling trend from 1901-1906, and NOT from adding a period of rapid warming from 2001-2006, as suggested by IPCC by inserting the word "THEREFORE". In fact, the linear trend over the period 2001-2006 was essentially "flat".
If you would like to see the graphs of the Hadley record confirming all of what I have said above, please let me know. I will post them separately since they sometimes cause problems with the spam filter on this site if too many are posted together.
Now to your point: "I note also that the IPCC averages from the 3 main instrumental temperature records, not just Hadley."
This is not correct. If you take the time to download the Hadley record as is it reported, you will see that it is exactly the same as the IPCC record over the entire 20th century. Other records are slightly different and no others go back to 1850. But this is a minor point. The "odd-man-out" record (especially in the post 1980 period) is the GISS, managed by James E. Hansen. With Hansen's shift from "objective scientist" to "AGW political activist" plus the recent disclosures of errors in the USA GISS record, I have a bit more faith in Hadley than GISS today. The satellite records (UAH, RSS) also check more closely with Hadley trends than they do with GISS.
Now back to your: "I often find that values attributed to the IPCC are at odds with what it actually says."
We have seen from the above example that "what it actually says" must be expanded to include "what it actually implies by saying what it says". By adding the word "THEREFORE" the clear implication is something totally different from the actual facts.
But there is also the very important part of "what it doesn't say".
A look at the Hadley record (or any other record) shows that temperature has gone through three periods of rapid warming between 1850 to 2005 with three periods of slight cooling in between and the current plateau since 1998, with an underlying linear trend of warming over the entire period.
This is sort of a tilted sine curve. Now anyone who thinks about this just a little bit can see that be properly picking shorter cycles within this overall period can demonstrate that these shorter cycles nave a steeper linear slope than the longer cycle (that incorporates more than just one sine curve).
When IPCC tells us (see quote above) that the linear trend of the past 50 years (1956-2005) is steeper than that of the full 100 years (1906-2005) it is doing exactly this.
One could do the same in reverse (a reverse "cherry pick") by saying the linear trend from 1910 to 1944 was steeper than the linear trend from 1910 to 2005, thereby insinuating that warming has slowed down over the century. This would be as misleading as the IPCC statement hinting at the opposite conclusion.
Again I can send you curves of all this if you are interested. But I will just attach one curve from IPCC AR4 Chapter 3 FAQ 3.1 Figure 1, which is an extreme example of this "smoke and mirrors" approach.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3221/2534926749_f2be35e86f ...
Can you see the implication in this curve that things are getting worse as we move along in the 20th century? It is clearly there (if only implicitly stated). But if we start at the front of the overall curve and make linear trend lines of ever increasing increments always starting from the front, we will see exactly the opposite trend.
This would be just as misleading as the IPCC presentation, of course.
Now you get into something a bit more personal, and I don't know if you are addressing it to Black Wallaby or to me:
"You both present them [curves of Hadley data?] as if they're authoritative. Can you understand that it's hard to give them credence?
You've stated upthread that you use IPCC trend methodology. If I assume this is the case with the graphs you have referenced, how am I to reconcile the first 25 or 50 year higher trend with this;
"The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C vs. 0.07°C ± 0.02°C per decade)."
Either you, your source, or the IPCC is in error. I don't have the skills to do any analysis to see for myself whether this
Obviously, this analysis is just as phoney as the one made by IPCC
is true. But I think it's more reasonable to trust the IPCC trends over anonymous graphs, and not reasonable to credit claims that are demonstrably at odds with the source referenced (IPCC - but I'll wait for direction from you re IPCC statements that match your assertions)."
Believe I have answered the "last 50 years is almost double the last 100 years" question above. It is not at all inconsistent with "the first 25 (or 50) year is higher that the entire 100 years". Shorter periods picked out of a long-term sine curve (if properly selected) will always show steeper linear trends than the long-term curve. Just look at the IPCC curve I linked above.
As to the source of data, I believe in all of the curves I have linked I have shown clearly where the data have come from. If you have any specific questions, please advise, but do not come with "but I think it's more reasonable to trust the IPCC trends over anonymous graphs, and not reasonable to credit claims that are demonstrably at odds with the source referenced (IPCC - but I'll wait for direction from you re IPCC statements that match your assertions)", since this smacks of accusatory BS.
I have made no "claims that are demonstrably at odds with the source referenced". If you think that I have, please be a bit more specific, so I can clear up your obvious confusion on this point.
I know you WANT to believe the IPCC claims, so it is reasonable to assume that you will automatically think that it is more reasonable to trust IPCC trends over someone's rationally critical appraisal of these IPCC claims, even if the critical appraisal is backed up by the same source data used by IPCC. But this is all philosophical conjecture. If you have specific points where you want more backup data, please state specifically what there are rather than just making "broad brush" disparaging remarks. OK?
Hoping to have answered most of your questions and looking forward to hearing back from you with something a bit more specific on those you feel are still unanswered.
Best regard,
Max
PS Black Wallaby may want to respond to those parts of your post that may have been addressed at him rather than me.
PPS I'll get back to you on your erroneous belief (against the recorded and published temperature records) that "the past 10 years have shown warming". It's just not so, Barry and even the IPCC Chairman, Pachauri has publicly stated that he is aware of this "plateau".
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:17 am
25 Jun 2008
Back to the "last 10 years plateau". It's real, Barry, which should actually be good news for those concerned about a threat from AGW.
I have plotted the raw monthly data from Hadley, GISS, RSS and UAH for the periods 1998-2008 as well as for the period 2001-2008 (since some people "object" to starting the period with the all-time record ENSO year 1998, as this would be introducing an "artifact").
The curves are attached (references cited on each curve for your info if you want to go back and check the validity).
Read `em and weep (or rejoice).
Plateau - GISS
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3232/2590412265_d7f734577c ...
Plateau - Hadley
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3134/2591260894_011a1a6c9c ...
Plateau - RSS
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/2591268046_fa0d4057e9 ...
Plateau - UAH
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3108/2590437485_805bc7a960 ...
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:37 pm
25 Jun 2008
"The easiest way to remove year-to-year variations in order to reveal any underlying trends is to replace each annual temperature with the simple average of a number of annual values centred on that year. For global temperature data, an average calculated over the year itself and five years either side will remove most of the year-to-year variations. This procedure produces a time series of "unweighted" 11-year average temperatures."
And you commented:
The conclusion being that the last ten years has shown warming.
Oh really: for a moving average like this, when you get to say 2007, you need data out to 2012. Tell us; how did they do that?
Is it better than Hadley's 21-point smoothing?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:15 pm
25 Jun 2008
(an AGW alarmist)
David Benson,
Putting aside for the moment that you have still not answered some severally repeated questions, I now present to you a comparison between the Hadley picture on global surface air temperature including raw annual averages and 21-point smoothing, and that of ten-year block averaging by Tamino. To further the debate, I actually broke my general principle, of not to open any link to Tamino et al or any like fundies, for not wanting to increase their website hit-counts. However, curiosity overtook me on this occasion, and it reaffirms that I should try to continue to follow my earlier principle in general.
I have already commented that as an engineer, (retired), I CANNOT possibly approve 10-year block averaging in this matter. (where there is a lot of noise). I'm further shocked to discover that Tamino appears to do his 10-year averaging, not as a centre-mean, 5 years each side, but as an end of block average. (EACH point is the average of the preceding ten years, not five years each side! (Gadzooks, and toss me over with a sparrow feather!)
David, if you are computer scientist, it is most disappointing to me that you have been sucked-in by Tamino. Please study the following graphical mark-ups which show that Tamino transmits great-big-heap-merde!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3171/2611917765_9f96c36086 ...
Additionally, you do not seem to want to admit that the Hadley raw annual data shows a plateau back in 1940, and that the current plateau is looking ever-more similar.
Please check this: my quickly and crudely prepared comparison:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/2611926499_8b1dd2688d ...
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 4:35 pm
26 Jun 2008
Firstly, clearing up some possible misunderstandings and making myself clearer;
In the TAR (2001) IPCC made reference to 20th century warming, which it defined as the period 1901-2000 (i.e. the "20th century, as we know it).
Ok. TAR evaluates the 'last 100 years', which is the 20th Century.
In your previous post, you said,
IPCC stated that "second half 20th century (redefined to exclude 5 years of cooling from 1951-1955)...
[...]
Taking a look at the IPCC's cherry-picked "20th Century", starting with 1906
I got the impression that you were saying that IPCC had arbitrarily (or conveniently) picked the years 1906 - 2005 and called it "the 20th Century". When I checked the source (IPCC 2007), the period 1905 - 2006 was called "the last 100 years", not the 20th Century, as I believed you were alleging. Your reply is to refer me to the IPCC 2001 report, which does refer to the "20th Century", that being the last 100 years prior to 2001.
Unless I've misunderstood you, you are conflating the two different reports' time series and erroneously concluding a bit of fudging. The period 1906 - 2005 is not described as "the 20th Century" anywhere in the IPCC (AFAIK).
But I do get what you're saying about the change in periods in your following commentary (see further below).
Another minor issue, but one which pops up a few times in your commentary.
It [TAR] referred to the Hadley surface temperature anomaly record in saying that this showed a linear warming of 0.6C over the century. Now, if one actually checks the linear increase over the period 1901-2000 according to the Hadley record, one sees that this was actually 0.65C, rather than 0.6C as reported by IPCC. A minor error.
(And one that suggests the IPCC either rounded down the trend, or calculated it as less than that given by Hadley (which you've said elsewhere in your post that you prefer to GISS and NCDC). Responding to your suspicion of the IPCC, doesn't this tidbit indicate a more conservative reckoning by the IPCC than you'd expect, or is your thesis here that the IPCC is incompetent, rather than deliberately misleading?)
I could not find a reference at the UK Met office for the 1901 - 2000 series used in TAR having a warming trend of 0.65C, per your advice to check it. I went to the source study Hadley used at the time for the period (Jones et al 2001 - cited in TAR), where I found this;
The 20th century experienced the strongest warming trend of the millennium (about 0.6C per century).
I could find no reference to 0.65 for that period (1901 - 2000) from Hadley or anywhere else. Could you please provide a clearly referenced cite re Hadley 1901 - 2000 temperature trend of 0.65C to corroborate your claim that IPCC got it wrong?
Now to the latest IPCC SPM 2007 report...
The increase of 0.09°C over the 100-year period (not 0.14°C as erroneously reported by IPCC) came from removing a cooling trend from 1901-1906, and NOT from adding a period of rapid warming from 2001-2006, as suggested by IPCC by inserting the word "THEREFORE". In fact, the linear trend over the period 2001-2006 was essentially "flat".
I see what you mean, but owing to the complexity of trend analysis, it's difficult to take on face value (looking at curves in the plot) that the 0.14C increase between TAR and AR4 is an artefact of removing the 1901 - 1906 period rather than an artefact of the last few years of the updated record. With respect to that, I do agree that the language in the IPCC ("therefore") is confusing and may not be based on something as clear cut as what it purports (recent 12 years highest in record). It may even be quite misleading. I am investigating.
If you would like to see the graphs of the Hadley record confirming all of what I have said above, please let me know.
I would appreciate that, as well as attributing authorship, methodology and/or, if applicable, any studies or links to explanations. I do know the source material is Hadley data for your other graphs, but that's not the question I'm asking. 'Who' and 'how' is what I want to know. It may be that whoever drew up those trends is not qualified/mistaken or has used inappropriate methodology. How am I to check that with such scant information?
Now to your point: "I note also that the IPCC averages from the 3 main instrumental temperature records, not just Hadley."
This is not correct. If you take the time to download the Hadley record as is it reported, you will see that it is exactly the same as the IPCC record over the entire 20th century.
You may be right. Ch. 3 AR4 refers to a variety of temperature records, including GISS and NCDC, but doesn't categorically state which series it adheres to, or if the SPM figures above come from a combination of them. Hadley-like and actual Hadley graphs are used in the chapter, but NCDC and GISS overlays appear within some of them and they are all discussed. I'm checking on it.
OTOH, have you now jumped back to TAR (I assume you meant AR4)? It's important we both know what is being referenced as we move through each point.
With Hansen's shift from "objective scientist" to "AGW political activist"
This is politics. Let's stick to data and analysis.
plus the recent disclosures of errors in the USA GISS record, I have a bit more faith in Hadley than GISS today.
"Recent disclosures of errors"? Errors are regularly found in all temp records, and Hadley continually updates its temperature record (example, example, example), as the others do, when errors are discerned or better information comes along. If there was no adjusting going on or errors being admitted, then I would become suspicious.
The satellite records (UAH, RSS) also check more closely with Hadley trends than they do with GISS.
Counterintuitively, the satellite record (which measure temps by inference, not directly) may be more susceptible to error than the surface record. The 2 main records (RSS, UAH) have some significant discrepancies between them, and both constructions rely on the same data. That either or both of them more closely match the Met Office record is not inevitably a validation of HadCRU. For the record, I take it that all three main temp surface records are robust, and that they all have close agreement on trends, even if individual years are slightly different.
We have seen from the above example that "what it actually says" must be expanded to include "what it actually implies by saying what it says". By adding the word "THEREFORE" the clear implication is something totally different from the actual facts.
I will reserve judgment til I've investigated further, but I have to say that the use of the word "facts" is a red flag to me, particularly when dealing with temperature reconstructions and complicated statistical analyses - if there's one thing I've learned, the trend analyses applied to the topic at hand vary and the results are all approximate only. There are no "facts" on this, just degrees of validity.
When IPCC tells us (see quote above) that the linear trend of the past 50 years (1956-2005) is steeper than that of the full 100 years (1906-2005) it is doing exactly this [cherry-picking].
One could do the same in reverse (a reverse "cherry pick") by saying the linear trend from 1910 to 1944 was steeper than the linear trend from 1910 to 2005, thereby insinuating that warming has slowed down over the century. This would be as misleading as the IPCC statement hinting at the opposite conclusion....
....I will just attach one curve from IPCC AR4 Chapter 3 FAQ 3.1 Figure 1, which is an extreme example of this "smoke and mirrors" approach.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3221/2534926749_f2be35e86f ...
The question posed by IPCC is 'have we warmed any faster over the last 150 years'?
The methodology employed seems valid - run a trend line for 150, 100, 50 and 25 years and compare the results.
This is not "cherry picking". This is a valid approach to answer a question.
The question that your cherry-picking example would be answering is, 'has there been a period of warming in the last 150 years greater in trend than the last 50 or 25?' A different question. Selecting the 1910 - 1940 period is cherry-picking (we both agree on this much) within the context of the question being asked.
Can you see the implication in this curve that things are getting worse as we move along in the 20th century? It is clearly there (if only implicitly stated). But if we start at the front of the overall curve and make linear trend lines of ever increasing increments always starting from the front, we will see exactly the opposite trend.
Then, if you are able to gin up graphs, let's see the result of plotting 25, 50, 100 and 150 linear trend lines all starting at 1850 going forward. I am very doubtful we will see a mirror of those trends in the IPCC graph. The sine curve goes up on one side - it doesn't have a mirror profile on the other.
I propose that you have the sine curve comment backwards. The temperature plot is not designed to be a sine curve, but plotting shorter periods reveals that it is over the long-term, or has been so far. You are putting the cart before the horse.
I know you WANT to believe the IPCC claims
Actually, I'd rather the IPCC claims were all wrong and that we are not headed for global warming. But my views are not based on what I prefer to believe.
so it is reasonable to assume that you will automatically think that it is more reasonable to trust IPCC trends over someone's rationally critical appraisal of these IPCC claims, even if the critical appraisal is backed up by the same source data used by IPCC.
I will constrain myself to Hadley references, as you appear to give that source credence. You may know that Hadley endorses the findings of the IPCC.
And you're right - I do think it more reasonable to credit the validity of the IPCC (or Hadley, GISS, NCDC) over a mysterious "someone", who remains anonymous after several requests for authorship. You are asking me to take things on faith. I am still open to giving those plots credence, but you've given me no reason for such confidence. Effectively all you've said is "you can believe in them, trust me".
Who made those graphs?
I'll get back to you on your erroneous belief (against the recorded and published temperature records) that "the past 10 years have shown warming". It's just not so, Barry and even the IPCC Chairman, Pachauri has publicly stated that he is aware of this "plateau".
Hadley says;
"A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade."
So does NASA, so does NCDC, so does the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and reputable scource that has looked at this (with slight variations in value). Graphs with no author or methodology attributed may have been, for all I know, drawn up by someone with an ax to grind and are erroneous. Surely you can understand the necessity in giving this information (not just pointing out that the source data is Hadley, which I got the first time I looked at them) in order for anyone to have any confidence in them?
Still my mind is open. My view is based on what I've learned so far and provisional on better knowledge, well-supported and explained. Let us both try to avoid making assumptions about the other, eh?
barry.
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 5:04 pm
26 Jun 2008
This is incredibly off-putting. Shall I call you a denialist? I hate this sort of stuff. It adds nothing but ideological categorization to what should be a purely scientific discussion.
Now, you are right. I erroneously attributed that quote to the methodology used to establish the trend for the last 10 years, and your argument was correct and should have been obvious to me. That methodology is described as "the easiest" when there is enough information, to remove the noise of interannual variability. The authors note, as you do, that the period is too short.
Because of the year-to-year variations in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures, about ten years are required for an underlying trend to emerge from the "noise" of those year-to-year fluctuations. Hence, the fact that 2006 and 2007 were cooler than 2005, is nowhere near enough data to clearly establish a cooling trend..
With a period too short to establish under the methodology I erroneously (and foolishly) attributed, the authors tested for a "linear trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures", from which they drew their conclusion.
Is that the same methodology employed by the (unknown) author of these 'farm' graphs?
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:30 pm
26 Jun 2008
I have given you the source of the data in the graphs.
If you are too lazy or not competent enough to download the raw data yourself and check the graphs, that's your probem.
Your long-winded waffle just shows you have not really understood any of this stuff.
You claim that Hadley has said: ""A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade."
This is hogwash. Check the numbers yourself, if you are able to do so. They show a flat to slight cooling trend, as the graphs of Hadley data I provided clearly show.
Making silly claims and sending long-winded irrelevant waffles does not change the recorded facts, Barry.
Grow up.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:49 pm
26 Jun 2008
You wrote:
"I could not find a reference at the UK Met office for the 1901 - 2000 series used in TAR having a warming trend of 0.65C, per your advice to check it. I went to the source study Hadley used at the time for the period (Jones et al 2001 - cited in TAR), where I found this;
The 20th century experienced the strongest warming trend of the millennium (about 0.6C per century).
I could find no reference to 0.65 for that period (1901 - 2000) from Hadley or anywhere else. Could you please provide a clearly referenced cite re Hadley 1901 - 2000 temperature trend of 0.65C to corroborate your claim that IPCC got it wrong?"
Some advice, Barry: Download the actual Hadley data into Excel, as I did. Then draw a linear trend line, as I did. You will see this on the curve of Hadley data that I provided. It shows a linear trend of 0.65C over the period 1901-2000, which IPCC in the TAR (and possibly Jones et al) rounded down to 0.6C. No big deal, Barry.
It is very simple and basic, if you have basic Excel skills. If not, get some help from someone who does.
The point was that IPCC SPM 2007 insinuated with the use of the word "therefore" that the increase from 0.6C to 0.74C which resulted from the five-year shift was a result of the increased warming trend at the end of the period (2001-2005) rather that from eliminating a cooling trend from 1901-1905 from the record (which was the actual cause for the increase). Did you understand that, or is this too complex for you?
Try to use your head a bit, Barry.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 8:37 pm
26 Jun 2008
I don't know how to make any clearer that I already understood the data source (Hadley), from the first time I looked at the 'farm' graphs. The information is right there on the page. I've said twice now that I knew this.
But that is not what I asked you for.
I asked you who made those graphs, and for some information on the methodology used.
Who made the graphs? Who did the trend analysis? What was the method used?
You have failed to provide this information after repeated requests. I assume you don't know or are unwilling to say.
If these graphs are applied using "the same" methodology as Hadley, why does Hadley give different results? Is Hadley in error?
You claim that Hadley has said: ""A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade."
This is not my claim. This is a direct quote, word for word, from Hadley, which I hyperlinked for you. Here is the full URL.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2 ...
Either Hadley is wrong or you are.
I don't know how to do a trend analysis myself. I suspect you won't be interested in helping me understand how to do it.
The point was that IPCC SPM 2007 insinuated with the use of the word "therefore" that the increase from 0.6C to 0.74C which resulted from the five-year shift was a result of the increased warming trend at the end of the period (2001-2005) rather that from eliminating a cooling trend from 1901-1905 from the record (which was the actual cause for the increase). Did you understand that, or is this too complex for you?
I did indeed understand it. I will quote my last post.
I see what you mean, but owing to the complexity of trend analysis, it's difficult to take on face value (looking at curves in the plot) that the 0.14C increase between TAR and AR4 is an artefact of removing the 1901 - 1906 period rather than an artefact of the last few years of the updated record. With respect to that, I do agree that the language in the IPCC ("therefore") is confusing and may not be based on something as clear cut as what it purports (recent 12 years highest in record). It may even be quite misleading. I am investigating.
I've essentially restated your thesis here while putting forward my own thoughts on it.
You have not dealt with your claim that IPCC called the 1905 - 2006 period the "20th Century". I see now that you will not.
Thank you for the conversation.
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 9:57 pm
26 Jun 2008
You are using global temperature values updated since 2001. I was unable to locate the corresponding graph at Hadley - they update their pages regularly, and any of the values over the last 150 years may be changed as their data sets are refined, as well as the century temp difference. It is also impossible (AFAIK) to retrieve the data sets that were used in 2001. I cited the Jones et al 2001 study because that was the most up to date study at the time, which Hadley stood by and submitted to the TAR.
However, I was able to locate a report from Hadley from October 2001 which directly corroborates the 0.6C value.
In 2000, the global mean temperature was almost 0.6° C higher than that at the end of the 19th century.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/br ...
The TAR cited Hadley correctly, as the information stood in 2001.
The study of climate change, past, present and future, is ongoing and being fine-tuned and adjusted. This the normal process of science.
Thanks again for the conversation.
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:09 am
27 Jun 2008
Check the observed published data as I recommended. You will see that 1901-2000 linear increase per Hadley was 0.65C. No big deal. Just the published facts.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:19 am
27 Jun 2008
You're right. This exchange is getting repetitive.
You wrote: "I asked you who made those graphs, and for some information on the methodology used.
Who made the graphs? Who did the trend analysis? What was the method used?"
I will repeat what I told you earlier:
I simply downloaded the raw data as published by Hadley (source cited) into Excel, plotted the graph and put in a linear trend line, and calculated the equation for the decadal trend. All part of the Excel software. No black magic. No voodoo. No "levelling". No "adjusting". No "averaging". No "interpretation" of the data by any "scientist" or "computer nerd" who may be wanting to convey a hidden message. Just the plain old unvarnished facts. That's all.
Shows a flat trend from 1998 to today and a slight cooling trend from 2001 to today.
And it shows 1901-2000 linear increase of 0.65C, as I told you earlier.
Hope that clears it up for you.
It's really quite basic.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:34 am
27 Jun 2008
Hi Barry,
Just one more point.
You are apparently telling me that Hadley revised (i.e. corrected) their 1901-2000 number from 0.6C to 0.65C some time after IPCC published the TAR.
So 0.5C of the apparent "increase" from shifting the 100-year period by 5 years (from IPCC TAR to AR4) comes from correcting an earlier error in the data.
So when IPCC says the following:
"Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). The up-dated 100-year linear trend (1906 to 2005) of 0.74°C [0.56°C to 0.92°C] is THEREFORE" [caps. by me] "larger than the corresponding trend for 1901 to 2000 given in the TAR of 0.6°C [0.4°C to 0.8°C]."
They are insinuating with the word "therefore" that the apparent 0.14C increase from shifting the 100-year period by 5 years comes from an increase in warming rate at the end of the period (2001-2005).
In actual fact it comes from correcting an earlier error in the Hadley data (0.05C) and from removing a 5-year cooling period (0.09C)from the front end of the record (1901-1905).
So IPCC conveys a false picture of increased warming in the early 21st century rather than telling the reader what really happened.
Why do they not tell the reader the true story?
This is shocking.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 10:44 am
29 Jun 2008
I agree that the language in the SPM bit you cited is questionable.
In 2001, Hadley's trend for the 20th Century stood at 0.6C. I've corroborated that from the source study, and also from a Hadley newsletter, both from 2001. The TAR stated the trend as Hadley had put it then.
The methodology used to arrive at that figure is probably a bit more complicated than whatever you're doing in Excel. Check the study, and read here on Linear regression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression
You reckon that's the Excel methodology?
Hadley has revised the dataset many times since TAR. I do not know if your Excel result uses the proper methodology, but if it does, the discrepancy may be an artefact of reanalysis and changes to the data.
I have good cause to question your methodology. You say there has been a flat trend in the last 10 years. Hadley says the trend has been 0.1C. Check this update from Hadley.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2 ...
How do you explain the discrepancy between your figure and Hadley's? It seems you are happy to give their data credibility, but not their analysis. Can you explain the problem with their trend methodology?
I will come back to see what you've posted, and will continue the conversation if there is something substantive therein.
Cheers,
barry.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:20 pm
29 Jun 2008
(And, Barry, please note:)
I don't wish to interfere with your exchange with Barry, but just a couple of things I should mention so that you can be aware that Barry ought be well familiarized with some of this stuff.
Re: his visits primarily to my ClimateAudit BB thread: "A strong UHI effect indicator?" under "Surface Record".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) Perhaps to fill-in the perspective a bit first; Barry's Hadley reference does not appear to have a date, but it is notable that the year 2007 bar is coloured green, which means in Hadley lingo that it was an estimate back then; whenever. Thus, Barry perhaps should be aware that:
This also means that the Hadley MSU bit in the last ten years was under the old method before Hadley became embarrassed by cold weather over the past 12 months or so and had to change their coding to show a new preferred arbitrary trend, as an implied continuation of 21-point smoothing. (which cannot be done without MSU "data" 10 years into the future!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2) Hadley wrote in part, back then whenever:
"Another way of looking at the warming trend is that 1999 was a similar year to 2007 as far the cooling effects of La Niña are concerned. The 1999 global temperature was 0.26 °C above the 1961-90 average, whereas 2007 was 0.37 °C above this average, 0.11 °C warmer than 1999."
What a load of old bollocks! (additional expletives edited out) Take a look at the ENSO together with the PDO on:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3287/2615685346_eeb693e1a3 ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3) Barry, should also be well aware that there is a typical "correction" after any up or down spike, and that the sharp reversal of T in 1999 & 2000 after the high of 1998 is thus not unusual. It is all over the Hadley bar chart if you look. Incidentally, after an initial objection/ query from Pliny, an alarmist mathematician on the BB, I explained this statistically significant correction with him, and he did not contest my view. (but in true form, changed subject)
(BTW, I still have difficulty as to why 1998 air and sea global average was significantly hotter than 1997, when most of the measured oceanic cyclic warming was in 1997, followed by cooling in 1998)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4) Barry should also be aware that the later Hadley presentation which is part of the comparisons in the link I post above, shows a break-over in the smoothed curve with a suggestive broken blue line, ending at 2006. So why did they stop short at 2006? Well maybe because the raw data suggests a sharp down-trend from thereon that they don't like to see, somewhat similar to what happened around 1940? Ho Hum!
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:48 am
30 Jun 2008
Thanks for long post. Let's go through your queries / statements one by one.
"I agree that the language in the SPM bit you cited is questionable." Yeah, Barry, it is "questionable". In fact it is downright dishonest. It insinuates one thing (rapid warming 2000-2005) when this is not happening. Unfortunately, there are other examples where IPCC has used this approach.
"In 2001, Hadley's trend for the 20th Century stood at 0.6C. I've corroborated that from the source study, and also from a Hadley newsletter, both from 2001. The TAR stated the trend as Hadley had put it then. The methodology used to arrive at that figure is probably a bit more complicated than whatever you're doing in Excel. Check the study, and read here on Linear regression."
Actually, Barry, that is exactly what Hadley (and IPCC) do in order to calculate a linear trend. It is also exactly what I did. Whether one does this manually (I've done these in the past before we had the good programs of today) or by using Excel, the answer is the same. You end up with an equation that takes the form: y = b * x + a where y = temperature anomaly, x = year and a is a constant equal to y at year 0 or start of graph. So Hadley's approach to linear regression is not "a bit more complicated than whatever you're doing in Excel". It is exactly the same, Barry. And it results in exactly the same answer.
"I have good cause to question your methodology. You say there has been a flat trend in the last 10 years. Hadley says the trend has been 0.1C. Check this update from Hadley."
The Hadley statement in the cited reference states: "A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade." This (like the IPCC AR4 statement we analyzed earlier) is a misleading statement, Barry. No mention is made of which type of "simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the last decade" is being referred to. It is certainly not a linear regression analysis (the normally accepted method of establishing trends).
If we download and plot the last 120 months from the Hadley monthly record and plot these, the Hadley record shows there has been a flat linear trend in the last 10 years.
Now, as I pointed out to you earlier, there are some people who object to starting the most recent linear trend with the all-time record ENSO year 1998, since doing this would "introduce an artifact". So I have also taken the Hadley monthly record starting with January 2001 (start of the 21st century) and plotted it to today (April 2008).
Both graphs are shown in the attachment.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3134/2591260894_011a1a6c9c ...
The 2001-2008 trend shows a bit more cooling than the trend starting in 1998 (despite the record ENSO year).
Linear trend = -0.084C per decade
Or -0.07C over 7+ year period
As you can see, Barry, this is not a linear trend of +0.1C (warming) per decade, no matter what the Hadley "blurb" states. In fact, it is (starting with 2001) a linear cooling of almost -0.1C per decade!
Sometimes it pays to go back to the source data, Barry, and draw your own conclusions, rather than relying on someone else's interpretation of what is going on out there.
Hope this helps clear this up.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 2:08 am
01 Jul 2008
Have you mulled over the possibility that the 0.6C figure is accurate from the data sets used at the time? That is, you are certainly looking at a different data set from that one used in 2000/2001. I was unable to locate any data sets (or plots) for 2001 from Hadley. That's why I went to the source study and searched for any Hadley reports, both of which corroborate the figure.
This pertains to your suspicions of fudging or incompetence with IPCC. I'm not sure it's warranted - at least on this point.
While I am aware of individual contributors to the IPCC complaining that their observations, comments etc were not incorporated into the main body, I haven't seen it shown that this is a product of bias from the lead authors. I've read a few of the arguments.
Mind you, none of us here are qualified to be able to judge that kind of thing, I assume. You an atmospheric scientist? I'm not. Therefore, it seems to boil down to backing the horse one likes, or, if such a thing may pertain to a scientific question, favouring that which seems most reasonable. I hope I operate under the latter. It doesn't say much that I am unconvinced by things I barely understand. Neither am I 'convinced' by that which, likewise, I don't understand. My measuring stick is too short. Until I learn better, 'reasonable' theses are all I have.
For example, when I am told that the main climate driver is the sun, I have no skill to determine the truth of that. So what I do is reckon on how reasonable it is to imagine that climatologists have either ignored or downplayed solar influence. "Gee, the sun! Why didn't we think of that?" says the climatologist. File under 'not reasonable'.
Thought it would be well to indicate how I think. It's worthwhile owning up to your limitations.
Applying reason to your general thesis, I am confronted with a strange anomaly.
You refer to the Hadley data as favourable. You employ it to ascertain trends. From this you establish 'facts'.
But then you call into question Hadley's analyses.
Here's the sticking point. The people that run trends you don't agree with are the same people who mine and adjust the data for those trends.
If you have no faith in their analyses, why do you have faith in their data? The data aren't simply lifted wholesale and dumped on the website. They are subjected to a variety of adjustments. I posted links to such references in my last post.
Aren't the Hadley people just as capable of screwing with the data as they are with the "misleading" [your quote] trend analysis, as you purport? Why do you consider the adjusted temperature reconstruction iron-clad if the same people who reanalyse it err with analysis? Why do you throw out the baby but not the bathwater?
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 3:05 am
01 Jul 2008
Let's make it clear who Phil Jones is.
Philip D. Jones (1952-) is a climatologist at the University of East Anglia, notable for maintaining of the time series of the instrumental temperature record [1]; this work figured prominently in the IPCC TAR SPM [2]. He is director of the Climatic Research Unit and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones
The Met Office (Hadley) produce their temperature series in conjunction with the Climatic Research Unit. CRU. The CRU in HadCRU. Phil Jones, CRU director, is responsible for your data sets. Jones et al 2001 was the latest study available when TAR was written, authored by the director of the Hadley (HadCRU) temperature record (this is more for Max's benefit). It isn't some study cherry-picked by the IPCC - this was from the guy who does the Hadley records (in co-operation with others).
If I'm sucked in, we all are.
As I said, I give equal credence to the three main temperature reconstructions. They have excellent, if not perfect, agreement. If you're going to call Phil Jones into question, what temperature record do you have left? What will you run your analyses from?
Barry's Hadley reference does not appear to have a date, but it is notable that the year 2007 bar is coloured green, which means in Hadley lingo that it was an estimate back then
There is a link on that page to a pdf version. At the bottom of the pdf version, there is this;
Produced by the Met Office
FitzRoy Road, Exeter
Fax: 0870 900 5050
© Crown copyright 2008 08/0112
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/b ...
When was the MSU reanalysis done? (Above is the fax number if you want to check with Hadley on when the 1998 - 2007 trend was done. Max may wish to fax them a query on their analysis)
Barry, should also be well aware that there is a typical "correction" after any up or down spike, and that the sharp reversal of T in 1999 & 2000 after the high of 1998 is thus not unusual.
I do not know what you are trying to imply by 'correction'. I don't see it as at all unusual that after a temperature spike the temp returns to some kind of base, roughly. In the case of an ENSO event, the temperature 'normalises' when the ENSO event finishes. This seems pretty straightforward to me. I've not understood why you're so fascinated with it. I imagine such spikes occur in any plot with noise. My bank balance does this every pay day, and, unfortunately, there is often a sharp 'correction' when I withdraw what I need for the week (old habits die hard). But I've been saving... :-)
Barry should also be aware that the later Hadley presentation which is part of the comparisons in the link I post above, shows a break-over in the smoothed curve with a suggestive broken blue line, ending at 2006. So why did they stop short at 2006?
I don't know. 2007 data too recent to include in a decent analysis? What was their methodology?
And weren't you telling me that ten years is too short a time to establish a trend? Now you want it to, what, the last month?
Well maybe because the raw data suggests a sharp down-trend from thereon that they don't like to see
2007 is 0.025C less than 2006. Is this a 'sharp' downturn?
somewhat similar to what happened around 1940?
I put this to you before: there are other down curves in the temperature record that show better fit to the recent 'downturn'. I see a better fit with 1869, 1960 and 1970. 1940 is much sharper than those and the current profile. See for yourself. Why are you fixated on that period?
I'd be interested in a response on this - why you favour the 1940 fit over the other periods?
It occurs to me that global warming stopped in 1869, 1880, 1900, 1940, 1960, 1969 and 1978. Except it didn't.
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 3:12 am
01 Jul 2008
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl ...
I may soon be instructed how to run a trend in Excel, or a friend will do it for me (Hopefully we'll load the monthly data, as well as the yearly - to compare - I have a hunch there may be a slight difference)
Do you by any chance have a link to or copy of the data sets that Hadley used in 2000/2001? That should settle the matter of whether TAR screwed up, if the Jones 2001 study and the October 2001 Hadley report corroborating the TAR figure don't suffice for you.
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:13 am
01 Jul 2008
Thanks for Hadley data. This is same yearly data I have (and have used for the long term trends).
For the most recent plateau I used monthly data, since these capture what has been happening since late 2007.
You wrote: "Do you by any chance have a link to or copy of the data sets that Hadley used in 2000/2001? That should settle the matter of whether TAR screwed up, if the Jones 2001 study and the October 2001 Hadley report corroborating the TAR figure don't suffice for you."
No, I have not checked this out. It's not really a matter of "whether TAR screwed up" or not. I can accept that Hadley made some "ex post facto" adjustments to their 1901-2000 record after TAR was published, if that is what the Jones 2001 study shows.
So IPCC did not "screw up" in TAR.
But IPCC lied in AR4 when it insinuated (with its word "THEREFORE") that the increase of 0.14C, which resulted from the shift from 1901-2000 (TAR) to 1906-2005 (AR4), came as a result of rapid warming from 2000-2005.
In actual fact the apparent +0.14C increase came from:
· Correcting an error of +0.05C in the Hadley record (1901-2000)
· +0.09C from replacing a sharp cooling trend over the period 1901-1905 with a slight warming trend over the period 2001-2005
But we've gone over that already.
Good that you are getting Excel so you can go to the published source data directly. It is really the best way to cut through all the hype out there.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 12:32 pm
02 Jul 2008
I might ask the same question of you. [1] If you think Jones is a problem, why do you give credence to his data sets? He's partly responsible for the numbers you use.
[2] Let's make it clear who Phil Jones is.
[1] Well actually, I don't give much credence to his data sets! However, I give more credence than with the alternative GISS stuff. The trouble is that we are stuck with it as being the basis for everyone claiming that there has been global warming over the last 150 years or so. Addressing issues like UHI effect, and sampling accuracy etc are separate issues to that of addressing what "the World" believes in, and is far too complicated to include here!
[2] My word Barry, if you don't know a bit more about Phil Jones et al, (like Briffa and Osborn) at UEA Climate Research, then you must be very new to this scene! They belong to the same club as Mann et al, the inventors of the fraudulent hockey stick and the inventors of the wash-your-mouth-out RealClimate website. Their only real separation is the Atlantic ocean. It matters not that Jones is head of the unit. For instance, James Hanson is head of GISS, and even some alarmists are embarrassed by that fact, and seem to be avoiding quoting him of late. (just as with Al Gore)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Concerning your long discussion on validating the date of your reference from Hadley:
The fact that the bar chart ends with an estimated value for 1997, (green), means obviously that it must be earlier than the one I presented which ends with an actual for 1997, and estimated value for 1998 (Green). From memory, the later version was dated April 1998. It does not surprise me that your latest Press Office release dated 2008 includes the older 2007 figure, because the 2008 figure would be rather contradictory to their spin.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/b ...
Hadley were embarrassed in recent years by the fact that not only were their widely broadcast earlier estimates for 2006 and 2007, too high, but that 2008 at least, is almost certainly heading for a very embarrassing low. Notice that they have stopped making their enthusiastic media releases, typically, that this coming year will be the hottest ever or something like that! Here BTW is the later Hadley bar chart together with some other related material:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3287/2615685346_eeb693e1a3 ...
You wrote later, concerning the reluctance of Hadley to continue the trend line to the end of the data blocks:
"I don't know [why]. 2007 data too recent to include in a decent analysis? What was their methodology?
And weren't you telling me that ten years is too short a time to establish a trend? Now you want it to, what, the last month? "
Barry, the data is there, just as it was in the earlier chart. In the former, the trend line was taken to the end, but in the latter NO. Please compare the two charts, and if you can't see it, then we are wasting our time. In fact, I think I'll stop there, and see if it is worth continuing later.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, one quickie though.....Steve McIntyre (I thought you knew) discusses the change in MSU method over at ClimateAudit somewhere. (As a consequence of Hadley's embarrassment with a cold year)
Permalink
Kup Posted 1:01 pm
02 Jul 2008
Personally, I label myself a conservative and am skeptical (or perhaps agnostic is a bit better) about AGW primarily because CO2 is such a small percentage of our atmosphere. With that said, I favor a radical change in our energy usage/infrastructure due to simple economic realities concerning Peak Oil.
So you being an obviously intelligent person that is fact oriented I was wondering what was your take on Peak Oil.
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 4:26 pm
02 Jul 2008
18 months of fairly intense study and discussion via the semi-popular literature, IPCC, all the sites we've mentioned and many more, and a bunch of actual studies.
I think I get your drift. The IPCC community and endorsing scientists are incompetent/corrupt/snared by groupthink, and McIntyre, Pielke's Snr and Jnr, Motl, Soon, Baliunas, Allende, ICECAP, Spencer, Christy, Carter, Monckton and the rest (on Ifnohe's list, for example) are 'realists'. I'm an alarmist. You're a realist. There are two sides in this 'controversy'. There is no consensus.
Am I close?
Oh, there I am getting involved with the political angle. This should help us get down to brass tacks. We'll be writing each other off in no time!
seem to be avoiding quoting him of late. (just as with Al Gore)
Anyone citing Al Gore on the science needn't be considered seriously. Discussing the merits or otherwise of his film is a different matter. For the record, I think it's based on sound science, but with a propagandistic twist. I think the UK judge got it right.
Presumably if The Great Global Warming Swindle is brought up in a court case on its presence in schools, the ruling to have it accompanied by additional learning materials would apply also, under the same rubric.
Concerning your long discussion on validating the date of your reference from Hadley
I don't do soundbytes. The truth isn't arrived at via that mechanism on such a complex issue. When someone makes blanket statements with an air of certainty, it is a strong indication their POV is influenced by something other than science.
In any case, my "your long discussion on validating the date of your reference from Hadley" amounted to one sentence. I have no idea what you're talking about.
It does not surprise me that your latest Press Office release dated 2008 includes the older 2007 figure, because the 2008 figure would be rather contradictory to their spin.
What 2008 'figure'? When presenting an annual temperature plot on a question that deals with annual temperatures, it is best to wait until the last year is over before including it.
I'm still interested in why you think the recent profile is a better match with 1940 than the other years I posited. And what your general point might be on that.
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 4:40 pm
02 Jul 2008
I have not seen an updated Hadley figure for the 20th century. I'm going off what you're telling me re the 0.65 figure. I know for sure the data has been revised. You must know this as well.
So 0.5C of the apparent "increase" from shifting the 100-year period by 5 years (from IPCC TAR to AR4) comes from correcting an earlier error in the data.
That doesn't follow. If Hadley revised the 20th century trend upwards, in line with your calcs, the result would be less of an increase when compared to AR4, not more. If IPCC wanted to show an increasing trend, they'd want to revise the TAR trend downwards.
BTW, can you find anywhere on the net a Hadley trend for the 20th century postulated by Hadley?
Still trying to get educated on running the trends myself, or getting an independent party to do it.
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 4:48 pm
02 Jul 2008
There are plenty of good reasons outside of AGW to transfer to other energy sources. Eventual peak oil is one (and rising prices make it economically feasible), and another is to wean ourselves off the necessary relationships with tyrannical regimes. If there's anything to the war-for-oil hpyothesis, there's another good reason.
A free-market rationalist might argue that there's a bonanza in a new energy market.
We made the shift away from CFCs without too much pain. We reduced sulfur and other pollutants without going belly up, and new industries were spawned. Weaning ourselves off fossil fuel is a much more difficult prospect, but there are potential market benefits for doing so for smart entrepreneurs.
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 5:30 pm
02 Jul 2008
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:47 pm
02 Jul 2008
I am not at all concerned by the increase of a few parts per MILLION of CO2 in the atmosphere! It is trivial compared with the comparatively vast amounts of water in it's almost supernatural three phases. (including latent heat transfer in its phase changes, various cloud generations, water vapour, {by far the greatest GHG}, and whatnot)
I am very deeply alarmed by the "peak oil" situation, which in reality I think is not in the future, but is ramping-up right now. Demand and speculation etc, is apparently outstripping resources, (supply), real, or politically otherwise. The consequences are potentially very grave in my view, especially for the poverty stricken third world.
Of course, there is an urgent need to develop alternative mobile fuels and feedstocks for the chemical industries such as plastics, but this is nothing to do with the AGW alarmism in my view.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:55 pm
02 Jul 2008
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:07 pm
02 Jul 2008
I can't think of one for the moment.
Neither have I known any blog-thread to NOT wander-off the original topic. It is the typical nature of the beast.
You could of course as a purist, raise your own lead-post somewhere, and try and keep it under control.
It doesn't come to my mind at the moment but I know of a site where I have posted my own blogs. If you are interested I could elaborate.
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:43 pm
02 Jul 2008
I'll try to be patient and clear up any confusion you may still have.
"Still trying to get educated on running the trends myself, or getting an independent party to do it."
Good idea, Barry.
"That doesn't follow. If Hadley revised the 20th century trend upwards, in line with your calcs, the result would be less of an increase when compared to AR4, not more. If IPCC wanted to show an increasing trend, they'd want to revise the TAR trend downwards"
Barry, it appears that you have a problem with arithmetical calculations. Let's see if we can make this easier to grasp without getting into hypothetical discussions of what "they'd want to" do.
Prior to TAR (2001) Hadley reports that the 1901-2000 linear temperature increase was 0.6C. IPCC reports this figure in its TAR report.
According to you (based on a report by Jones in 2001, which you cite) Hadley later revised their record for 1901-2000 from 0.6 to 0.65C, which is exactly what their current record shows.
In other words, Hadley corrected the record "ex post facto" to show 0.65C warming rather than 0.6C warming over the 20th century period from 1901 to 2000. This could not be captured in the IPCC TAR because it occurred after its publication.
Are you still with me, Barry?
In the later AR4 report of IPCC they "shifted" from 1901-2000 to 1906-2005 and reported the Hadley linear warming over this new period as 0.74C.
So far, so good.
They then insinuated (with the word "therefore") that the increase in the 100-year warming by shifting from 1901-2000 to 1906-2005 was a result of the warming, which occurred at the end of the period (i.e. 2000-2005).
Are you still following, Barry?
This was a lie. Did you get this?
The record shows that the apparent 0.14C difference was caused by
· The 0.05C "adjustment" described above
· A 0.09C difference between the strong cooling trend 1901-1905 and the flat to slight warming trend 2001-2005
Are you still following, Barry, or have I lost you?
If you are having problems, go back to the top of this post and repeat.
Don't try to play me for a fool, Barry.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 12:27 am
03 Jul 2008
It may be that Hadley have not significantly revised their 20th century figure. I don't know. Neither do you. We're both working under the assumption that your Excel results are sound. I have no way yet of verifying that. What I've found instead is that the TAR did not screw up Hadley's figure, as you vouched. This does not encourage confidence in you. Nevertheless, I'm not remotely interested in using that error as a way to dismiss your other points. We move on.
You've not seen fit to explain how I might verify your result (except to urge me to do something I don't know how to do). That's ok. It's not your job to teach me how to run a trend analysis in Excel. I've an acquaintance who is an economist who has moved here from Britain and is trying to get Excel program for his shonky computer.
Having clarified, I feel I need to reiterate to save misunderstanding, this time quoting you.
According to you (based on a report by Jones in 2001, which you cite) Hadley later revised their record for 1901-2000 from 0.6 to 0.65C, which is exactly what their current record shows.
Jones et al's figure is 0.6C. The 0.65 figure comes entirely from you. I've not seen it corroborated anywhere else. Until I am able to run a trend analysis myself, I've only your word to go on. I have never said Hadley revised their figure. I have said that Hadley have adjusted the data, and on the assumption that your figure is correct, speculated that this may account for the discrepancy. Nothing more assertive than that has come from me.
I've pondered it openly but offered nothing conclusive save to verify that Hadley's figure for 20th century was indeed 0.6, It may still be.
Is that clear?
Trust but verify (speculate along the way). That's how I'm operating right now. That's how I always operate.
In other words, Hadley corrected the record "ex post facto" to show 0.65C warming rather than 0.6C warming over the 20th century period from 1901 to 2000.
I have stated very clearly that I can find no corroboration from Hadley for your 0.65 figure. I have asked you if you have been able to verify it at source (not by running your own trend off the data, but a direct cite for the figure from the UK Met Office - I can't find one).
I've twice made clear that I find the language in AR4 ("therefore") questionable and potentially misleading. I do not know why you repeat the assertion when I've provisionally accepted it.
Are you following so far?
I'll repeat this. I agree the language is dubious. Until I can run my own trend analyses, I am going along with your posit.
Surely you can understand that it is entirely reasonable for me to trust a reputable institution (Hadley) at least as equally as an anonymous internet poster (you). Until I can do the math, this is the fairest position to take. If I simply swallowed what you said hook line and sinker, without the skill to verify, I wouldn't be a very good skeptic, would I?
You are making the firm assertions here, not I. I am considering your points pending my own education on the matter. I can't think of a better way to go about it. You appear to want me to believe, and are impatient because I don't have complete, unquestioning faith in your abilities. Surely you're not asking me to take what you say on faith? Isn't that what 'alarmists' do regarding the IPCC?
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 1:17 am
03 Jul 2008
If you're inclined to run the data in Excel, I would be very curious to know what results you get.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/tem2/
I think the best match to be found for what was used in Jones et al 2001 would be found on this page;
ftp://ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/data/
Specifically this link (check the date - last updated Jan 2003);
ftp://ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/data/crutem2v.dat.Z
I don't have the application to open this file, or I'd post the data here.
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:31 am
03 Jul 2008
You are starting to ramble here, Barry. Believe we have discussed this issue to death.
The Hadley record is what it is. It is available to the public. Anyone who is so inclined can download the data directly. It is very straightforward.
The global average land and sea surface anomaly as currently published for the period 1901-2000 shows a linear increase of 0.65C over the period. This is not an "interpretation" of the record. It is the mathematical linear trend of the published record. Excel makes it easy to establish this trend line and equation without the drudgery of doing this manually.
The record apparently gets "corrected" or "adjusted" after the fact from time to time.
This is (according to you quoting a Jones 2001 study, I believe) what happened to the 1901-2000 record some time after IPCC published the TAR.
The net result of this was that the linear warming over the entire period (1901-2000) changed from 0.6C (as was reported in TAR) to a linear warming of 0.65C in the current record.
I cannot vouch for the earlier 0.6C figure but I can vouch for the current 0.65C figure (because that is what the figures show).
Now to your statement:
"Surely you can understand that it is entirely reasonable for me to trust a reputable institution (Hadley) at least as equally as an anonymous internet poster (you). Until I can do the math, this is the fairest position to take. If I simply swallowed what you said hook line and sinker, without the skill to verify, I wouldn't be a very good skeptic, would I?
You are making the firm assertions here, not I. I am considering your points pending my own education on the matter. I can't think of a better way to go about it. You appear to want me to believe, and are impatient because I don't have complete, unquestioning faith in your abilities. Surely you're not asking me to take what you say on faith? Isn't that what 'alarmists' do regarding the IPCC?"
Barry, I have no notion what you are trying to say here, but you are free to believe anything you want to.
The record is the record. That's all.
Take an Excel course and you'll be able to download the raw data and draw your own linear trend line and conclusions.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:37 am
03 Jul 2008
You are starting to ramble here, Barry. Believe we have discussed this issue to death.
The Hadley record is what it is. It is available to the public. Anyone who is so inclined can download the data directly. It is very straightforward.
The global average land and sea surface anomaly as currently published for the period 1901-2000 shows a linear increase of 0.65C over the period. This is not an "interpretation" of the record. It is the mathematical linear trend of the published record. Excel makes it easy to establish this trend line and equation without the drudgery of doing this manually.
The record apparently gets "corrected" or "adjusted" after the fact from time to time.
This is (according to you quoting a Jones 2001 study, I believe) what happened to the 1901-2000 record some time after IPCC published the TAR.
The net result of this was that the linear warming over the entire period (1901-2000) changed from 0.6C (as was reported in TAR) to a linear warming of 0.65C in the current record.
I cannot vouch for the earlier 0.6C figure but I can vouch for the current 0.65C figure (because that is what the figures show).
Now to your statement:
"Surely you can understand that it is entirely reasonable for me to trust a reputable institution (Hadley) at least as equally as an anonymous internet poster (you). Until I can do the math, this is the fairest position to take. If I simply swallowed what you said hook line and sinker, without the skill to verify, I wouldn't be a very good skeptic, would I?
You are making the firm assertions here, not I. I am considering your points pending my own education on the matter. I can't think of a better way to go about it. You appear to want me to believe, and are impatient because I don't have complete, unquestioning faith in your abilities. Surely you're not asking me to take what you say on faith? Isn't that what 'alarmists' do regarding the IPCC?"
Barry, I have no notion what you are trying to say here, but you are free to believe anything you want to.
The record is the record. That's all.
Take an Excel course and you'll be able to download the raw data and draw your own linear trend line and conclusions.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:16 pm
04 Jul 2008
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/glo ...
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:20 pm
04 Jul 2008
Hi Barry,
I get the impression that you are a youthful enthusiast wanting to learn more about the AGW debate, and maybe trying to test your very own doubts in that arena . I would like to help you, but in your latest response to me in your #88, I feel that you have not understood what I tried to explain to you, and so, I will not devote much more of my time to you. (If you continue in that vein)
Barry, it takes time to understand all this stuff, and you are barraged with media and political crap from people whom have NO understanding of the science. You demonstrated a lack of knowledge concerning Phil Jones et al, (part of the Mann et al stable) and James Hansen, although at least, you are apparently not entirely happy with Gore.
In the Australian perspective you may be impressed by the Garnaut initial Armageddon report on Oz, for less than 1% of the Earth's population, and the equivalent of the UK Stern report. Do you know who and what Garnaut is?:
http://www.newmatilda.com/2008/02/25/who-ross-garnaut%3F
I'm sorry Barry: when you ask questions such as: "What 2008 figure?", after me having supplied it to you, with its clear pictorial difference to your earlier figure, and date related information, I'm puzzled as to what you mean......and I have little patience to respond.
I would truly like you to learn more! The following is HIGHLY RELEVANT to some of the foregoing stuff:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/what-a-di ...
I recommend that you digest it all, including the many reply posts, with an approach to understanding it.
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 10:23 am
05 Jul 2008
IPCC uses a more sound analytical method (linear regression over many years)
Reading the AR4, I see no single trend analysis methodology. TAR used optimal averaging for their final figure and both TAR and AR4 employed maximum likelihood linear trends as well as linear regression regarding the trend sets they work with (neither IPCC report confines its calculations to Hadley alone).
I've dabbled with Excel on my own (regression technique) and am close to learning what to do. I'll wait til my experimenting has been verified by someone with qualifications.
As I've been reading on the subject, I've learned a few things.
There are a number of methods for establishing trends in statistical analysis, and each are used depending on their utility regarding the population being assessed. Least squares does not always provide the most valid methodology.
An important factor to consider is the coefficient of determination (which lies between 0 and 1 - the soundest fit being close to 1). It would appear that TAR found better efficiency using optimal averaging. (Out of curiosity, what was the coefficient for your trend analysis?)
Both TAR and AR4 mention various methodologies employed by different analyses, depending on the population being assessed.
These comments and figures might interest you.
A HadCRUT3 linear trend over the 1906 to 2005 period yields a warming of 0.74°C ± 0.18°C, but this rate almost doubles for the last
50 years (0.64°C ± 0.13°C for 1956 to 2005...
Clearly, the changes are not linear and can also be characterised as level prior to about 1915, a warming to about 1945, levelling out or even a slight decrease until the 1970s, and a fairly linear upward trend since then (Figure 3.6 and FAQ 3.1). Considered this way, the overall warming from the average of the first 50-year period (1850-1899) through 2001 to 2005 is 0.76°C ±
0.19°C. Clearly, the world's surface temperature has continued to increase since the TAR and the trend when computed in the same way as in the TAR remains 0.6°C over the 20th century. In view of Section 3.2.2.2 and the dominance of the globe
by ocean, the influence of urbanisation on these estimates is estimated to be very small. The last 12 complete years (1995- 2006) now contain 11 of the 12 warmest years since 1850, the earliest year for which comparable records are available....
The HadCRUT3 surface warming trend over 1979 to 2005 was more than 0.16°C per decade, that is, a total warming of 0.44°C ± 0.12°C (the error bars overlap those of NCDC and GISS). During 2001 to 2005, the global average temperature anomaly has been 0.44°C above the 1961-1990 average. The value for 2006 is close to the 2001 to 2005 average.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch03.pdf ...
AR4 gives a figure of "slightly more than 0.65C" for the period 1901 - 2005. This comes from combining NCDC, GISS and HadCRU, the American trend sets finding a lower increase than Hadley over the period. The linear trend given by Hadley for 1901 - 2005 is 0.71C (table 3.3 - page 248).
Where I'm at so far...
The word "therefore", then, is quantitatively misleading in that it does not account for an increased trend of 0.09C derived from losing the period 1901 - 1905 from the start period in the new (not cherry-picked) "updated 100-year trend", but not qualitatively misleading in that the trend has increased, whether the analysis begins from 1901 or 1905. If we base the calcs on HadCRU alone, the trend is bumped up 0.03C from the loss of the 1901 - 1905 period.
The 1901 - 2000 trend remains 0.6C using the optimal averaging methodology, which is presumably more robust than least squares (higher coefficient of determination) for the population then being assessed. There is nothing inherently wrong with shifting the period when the apples being compared are 100-year trends. AR4 gives figures in the body of the report for the 1901 - 2005 period. To the best of my understanding I agree that the language is SPM is misleading, and find that this is a quantitative, not qualitative digression. The basic conclusion is sound.
I hope this makes sense and look forward to your comments.
Permalink
manacker Posted 10:34 am
05 Jul 2008
Nice to see you back.
The RealClimate link to "correcting for the ENSO signal" is a real "hoot"! Cool.
Just did the same sort of look-see for "correcting for the CO2 signal".
Start of 1998, CO2 was 363 ppmv
End of 2007, CO2 was 383 ppmv
Ratio, End/Start, = 1.0551
ln (1.0551) = 0.5363
5.35 * 0.5363 = 0.2869
(using IPCC figures for RF per Myhe et al)
Stefan-Boltzmann = 5.4273
Temperature rise due to added CO2 = 0.2869 / 5.4273 = 0.0529C
So by cutting out 0.0529C over the 10-year period (on a year by year basis, of course) we can "correct the record for the CO2 signal".
Trouble is, there was no increase in temperature over the period. Hmmm...
Just goes to show what you can do by jiggling numbers around.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 10:49 am
05 Jul 2008
Sounds OK to me except your statement: "Clearly, the world's surface temperature has continued to increase since the TAR and the trend when computed in the same way as in the TAR remains 0.6°C over the 20th century."
The second part of the statement (20th century trend) is OK, but the first part is not.
The TAR came out in 2001.
It is now 2008.
The trend from 2001 (when TAR was published) until now has been one of slight cooling in all records, except GISS, where it is flat.
So it is not correct to say that "the world's surface temperature has continued to increase since the TAR". It would be more correct to say: "Clearly, the world's surface temperature has NOT continued to increase since the TAR", (since the records all show that this is what happened).
Regards,
Max
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 1:36 pm
05 Jul 2008
I am quite familiar with these names, which institutions they work for, and (at least nominally) their major studies. I am also quite aware that they are cast by some people as being involved in some sort of conspiratorial cabal (along with Schmidt, Pierrehumbert and other IPCC contributors). What knowledge is it that you presume I lack?
I put it to you that neither of us have the depth of understanding necessary to fully understand the subjects we've discussed, save what you and I both learn at blogsites or by peering at the studies themselves, without the requisite training to comprehend them. If you are an atmospheric scientist or are qualified in some other discipline connected to the study of climate, then please state your credentials. Otherwise, let's both admit our limitations and I would ask you to forgo the condescension from your posts. I am neither young nor illiterate on the subject of climate change, nor am I 'enthusiastic'. I am careful and deliberate (this doesn't spare me making mistakes, unfortunately).
Do you know who and what Garnaut is?
I didn't know who he was til I read your link.
You have a tendency to introduce topics that have nothing to do with the topic being discussed. I have no interest in following your every lead. I will proceed at my own pace and I aim to stick to topics without digressing all over the place. We've already taken this thread far off-topic and you have gone further than anyone here in that regard. Sorry, but that practise bends towards spamming. If I wanted to be pro-AGW propagandistic rather than discursive I could introduce, for example, declining sea ice extent in the Arctic ocean, the cooling stratosphere or glacial retreat - but I have no interest in peddling ideology by linking to whatever supports it.
In short, I'm not interested in this new diversion.
I'm sorry Barry: when you ask questions such as: "What 2008 figure?", after me having supplied it to you, with its clear pictorial difference to your earlier figure, and date related information, I'm puzzled as to what you mean......and I have little patience to respond.
Please state the 2008 global temperature figure. As you posited this in the singular, I assumed you have a single figure in mind. Also, explain how you can give a figure for 2008 when the year is only half done.
If you mean something else, then say so clearly. Perhaps by 'figure' you mean "the trend for the first few months of 2008"? If so, then nothing we have cited from Hadley or anywhere else deals with that. Surely you know that the first few months of the year are generally cooler than the rest - why it is premature to attach a value for 2008. To make any conclusions for annual or decadal trends from the year 2008 at this time is statistically bankrupt.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/what-a-di ...
Thank you for the link. The comments are a mish-mash of politics, statistical speculation, winking emoticons and sarcasm. Contributors run off-topic constantly. I could not be bothered with that muck.
As to Watt's top post, he also mixes science with politics and his 'trend', if there is any, is derived from picking just two months (June) in the whole series and comparing them. He neglects to mention that UAH and RSS both find a significant increased decadal temperature trend, even over the short period of readings. It's a fatuous, propagandic post with no references to sources and misrepresentation of what Hansen said (who mentioned to no "tipping points" in the past, as Watts implies). This should fall well below the credibility line for anyone genuinely interested in the science.
When I suggested we adjourn to a different venue for our discussion, you made an oblique reference to, I suppose, your thread/s at BB. I left off posting there when my posts were not replied to.
Black Wallaby, I think you are probably right that you're wasting your time with me, but not for the reasons you imagine. You are clearly interested in the political angle. Because that must perforce devolve to the science in order to be weighed effectively, the science is where I spend the majority of my interest on this subject.
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 2:00 pm
05 Jul 2008
You said;
So it is not correct to say that "the world's surface temperature has continued to increase since the TAR". It would be more correct to say: "Clearly, the world's surface temperature has NOT continued to increase since the TAR", (since the records all show that this is what happened).
As HadCRU give a trend for 1901 - 2000 at 0.6C, and for 1901 to 2005 at 0.71C, the AR4 comment is consistent with Hadley's analyses (and GISS and NCDC, I believe).
You said;
The trend from 2001 (when TAR was published) until now has been one of slight cooling
The AR4 was published in 2007, displaying conclusions up to 2005. Pitting that against the trend "to now" is invalid if you wish to test the propriety of the AR4 conclusions. If you want to compare properly, run a trend line from 2001 to 2005, and if you want to compare with AR4 specifically, run a trend for GISS, NCDC and HadCRU and compare, as was done in AR4.
BTW, as your trend analysis for the last decade is at odds with Hadley's (+0.1C), presumably using the same data, to what do you attribute the discrepancy?
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:07 pm
05 Jul 2008
Let's cut the crap (as they say) and get down to the basics of our discussion.
The recorded facts show that it has not warmed from 2001 to 2008 despite record human emissions of CO2.
The same is also true for the period 1998-2008, but let us ignore that for now.
In fact, three of four records (UAH, Hadley, RSS) show it has actually cooled since 2001.
The third record (GISS) shows it has been flat.
Can you please confirm to me that you understand and accept this?
If you do not accept the recorded facts, why not?
Please avoid long-winded waffling and stick to the facts.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:15 pm
05 Jul 2008
You wrote: "BTW, as your trend analysis for the last decade is at odds with Hadley's (+0.1C), presumably using the same data, to what do you attribute the discrepancy?"
Barry, there is no "discrepancy". The records all show that the period 2001-2008 has shown a flat to cooling trend. That is the established fact.
That is why your statement (5:23 pm 5 July 2008)that "it has continued to warm since the TAR was published (2001)" is incorrect.
Check the records yourself and you can confirm this. This is not that hard to do, once you have acquired the basic skills to do so.
If "Hadley says otherwise" (as you claim), they are not telling the truth. It's just that simple. Facts are facts, Barry.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:07 am
06 Jul 2008
Once you have mastered Excel, here is a test for you.
Download the monthly Hadley global average land and sea surface temperature anomaly figures as they are published, starting with January 2001 and ending with May 2008.
Plot them into Excel.
Once you have plotted them, draw the linear regression trend line and under "options" click "display equation" and "display R squre value". Both will appear on your curve.
From the equation you will see a function that looks like: y = b*x + a
b is the linear trend (this time in months, so you have to multiply by 120 to get a trend line per decade). This will tell you what the linear trend has been from 2001 to today.
You can then compare this with any trend that anyone else has either predicted or claimed for that period.
Let me know what you find out once you have gotten that far, Barry. (I already know the answer, because I've already done the steps outlined above.)
This will help you in being more rationally objective and in being to make up your own mind on what is going on out there, despite all the hype.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:32 am
06 Jul 2008
Just noticed that you posted the following statement: "As to Watt's top post, he also mixes science with politics and his 'trend', if there is any, is derived from picking just two months (June) in the whole series and comparing them. He neglects to mention that UAH and RSS both find a significant increased decadal temperature trend, even over the short period of readings."
This is false, Barry. Watts does an excellent job of substantiating his statements with the actual records he cites.
Both UAH and RSS records do, indeed, show a cooling trend since 2001 (as does the Hadley record, which we have already discussed to death).
Again, once you have mastered Excel, you can check this out for yourself.
I already have, and have confirmed to my satisfaction that Watts' statements are absolutely correct on this cooling trend since 2001.
Just stick with the facts, Barry, not a lot of "blather" about mixing "science with politics".
Regards,
Max
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 4:04 pm
06 Jul 2008
This statement;
"the world's surface temperature has continued to increase since the TAR"
comes from the IPCC 2007 report, NOT from me.
You can verify this here;
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch03.pdf ...
on page 249.
As AR4 make their claim based on temperatures up to 2005, you cannot test the validity of this quote by comparing with trends up to 2007 or 2008. As AR4 was published early 2007, they could not possibly have analysed the trend to 2008. If you wish to test the validity of that statement, you must do so within the context it was given.
Do you understand this?
You wrote, quoting me;
You wrote: "BTW, as your trend analysis for the last decade is at odds with Hadley's (+0.1C), presumably using the same data, to what do you attribute the discrepancy?"
Barry, there is no "discrepancy". The records all show that the period 2001-2008 has shown a flat to cooling trend. That is the established fact.
Again, you've shifted the goal posts.
Hadley says;
A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2 ...
Go to the link. See for yourself. Your period (2001 - 2008) does not match the cited period (1998 - 2007). Thus you have created a straw man. Again.
If you contend that 1998 - 2007 shows a flat or cooling trend from Hadley data, then please explain why you think Hadley's result is different.
And please, do not refer to 'the record' or Excel. I got that the first time. When I have studied enough to make my own plot, I'll let you know. Meanwhile, I have emailed Hadley to find out what their "simple calculation" was. I will let you know.
And please explain why you are running a trend from 2001 to 2008. Why not start at 1999 or 2000? I suspect you are cherry-picking the period to support your views. If there is a scientifically or mathematically valid reason for selecting this period, what is it?
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 4:34 pm
06 Jul 2008
Watts does an excellent job of substantiating his statements with the actual records he cites.
Both UAH and RSS records do, indeed, show a cooling trend since 2001
I... have... confirmed to my satisfaction that Watts' statements are absolutely correct on this cooling trend since 2001.
Clearly, you did not read the post that Black Wallaby cited, and which I was responding to. Here it is again.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/what-a-di ...
Watts isn't talking about the 2001 - 2008 trend.
Cheers,
barry.
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 7:04 pm
06 Jul 2008
The trend from 1998 - 2007 was positive (warming)
The trend from 1999 - 2007 was positive
The trend from 2000 - 2007 was positive
The trend from 2001 - 2007 was negative (hello, Max)
The trend from 2002 - 2007 was negative
Hadley data
Well, well, well. I think I've answered some of my own questions here and got a better handle on what others are trying to do.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:27 pm
06 Jul 2008
I deeply admire your patience with Barry, and you are welcome to take-over any other points that he aimed at me, which I will ignore!
(otherwise) Barry,
The website that I could not remember previously was GREEN OPTIONS. You may be able to test your dreams there if you wish. You can select a category there and make your own lead-post. Then you can exercise your desire to keep it on topic.... good luck!!!!!!
BTW, if you examine 99% of the uncensured blogs that I am aware of, the lead authors do NOT object to deviation from topic. WHY? Because he/she is "paid" for length of post and number of hits. If you stay on-topic, posts generally run dry very quickly, so it pays to deviate.
The one exception I know of is Steve McIntyre! He shuffles offendors off to the BB, quick smart.
That ignores a third category of sites such as RealClimate which aggressively cut posts without recognition, being those that they do not like.
You have a lot to learn yet Barry, but I admire your enthusiasm.
Regards, Bob_FJ
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 10:48 pm
06 Jul 2008
Dear [Xxxxx],
The trend was calculated from annually-averaged data using a simple least squares fit of a first-order polynomial.
I imagine they got a better coefficient of determination from this method. They used annual rather than monthly data.
"Simple" for some! Way over my head.
A linear equation (y = b0 + b1x) is called a first order polynomial
http://www.cohort.com/costatpolynomialregression.html
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:19 am
07 Jul 2008
They had to revise it back then because they did not like the results, what with last year being cold. Notice the orange curve #1.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/smoothing.html
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 12:20 pm
07 Jul 2008
That page is NOT a reference to a trend analysis for the last ten years. It is a smoothing methodology for the entire series (157 years) using a 21-point annual averaging technique. Clearly, that method is useless for determining a ten year trend using ten data points.
Hadley explains on the same page;
Toward the ends of the series there are not enough points to calculate the smoothed value. For example, in order to calculate the smoothed value for 1998 we would need to know what the annual averages were for the 21-year period 1988-2008, but we only currently have annual data for the period 1988-2007. Ideally the smoothing should stop before the filter 'runs off' the end of the series, but a series that has been shortened in this way appears not to be up-to-date.
In order to extend the simple smoothing to the very ends of the time series it is necessary to either extend the data series, or shorten the filter. Howsoever it is done, the data near the endpoints will be treated differently to data in the middle of the series. Extending the data series can be done in a number of ways, but the method used on these pages is simply to continue the series by repeating the final value.
Remember, the only reason that Hadley (and Coby Beck at the top of this thread) are talking about the last ten years and running an analysis for that period in isolation is that some in the skeptical community have said, "global warming stopped in 1998".
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:15 pm
07 Jul 2008
Looks like the Hadley assessment ignores the last 5 months of data (January through May 2008).
My analysis does not.
Can this be the cause for the discrepancy?
Who knows?
It would be foolish to ignore the last 5 months of data, so I cannot imaging that an updated Hadley analysis would do something so silly. Can you?
Must be an older (and now outdated) analysis.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 3:28 pm
07 Jul 2008
Like the disappearance (melt) of glacial ice all over the world, from Alaska, Greenland, Canada, to Borneo and equatorial Africa. The snows of Kilimanjaro are going, going gone, and there is only one glacier left on Borneo's mountainous interior, where there were nine recorded at the end of WWII.
BTW, I trust you are using the correct method of recording temperature change. Annual linear graphs are not reliable. Averages have to be computed in cycles, that is (for instance) from l970 to l979, then from l971 to 1980, then from 1972 to 1981, and so on. Comparisons between the results then mean something.
Des Emery
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:53 pm
07 Jul 2008
Welcome to the discussion (agree that the discussion with Barry has gotten a bit repetitive).
You advised: "BTW, I trust you are using the correct method of recording temperature change. Annual linear graphs are not reliable. Averages have to be computed in cycles, that is (for instance) from l970 to l979, then from l971 to 1980, then from 1972 to 1981, and so on. Comparisons between the results then mean something."
Agree that one has to look at the multi-decadal warming / cooling cycles to make any sense of what is going on:
1858-1879: 0.38C linear warming
1879-1910: cooling
1910-1944: 0.53C linear warming
1944-1976: cooling
1976-1998: 0.37C linear warming
1998-2008: flat to slight cooling
These are the cycles one has to compare. One should also try to find some link between what happened to temperature during these cycles to solar changes, volcanoes, changes in GHGs, etc., to see is there is any correlation.
Doesn't have too much to do with Arctic or Antarctic sea ice, Kilimanjaro, Borneo, though. These are interting (but separate) topics.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:15 pm
07 Jul 2008
Would you believe 13C maximum is forecast for Melbourne today, and it is usually a degree or so cooler in my NE suburb....Drizzle, interrupted by showers! I've sat-down early! Snow in Ballarat! Sheez, this global warming is a real bitch!
Are you discussing a Hadley presentation somewhere that trends the last ten years in isolation that I`m unaware of? (PLEASE identify if so!)
Otherwise:
The Hadley webpage referenced discusses basically two things.
The 21-point smoothing method
The difficulties they (or anyone would) have in adapting this method to the last ten years of data, when they reach an endpoint of the data series. This is elaborated with their two lower graphs!
It is not totally clear to me what they say, but for say 2007, they definitely require additional "data values" out to 2017 to finalize 21-point smoothing. I now quote their explanation, with emphasis added:
"In order to extend the simple smoothing to the very ends of the time series it is necessary to either extend the data series, or shorten the filter. Howsoever it is done, the data near the endpoints will be treated differently to data in the middle of the series. Extending the data series can be done in a number of ways, but the method used on these pages is simply to continue the series by repeating the final value."
I take this to mean that in the case of full-year 2007, they then repeat the average annual value for 2007 ten times and apply the "simplified bell-curve" smoothing with these artificial values. (sometimes known as MSU)
Their sub-clause is that because they got a nasty shock using this method extending into 2008, and a cold period, they now exclude part-years. (now that they may be cold for a decade or so hereon)
How about you refer this to your Email advisor, and seek his/her clarification?
DID YOU NOTICE THE ORANGE LINE IN GRAPH #1? (Which Hadley did not like, using their long established method!)
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:25 pm
07 Jul 2008
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:32 pm
07 Jul 2008
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 4:49 pm
07 Jul 2008
My analysis does not.
Can this be the cause for the discrepancy?
Certainly. You have selected a different time series; 2001 - May 2008.
Please explain why you have chosen this period.
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:11 pm
07 Jul 2008
You wrote: "Certainly. You have selected a different time series; 2001 - May 2008.
Please explain why you have chosen this period."
Because it is the most recent time period for which we have data.
To exclude the last 5 months of data in establishing the most recent trend would be silly, wouldn't it?
We are trying to determine what is going on now, so we have to include all the recent data.
Does this not make sense to you?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 5:25 pm
07 Jul 2008
I posted it twice above. The period trended was the last 10 complete years; 1998 - 2007
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329#com ...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329#com ...
Here's the link again;
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2 ...
If you are interested in/dubious about Hadley's trend methodologies and the reasons for them you can email them at;
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[31]='\"';l[32]=' 107';l[33]=' 117';l[34]=' 46';l[35]=' 118';l[36]=' 111';l[37]=' 103';l[38]=' 46';l[39]=' 101';l[40]=' 99';l[41]=' 105';l[42]=' 102';l[43]=' 102';l[44]=' 111';l[45]=' 116';l[46]=' 101';l[47]=' 109';l[48]=' 64';l[49]=' 115';l[50]=' 101';l[51]=' 105';l[52]=' 114';l[53]=' 105';l[54]=' 117';l[55]=' 113';l[56]=' 110';l[57]=' 101';l[58]=':';l[59]='o';l[60]='t';l[61]='l';l[62]='i';l[63]='a';l[64]='m';l[65]='\"';l[66]='=';l[67]='f';l[68]='e';l[69]='r';l[70]='h';l[71]='a ';l[72]='
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 5:35 pm
07 Jul 2008
As you have said, statistics can be used for various and nefarious purposes. I agree. I want to know why you have chosen the particular time period you have, not just because it's up to date, but why you haven't begun with, say, 2000 or 1995, or 1990.
I agree that the period you have picked shows a cooling trend. Please explain the validity and significance of the period you have chosen (and are fixed on). It does not match any other period discussed here. What's your point regarding it?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:21 pm
07 Jul 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329#com ...
Take your time!
In your response:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329#com ...
I can see no logical connection either with the single point you picked-out, or the remainder of the issues I discussed which you did not comment on.
I don't know what you are trying to achieve, but please bear in mind that observers of this thread, may well be assessing your credibility!
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:56 am
08 Jul 2008
Hi Barry,
You asked: "Please explain why you begin your trend analysis at 2001 and not 2000 or earlier."
I began it with the start of the 21st century (officially January 1, 2001).
Starting with 1998 has been criticized by some as "introducingan artifact" (since 1998 was the all-time record ENSO year).
Any objection?
If so, why?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 12:01 pm
08 Jul 2008
I began it with the start of the 21st century (officially January 1, 2001).
Starting with 1998 has been criticized by some as "introducingan artifact" (since 1998 was the all-time record ENSO year).
Any objection?
Yes.
You have explained what you have done, again, but not explained why. If starting with 1998 is discounted, why have you not started with 2000, 1999, 1997, 1996...?
The reason I ask, and as Max has avowed upthread, ten years is too short a time to measure a meaningful trend. If you are familiar with statistical analysis, then you know that the greater the population the better the trend analysis. If I measured the trend between 2000 and 2001, this is statistically insignificant.
You have elected to measure a period for which there is very low statistical significance.
Why not start with, say, 1999? It is the next year on from 1998, so we cut out the anomalous year but don't shorten the period more than necessary. Yet you have decided to pick a 7.4 year period starting three years after the anomaly. As far as you have explained, you've picked it because it is "the 21st century", but this constraint is meaningless.
I put it to you that you select the period 2001 - May 2008 because it shows a cooling trend, and this is the result you would like. You don't start with 1999 because this would give you a result you don't like. In short, you are cherry-picking an unreasonably short period because it suits you, not for any scientifically valid reason. The 'explanation' you've given isn't an explanation. It's simply a statement of choice, not the reason for it.
You suggested upthread that we deal with the whole series. Well, why don't you?
And if you've been trying to make a point regarding this very truncated 'trend', I must have missed it. What is it?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 1:01 pm
08 Jul 2008
Do you wan't me to go-back and quote you?
Either accept 1998 as the start point, OR 2001, and stop wasting our time!
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:25 pm
08 Jul 2008
I'm going to have to say it as it is: you are totally confused and this`exchange with you is getting repetitive to the point of being boring.
All of your waffling on when a trend was started is irrelevant. Get it through your head. It has stopped warming since 1998.
Now Black Wallaby may explain to you how after a peak high year we have had a couple of lower than average years. This appears to have happened in 1999 and 2000.
But the main point is that the record shows that there has been no warming for the past 10 years.
Is this the start of a new long-term trend? Who knows? You don't. I don't. Black Wallaby does not. Even the "gurus" at Hadley do not.
Remember that the last warming trend only lasted 22 years (1976-1998), so 10 years is already a significant period of time.
Face it, Barry. As the lead article here stated back in November 2006, "Global warming stopped in 1998". The 1-1/2 years since this site was opened have only confirmed this even more strongly. The past 6 months since the start of solar cycle 24 have provided even stronger confirmation of this fact:
"GLOBAL WARMING STOPPED IN 1998"
Got it? Is there some part of that which you are unable to grasp?
We are wasting time in this discussion.
Learn some basic skills (like Excel) and check things out for yourself.
End of our discussion.
Max
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 3:38 pm
08 Jul 2008
If GH stopped back in 1998, ten years would be sufficient time for ice to at least start re-forming in its former environs. The principle of 'persistence' -- the cold of the winter season extending into the spring, and the warmth of the autumn season extending into the winter -- could explain the time lag to some extent, but ice would certainly have had time to re-establish its presence if GW was indeed over.
I believe this evidence is more compelling than any temperature graph analysis to prove that GW is indeed happening, and at an accelerating rate. this is occurring in a global territory, unlike temperatures which are local events influenced by many factors.
Des Emery
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:31 pm
08 Jul 2008
Hey Des Emery,
You are (as you say) "way out in left field" when you write: "If GH stopped back in 1998, ten years would be sufficient time for ice to at least start re-forming in its former environs."
The temperature record is self-explanitory, i.e. no warming since 1998. There is no "accelerating rate", as you claim. This is pure fiction. Just check the record.
As far as sea ice is concerned, these things take time and are not directly related in any case, but, yes, ice has started reforming in the Arctic and has continued to grow in the Antarctic over the period. Check the latest record compared to most recent earlier years (Arctic as well as Antarctic sea ice).
Looks like there is no real need to be concerned despite all the hype.
Just look at the facts on the ground. This will help you get a clearer picture despite all the hype out there.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 6:36 pm
08 Jul 2008
The annual trend from 1998 - 2007 is upwards.
The trend to May 2008 is invalid, since you are starting with a highly anomalous year and ending with a highly anomalous few months.
If I accept this cherry-picked trend, and agreeing that it shows cooling, the statement "global warming stopped between 1998 and May 2008" is not accepted.
"The period 1998 - May 2008 shows cooling with linear regression analysis" - accepted.
"The period 2001 - May 2008 shows cooling with linear regression analysis" - accepted.
This is not an artefact of annual analysis, this is an artefact of monthly analysis. The noise outweighs the trend. If you check your coefficient of determination (R-squared), you will find, as I did, that it has a low value (between 0 and 1), representing a poor fit to data with the simple least squares methodology. The variance over the short period is too large to admit a useful calculation using linear regression. If you are a whizz at statistical analysis, you should know this. You need to deploy a different methodology to get a better result.
I learned how to plot a trend on Excel. That should have been obvious from some of my later posts over the last few days. I learned quite a lot about statistical analysis. It seems you are unwilling to face facts on the paucity of your methodology.
As you say, the cooling trend (from a linear regression) doesn't tell us much over the short period, certainly not that "global warming stopped in 1998.
I notice that the global warming trend "stopped" many times during the last hundred years. Clearly, it didn't for the last 100 (or 106) years.
As you know, mainstream science does not predict monotonous warming, and various AR4 projections posited future cooling or flat trends of 8, 10 and even 20 years duration, owing to the influence of natural forces (weather), still finding a general trend upwards over the long term. Thus, the recent trend, even when calculated with the low-significance least squares method, is unsurprising. The signature of radiative forcing remains both in the instrumental record, and in projection to 2100.
I will, like you, watch with interest the coming year's temperatures with great interest. If the recent cooling/flat trend lasts another 12 years, I will be very happy to hope that mainstream AGW theory is seriously flawed. What I expect, however, is that the trend will resume to warming, and that the high temperature of 1998 will be exceeded in all temperature records within the next 8 years.
I agree that there's no use continuing. Thanks again for the conversation.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:37 pm
08 Jul 2008
I couldn't do it, but I reckon you have a brazen chance if you have the confidence to do it!
Permalink
gzuckier Posted 12:21 am
09 Jul 2008
so it's been warming lately because there are so few clouds. gee. couldn't prove it over here. you mean all those dust particles in the air don't nucleate water droplets after all? and the atmosphere overall is saturated with water vapor so that the limiting factor is cosmic rays to nucleate?
it's good that you've been able to assign the little ice age to too many clouds, though. how did we figure that out? find fossilized cloud remains?
to sum up: a simple physical property of carbon dioxide, easily demonstrable by any high school class, cannot be the cause of the warming because it's caused by a complex and somewhat questionable chain of events based on an esoteric and finicky property of cosmic rays which can be demonstrated under highly controlled laboratory conditions by, literally, nuclear physicists. sometimes.
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 12:57 am
09 Jul 2008
- Albert Einstein
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:13 am
09 Jul 2008
Checked for some figures on Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SOLSTICE_SEA_ICE_UPDATE.p ...
Most recent record of sea ice (June 2008) shows:
· Arctic sea ice extent is 11.44 million sq km; this is 0.76 million square km below the 1979-2000 baseline mean for June
· Antarctic sea ice extent is 15.5 million sq km; this is 1.0 million square km above the 1979-2000 baseline mean for June
So in total sea ice extent has grown slightly as compared to the 1979-2000 baseline mean.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:23 am
09 Jul 2008
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content& ...
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 1:34 pm
09 Jul 2008
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/ ...
No sunspots (black dots) are a significant concern, the longer it goes on.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 1:38 pm
09 Jul 2008
Check out:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat- ...
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 1:41 pm
09 Jul 2008
Check-out this photo and the date:
http://www.john-daly.com/NP1987.jpg
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:22 am
10 Jul 2008
Believe you mentioned "clouds" in your otherwise rambling post of 9 July (7:21 AM).
Yep. It looks like clouds do have a "feedback" effect, only this is not a "positive" (warming) feedback, as programmed into the GCMs, but rather a strong "negative" (cooling) feedback as confirmed by physical observations.
In August, 2007, Roy Spencer published an article in Geophysical Research Letters outlining this observed cloud feedback.
http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
The AGW hypotheis postulates a number of positive feedbacks which will accelerate the warming. One of the feedbacks programmed into the GCMs is a positive (warming) feedback from a theoretical increase in high-level, heat trapping clouds.
Spencer's physical observations in the tropics found a strong negative feedback from clouds instead.
This observation gives validation to Richard Lindzen's "infrared iris" hypothesis of climate stabilization. "
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/82/3/pdf/i152 ...
The name "adaptive infrared iris" refers to the mechanism in which the tropical ice cloud cover opens and closes in response to tropical ocean temperatures to allow more heat to escape to space when the oceans are warm and less heat to escape to space when the oceans are relatively cool (much like the iris of an eye which opens and closes in response to varying light levels to try to maintain a constant level falling on the retina). Lindzen et al. proposed that the iris acts as a global thermostat that will keep the earth's temperatures from rising very far even as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases increase.
To give an idea of how strong this "negative feedback" or enhanced cooling mechanism is, "if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Spencer said. "The big question that no one can answer right now is whether this enhanced cooling mechanism applies to global warming."
Spencer has summarized his findings in a more recent update, in which he concludes that the current climate models are projecting exaggerated warming from greenhouse gases by not taking this natural negative feedback into account:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Recent-Evidence-Reduced-S ...
Just some facts on clouds that may be interesting to you.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 11:14 am
10 Jul 2008
Here's one for you to check out, now that you are working with Excel on global temperature trends.
In the "Frequently Asked Questions" Section 3.1 (p.103) of the IPCC AR4 WG1 report, IPCC makes the statement: "Above the surface, global observations since the late 1950s show that the troposphere (up to about 10 km) has warmed at a slightly greater rate than the surface..." "This is in accord with physical expectations and most model results, which demonstrate the role of increasing greenhouse gases in tropospheric warming..."
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... 1-faqs.pdf
A look at the actual records from 1979 (when satellite records started) to 2005 (last year included in AR4 report) tells a different story.
Record linear trend linear change C
C/decade over period
Surface
GISS 0.174 0.45
Hadley 0.167 0.43
Average 0.171 0.44
Satellite
UAH 0.139 0.36
RSS 0.192 0.50
Average 0.166 0.43
The average surface rate is 3% higher than the satellite (troposphere) rate, so the IPCC statement is false.
The troposphere has not warmed at a "slightly greater rate" than the surface and the conclusion "which demonstrate the role of increasing greenhouse gases in tropospheric warming" is therefore also incorrect.
Just another strange "anomaly" in the IPCC report on temperature you may wish to check out for yourself..
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 1:18 pm
10 Jul 2008
from Max: The Hadley "scientists" are also firm believers in and proponents of the AGW hypothesis, but they may be a bit more adverse to jiggling their record to prove their point.
Dear old Phil Jones, Briffa and Osborn are also great Hockey-Team enthusiasts and have helped to cancel the MWP (Medieval Warm Period).
According to this series of lead articles, they do appear to jiggle their data, but perhaps not as brazenly as GISS.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=52
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 2:16 pm
10 Jul 2008
I have learned over the course of many years that very little is actually "written in stone," that human beings have a propensity to exaggerate and manipulate "the facts" in order to get a desired or pre-determined response to a particular problem, and that denial is not just a river in Egypt.
In this case, I have no argument with numbers or graphs or opinions, all of which are certainly subject to "interpretation," but which should be presented as uncritically as possible. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be happening with either side here.
Some things that are "written in stone" are not contemplated here. There are huge differences between ice, sea-ice and glacial ice, including temperature, mass, composition, etc. This alone throws computations out of whack when considering the rate of melt.
The picture of the state of the Earth cannot be compartmentalized, but should be seen as a kind of "panorama" of effects. And the co-incidence of real-time events has to worked into the equations, not just dismissed as "interesting but separate" items.
Des Emery
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:18 pm
10 Jul 2008
In your post further above; http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329#com ...
You wrote in part
"...ice would certainly have had time to re-establish its presence if GW was indeed over.
I believe this evidence is more compelling than any temperature graph analysis to prove that GW is indeed happening, and at an accelerating rate. this is occurring in a global territory, unlike temperatures which are local events influenced by many factors."
Who said GW was "over"? There is a ten-year plateau in published GLOBAL AVERAGE temperature......that does not mean it is "over", or that there will not be regional variations
And you add in part, in your latest post:
Some things that are "written in stone" are not contemplated here. There are huge differences between ice, sea-ice and glacial ice, including temperature, mass, composition, etc. This alone throws computations out of whack when considering the rate of melt.
The picture of the state of the Earth cannot be compartmentalized, but should be seen as a kind of "panorama" of effects. And the co-incidence of real-time events has to worked into the equations, not just dismissed as "interesting but separate" items.
Max is somewhere in USA at the moment, maybe in slumber-land, I don't know, but anyhow, it's probably "my shift" in Oz, so here's my 2-cents worth:
I'm not sure what you are saying Des, but there are many REGIONAL effects in the manifestation of climate events. For instance, there is a report of major growth in the glaciers on the magnificent (almost Fuji-like mount Shasta, which I have partly climbed) in far north California, and of course the habitable NH has recently had some VERY SEVERE winter weather. Going back ~500 years, the great Khmer empire centred on Angkor collapsed because of drought, probably caused by changes to the monsoon patterns. Etc, etc.
You should also bear in mind that the media is prone to report "BAD NEWS", and that there are emotive nonsense topics like the "poor polar bears". Perhaps most significant of all is that sea-ice coverage is not an easy thing to assess, and in reality, when you hear things like: year 2007 had the lowest Arctic coverage on record, what is really meant is: since recent satellite observations became fairly meaningful.....but still to be improved.
BTW; did you notice that the month of the photo of the 3 submarines at the North Pole in 1987, was May, or late spring, way before typical maximum melt expected around September?
Are you aware of a scientific paper or two describing warmer instrumentally recorded temperatures for Greenland in the early 1900's........and GISS recently admitted 1934 was the warmest year in the 48 US states?
Max is more knowledgeable than me on some other aspects such as the overwhelming evidence of warmer times in the recent past, and the apparently illogical cyclical advance and retreat of glaciers.
I guess you realize that the melting of sea-ice, and ice-shelves, has absolutely no effect on sea level?
So, if the North-West passage does open-up, is that not good news?
Finally, when you wrote:
Some things that are "written in stone" are not contemplated here.
What do you mean by that?
Permalink
314159265 Posted 9:56 pm
10 Jul 2008
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 1:34 pm
11 Jul 2008
That includes quantum theory too?
Wormholes?
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:41 am
13 Jul 2008
Hi Des Emery,
You wrote:
"...ice would certainly have had time to re-establish its presence if GW was indeed over.
I believe this evidence is more compelling than any temperature graph analysis to prove that GW is indeed happening, and at an accelerating rate. this is occurring in a global territory, unlike temperatures which are local events influenced by many factors."
Whether or not the ice has "re-established its presence" is a moot point. Globally seen (Antarctic plus Arctic) it now stands (June 2008) at an extent that is slightly higher than the 1979-2000 average for the month of June:
Arctic
11.44 million sq.km.
0.76 million sq.km. (6.2%) below the 1979-2000 average extent
Antarctic
15.46 million sq.km.
1.0 million sq.km. (6.9%) above the 1979-2000 average extent
Overall the ice has grown by 0.24 million sq.km. (0.9%) above the 1979-2000 average.
This does not "prove that GW is indeed happening" and certainly not that it is happening "at an accelerating rate".
In fact, it does not prove anything about GW, except that overall the sea ice has globally increased slightly from the baseline period of 1979-2000 average to today.
Yes, "temperatures" are "local events influenced by many factors". I would certainly agree.
For that reason I also have little faith in a "globally averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly" as any kind of a meaningful indicator.
Compounding the problem are the many adjustments, corrections and manipulations that are made to arrive at this indicator (including ex post facto corrections that are made to the historical record), the many demonstrated problems with weather station locations near urban areas, local problems (asphalt parking lots, AC exhausts, buildings, etc.), shutdown of many rural stations (particularly a large number that were shut down in remote high-latitude Siberian locations when the USSR broke up), etc.
But (together with the satellite record that shows a slightly slower rate of increase in the troposphere than the surface record), this is all we have.
And this admittedly questionable record has not shown an increase in temperature since 1998 after having shown an increase of somewhere between 0.13 and 0.17 degrees C per decade over the 22-year IPCC "poster period" 1976-1998 (linear increase of 0.37C over the period), slight cooling from 1944-1976 and another increase of 0.15 degrees C per decade from 1910-1944 (linear increase of 0.53C over the period).
If one makes the break at the "start of the 21st century" (January 2001) it shows the same flat to slight cooling trend.
The correlation with atmospheric CO2 concentrations looks good for the IPCC "poster period" but rather poor for the other periods.
To your statement: "The picture of the state of the Earth cannot be compartmentalized, but should be seen as a kind of "panorama" of effects. And the co-incidence of real-time events has to worked into the equations, not just dismissed as "interesting but separate" items." I would agree.
It's all part of a bigger picture that may or may not have very much to do with human CO2 emissions.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:57 am
13 Jul 2008
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 12:59 pm
13 Jul 2008
I guess when the title of the post is "G W stopped in 1998" I assumed it meant that G W was ended in 1998. It would take a supercomputer to compile and correlate all the temperature changes in the atmosphere, the aquasphere, and the lithosphere. So I don't trust "facts" like the growth of the Mt. Shasta glaciation which can be explained to be a result of increased water vapour evaporation from the Pacific and therefore increased deposition of snow inland. Or that GW has resulted in the 'slippage' of the glacial ice, as is evident in Greenland.
When something, anything, in nature appears to be "illogical" it only means we don't have all the information required to come to a correct interpretation. There is nothing in nature that is illogical. That is one thing I meant when I said "written in stone,"
Solid H2O, ice, forms at Zero degrees centigrade, and what we call normal atmospheric pressure. But the temperature of any particular amount of ice can vary wildly. And ice is always less dense than liquid water, so its melt actually can increase the volume of water into which it melts. Sea ice, thin and seasonal, can spread over a larger area than glacial ice which forms into bergs with more permanent and deeper volumes. Sea-ice will form during winter seasons from increased snowfall, which forms from increased evaporation, which forms from Global Warming. So increased ocean coverage by sea-ice does indicate to me that there is G W occurring.
The Polar Bear question is moot, since it is being used politically rather than ecologically. The NorthWest Passage will also become a political question if it develops into a regular ship passage. What's under the Arctic Ocean may become the issue the rest of the world has to deal with.
Evolution is a process which is always with us, as different species try to adapt to different environs. Earth has endured several catastrophic happenings, including the cyclic formation and subsequent melt of 'ice ages.' Some catastrophes are sudden, like asteroid impact, while the cycles of freeze and thaw operate independently.
We are in a 'thaw' period right now, with the general retreat of land-locked glaciers scheduled to dry up most of our rivers eventually. But that thaw period is being accelerated by human activity. 8 billion of us cannot help but influence the natural course of events, especially when we employ artificial means (internal combustion engines) to enable our movement all over the globe. But I guess that's another subject for another day.
Des Emery
Permalink
madrad Posted 2:14 pm
13 Jul 2008
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/image ...
-------------------------------------------------
THIS one really does the trick..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/m ...
there goes your "cooler decade", 17 of the warmest years happened in the last 20.
------------------------------------------------
but what about 2000-2007?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/unc ...
all the "experts" commenting on ICECAP are well established deniers who have links to big oil. you can match them up
here: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts
with here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/26/11550/9864
here: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=5 ...
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1 ...
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1 ...
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1 ...
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1 ...
for your elementary school education..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/i ...
If the IPCC isn't your cup of tea for GW analysis, theres always
So if the IPCC is not your cup of tea, the following scientific organisations also endorse the consensus:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Meteorological Society
State of the Canadian Cryosphere
The Royal Society of the UK
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Additionally, the Academies of Science from another 8 countries (as well as several countries from the first list) also signed a joint statement endorsing the IPCC consensus:
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Oh and even George Bush acknowledges it's a problem...you know you're behind the curve when you're behind Bush. So pull your heads out of the sand and quit making fools of yourselves.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:11 pm
13 Jul 2008
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4& ...
This link takes-you-in to page 33 of 38.
Below the line is a part copy of my post there just a short while ago, which is relevant to your first point above. You may be surprised that there is some other information out there!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<img>http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/06/02/antartica_full.jpg</img>
On the left, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center illustrates a temperature range of about 0.4C between 1982 & 2004
On the right, NASA's Earth Observatory shows a T range of about 0.1C between 1981 & 2007
For more information see:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_ther ...
Interesting how the emotive colour red on the right, amounting to about 0.0019C per annum warming over a period of 26 years, can make the massive continent of Antarctica appear to be like Hades!
Interesting how on the left, with a much larger warming rate of about 0.0091C over a period of 22 years, it is mostly in the ocean. (and a big cooling on the continent) Most interesting of all is that the warming is most intense off the coast of West Antarctica and HAP "Hansen's Apocalyptic Peninsula". Funny how HAP points at the Andean Mountain chain! Funny how they've found more volcanoes and stuff recently in those hot-spots. What do they call that now; tectonics?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:23 pm
13 Jul 2008
May I suggest you open the image @
http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/06/02/antartica_full.jpg
And then with a second window split below have the relevant text for comparison.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 11:55 pm
13 Jul 2008
Check-out Lord Kelvin
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:58 pm
14 Jul 2008
You say that we are in a thaw period right now. This may well be true compared to 1944-1976, when we were apparently in a cooling cycle. As the record from Greenland shows, we were also in a "thaw period" in the 1930s (at 50% more rapid warming than the most recent period and very much lower increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations).
The most recent period shows cooling again, but whether or not this will become a trend is anyone's guess. I sincerely hope not, because we do not need a colder world.
The historical record shows us that we go though multi-decadal warming/cooling cycles with an underlying warming trend of 0.6 to 0.7C per century, and we have been doing this since the record started in 1850 (and we started coming out of the Little Ice Age).
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:15 pm
14 Jul 2008
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.p ...
It confirms what many scientists have been saying all along: "it's the sun, stupid!"
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:00 pm
14 Jul 2008
Let's go though your long blurb.
"there goes your "cooler decade", 17 of the warmest years happened in the last 20. but what about 2000-2007?"
Don't know who said anything about a "cooler decade".
The fact is that warming has stopped since around 1998 (or, if you prefer, 2001).
This is a fact. Look at the data (don't arbitrarily "chop off" the last 6 months (that would be "cherry picking")
"all the "experts" commenting on ICECAP are well established deniers who have links to big oil. you can match them up"
Yawn... Another "ad hom" attack. My advice: stick with factual arguments and skip the "ad homs". They just make you look silly.
Your long list of organizations that support the IPCC view on AGW is impressive. But science is not a "consensus" game, so these guys could all be wrong.
We will see in the next few years if the current plateau continues or it even starts to cool how many of these organizations will quietly withdraw their support for the current "consensus" view on AGW.
Fact of the matter is, madrad, it is not getting warmer right now for some reason or another (despite IPCC model predictions of 0.2C per decade warming), and no one knows what is going to happen in the future. Not you. Not I. Not Hadley. Not IPCC Not any of those many institutions you listed.
We'll just have to wait and see.
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:34 pm
14 Jul 2008
Given that the Indian government has recently declared that it will ignore the IPCC CO2 apocalypse hypothesis, because it is in disbelief, and wants to IMPROVE the lot of its millions of poverty stricken citizens, I thought I would do a Google on your assertion that the Indian National Science Academy is a supporter of that hypothesis of doom.
I found various websites that might be relevant and digitally searched for relevant keywords to support your assertion, but found nothing.
Can you illuminate me with some evidence of your claim?
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:50 am
15 Jul 2008
You wrote: "Pick different periods from 1990 to the present and you'll find cool, flat and warm trends depending on how you select the data, even if you always end at June 2008."
Been there, done that.
If you start anytime after 2001 you will see a cooling trend.
Now, interestingly Hadley has already started some ex post facto "corrections" to the monthly record for the first four months of 2008 (to "mitigate" this cooling trend?):
Original record
J -0.105
F +0.039
M +0.430
A +0.250
"Corrected" record
J +0.054
F +0.192
M +0.445
A +0.254
The net "upward correction" for the first four months of 2008 was equal to an average of +0.083C in each month. Hmmm...
So your statement that you can show anything you want "depending on how you select the data" should be expanded to "depending on when you select the data".
But I'll put the recent record into better perspective using your suggested words, "there has been a cooling trend over period 2001 to the present and this is significant because it coincides with record human CO2 emissions and raises serious questions about the validity of the IPCC prediction of 0.2C per decade warming in the early 21st century".
Do you like that wording better?
Regards,
Max
PS As a rational skeptic I get a queasy feeling in my stomach when those who are paid by the taxpayers to give the public unbiased and correct weather/climate data (Hansen, Hadley) get involved in the non-scientific process of using the data they generate to try to achieve a political agenda by inciting fear or panic in the public they are supposed to be serving and who is paying their salaries. Don't you? If not, you are probably not a rational skeptic but a firm believer, instead.
Permalink
manacker Posted 10:05 am
15 Jul 2008
For a good laugh check out IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 3 FAQ (p.253).
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1- ...
You'll see a curve showing temperature trend lines. I've copied the curve for easier viewing below.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3221/2534926749_f2be35e86f ...
You see that the closer we get to today's date the steeper the temperature curves appear to get over shorter time periods. This looks like things are getting more alarming and are doing so at an accelerating rate.
In its 2007 SPM report, IPCC alludes to this accelerating trend (p.5) with the sentence: The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C [0.10°C to 0.16°C] per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years" (0.074°C [0.056°C to 0.092°C] per decade).
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
This is actually a bit of "smoke and mirrors". In a record with cyclical warming/cooling periods, such as the Hadley global average land and sea surface temperature anomaly, shorter cycles will usually show steeper trend lines than longer cycles, if properly picked.
Using the same Hadley record and the same IPCC "smoke and mirrors" approach, one can show that global warming occurred at a more rapid rate in the early 20th century than later.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3249/2672880098_1ede950b42 ...
One could then modify the IPCC statement as follows: "The linear warming trend over the first 40 years (0.135°C) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years (0.074°C per decade)."
Both analyses are absurd, of course, but this shows how one can get a message across with proper chartmanship and bit of subterfuge.
Just something to think about, Barry.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:40 pm
15 Jul 2008
To the previous post (pointing to the IPCC subterfuge in AR4)one could add:
"The 40-year period 1906 to 1945 saw a linear warming of 0.54°C, compared to 0.74°C for the entire 100-year period 1906-2005. This shows that roughly 73% of the entire 20th century warming occurred before 1945."
Regards,
Max
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 3:00 am
28 Jul 2008
Let's see.
1906 - 1945 = 0.54C
1946 - 1976 = 0.07C (period showing flat or cooling trend - depending on which years are picked - this period is the one most commonly referenced)
1977 - 2005 = 0.48C
Now, there's something wrong here. These linear trends add up to 1.09C! And the ratio of warming for the two warming periods is 52% for the first period, and 47% for the second.
Can you explain why?
(Please run a linear regression for the periods and see if I got the figures right)
Now, let's express the math a little differently.
The 1st period of warming was 0.54C over 40 years
The 2nd period of warming was 0.48C over 29 years.
Extrapolating to decadal trends...
The decadal trend for the 1st warming period is 0.135C
The decadal trend for the 2nd warming period is 0.165C
Therefore, the rate of warming has increased.
Fun with numbers. Just with Hadley numbers, though.
You seem to be surprised that Hadley adjust their data. You should not be.
However, your concern does make one wonder why Hadley makes the mistake of giving data at ANY TIME that doesn't work in their best interests. I mean, if Hadley are so rotten, why don't they just fabricate their data from the outset? Why would they give ANY fuel to 'rational skeptics'? Why not just make every month for 2008 hotter than any previous month? Then they wouldn't have to bother with this 2008 'problem', eh?
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 3:09 am
28 Jul 2008
Could this be the point you've been hedging at?
If it is, do you assert that noise (weather variability) cannot dominate an underlying trend for ten years - that any 10-year cooling trend over the last century or so seriously undermines AGW theory?
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 3:34 am
28 Jul 2008
Cite: For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES
emission scenarios.
That's a 20 year window starting from 2006. Bit early to be talking about that projection mid-2008. Unless, of course, you believe temperature should increase monotonically with CO2 rise. I doubt you make that mistake yourself, but I asked above to make sure.
Permalink
logocat Posted 5:33 am
28 Jul 2008
I find the comments entertaining to a point; meaning, I can't believe people would continue to comment for months, and even years (jabailo). Dang, I just want to know what type of jobs you all have? Or is it that you just get home and get on the computer to continue to make comments? And it seems like no one is willing to really read either side. Oh, maybe the job is to post comments to make things entertaining. I don't know, there are just so many possibilities with so many different types of lives.
Sad thing, I won't come back and check the answers to my questions, as I use Grist as a source of environmental news. I don't know what I clicked on in my daily email to get here, but it sure was fun. Great little break.
Oh, time to get back to work,then after work it's happy hour, then going for a run, then maybe hang out in the yard with people--face to face, then...(been a slave to the laptop for far too long during graduate school and work that I have no desire to return to it when I get home after being on it for 8+ hours).
P.S. Please take this post with a light heart. I know I probably offended someone, and I apologize for that. However, take a step back and look at the repeativeness natures of the posts--and how long it's been going on with the same people. I feel like someone should take score--no, it's not going to be me, I don't have the time. :-D
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 12:00 pm
28 Jul 2008
:0)
Nah. I can see the funny side of it. We're grown ups trying to save the world on a blog. I wonder how many of us actually get out and do something about what we're saying?
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 4:59 pm
21 Aug 2008
Run a linear trend from 1998 to July 2008 (latest data at the time of this post), and we still have a warming trend. This despite choosing the highest anomaly ever as a starting point and a very low anomaly for the end point.
But if you run a linear trend from 2001 - 2007 (or mid-2008), the trend is cool or flat (depending which record you use).
Does this mean warming stopped in 2001?
Look at the numbers.
Hadley temperature anomalies in degrees C:
1988 - 0.174
1989 - 0.109
1990 - 0.247
1991 - 0.203
1992 - 0.070
1993 - 0.104
1994 - 0.169
1995 - 0.270
1996 - 0.138
1997 - 0.347
1998 - 0.526
1999 - 0.302
2000 - 0.277
2001 - 0.406
2002 - 0.455
2003 - 0.465
2004 - 0.444
2005 - 0.475
2006 - 0.421
2007 - 0.399
2008 - 0.280 (average of current monthly data for the year)
Clearly, the decade following the very high 1998 is warmer than the previous. 1998 was an exceptional year, but the linear trend from that year to present is still warming.
If we run linear trend lines (with Hadley numbers) from after 1998 to present, we get downwards trends. But does that mean the 2001 start year for those trends mark the year global warming "stopped"? Not at all.
If we treat 1998 (which warm spike includes the latter months of the year before) as an extraordinary anomaly - caused by a very strong el Nino - we still have warming up to about 2004 - 2005.
I ran polynomial trend lines in Excel from 2002, 2001, 2000... 1988 to present to get a curve on the change in temperature. Every one of the curves 'peaked' around 2003 - 2004 or after. The shorter the time frame, the earlier the peak. Even eyeballing the numbers you can see that the warming continued, with a spike at 1998 (not the highest jump in the record), until 2003 - 2005.
So which is more correct? To say warming stopped in 2001 (or 1999 or 2000) because these are start years for a downward trend to present? Surely not. Look at the figures again from 1999.
1999 - 0.302
2000 - 0.277
2001 - 0.406
2002 - 0.455
2003 - 0.465
2004 - 0.444
2005 - 0.475
2006 - 0.421
2007 - 0.399
2008 - 0.280
The five years following 2001 were all hotter. How then can it be said global warming "stopped" in 2001? The peak temperature is at 2005, but I nominate 2003 because the polynomial trend curves from 1988+ to present all peak around 2003 - 2004.
The globe has been cooling for 5 years at the most, possibly for 3. 2001 can't be the year global cooling started because the globe kept getting warmer beyond that until 2005.
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 11:46 am
25 Aug 2008
Permalink