text:
The Australian's War on Science XV
By tlambert on July 18, 2008.
The Australian continues to display its contempt for science, scientists and the scientific method. They've published this piece of AGW denial by David Evans. Last time I looked at Evans he was saying that new evidence since 1999 had changed his mind about global warming, with this new evidence including the fact that the world had cooled from 1940 to 1975. Apparently this was too silly even for the Australian , so he now offers us four alleged facts.
1 The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics.
This couldn't be more wrong. Study the graphs below (from RealClimate). The left one shows the pattern predicted for doubling CO2, while the right one shows the pattern for a 2% increase in solar output.
Both patterns include a hot spot. The difference between the two graphs is that the CO2 one shows cooling in the stratosphere, while the right one does not, so the "greenhouse signature" is stratospheric cooling. And guess what, that's what's been happening. Evans continues:
We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
Actually we have found the greenhouse signature, so Evans should change his mind. I'm not holding my breath.
If the hot spot really is missing it does not prove that CO2 is not causing warming, but it would indicate something wrong with the models. (Which might mean that things are worse than what the models predict.) However, the radiosonde measurements have been found to be wrong in the past, and it looks like they may well be wrong again.
Evans continues:
2 There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
This is pure denial. There is plenty of evidence and denying that it exists does not make it disappear. For instance, Figure 4 of the SPM. The blue bands show temperature changes modelled using only natural forcings, while the red bands include anthropogenic forcings as well. The black line shows observations. Clearly, we must include anthropogenic forcings if we want to match the observations.
3 The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980).
Let's look at the lower troposphere trends from RSS:
Figure 7. Global, monthly time series of brightness temperature anomaly for channels TLT, TMT, TTS, and TLS. For Channel TLT (Lower Troposphere) and Channel TMT (Middle Troposphere), the anomaly time series is dominated by ENSO events and slow tropospheric warming.
The people who publish the data don't think that the warming trend ended in 2001, and if you look at the graph, it's only significantly deviated from the long term warming trend in 2008. Such short-term deviations have happened in the past without affecting the long term trend.
Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979.
The land-based temperature readings are corrected for UHI, while the satellite readings have been found to be wrong in the past.
NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
Study the title of the NASA temperature graph:
Does it report only land-based data, or does it include ocean temperatures as well?
4 The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
This is wrong. The temperature rises started on average 800 years before CO2 levels rose, but most of the warming occured after CO2 levels started rising. Jeff Severinghaus writes:
Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data. ...
In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.
That's it for all of Evans' evidence. The rest of his article is more pure denial. For instance:
If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
He has, but he just denies that it is evidence.
The War on Science
Bolt's abuse of science
One of the things that gave Andrew Bolt 0 out of 10 on global warming was his misleading account of Severinghaus' research. Crikey reports: Severinghaus told Crikey that he doesn't make a habit of Googling his own research, but Bolt appeared on his radar when a librarian in Brisbane wrote to him…
Andrew Bolt gets a perfect score on global warming
Andrew Bolt welcomes Al Gore to Australia with a column that accuses Gore of being "one of the worst of the fact-fiddling Green evangelicals". Bolt writes: Well, here are just 10 of my own "minor quibbles" with Gore's film. These are my own "inconvenient truths", and judge from them the…
David Evans doesn't even know what the hot spot is
Back in July, David Evans had on opinion piece in the Australian claiming: The greenhouse signature is missing. ... The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. This is wrong. The hot spot is not the signature, since you get a hot…
Bob Carter claims it's not warming
Hey, remember how all the global warming skeptics used to say that warming wasn't happening because the satellite data didn't show a warming trend. Until in 2005 when they found a mistake in the satellite data and what do you know, it did show warming. And they stopped using that argument? Well…
The Oz didn't print all those letters after his name in the hard copy version for nothing. He's a very important expert 'expert'. No way he could be wrong.
By Nexus 6 (not verified) on 18 Jul 2008 #permalink
There is an obvious "hot spot" in the CO2 prediction. Tim must not know what a spot is. Aside from the fact that the two graphs are computer generated predictions, where is the reality based graph?
The graphs you are using to prove increasing temperatures all end in 2000. It is now half way through 2008 A lot has happened since the Millenium.
The graph that shows temp from 70s to 82.5N gives an increase of 0.171 K per decade but the graph for 82.5s to 82.5N gives a decrease of 0.336 K per decade.
By kent (not verified) on 18 Jul 2008 #permalink
Shorter Evans:
> There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred
There is global warming but it's not carbon's fault...
> Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect
...and there's no global warming!
> I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) [...] FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products
Also, I'm a rocket scientist who does models...
> Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
...but models are meaningless!
Time for the mantra: The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... Clinton Did It... Clinton Did It... Clinton Did It... Om... Om... Om...
By bi -- IJI (not verified) on 18 Jul 2008 #permalink
By slickdpdx (not verified) on 18 Jul 2008 #permalink
Tim didn't say there wasn't a hot spot in the CO2 prediction. He said that (a) both CO2 and solar predictions have that hot spot, so the hotspot isn't some unique "fingerprint" of CO2 global warming, and (b) the true fingerprint of CO2 warming (the way in which it differs from other kinds of warming) is stratospheric cooling.
By Ambitwistor (not verified) on 18 Jul 2008 #permalink
David Evans.
I'm sure that you're reading this blog. No Australian journo worth his/her salt, and who writes about climate change, wouldn't take note of the traffic here. In fact they'd do so even if they not worth their salt, and especially when they are personally mentioned.
So come here and defend yourself.
My perverse curiosity would love to be sated by your input. If you have the testes, that is...
By Bernard J. (not verified) on 18 Jul 2008 #permalink
The tropical tropospheric "hot spot" GHG fingerprint nonsense comes from our friend Christopher Monckton who misread figure 9.1 in the IPCC report.
Basically, the IPCC ran the forcings form the 20th century and showed a plot for each forcing. Since CO2 warming was the dominant forcing, it showed the hotspot and the others did not (Actually you can see a small hotspot in the solar plot, 9.1a). Monckton then ran with his false conclusions and the denialists have been swallowing it ever since.
BTW, I pointed this out to Ross McKitrick and he still didn't get it. Contain your surprise.
By Boris (not verified) on 18 Jul 2008 #permalink
The graphs you are using to prove increasing temperatures all end in 2000.
The NASA graph, for example, ends in 2007.
I think kent's statement is an example of what happens when someone is in denial.
By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 18 Jul 2008 #permalink
And the RSS one goes to mid-2008. I wouldn't expect even Kent to argue the measurements ought to go past last month ...
By dhogaza (not verified) on 18 Jul 2008 #permalink
Why won't RSS release all of their data. Why are they STONEWALLING??!1!
By Jon (not verified) on 18 Jul 2008 #permalink
dhogaza and Jon, one way to tell that those plots are a fraud is their failure to show future cooling.
I listened this morning to Limbaugh's fill-in host, who was going on about the Gore speech. A critical part of the pitch is to tell the wingnuts that the reason they have this all figured out while people like Gore don't is because the wingnuts are just plain smarter. It was all "common sense" argumentation, without nary a mention of the science (although I didn't hear the whole thing).
By Steve Blom (not verified) on 18 Jul 2008 #permalink
Boris says: "BTW, I pointed this out to Ross McKitrick and he still didn't get it." Yeah...I tried to point it out to McKitrick too (over in a ClimateAudit comments section). He did seem to sort of get it eventually but then just said something to the effect of, "Well, this still shows the models are mishandling the warming and thus I don't believe the positive feedbacks that lead to high climate sensitivities."
By the way, the hot spot in the upper atmosphere of the tropics is a basic result of moist adiabatic lapse rate theory, as Santer et al. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;309/5740/1551 , pointed out. This is basically just a statement that when a parcel of air traveling upward in the atmosphere is saturated with water vapor, the warmer the air is to start with, the less rapidly its temperature drops as it rises through the atmosphere (because as the air expands and cools, the water vapor condenses out releasing latent heat warming the air...and more water vapor has to condense out for the warmer air than for the colder air). Because the warmer air cools more slowly, the difference in temperature gets magnified as you go up in the troposphere.
The Santer et al. paper showed that this expected magnification is in fact seen in the data for temperature fluctuations on monthly to yearly timescales. So, the observations on those timescales actually verify the model physics. It is only when one looks at the multidecadal trends in the data that one doesn't see the expected magnification (at least in some of the data sets). So, if there is any new physics coming in to mess up the agreement between models and observations, it has to come in on very long timescales...which seems rather difficult to imagine, since the convective processes that seem to be controlling the physics happen on much shorter timescales. (As a concrete example, the recent paper by Spencer et al. that purported to find some sort of negative feedback in the tropics was looking at timescales of days...so this mechanism can pretty much be immediately ruled out as a solution to such a discrepancy.)
A much more plausible explanation is that the observational data is good for measuring fluctuations on monthly to yearly timescales but is simply not well-enough calibrated over long periods of time to get the decadal trends right. And, indeed the known problems and uncertainties with both the satellite and radiosonde data suggest that this is likely the case.
By Joel Shore (not verified) on 18 Jul 2008 #permalink
Thank you for printing the Global Temperature Land-Ocean Index. The red line shows very clearly that between 1940 and 1976 there was no long-term upwards temperature trend. A steep rise did begin in around 1977, and it was based on that 11 years of warming trend that James Hansen went before Congress in 1988.
It is easy to see from the RSS graph that there has been no global warming trend for the last 11 years.
By Bernard Blyth (not verified) on 18 Jul 2008 #permalink
I laughed so hard when I read this article, there's nothing more convincing than a convert is there?
David Evans is in the Lavoisier Group so his claim to being a convert is somewhat... Wrong.
By Nathan (not verified) on 18 Jul 2008 #permalink
Bernard Blyth
You clearly failed Statistics 101.
By WotWot (not verified) on 18 Jul 2008 #permalink
Bernard Blyth:
it was based on that 11 years of warming trend that James Hansen went before Congress in 1988.
No, you're bullshitting us. James Hansen went with, among other things, many decades of scientific research on climate sensitivity.
Can anyone direct me to a point by point takedown of this?
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24036602-5000117,00.html
In particular the graphs? Sorry if I sound lazy, but this is out of my field (biochem and biophys) and would take me quite a while to get to something that would be obvious to someone more informed. Anyway, I'm guessing someone has gotten to this already...
By MarChri (not verified) on 18 Jul 2008 #permalink
Bernard Blythe.
Gargh! This name has been in my maternal grandfather's family for at least 8 generations - could you consider posting as, perhaps, 'Bozo'?
Anyway, to the nub. Do you try determinedly to make silly statements such as that at #13, or does it just come naturally to you?
Unlike WotWot, I don't think that you failed Statistics 101: rather, I think you've not even been within a bull's roar of a Stats 101 class...
Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on the 'process' that led you to your conclusions.
The tropical troposphere "hot spot" can be seen in the Allen & Sherwood thermal wind analysis of radiosonde data:
http://cce.890m.com/models/images/allen-sherwood.jpg
More, here (under "A False Fingerprint"):
http://cce.890m.com/?page_id=22
By cce (not verified) on 18 Jul 2008 #permalink
Bernard J asks how I came to my conclusions. If he takes the last 135 months data from RSS he will find that the Ordinary Least Squares slope is very slightly negative. That means that there has been no trend of warming on the RSS data since April 1997. The downward trend is there if you begin your OLS analysis at any point between 04/97 and 04/98 and for all points from 05/2000 to this year.
Since April 1997 there has been no major volcanic activity to affect the trend so it seems reasonable to state that there has been no underlying warming trend on RSS for over 11 years. Using a mean of the four main global temperature measures the negative OLS slope can be found going back 130 months to September 1997.
Chris O'Neill is of course right in saying that it was because the previous 11 years had strongly supported Hansen's theory of AGW that he went to Congress. That does not alter the fact that, as the graph above shows, there had only been about 11 years of smoothed warming trend by 1988. Had 1977 to 1988 been as flat as the last 11 years then he would not have been able to claim with 99% confidence that his theories had been proved correct.
Chris O'Neill is of course right in saying that it was because the previous 11 years had strongly supported Hansen's theory of AGW that he went to Congress.
Where the f**k did I say that?
Had 1977 to 1988 been as flat as the last 11 years then he would not have been able to claim with 99% confidence that his theories had been proved correct.
The only one claiming proof of anything from 11 years of data is yourself.
Marchi, Bolt is doing his usual cherrypicking. Plus his graph that he claims shows falling sea levels shows rising sea levels.
By Tim Lambert (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink
Bernard Blyth posts:
The downward trend is there if you begin your OLS analysis at any point between 04/97 and 04/98 and for all points from 05/2000 to this year.
Starting with the strongest El Nino year on record (1997-1998) and ending with the strongest La Nina in 20 years (2007), you get a negative trend, but between the fact that it's not statistically significant and the fact that you're cherry-picking the start and end dates, your conclusion is meaningless.
This has been explained to you before. Your continual posting of "no warming since 1998!" has gone beyond mistaken and is into the territory of intellectual dishonesty.
By Barton Paul Levenson (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink
I often wonder at the recalcitrant ignorance of the proper application of statistics that occurs amongst the likes of Evans, Blythe and the cast of hundreds of others who see what they want to believe, rather than what the best numbers that science can produce can tell us.
And then I remembered Erik the Viking, and in particular, the sinking High Brazilians from whom Erik obtained the Horn Resounding. In one moment, both the movie and the psychology of Denialism clicked into their places...
Chris O'Neill - it was Hansen in 1988 who claimed high statistical significance after just 11 years of strong smoothed warming trend.
BPL how can picking the last 135 months of data be cherry picking? I would understand and agree with the criticism that 11 years is not long enough to come to conclusions about longer term trends. I have absolutely no idea what is going to happen to temperatures in the future - but then neither has anyone else.
It is nonsense to say that doing an OLS on the most recent 135 months of RSS data is cherry picking. Firstly I could have chosen the last 134, 133, 132, 131, 130, 129, 128, 127, 126, 125, 124, 123, or 122 months and found a slight negative slope - so there is nothing special about 135 months. Secondly even if, for absolutely no good reason, you wish to ignore the period of the 1998 El Nino, you will find that there has been negative global warming trend when you start the OLS analysis from any month after April 2000 to December 2007.
Bernard J is, of course, correct. You clearly have not even been near a basic stats class, let alone satisfactorily completed one.
And I am beginning to wonder about your basic honesty.
[KillFile]
Are you telling me the polar bear with a mortar board is wrong? If we can't trust our academically inclined wildlife, then who can we trust?
"In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway"
I think that's probably physically/conecptually impossible. It implies that warming increases CO2, and that CO2 increases warming. That being the case, how could it possibly be that starting with increased CO2 does not initiate the same cyclic positive feedback? such is the nature of feedback.
why am i lecturing you guys? it's not you i'm annoyed with, you all understand this stuff, it's that idiot who says that junk who needs to get an education or stop exporting ignorance to the masses.
By z (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink
oh, i see he's referring to the ice core data, specifically. ok, never mind. yes, he understands the concept of a loop.
" I have absolutely no idea what is going to happen to temperatures in the future - but then neither has anyone else. "
are you suggesting that this is impossible in principle, or only impossible by studying it?
"it was Hansen in 1988 who claimed high statistical significance after just 11 years of strong smoothed warming trend."
Utter bullshit. Hansen extrapolated future warming on the basis of the radiative forcing from estimations of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases and land use changes combined with natural variability over the last 150 years. Statistical correlation with just the 11 previous years had nothing to do with it.
Global warming is all natural variability to deniers except when there actually is natural variability.
By luminous beauty (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink
I got a D in Statistics 101, but I think I get the idea about how a proper linear trend is created.
IIRC, it is the Mean Average Slope of the Slope of the Point of a Curve of a Set of Points which are the peaks and troughs. Am I off?
Some good explanations on the subject are likely better than calling the other guy stoopads.
By Sam-Hec (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink
Hansen was 99% certain that AGW was underway based on the probability of an unforced control run (using 1958 atmospheric concentrations) producing temperatures as high as those measured in 1987/1988.
Z asks whether I think that it is impossible in principle to make good long term predictions of global temperature.
I suppose it might be theoretically possible to know what is going to happen to the climate of the planet many decades in advance, but (following David Hume's discussion "On Miracles") to believe such an extraordinary claim I would like to have extraordinary evidence. At present all we have is speculation with little convincing evidence, and models with a rather poor track record of success at making predictions. Whether one looks at Hansen's projections in 1988 or the most recent IPCC projections - they can be rejected at the 95% level (see Lucia's Blackboard and her interesting discussion with Gavin Schmidt) - I am not given much reason to believe that the incredibly difficult task of working out the future of the world's climate has been achieved.
"At present all we have is speculation with little convincing evidence..."
We know from controlled laboratory observations that the forcing of greenhouse gases is real and can be quantified. It is corroborated by real world observation. No speculation involved.
It doesn't take a complex model to understand that if one increases the forcing on a complex system like climate, the system will change. How much of that change will be in increasing surface temperatures or in disruption of weather patterns is what models attempt to simulate.
Regardless, change is going to come.
Tim - this crock also made it to Jennifer Morohasy's blog
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003267.html
BTW she has yet to produce the graph showing warming stopped in 1998 - I guess she finds it easier to post crap like this.
By Ender (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink
RE: #35
"We know from controlled laboratory observations that the forcing of greenhouse gases is real and can be quantified."
Can you provide a link to site that describes the laboratory experiments that quantifies "the forcings of greenhouse gases...".
By Harold Pierce Jr (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink
Can anyone actually give reasons why believing there is a cooling trend means that you "don't understand stats". No one is saying why. People are just talking down to people with a different opinion. Both "sides" routinely do it. They shouldn't.
I want to know why people think their opponents don't understand stats. My only comment here would be to use an appropriate (cointegration) technique, not OLS.
Again, if someone knows why CI techniques aren't appropriate, they can tell me why instead of calling the son of a thousand fathers, etc.
By Mark Hill (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink
> Can anyone actually give reasons why believing there is a cooling trend means that you "don't understand stats".
Because it's a belief, not a result of an actual calculation.
> People are just talking down to people with a different opinion. Both "sides" routinely do it.
Ah, to bring Balance to the Force! But just a while ago you were criticizing just one "side".
Where are the calculations supporting the "side" you forgot to criticize? Let's see them shall we?
"Because it's a belief, not a result of an actual calculation."
How do you know that? That is what I'm interested in.
Mark Hill:
Because there are no actual calculations behind the so-called "global cooling" trend? Can it get any simpler than that?
Hill, your quest for "balance" is looking more and more "balanced" each passing minute...
Can any of the inactivists answer the following questions?
When did global warming "stop"? 1934? 1998? 2002? 2007?
Why is it that the particular year you choose, unlike all the other years, is the true year at which global warming "stopped"?
How do you decide whether or not to include GISS and/or HadCRUT data, when deciding whether global warming "stopped" at such and such a time?
Whether one looks at Hansen's projections in 1988 or the most recent IPCC projections - they can be rejected at the 95% level (see Lucia's Blackboard and her interesting discussion with Gavin Schmidt)
Lucia's shown herself to be incompetent, starting with the basic inability to understand that the projections she claims have been "rejected at the 95% level" make no attempt to predict short-term weather variability.
It's like predicting the batting average in the major leagues will be 0.275 over the course of the season, only to have that prediction "rejected at the 95% level" due to natural variability causing batters to hit 0.301 for one week in July...
"Because there are no actual calculations behind the so-called "global cooling" trend? Can it get any simpler than that?"
bi - you are saying you are a mind reader and anyone who questions your assertions has an agenda. I don't. I accept the AGW hypothesis. What is important to public policy is the degree of forcing that CO2 has. Do you really know that no one has done any calculations that support cooling? If so, how do you know that?
If you can say that cooling is falsified with some stats, fine. This is the kind of thing I'm looking for. The commentator @ 43 hints at this kind of thing.
Reading your opponent's mind isn't very convincing.
> bi - you are saying you are a mind reader and anyone who questions your assertions has an agenda. I don't.
I never suggested above that you have an agenda. I guess, as the ancients said, excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta... eh?
Anyway, now that you bring it up, it's abundantly clear even without mind reading that you do have an agenda -- your home page URL shows it clearly.
Why do you keep lying, Hill?
Mark, you will find that anyone who does not give unquestioned support to every aspect of AGW becomes a target for abuse on this board. There is nothing worse than a back-slider who starts questioning the basic elements of the Faith.
The plain fact is that there has been no warming trend for a decade or so. To deny that is simply silly. However if sceptics use phrases like "global warming stopped" then they are overstating their case and should be criticised. We will not know whether or not that is the case for many years. It is certainly possible that soon temperatures could be rising again steadily and that in 2018 you will be able to put a long-term smoothing on a graph of temperature trends and show that the current lack of warming trend was not at all significant or important.
The personal attacks on people who point out that there has been no recent warming trend does nothing to help the AGW case. If you read Lucia's site you will see that dhogaza's typically crude criticism of her is very wide of the mark.
> The plain fact is that there has been no warming trend for a decade or so. To deny that is simply silly.
As usual, no calculations.
"you will find that anyone who does not give unquestioned support to every aspect of AGW becomes a target for abuse on this board."
It would be helpful if you could show us your detailed calculations of your claim of, "there has been no warming trend for a decade or so", using an actual linear trend.
Showing is more helpful in getting your point across than Telling.
I'm an interested spectator with no strong view yet given the complexity of the evidence, although I tend to lean with the weight of mainstream science as I generally trust scientists.
What is somewhat more clear fom this forum is that the "believers" here seem to resort to abusing the "skeptics" rather than providing strong answers.
And the latter are admirably patient in their replies. Makes me wonder whether belief isn't more about faith (and persecution of heretics) than reason?
By jonno (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink
What is somewhat more clear fom this forum is that the "believers" here seem to resort to abusing the "skeptics" rather than providing strong answers. And the latter are admirably patient in their replies
Good grief, another one.
Climate scientists are *daily* accused of making up their data, of committing scientific fraud, of suppressing "honest" science that would prove them wrong if they'd only allow the work to be published, try to get folks like Oreske fired, write to universities and journals to try to get scientists censured or fired, etc etc etc.
They come here and elsewhere and outright LIE about facts, physics, what scientists claim, etc etc etc.
And you have the balls to sit and accuse US of being "abusive"?
dhogaza:
It's the same "I have no opinion, but my opinion is that the inactivists smell better, and anyway I have no opinion" trope replayed for the zillionth time.
Mark, go read tamino.wordpress.com. Your question is dealt with in detail in many posts there
By Eli Rabett (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink
You can put up more bullshit if you like but I'm still waiting to be told where I said what's claimed in your statement:
I can't see where I said this so if I'm right then you are nothing more than a pathetic liar.
you will find that anyone who does not give unquestioned support to every aspect of AGW becomes a target for abuse on this board
So lying is OK but if you tell them they are lying then you are abusing them. Amazing.
Mark, I think the issue might be the use of the word trend. A trend is not simply the joining of two points - what certain people are enjoying doing with 1998 and 2008. Also, for relevant trends to appear they have to include enough data to reduce the noise in a system - for climate that's usually at least 15 years and preferably 30. Once you do a proper trend, you see that it's still upward.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/
"As for the rate temporarily seeming negative, it's not just possible for noise to make that happen, it's inevitable." - Tamino
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=554#comment-84353
By pough (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink
The fact is, there is no global warming. You liberals and leftist one-worlders want there to be, but there isn't. You have no facts, or logic, only bias and anti-USA-ism. We, who deal in realities, have the proof we need and do not believe your unscientific lies.
By Gary Ruppert (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink
Gary rupper at #55 wil be a deliberate troll then. THey really need to smarten up, we've seen their type before.
By guthrie (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink
It is very interesting, and also frustrating, that the same arguments always arise. Those who have been following this subject for years get a bit short tempered when they are asked to explain, yet again, things that have been addressed many times in the past. That is why there can be the occasional outbursts of name-calling.
So, when website links are provided, please attempt to read them instead of reacting to the tones of voice. Respond to the subject of the links if you don't understand what is being described, but do your homework first - this is a very important global discussion that has impacts on all of us, whatever your point of view.
By dikkon (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink
pough,
That would depend on whether this Gary Ruppert is Real Gary Ruppert or Fake Gary Ruppert.
AS an unscientific journalist I am in no position to say what's right and what's wrong but two things in Tim's article intrigue me. The first is his opening sentence remark that even the Australian wouldnt buy Evans's claim that the earth had been cooling between 1940 and 1975. Then I scroll down to the NASA index, where tim gets all cute about it including the sea, and to these unscientific eyes the one interesting thing it shows is a cooling pattern of some sort between 1940 and 1975. Yes? or No?
By IAN (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink
Jonno at #49 seems to be rather confused. He has obviously not sampled the threads on Deltoid very well, or he'd see that his 'skeptics' give as much, and often more, than they receive.
If he'd actually perused the blogosphere more generally (the Bolt/Marohasy axis springs to mind), he'd find that his 'sceptics' are a virulent bunch that froth with vitriol, indignation and umbrage much more colourfully than the rather staid Deltoid crowd is capable of.
Most grievously Jonno doesn't seem to be able to discern the difference between a real sceptic, who queries the evidence and accepts the best that analysis can provide, and a Denialist who ignores the evidence, or distorts it, or selectively cherry-picks from it, to maintain an ideological position.
I consider myself a true scientific sceptic who accepts the current evidence for AGW. There are many such sceptics here, and there are several genuine sceptics on Deltoid who hold the opposite conclusion as is their right and as is healthy for scientfic development. If the evidence ever indicates that AGW is not in fact happening, I will be one of the first to acknowledge it.
The bulk of the non-AGW camp here though are denialists pure and simple. They wouldn't recogise evidence if it slapped them in their faces with a wet fish, and I will continue to refer to them as Denialists in spite of Jonno's apparent distress and obvious befuddlement.
1.If someone (sceptics/denialists) is/are claiming there is two trends, one before and one after 1998, shouldn't a test for a structural break be done?
2. Shouldn't have Tamino tested for the nestedness of post 1998 model within the full dataset to show that there was no warming?
Ian, the silly part of Evan's claim was that the cooling between 1940 and 1975 had only been discovered after 1999.
IAN asks: "...to these unscientific eyes the one interesting thing it shows is a cooling pattern of some sort between 1940 and 1975. Yes? or No?"
Ian, there was a difference in ocean temperature measurement techniques that apparently caused most of what you see on that graph. It was only reported in May 2008, and so no corrections have been applied to the data in Tim's graph.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/edsumm/e080529-13.html
"An unseen measurement bias has been identified in global records of sea surface temperature. The discrepancy will need correction, but will not affect conclusions about an overall warming trend."
By SJ (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink
Mark Hill writes:
Can anyone actually give reasons why believing there is a cooling trend means that you "don't understand stats"
Because there isn't a cooling trend.
The plain fact is that there has been no warming trend for a decade or so. To deny that is simply silly.
I don't think you're being silly, Bernard. I think you're being dishonest. I and others have explained to you in detail why there damn well HAS been a warming trend, and you simply refuse to accept the mathematical analysis which proves it. Your position is like insisting that 2 + 2 = 7 even after it has been shown to you, using rocks, that 2 + 2 = 4.
Whether there is a warming trend is not a matter of opinion. The trend line is the regression line of the variable in question plotted against time. When you do that for mean global annual temperature anomalies, you do not get a significant trend unless you use at least 13 years of data, and when you do that, the trend is always up, not down.
You're just flat-out, dumbass, pig ignorant wrong. It's very, very hard to believe that you don't know better. I find it more likely that you simply want to mislead people.
I just stumbled upon and read where Fox's Brit Hume has written:
Work of Fiction?
A former global warming alarmist and creator of the model that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol says that while global warming is real, there is no evidence that the main cause is carbon emissions. David Evans says that C02 emissions play -- at most -- a minor role.
Evans writes in The Australian newspaper that if global warming was caused by C02, scientists would have found hot spots about six miles up in the earth's atmosphere over the Tropics. Evans describes those hot spots as the signature of the greenhouse effect. He says scientists have been trying to locate them for years using thermometers attached to weather balloons.
But he says years of research "show no hot spot -- whatsoever" adding that "an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming."
While Hume's decision to use the pejorative phrase "global warming alarmist" shows his own bias and disquailifys him as a good honest fair and balanced journalist I'm still wondering what qualifies this fellow David Evans as being categorized as a ""former" global warming alarmist". Doing a quick search around the net I can't find anything that would indicate to a non-scientist regular joe like me that this guy had any opinion that wasn't one that fit into the denial camps agenda. Is there something I missed?
By Jerrald Hayes (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink
i ask once again, wouuld the opposition here be kind of enough to identify themselves as believeing the warming has stopped, or believing that the warming is continuing but it's because of the sun or whatever? some of you are being that nice, but the rest of you not so much.
or for those of you who believe both, perhaps you could identify each post as to which theory it's behind at that date.
hey, maybe the "it's not warming" guys could go argue with the "it's warming but it's the sun" guys and the winner could come back here.
The link supplied to me about a Professor Ball didn't prove anything. It is just more assertions and sloppy maths.
Has any "warmer" proven that there is only one trend or has any "cooler" proven that there is a structural break in the dataset in 1998? Surely somebody has done a Chow test or Cox's test for nested regressions or something similar?
...and...if you know a better statistical technique to test either hypothesis, please tell me about it in a calm, cordial manner.
Well, Mr. Hill, rather than ask other people to do your work for you, perhaps you should do some work yourself.
I really would prefer that climatologists used more rigorous statistics, and not rely on me to misinterpret the science.
I think Tim is going too far in calling Evans a "denialist".
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf
"Abstract
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide
warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.
Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but
without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred
through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and
increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a
combination of natural and anthropogenic influences."
my only complaint about the Ball and Reber links provided by Barton, is that no math is shown. I would like to see the process.
Sam-Hec posts:
You mean you want me to instruct you in how to perform a linear regression? I think it would be off-topic for this blog.
Mark Hill posts:
Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
Here's some math for you, Mr. Hill. Let's see if you can follow it.
YearAnomSlopep
19880.1800.0200.000*
19960.1370.0160.092
20010.409-0.0030.618
20060.422-0.0200.000**
The leftmost column is the year. The second column is the Hadley Centre global temperature anomaly for that year. The third column is the coefficient of a regression of anomaly on year from the year at the left to 2007. The fourth column is the p-value for the regression.
You will note that except for the trivially significant 2006-2007 regression, all the regressions which are statistically significant show warming, not cooling.
Thus, there hasn't been a cooling trend. There has been a warming trend. Capiche?
I really would prefer that climatologists used more rigorous statistics
Huh? Either you're 1) ignorant of climate science 2) ignorant of statistics 3) both 4) dishonest.
, and not rely on me to misinterpret the science.
They don't rely on you one bit.
dhogaza, you are simply wrong when you state that Lucia makes no attempt to predict short-term weather variability. By contrast, she has devoted multiple posts and used a variety of methods (some suggested by readers, many of whom are AGW proponents) to account for this variability. None change her finding that the IPCC projections are falsified at a 99% level. You can quibble with her methods and calculations (Gavin certainly did in an exchange from which he emerged a poor second), but it is simply dishonest to say she ignored the issue.
By RH (not verified) on 22 Jul 2008 #permalink
In reference to #59 and others referring to the NASA graph:
I'm not a scientist, but that chart shows temperature anomalies - the difference between the given year's mean temperature and the selected baseline.
So for example if you selected the mean global temperature for 1970 to 1980, and all dates before 1970 are negative, and all dates after 1980 are positive, that shows warming.
Thus in the period from 1940 to 1980 where the values fluctuate between positive and negative could show either that this is the baseline period used and thus there should not be any major anomalies either way, or that at worst a plateau had occurred where warming had halted during that period. But it does NOT show cooling.
Is my understanding correct?
By Karmakaze (not verified) on 22 Jul 2008 #permalink
Karmakaze:
Maybe I am ignorant of climate science, which happens to be why I am asking the questions. Someone previously called this lazy. They have bizarre views on pedagogy.
However I am not totally ignorant of statistical inference and modelling. Levenson's reply proves a point but it is obviously not rigorous enough to actually pass judgement. 20 observations, ordinary least squares - I remain unconvinced.
Structural breaks, cointegration and nesting matter. Has climate science produced much empirical work that addresses these issues?
Mark, let us assume that you are not concerned trolling here.
Then the blog you want would be
http://tamino.wordpress.com/
I you are concerned trolling then FOAD.
Oh wait, I just saw #61
"Shouldn't have Tamino tested for the nestedness of post 1998 model within the full dataset to show that there was no warming?"
Concerned troll it is.
By elspi (not verified) on 22 Jul 2008 #permalink
Mark Hill, ask Tamino your question directly, I'm sure he'll give you an answer. He's a professional statistician who specializes in time-series analysis. I'm sure your response will be along the lines of "well, I'm not satisified, I know three or four statistical buzzwords therefore am more than qualified enough to insist I know what statisticians should be doing, even when they disagree".
Because there's something that reeks of pure denialism in your posts here.
dhogaza, you are simply wrong when you state that Lucia makes no attempt to predict short-term weather variability.
But that's not what I said. I said the IPCC projections that she's "disproving" make no attempt to predict short-term weather variability, and can't be used in the way she attempts to use them. Given our current state of knowledge, the timing of ENSO events (for instance) are not predictable. Lucia's whole argument is based on 1) a belief that somehow we should be able to predict real-world weather variability and 2) IPCC projections can be measured against real-world weather variability.
Both are false premises, and no matter how "authoritative" her argumentation that follows may seem, it is fatally flawed by her "misunderstanding" (I happen to believe that she's too smart to be doing this out of ignorance).
Now, when El Niño kicks in and the other shoe drops, will you and Lucia agree that IPCC projections have been proven to be TOO LOW to a 95% probability and that the world should therefore react much more strongly than would be suggested by IPCC projections?
Or will you suddenly re-discover the natural variability argument that played such a role in denialist thought until the last year or two, and which now has been dropped in favor of the current pretense that what we've seen the last few years is not simply noise in the system?
Hang on there buster.
I ask for peer reviewed articles that address the statistical concerns I talk about and someone gives me a link to a blog that talks about climate science in general - to which I've said doesn't actually address the concerns I have and I get called a troll?
Please re read what I wrote. I didn't ask for a blog and quite clearly Tamino is good but it wasn't what I asked for. Structural breaks, nestedness and cointegration are what climate scientists could use to shut up alarmists or denialists permanently.
"I'm sure your response will be along the lines of "well, I'm not satisified, I know three or four statistical buzzwords therefore am more than qualified enough to insist I know what statisticians should be doing, even when they disagree"."
Why do you insist on being so rude?
Maybe I should ask a statistician or a climatologist directly. Hopefully asking questions won't invite the invective.
Oh, and one simple error Lucia has made is in her calculation of error bars used to support her "falsified with 95% certainty" claim. For she treated GISS, HADCRU, UAH and RSS as being independent reconstructions of global temperature, while of course GISS and HADCRU share ground station data and UAH and RSS share raw satellite data, therefore can not be considered independent. This had the effect of artificially narrowing her error bars (not to concede that the projections can be used as she's using them, in fact, the IPCC document states explicitly that the projections are not forecasts and can't be used in this sense).
Gavin certainly did in an exchange from which he emerged a poor second
I haven't read all of Gavin's posts in regard to the issue but it's pretty clear that he simply gave up trying to explain, eventually. It's clear that Lucia's efforts (picked up by Pielke, Jr, Watts, McIntyre, etc) are .. shall we say ... politely ... "agenda driven". Lucia's whole tone has been "I know what these projections mean even if the scientists involved tell me I'm wrong". Not encouraging.
Of course, she's also stated that her conclusion could be disproven by a relatively short period of warming (calling El Niño), which in itself should clue you in that her "95% certainty" figure is bogus. A statistical conclusion regarding long-term trends that is so conclusive is not so easily overturned...
RH posts:
None change her finding that the IPCC projections are falsified at a 99% level
Try here:
Tamino's Open Mind blog
Levenson's reply proves a point but it is obviously not rigorous enough to actually pass judgement. 20 observations, ordinary least squares - I remain unconvinced.
I suspect you would remain unconvinced no matter what evidence to the contrary you were shown. The argument from incredulity is an especially weak one.
Why don't you go read through the past 20 years of the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, Atmospheric Science, Icarus, and Tellus, and find out for yourself?
BPL,
That is really not a very persuasive analysis to show a warming trend. A better analyis would adjust for serial correlation, use monthly as opposed to annual data and update for 6 months of 2008 data.
Even if we accept your method, you still cannot use the results to justfy a warming trend over the past 10 years. Not with a coeffcient of 0.005 and a p value 0f 0.643! (You obviously can't say there is a cooling trend either.) Look, the 30 year data, as calculated by many independent agencies, shows a strongly significant warming trend whether we use GISS, HADCRUT, UAH, RSS. However, you only impact your own credibility if you use this type of simplistic OLS analysis to claim that there has been a warming trend over the past 10 years.
Thanks for your reference to Tamino. To save me some time, can you point me his postings that directly address Lucia's work on verifying / falsifying IPCC projections? I am curious to see other views on methodologies for what is not a simple statistical exercise.
Absolutely love it...
I dont think anybody really has an idea of what is going to happen, but sitting here, freezing with well below average temperatures and a summer that was below average, it amazes me where this global warming has gone to...
There is a hell of a lot more to this science than just saying the trend shows temperature increases, there is parts of this science that has been dismissed for lack of ability to model, and there is this stupidity of coming to a conclusion before the facts have even come close to be proven...
Come on wake up peoples, you cant jump to conclusions yet, there needs to be a hell of a lot more research yet, for starters, this year it has massive decreases in temperature, 0.6c overall, is a dramatic drop, why?
Ice shelves increasing, why?
Rain diminished for a few years, when temperetures where up, why?
Solar flaring, sunspot, lack of activity, why?
Dont you think, we need to know about this phenomena before we start saying the sky is falling.
Why are all the wealthy and governments jumping on the bandwagon here, there might be money behind it to start with. If this is such a big issue, then why tax, why not reduce the release of CO2 and reduce concrete production to start with...
Start growing trees to build houses and stop digging holes in the ground, stop using concrete(why, well it is one of the largest producers of C13-C12, yes manmade CO2)...
This debate needs to be looked at, more with an investigative mind than a sceptic or supporters mind, empty your head of theories and ideas and start looking at the evidence, and not just recent years, go back centuries, it is there...
Wraithe....
By Wraithe (not verified) on 23 Jul 2008 #permalink
Wraithe,
"Why are all the wealthy and governments jumping on the bandwagon here, there might be money behind it to start with."
It might be because climate disruption threatens economic and political stability.
You might want to take your own advice about jumping to conclusions.
"However, the radiosonde measurements have been found to be wrong in the past, and it looks like they may well be wrong again."
So that's the your counter argument in a nutshell? Deny the evidence?
I've heard that NASA GISS refuses to use satellite data. So how many ocean-going temperature stations do they have? I can't find that list anywhere. Or do they extrapolate from surface stations? If so, the "Ocean" part of that chart is not credible.
By Consanescerion (not verified) on 23 Jul 2008 #permalink
Starting in 1982, GISTEMP uses satellite sea surface temperatures (calibrated with "quality control" buoys). Before that, it uses ship and buoy measurements. HadCRUT uses ships and buoys exclusively.
With regards to the tropical "hot spot," the area of interest (9 to 12 km) is hard to disentangle from the cooling stratosphere, since no satellite "channel" focuses on that altitude so specifically. The uncertainty is very large. The radiosondes have well known (but hard to correct) cooling biases.
Thanks, cce
so basically, the argument from lack of hot spot is that, although the troposphere is warming on the average, our inability to prove a tropical hot spot proves it is not actually warming? i'll have to think about that a long time.
BPL - think what you like - even if I can tell you first hand that your suspicions are deluded.
But thanks for the Journal names etc.
RH writes:
That is really not a very persuasive analysis to show a warming trend. A better analyis would adjust for serial correlation,
I was using the definition of "trend." You really don't have to do augmented Dickey-Fuller trends or find out what rho is if you're just finding the trend line.
use monthly as opposed to annual data and update for 6 months of 2008 data.
Why in the world would I do that? We're talking about the mean global annual temperature anomaly. The correct unit is years, not months, because months have a seasonal cycle and years don't (that's why it would be particularly stupid to use "6 months of 2008 data"). You may get lower p by using monthly data instead of annual, but that's like me saying the temperature increased greatly from 6:30 to 9:30 AM, dividing it into 181 points so the regression is significant, and using the results to prove that the oceans will boil by the end of the week.
Structural breaks, nestedness and cointegration are what climate scientists could use to shut up alarmists or denialists permanently.
Shut up denialists permanently. That's a funny one.
Sorry, you do need to account for serial correlation if you are calculating a trend line and statistical confidence. It is, in fact, a material part of the analysis. See for example the paper commissioned by the Garnaut review.
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/Globaltemperatu…
As regards monthly data, your point on seasonal cycles and your example is just not valid. The anomaly is seasonally adjusted so there is no reason to exclude data just because we don't have a full year. More data is better. We don't calculate a trend by looking at the starting and ending points - we need to consider intermediate observations.
About David Evans' comment that "I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM)..."
Incredibly, the executive director of the Australian Retailers Association has apparently taken Evans' whimsical description of himself literally and now seems to believe he really is a rocket scientist:
"Rocket scientist and climate change expert David Evans..."
See: http://www.retail.org.au/index.php - media release titled "Retailers caution against Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme ARA says: Show us the science Wong"
By Gaz (not verified) on 24 Jul 2008 #permalink
To BPL at #72,
"You mean you want me to instruct you in how to perform a linear regression? I think it would be off-topic for this blog."
It maybe off topic, but I am curious to see and get a good feel on how these trend lines are really created. I know one can just plug numbers into excel and get a line; I want the feel of numbers hand crunched.
...and I can't seem to run OpenOffice for some dumb reason anyway. ;)
,,so i remain unfulfilled.
Sam-Hec,
Please do not follow the approach in #72 if you want to estimate climate trends. That approach is simple and intuitive but wrong. Unfortunately you will need to spend some time reading up on AR(1) processes and what equations are needed to provide an OLS fit. This will probably require you to buy a good statistics book. It is also trickier to use excel to calculate these trends - you are better off using a dedicated statistics package like R. (Don't even think about trying to do this by hand!)
So how does Dr. Hansen "adjust" surface data to account for thermometers located next to heat exchangers, airport runways, parking lots, or on rooftops? I love to hear the answer, considering it was meteorologist Anthony Watts who took it upon himself to survey these sites, rather than Dr. Hansen.
By Engineer (not verified) on 25 Jul 2008 #permalink
Hansen does compensate for urban heat islands, but not for microsite effects.
Watts doesn t compensate for them either. he is just collecting them.
the only real calculation on the effect was done by one John V. on CA. his result was devestating to Watts: "best stations" and "worst stations" give pretty much the same result that the normal trend does.
Watts hasn t repeated the calculation with more data. looks like he fears the outcome...
By sod (not verified) on 25 Jul 2008 #permalink
Crikey! I'm not a scientist and have only the most casual acquaintance with statistics. Unlike most posters here, I'm just a working bloke who owns a small manufacturing business, employs people and is a net tax payer. I came to this board hoping it would help me to better understand the alarming issue of climate change & its causes, and what I should believe and do about it. My conclusion is that what I should do is not visit this board again. I can't really judge the quality of the science here, but the quality of discourse is infantile. Good luck convincing the rest of us to take you seriously.
By Paulo (not verified) on 25 Jul 2008 #permalink
Paulo, if you want something written by working professional climate scientists, read realclimate.org.
Paulo, you'll excuse me if I take your claim and faux outrage with a grain of salt. You strike me as a concern troll.
RH, if you want to say my analysis is wrong because I didn't do the procedures you suggest, why don't you do them yourself and prove that I'm wrong? I gave you all the data you need, 20 points to work with, and you can certainly get more from Hadley if you like. I say the temperature trend is up. Prove me wrong. Don't just gas about how I somehow used the wrong method. PROVE ME WRONG. DO THE MATH. SHOW YOUR WORK.
This discussion is getting a little tiresome.
- You state that there is no need to account for serial correlation when fitting a trend line to climate data. I provided evidence that this is a standard and critical part of the analysis. No acknowledgment from you that you are wrong.
- You state that it would be stupid to use the first six months of 2008, giving an analogy of measuring ocean temperature from 6-9am. I point out that your argument is invalid because you ignored/forgot/never knew that anomaly data is seasonally adjusted. No acknowledgment from you that you are wrong.
I despair of having an intellectually honest debate. The serial correlation adjustment is not MY method. It is standard and to ignore this is a mistake. Check IPCC AR4, table 3.2 as another example. I hope you will not continue to claim that your basic OLS is correct.
When I get a spare moment I will download the monthly data for the last 120 months and run the analysis. However, it would surprise me if we were able to detect any sort of trend, whether warming or cooling, with any reasonable degree of statistical significance.
If you don't mind me saying RH, you seem to spend an awful amount of time telling other people what they should be doing. Perhaps a spare moment could be gained there. Better to light a candle etc.
By anthony (not verified) on 26 Jul 2008 #permalink
RH:
you ignored/forgot/never knew that anomaly data is seasonally adjusted
How do you know they seasonally adjust it? What need is there for it to be seasonally adjusted and what if someone wants to know what the seasonal variation is?
RH,
Here is what you're seeking.
You are right that 120 months is too short a period to detect a significant trend.
You are wrong about GCM simulations. They aren't statistical extrapolations. Auto-correlation isn't a useful method for comparing unique realizations from physical models.
LB,
Thanks for the link - it is directly on point and the discussion clearly compensates for serial correlation. However, I am confused by your last paragraph and why you say I am wrong about auto-correlation not being a useful method for comparing unique realizations from physical models. For one thing, we are not discussing GCMs in the context of auto-correlation. We are discussing the trend from real world data. For a second, why would you feel you should ignore auto-correlation in evaluating model output? If you read the exchange between Lucia and Gavin, you will note that both use AR(1) processes - the primary point of disagreement is whether the standard deviation should be calculated from runs of the models or from real world data.
Fair point. But in looking around, I note that there is no need for me to perform the analysis. Lucia had already done so with the latest data and no doubt more accurately that I would. See http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ninety-month-trends-ipcc-ar4-2ccen…
Please refer to the table with the uncertainty bounds. I can't see how you can claim any warming or cooling trend.
You can find details about GISS anomalies here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
The anomaly is calculated versus the 1951-1980 mean.
RH, I pointed out that the trend wasn't statistically significant unless you used at least 13 years of data. Where the relationship is significant, the trend is up.
Do the math and provide your own estimate. Until then, you have nothing of interest to say.
"Watts doesn t compensate for them either. he is just collecting them. the only real calculation on the effect was done by one John V. on CA. his result was devestating to Watts: "best stations" and "worst stations" give pretty much the same result that the normal trend does."
I never claimed Watts compensated for them, I merely pointed out his audit highlighted the fact that two thirds of the ground monitoring stations violate the specifications set forth to ensure accurate data. Regarding "John V. on CA", there are flaws in his work, as well: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2061. Regardless, the 0.2 C difference between the "best stations" and "worst stations" still equals 33% of the NASA-claimed 0.6 C warming over the last 30 years.
You can find details about GISS anomalies here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
There is nothing there about them seasonally adjusting it. Perhaps you confused it with them showing how anomaly varies with season. Your claim that
looks like garbage to me.
As I recall, the best and worst stations did give different results, it just so happens that the GISTEMP method gives the same results as the best stations, which is the point. The Climate Auditors will say, 1) There weren't enough stations in the analysis (170 and they will say 2) The world is treated differently than the US (nighttime satellite photos, quality control, etc). Of course, all of this is pretty pointless:
http://cce.890m.com/giss-vs-all.jpg
This will be my last comment on this blog (I'm sure many, if not most, of you will say it's no loss) as I as am tired of your type of posting. My statistical time series background is in financial market data, not climate, so it is quite possible I could be in error. However, in this case, I really don't see it. The link I provided refers to the raw data at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
I am sure you clicked on this link. At the bottom of the table, it states:
..."Best estimate for absolute global mean for 1951-1980 is 14C = 57.2F, so add that to the temperature change if you want to use an absolute scale (this note applies to global annual means only, J-D and D-N !)..."
Now, why do you think they added that last paragraph in parenthesis if the monthly data is not seasonally adjusted?
Did you notice the exclamation point?
Again, I am no expert on climate data, but I assume that the adjustment is made by considering the difference between the absolute value for the month versus the the value for that same month in the base period. With maybe a few technical corrections. That's how we would do it with financial data. I would really be very surprised if the climate data was not seasonally adjusted - it would be a very strange way to show anomaly data.
If I am wrong, so be it and I apologize. But I doubt it. If nothing else, BPL would have very quick to jump in - the man is no shrinking violet!
Regardless, the 0.2 C difference between the "best stations" and "worst stations" still equals 33% of the NASA-claimed 0.6 C warming over the last 30 years.
here are the graphs:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2061.#comment-137949
please explain your claim about the differences!
"please explain your claim about the differences!"
Am I misreading Steve McIntyre's graph on the very top of the page?
This will be my last comment on this blog .. as I as am tired of your type of posting.
as if I'm not tired of your type of posting.
The link I provided refers to the raw data at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
I am sure you clicked on this link.
I have clicked on that link previously but it's just one of the many links on the page you linked to in your previous comment.
At the bottom of the table, it states:
Pity you didn't mention that previously. It might have saved you some tiring out.
You might be right but I was expecting to see some statement on the page you first linked to that contained some mention of "seasonal adjustment" rather than a statement on another page from which I might be able to deduce that seasonal adjustment is done.
If nothing else, BPL would have very quick to jump in
assuming the point has any great significance. BPL dealt with what appears to be a major shortcoming on your part. I wouldn't be surprised if he is not interested in something far less significant or which is just a form of the major shortcoming.
> Regardless, the 0.2 C difference between the "best stations" and "worst stations" still equals 33% of the NASA-claimed 0.6 C warming over the last 30 years.
The differences don't form an upward trend in time. Sorry to burst your bubble, Mr. Galileo.
Engineer,
JohnV's analysis as linked in your post at 116, show near perfect match of trend between GISS and the CRN1,2 stations - the "best" stations according to Watts.
The analysis shows ~0.2C lower trend for GISS than for CRN5 stations - the "worst" stations according to Watts. I assume this is where yo get your "0.2" from.
BUT! That 02 difference is since 1880, a period of 125 years. You stated that this "still equals 33% of the NASA-claimed 0.6 C warming over the last 30 years." First, where do you get GISS claiming 0.6C over 30 years? Second, you are comparing different time periods. The portion of the 0.2 C in 125 years difference attributable over the last 30 years is only 0.5C.
And finally this analysis indicates that GISS_corrected temperature data gives results indistinguishable from that obtained using only the "best" surface stations - which is the damn point! It also shows that the adjustments act to remove some of the warming from the "worst" stations - ie, that the GISS adjustments REDUCE the raw trend. Your insinuation that the difference, which shows a REDUCTION in trend by GISS, somehow is possibly responsible for 1/3 of the warming trend, is just silly.
By Lee (not verified) on 29 Jul 2008 #permalink
"over the last 30 years is only 0.5C." - should be 0.05C, of course.
I know I said that I was done with this blog, but your response can't go unanswered. Of course you are wrong on seasonal adjustments. Is this amateur hour? This is really basic stuff. I was just trying (and failing) to be humorous and less confrontational in my post. The fact that you can't see clearly you are wrong on such a simple point makes it clear to me that energy spent debating you is wasted (though it must have been just a little bit embarrassing for you to climb down from "your claim ... looks like garbage" to "perhaps you are right"). Perhaps you should have spent five minutes reading the page I linked to and have clicked on the obvious link to the underlying data (which was, after all, what we were discussing) before using words like "garbage".
As regards BPL, he believes that until I run the numbers myself I have have nothing of interest to say. And he may well be right. But really, if he has intellectual integrity, he wouldn't wait for someone else before correcting obvious flaws in his method. This is again really basic stuff - autocorrelation changes the trend and widens uncertainty bounds. BPL should know this - I noticed that he commented on a long and informative thread on Real Climate that discussed this issue in great detail (on July 4).
You may now return to the regularly scheduled echo chamber.
"The differences don't form an upward trend in time. Sorry to burst your bubble, Mr. Galileo."
But it does point to a 33% error in the instrumentation, either positive or negative bias, depending upon your point of view. What kind of "science" would incorporate data that suspect?
Galileo stood alone against ignorant zealots, as well.
> But it does point to a 33% error in the instrumentation
Backpedalling watch! Sorry, but the claim from Watts, McIntyre, Goetz, etc. -- again -- is that "well-situated" stations show cooling, while "not-so-well-situated" stations show warming. If this is true, then by right the difference between the temperature measurements of the "well-situated" stations and the "not-so-well-situated" stations should show an upward trend.
They don't show an upward trend. Therefore Watts et al. are talking nonsense.
If Watts et al. can formulate a better theory -- a theory that actually agrees with observations -- of what's really "wrong" with the temperature measurements and how the "mistake" results in a warming "bias", they can be my guest. If you can do that, you're also invited. If not, too bad.
> an upward trend.
(An upward trend in time, to be precise. The difference between the temperatures should become bigger and bigger as time goes by.)
I know I said that I was done with this blog, but your response can't go unanswered.
That's OK. I'm used to you adding more to your story.
Perhaps you should have spent five minutes reading the page I linked to
How do you know I didn't?
and have clicked on the obvious link to the underlying data (which was, after all, what we were discussing)
It doesn't say anything obvious about seasonal adjustment.
before using words like "garbage".
OK it only looked like garbage because it isn't obvious that they seasonally adjust it.
autocorrelation changes the trend and widens uncertainty bounds. BPL should know this
I thought that was also BPL's point.
I think it was Chris O. I've taken RH's point as 'as we're unable to detect as significant trend over a statistically insignificant period there is no trend. I would show you this one day but since you're rude and clearly wrong, good day to you sir'.
"JohnV's analysis as linked in your post at 116, show near perfect match of trend between GISS and the CRN1,2 stations - the "best" stations according to Watts."
Well obviously the GISS is going to resemble the CRN1,2 stations, since GISS is the average of all stations. And regarding the 0.6 C degree change, some global warming sites say it's per the last century, while NASA Goddard claims it over the last three decades. Per Steve McIntyre's USHCN TOBS Comparison, the data streams, CRN1 versus CRN5, diverge 0.0 to 1.0 degrees C from one another in various places, ending up 0.2 apart, going in opposite directions: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2061.
"Backpedalling watch! Sorry, but the claim from Watts, McIntyre, Goetz, etc. -- again -- is that "well-situated" stations show cooling, while "not-so-well-situated" stations show warming. If this is true, then by right the difference between the temperature measurements of the "well-situated" stations and the "not-so-well-situated" stations should show an upward trend."
See above response concerning Steve McIntyre's USHCN TOBS Comparison. The CRN1 stations and CRN5 stations run in opposite directions at various points along the graph.
Bottom line, GISS is crap because the underlying data is corrupt. The RSS/MSU satellites indicate cooling in all levels of the atmosphere going back to 1998, something not reflected at all by GISS.
Hmmm, maybe you are not an engineer after all? Where is your evidence that the data is corrupt?
sorry, but basically everything that you said is false.
basically Watts claims that GISS does NOT resemble the 1,2 stations.
the difference between heating during thiscentury and over the last 30 years is easily explained by a look at teh graphs:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
depending on your starting point you will get different numbers as *shock* temperature is going up and down occasinally. (this doesn t influence the TREND a lot. but it will give a different difference between start and end date)
worst error: the "divergence" between the 1,2 and 5 stations is NOISE. it should be expected, and you would get a similar result when you compare subsets of stations of the same type.
you aren t an engineer, are you?
Engineer, I just eyeballe the graphs in McIntyre's blog entry. While the superimposed CRN5 and CRN1 temperature graphs starts from 1880, the "CRN5 minus CRN1" graphs start from 1900.
It can't be because the pre-1990 difference between "good" and "bad" stations is actually even larger than the claimed warming "bias"... can it?
s/pre-1990/pre-1900/
"Hmmm, maybe you are not an engineer after all? Where is your evidence that the data is corrupt?"
Simple. The majority of surface temperatures stations are not within specified USHCN requirements, as demonstrated by Anthony Watts. Yet, NASA Goddard is using data from these "out-of-spec" locations in the overall analysis. I've been an engineer on NASA flight projects for 17 years, and we'd NEVER be allowed to use suspect data in any way, shape, or form.
"sorry, but basically everything that you said is false."
No, only if you believe that GISS is "gospel". Curious about how data, even good data, is adjusted?
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/cedarville-sausage/
"the difference between heating during thiscentury and over the last 30 years is easily explained by a look at teh graphs:"
Why not look at the satellite data, instead? About the only thing propping up the calculated warming trend is the 1998 El-Nino event:
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
> Engineer, I just eyeballed the graphs in McIntyre's blog entry. While the superimposed CRN5 and CRN1 temperature graphs starts from 1880, the "CRN5 minus CRN1" graphs start from 1900.
> It can't be because the pre-1900 difference between "good" and "bad" stations is actually even larger than the claimed warming "bias"... can it?
Sound of crickets...
Why not use all satellite data products?
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/msu/
Oh my. More deviation even than surface records?
'Tis a pity.
Noise is not a trend.
"Oh my. More deviation even than surface records?"
Only if 0.2 maximum deviation at any point between the satellites is bigger than the 1.0 deviation at various points between CR1 and CR5 type surface thermometers. I might add your source is about 8 months out of date, and that GISS has temperatures at about 0.3 higher than the satellites. Per your own source: "Computer models of global climate predicted that the troposphere should warm faster than the surface; for the globe as a whole the tropospheric warming should be about 20% larger than surface warming (Hansen et al. 2002, J. Geophys. Res. 107, doi:10.1029/2001JD001143), and in the tropics the tropospheric warming should be about 50% larger (Hegerl & Wallace 2002, J. Clim. 15, 2412-2428)."
"Sound of crickets..."
What was your point, other than one graph starts in 1880, and the others 1900?
"I might add your source is about 8 months out of date, and that GISS has temperatures at about 0.3 higher than the satellites."
Noise is not a trend. Come back in about 5 years, and we'll see.
> What was your point, other than one graph starts in 1880, and the others 1900?
That is the point, Engineer. That is the point.
Engineer writes:
Per your own source: "Computer models of global climate predicted that the troposphere should warm faster than the surface; for the globe as a whole the tropospheric warming should be about 20% larger than surface warming (Hansen et al. 2002, J. Geophys. Res. 107, doi:10.1029/2001JD001143), and in the tropics the tropospheric warming should be about 50% larger (Hegerl & Wallace 2002, J. Clim. 15, 2412-2428)."
A quote immediately followed by this sentence:
It's important to emphasize that this is not a prediction which depends on global warming being due to man-made greenhouse gases. Enhanced tropospheric warming is common to all causes of global warming, be it due to greenhouse gases, solar variability, or whatever. Hence enhanced tropospheric warming cannot be used to determine the cause of global warming.
I think by such transparent use of selective quotation we can reasonably conclude that, whatever credibility Engineer may have had, he has lost it.
This is a pretty piss-poor defence...
Mainly cherry-picked data, equivalent to some of the 'denialist' writings.
Frankly arguments like this:
"Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data. ..."
are desperate at best and appeal only to people with an agenda. It might be better to drop entirely an illogical defense and move on to the next battleground, than make fools of yourselves by repeating arguments of this type. With the possible exception of Real Climate, the people writing to defend AGW generally seem to be doing a poor job. But in the end, the next few years of temperature data will make or break the theory no matter what's written in this blog or elsewhere, such is human nature...
By Will Nitschke (not verified) on 31 Jul 2008 #permalink
> Mainly cherry-picked data, equivalent to some of the 'denialist' writings.
The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... Om... Om... Om...
"I think by such transparent use of selective quotation we can reasonably conclude that, whatever credibility Engineer may have had, he has lost it."
Nope, not at all. Fact: computer models predict the troposphere will warm from 20% to 50% faster than the surface (Hansen et al. 2002, J. Geophys. Res. 107, doi:10.1029/2001JD001143), for anthropogenic global warming. The second quote you provided, an opinion of the blogger who wrote the article, only says that enhanced tropospheric warming could be attributed to natural causes as well, and thus cannot be used to determine causation of global warming. But the fact is we've seen no "enhanced tropospheric warming" (refer to the satellite data), so the second quote is irrelevant altogether.
I suggest you brush up on your basic reading skills, before you question the integrity of others.
By Engineer (not verified) on 01 Aug 2008 #permalink
"That is the point, Engineer. That is the point."
Does it in any way refute my initial point that the surface data is too unreliable to base a scientific theory on?
A thorough radio interview debunk of David Evans can be found here - he was on ABC radio 891 last week, and is utterly refuted by a climate scientist this week. Definitely worth a listen
By Joe Campbell (not verified) on 01 Aug 2008 #permalink
Fact: computer models predict the troposphere will warm from 20% to 50% faster than the surface
Fact: Basic thermodynamics predict the troposphere will warm from 20% to 50% faster than the surface.
Perhaps you want to throw out basic thermodynamics and undergraduate meteorology courses.
(Hansen et al. 2002, J. Geophys. Res. 107, doi:10.1029/2001JD001143), for anthropogenic global warming
and for any type of global warming, not just anthropogenic.
So the choice was one of the following things was wrong:
1. Basic thermodynamics
2. Any global warming at all
3. The radiosonde thermistor temperature measurements (from which satellite-derived temperatures are calibrated).
Guess which one kept giving problems.
By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 01 Aug 2008 #permalink
Fact: Basic thermodynamics predict the troposphere will warm from 20% to 50% faster than the surface. Perhaps you want to throw out basic thermodynamics and undergraduate meteorology courses."
Perhaps you might want to consider that basic thermodynamics does not take into account all the unknown or poorly understood variables in a complex, dynamic climate system. The fact is, the "physics" of climate are not fully understood, yet.
And only a true "Al Gore disciple" would question the validity of satellite data, versus the ground stations. One system is computerized, calibrated, and easily adjusted for such factors as orbital drift. The other has 60% of the monitoring stations out-of-spec, is dependent upon human factors (gathering of data, accuracy, etc.), and cannot be easily "adjusted" for nearby heat exchangers, improper siting (middle of an asphalt parking lot, on a rooftop, etc.), and in one case, near an airport tarmac with idling aircraft.
More sound of crickets from Engineer's side...
By bi -- IJI (not verified) on 02 Aug 2008 #permalink
I supposet it doesn't matter, but the RSS satellite analysis of the lower troposphere shows a greater warming trend than GISTEMP since 1979. But who cares about simple facts.
http://cce.890m.com/temp-compare.jpg
And if UAH can correct the sign of the diurnal correction and result in a 40% upward correction in warming, or if UAH and RSS can currently show about a 20% difference in warming, what does it tell you about the so-called "reliability" of the satellite measurements? Personally, it tells me that there are huge assumptions that go into those calculations.
And I believe the "20% more tropospheric warming than surface" applies to the entire troposphere, not the lower troposphere which is what we are talking about. None of these measurements are particularly reliable given that tropospheric warming is confounded by the cooling stratosphere (a signature of an enhanced greenhouse effect and ozone depletion) which is intertwined in some of the satellite "channels" measuring various altitudes.
By cce (not verified) on 02 Aug 2008 #permalink
And only a true "Al Gore disciple"...
You just gave yourself away there, dude.
By WotWot (not verified) on 02 Aug 2008 #permalink
"More sound of crickets from Engineer's side..."
My initial post on the subject:
"So how does Dr. Hansen "adjust" surface data to account for thermometers located next to heat exchangers, airport runways, parking lots, or on rooftops? I love to hear the answer, considering it was meteorologist Anthony Watts who took it upon himself to survey these sites, rather than Dr. Hansen."
Again, what does the pre-1900 data have to do with my initial point that ground stations are so "out-of-sync" that the data should be considered questionable? I wonder what the resolution was on those pre-1900 thermometers...
"I supposet it doesn't matter, but the RSS satellite analysis of the lower troposphere shows a greater warming trend than GISTEMP since 1979. But who cares about simple facts."
Wrong. As of July 2008, temperatures in the troposphere at at, or below, where they were in 1980, despite 2.8 decades of "warming" at .171 K/decade:
In theory, temperatures should be .478 higher than they were in 1980.
What is the source of your graph?
I asked for proof that the differences between "good" and "bad" surface stations are in an upward trend<.
In reply, you pointed to a bunch of graphs by McIntyre which purport to 'show' this upward trend, except the graphs have the pre-1900 differences conveniently snipped off.
Now you can go ahead and backpedal...
"I asked for proof that the differences between "good" and "bad" surface stations are in an upward trend<."
Perhaps all you need is to look closely at McIntyre's CNR1 versus CNR5 data, starting from 1920 (right about the time industrialization and CO2 emissions took off),to the present.
The "good" ones indicate a cooling trend; the "bad" ones indicate the opposite.
"You just gave yourself away there, dude."
What, that I'm a skeptic?
What was your first clue?
so you decided to cherry pick a starting point (let me guess, the spike after 1920?), a data set (uncorrected class 1 stations) and then calculated a "trend" by connecting starting and end point?
you certainely are one hell of an engineer! want to construct a bridge for me?
By sod (not verified) on 02 Aug 2008 #permalink
I complain about McIntyre throwing away data before 1900. And in reply, Engineer proposes to throw away all data before 1920.
Brilliant. Certainly one hell of an engineer.
Perhaps you might want to consider that basic thermodynamics does not take into account all the unknown or poorly understood variables in a complex, dynamic climate system.
It doesn't matter how complicated a system is it still has to obey the laws of thermodynamics.
And only a true "Al Gore disciple" would question the validity of satellite data, versus the ground stations. One system is computerized, calibrated
against radiosonde temperature measurements. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that radiosondes have a long history of difficultly in getting long term consistency in temperature measurements. I can only conclude that you are in denial of the facts. BTW, why is there so much difference between the two main satellite derivations?
"so you decided to cherry pick a starting point (let me guess, the spike after 1920?), a data set (uncorrected class 1 stations) and then calculated a "trend" by connecting starting and end point?"
I'm just following the lead of you global warming types; you cherry-pick the ground data, and ignore the satellite data. You also cherry-pick the time frame of your global warming trend. Let's have a look at the 10,000 year trend:
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba337/ba337.html
"you certainely are one hell of an engineer! want to construct a bridge for me?"
Sorry, but us engineers only use data from calibrated instruments, collected by people trained in their usage, and in strict compliance to written specification. Any data not within that realm is discarded.
"Engineer":
I'm just following the lead of you global warming types; you cherry-pick the ground data, and ignore the satellite data.
So the lower troposphere trends from RSS that Tim Lambert mentioned above in his posting is not satellite data. Sure, if you say so.
Duh, what kind of engineer is Engineer really?
"I complain about McIntyre throwing away data before 1900. And in reply, Engineer proposes to throw away all data before 1920."
Nope, I just pointed out the fact that "good" stations show an 88-year trend in one direction, while "bad" stations show the opposite. Regardless, AGW alarmists discard all geological data going back 10,000 years, so what's the difference? Trending by its very nature starts with an arbitrary point, selected by whomever does the analysis.
Ever seen Dr. Robert Carter's video presentation, where he steps through the 400,000 year trend(s), based on ice-core data?
"Brilliant. Certainly one hell of an engineer."
And you're a bookstore clerk, I take it?
"So the lower troposphere trends from RSS that Tim Lambert mentioned above in his posting is not satellite data. Sure, if you say so."
Sure it's data, good data to boot. Why do you ignore the fact it indicates temperatures in the troposphere (upper and lower) are back down to 1980 levels? Dr. Hansen's GISS chart certainly does not reflect that.
"And I believe the "20% more tropospheric warming than surface" applies to the entire troposphere, not the lower troposphere which is what we are talking about. None of these measurements are particularly reliable given that tropospheric warming is confounded by the cooling stratosphere"
Or perhaps you fail to consider Earth's natural convection cycle: warm air rises at the equator, drawing cooler stratospheric air down over the poles and back into the troposphere. If the stratosphere is cooling at a faster rate (and it is, for whatever reason) than the troposphere is warming, what is the result?
"The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... Om... Om... Om...
Duh, what kind of engineer is Engineer really?"
I see, when you have no cogent argument, resort to limp-wristed insults.
"It doesn't matter how complicated a system is it still has to obey the laws of thermodynamics."
But one has to understand and account for all the variables, before you can apply the laws of thermodynamics.
"Why do you keep ignoring the fact that radiosondes have a long history of difficultly in getting long term consistency in temperature measurements."
Because their consistency has proven to be a lot better than the surface data, and Dr. Hansen's adjustments (Y2K error, anybody?). Despite a 0.2 variation on occasion, the satellite trends match quite nicely, unlike the surface indicators.
Sure it's data, good data to boot.
So how is Lambert writing about it above "ignoring the satellite data"? You admit you are cherry-picking and justify it by lying that Lambert is doing the same thing.
Or perhaps you fail to consider Earth's natural convection cycle: warm air rises at the equator, drawing cooler stratospheric air down over the poles and back into the troposphere.
What an ignoramus. There is no regular convection in the stratoshphere.
> > Duh, what kind of engineer is Engineer really?"
> I see, when you have no cogent argument, resort to limp-wristed insults.
If you're allowed to use your "Engineer" status to further your own arguments, then I'm allowed to question this status.
If you think that your "Engineer" status is irrelevant to the argument, and that any mentions of it are "limp-wristed insults", then maybe you shouldn't be bringing up this "Engineer" status in the first place.
So what kind of engineer are you, Engineer?
The only variables significantly affecting this are the saturated air adiabatic lapse rate which always decreases as it gets warmer and how wet the tropics are which are getting wetter as they get warmer.
Because their consistency has proven to be a lot better than the surface data
Yes they have been sooooooo consistent.
The so-called "y2k error" reduced global temperatures approximately 0.003 degrees post 2000, which is an insignificant amount. The difference between the current versions of UAH and RSS has grown to about 0.1 degrees, or ~30 times larger than the GISTEMP Y2K error.
Why are these guys always so willing to accept without question or hesitation heavily derived data that confirms their beliefs, but throw away without hesitation any data that has any hint of a problem if it calls their beleifs into question?
That's rhetorical, BTW. The answer of course, is obvious.
Trop trop trends are problematic - drift in calibration over time for both the satellite and sonde data is a huge issue, as is spotty sonde coverage, as is poor reliability of calibration data for the satellites in this region, as is the fact that lower trop is a derived, not native, channel in the satellite analysis and subject to huge confounding effects from other layers. Here's a submitted abstract showing several new analyses are underway with improved data and methods.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/forthcoming/bds0801_man…
Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere
Santer, et. al.; submitted: Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. International Journal of Climatology. 3/08.
Quotes from the abstract:
"We revisit such comparisons here using new observational estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature changes. We find that there is no longer a serious and ubiquitous discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates.
"...a new satellite dataset from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), enhanced warming is due to an improved procedure of adjusting for intersatellite biases. When the RSS-derived tropospheric temperature trend is compared with four different observed estimates of surface temperature change, the surface warming is invariably amplified in the tropical troposphere, consistent with model results. Even if we use data from a second satellite dataset with smaller tropospheric warming than in RSS, observed tropical lapse rates are not significantly different from those in all model simulations."
By Lee (not verified) on 03 Aug 2008 #permalink
"What an ignoramus. There is no regular convection in the stratoshphere."
Sorry, I oversimplified it. I should've used the scientific term "troposphere-stratosphere exchange":
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/3269/2007/acpd-7-3269-2007.html
Or something regarding how stratospheric ozone depletion effects temperatures in the upper troposphere:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031994.shtml
"If you're allowed to use your "Engineer" status to further your own arguments, then I'm allowed to question this status."
I don't use it to further my arguments, I use links, and some common sense.
So I take it you are really "bi"?
"So how is Lambert writing about it above "ignoring the satellite data"? You admit you are cherry-picking and justify it by lying that Lambert is doing the same thing."
Because he doesn't show the middle troposphere (TMT channel) or the upper troposphere (TTS channel).
"The so-called "y2k error" reduced global temperatures approximately 0.003 degrees post 2000, which is an insignificant amount. The difference between the current versions of UAH and RSS has grown to about 0.1 degrees, or ~30 times larger than the GISTEMP Y2K error."
Even RealClimate admitted the error was 0.15 degrees C:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1885
Regardless, the Y2K correction did not correct the fact that 60% of surface stations are out of specification, and still being used in the overall trend.
"Because he doesn't show the middle troposphere (TMT channel) or the upper troposphere (TTS channel)."
Why should he?
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/nature02524-UW-MSU.pdf
Here we show that trends in MSU
channel 2 temperatures are weak because the instrument partly
records stratospheric temperatures whose large cooling trend
offsets the contributions of tropospheric warming. We quantify
the stratospheric contribution to MSU channel 2 temperatures
using MSU channel 4, which records only stratospheric temperatures. The resulting trend of reconstructed tropospheric temperatures from satellite data is physically consistent with the
observed surface temperature trend. For the tropics, the tropospheric warming is 1.6 times the surface warming, as expected
for a moist adiabatic lapse rate.
By luminous beauty (not verified) on 04 Aug 2008 #permalink
"...a new satellite dataset from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), enhanced warming is due to an improved procedure of adjusting for intersatellite biases."
So in other words, keep manipulating the data until it fits.
"Why should he?"
Because the "patterns" for all three are remarkably similar.
Do you, or the NOAA, blame the stratosphere for decreasing temperatures in the lower troposphere since 2000, as well? Careful, I got pounced on for that.
"Do you, or the NOAA, blame the stratosphere for decreasing temperatures in the lower troposphere since 2000, as well?"
Temperatures haven't decreased, Average temperatures from 2000 to present are higher than any previous 8 years in the record. Even if it were true,noise is not a trend. Repeat until it sinks in. Think natural variation. AGW doesn't make it stop.
You are running a race and you are 20 furlongs behind the leaders. If you reduce that to 19.5 furlongs, does that mean you are winning the race?
Only in the denialosphere.
Only in the denialosphere would adjusting data for known physical biases be considered 'manipulating the datas until it fits'.
> > If you're allowed to use your "Engineer" status to further your own arguments, then I'm allowed to question this status.
> I don't use it to further my arguments
Sorry, but you do:
> us engineers only use data from calibrated instruments, collected by people trained in their usage, and in strict compliance to written specification
If you can bring it up, I can question it.
What kind of engineer are you, Engineer?
"Even RealClimate admitted the error was 0.15 degrees C"
Engineer demonstrates he doesn't know the difference between the contiguous US and the globe.
Calling Engineer an idiot is an insult to idiots.
The "y2k" error resulted in a ~0.003 degree downward correction globally. Graphically, it looks like this:
http://cce.890m.com/temp-records/images/global-enlarged.jpg
The ~0.15 degree correction applied only to the United States from 2000 to 2007. The US is less than 2% of the Earth's surface. ergo, a ~0.03 degree correction globally.
The current rate of warming from RSS is 0.171 degrees per decade since 1979, while UAH is 0.131 degrees per decade. Put another way, over the last 29.5 years, UAH is warming 23% less than RSS. There remains large uncertainties with the satellite analyses, especially in stitching together the different satellites, and by seperating the warming/cooling by altitude. The result is large and significant differences between satellite analyses (especially in the tropics, if I remember correctly). These differences are far greater than the difference between HadCRUT and GISTEMP, which have virtually identical rates of warming since 1979, and are very similar to RSS.
"Engineer demonstrates he doesn't know the difference between the contiguous US and the globe."
Considering the U.S. accounts for 50% of the active GISS network, and thus the bulk of the data...
And it's not like China' temperature data is tainted, or anything...
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/keenan0807fraud.html
"Calling Engineer an idiot is an insult to idiots."
Gee, I'm going to bust out crying, from your nasty insults.
"The US is less than 2% of the Earth's surface. ergo, a ~0.03 degree correction globally."
But comprises 50% of the active GISS monitoring network.
"The current rate of warming from RSS is 0.171 degrees per decade since 1979, while UAH is 0.131 degrees per decade."
Yet here we are in 2008, with temperatures in the lower troposphere back to where they were in 1980.
"These differences are far greater than the difference between HadCRUT and GISTEMP"
Well certainly if you adjust the data enough, you might get lucky.
And you're going to tell me this...
matches this...
sc_Rss_compare_TS_channel_tlt.png
"If you can bring it up, I can question it. What kind of engineer are you, Engineer?"
Aerospace; 17 years in design and systems assessment, and enough interaction with Phd's to know they aren't always right (nor even sane, in some cases).
Here's a particularly "blunt" assessment of AGW by someone who couldn't possibly be a NASA physicist, because his views echo mine:
http://launchmagonline.com/index.php/Viewpoint/In-Science-Ignorance-is-…
"Temperatures haven't decreased, Average temperatures from 2000 to present are higher than any previous 8 years in the record. Even if it were true,noise is not a trend. Repeat until it sinks in. Think natural variation. AGW doesn't make it stop."
Do you not see the squiggly blue line on the RSS lower troposphere chart, provided in the blog?
The trend goes "downward" after 1998. If it does not appear this way to you, please check your monitor for an approximate 15 degree list to "port".
The temperature measurements in the United States, or anywhere else for that matter, are weighted by area. It doesn't matter if there was one station every square foot, they would still only represent 2% of the surface area.
Yes, the RSS and GISTEMP temperature series match. They match more than RSS and UAH. I've already posted the graph that proves this, which I will post again for your benefit.
> Aerospace; 17 years in design and systems assessment,
Planes or rockets? Which university?
> and enough interaction with Phd's to know they aren't always right (nor even sane, in some cases).
And yet you are? Or are you in fact describing yourself?
> by someone who couldn't possibly be a NASA physicist, because his views echo mine:
Bleh, we already know about Walter Cunningham, and we also know about Freeman Dyson.
Besides, Cunningham says that the earth is warming (except that it's not caused by humans). You say that the earth is cooling. If you want to use argument by authority, can't you at least find an auhority that actually agrees with you?
That paper does not deal with any sort of convective transport down from the stratosphere. The only type of transport between troposphere and stratosphere implied is diffusion which causes a much lower rate of gas transfer than convection. This has very little effect on temperatures.
Lambert certainly didn't ignore upper atmosphere temperature measurements using radiosondes from which the long-term trends of satellite TMT and TTS are calibrated and he does make it rather easy to look at the TMT and TTS by providing the link. Stating where the long trends of satellite TMT and TTS really come from is hardly cherry-picking.
Why should we believe a self-admitted cherry-picker who dishonestly accuses someone else of cherry-picking?
"Aerospace; 17 years in design and systems assessment, "
Mars Climate Orbiter?
"But comprises 50% of the active GISS monitoring network."
Engineer demonstrates that he doesn't understand how a gridded surface analysis works.
Lavoisier, what a laugh.
It wasn't an insult to you, it was an insult to idiots.
Beat me to it.
Mars Climate Orbiter?"
Nope, a Phd screwed up that one, on the landing trajectory/engine shut down.
"Bleh, we already know about Walter Cunningham, and we also know about Freeman Dyson.
Besides, Cunningham says that the earth is warming (except that it's not caused by humans). You say that the earth is cooling. If you want to use argument by authority, can't you at least find an auhority that actually agrees with you?"
No, he says it's been cooling for about a decade; refer to the paragraph regarding warming in the atmosphere, or lack thereof.
"Engineer demonstrates that he doesn't understand how a gridded surface analysis works."
Sure I do, but the fact that the USHCN has 1221 temperature stations, versus China's 84, and Russia/Siberia's 109. Here is an interesting look at the decreasing number of temperature stations within grid cells, outside of the U.S. and Europe:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html
"Yes, the RSS and GISTEMP temperature series match. They match more than RSS and UAH. I've already posted the graph that proves this, which I will post again for your benefit."
Simple question; why does the graph you provided show the RSS to have a 0.3 positive difference between 1980 and 2008, whereas the chart provided by Lambert in the blog above (taken directly from the RSS website) does not?
the spring of 2008, according to Engineer, was the most important development of the climate since the last ice age.
believe him, he is a professional!
"It wasn't an insult to you, it was an insult to idiots."
Well, if I'm to be considered a "discredited idiot" for any mistake, shouldn't you apply the same standard to many of the AGW scientists, as well? There was Mann and his discredited "hockeystick" temperature trend, Kevin Trenberth/IPCC and their wacky hurricane predictions, Dr. Hansen's Y2K error, and his failed atmospheric warming predictions (20% faster than the surface).
"the spring of 2008, according to Engineer, was the most important development of the climate since the last ice age. believe him, he is a professional!"
You have to go back to Autumn 2006, to see a 0.3 difference above 1980. After a temperature drop in 1999, and slight recovery, the trend is essentially "flat" from 2001 to 2007, then drops again.
the trend is essentially "flat" from 2001 to 2007, then drops again.
The 30-year (climate) trend is dropping? When is your paper going to be published in Science or Nature? Can I have your autograph, Mr Galileo?
By Dano (not verified) on 05 Aug 2008 #permalink
(I call myself an) Engineer:
Well, if I'm to be considered a "discredited idiot" for any mistake
Not any mistake, just the ones you've demonstrated., e.g. self-admitted cherry picking.
I usually keep much more quiet about the physics of climate change than I do about the ecological aspects of it, and I have been quietly and a little bemusedly watching 'Engineer' and his postings whilst those better suited to the task reply to him, but...
You might be a great engineer (I know some great engineer jokes, btw), but really, have you ever completed a Stats 101 course?
I would, and I do, expect better even of my undergraduate students in their analyses of time series. It might serve for a high-school science report, but in the real world we expect a little more statistically robust analysis than your comment above.
And a more statistically robust analysis would come to a different conclusion to the one that you seem so enamoured of.
By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Aug 2008 #permalink
"That paper does not deal with any sort of convective transport down from the stratosphere."
OK, fair enough (though stratospheric intrusions into the troposphere is an area of current study).
But an honest question; doesn't tropospheric air rise until the temperature cools to equilibrium with the tropopause/lower stratosphere? If the stratosphere cools, won't the upper troposphere also cool, in order to reach this equilibrium? Won't this statistically cooler air get circulated into lower troposphere via convection cycles?
"You might be a great engineer (I know some great engineer jokes, btw), but really, have you ever completed a Stats 101 course?"
Yes, a long time ago. But regardless, I merely pointed out the obvious trend from 1998 to present for the RSS data, that is somewhat contradixtory to the GISSTemp.
"And a more statistically robust analysis would come to a different conclusion to the one that you seem so enamoured of."
Perhaps along the lines of the Vostok ice-core data? But that particular analysis shows a 10,000 year cooling trend.
"Not any mistake, just the ones you've demonstrated., e.g. self-admitted cherry picking."
Like I said, just so you apply the standard equally to the mistake-prone AGW scientists, as well.
"I would, and I do, expect better even of my undergraduate students in their analyses of time series."
Well, if you at least make them start with data that is governed by a specification (in terms of instrumentation and calibration, data collection, auditing, etc.)...
...you're one up on the folks over at GISSTemp.
"You have to go back to Autumn 2006, to see a 0.3 difference above 1980. After a temperature drop in 1999, and slight recovery, the trend is essentially "flat" from 2001 to 2007, then drops again."
Engineer keeps describing selected details of inter-annual variation, and arguing as if that can predict a change in climte trend.
I would have thought an aerospace engineer would understand the difference between signal and noise, and have some tools for discussing signal/noise issues with a bit more rigour than engineer exhibits here.
> Nope, a Phd screwed up that one, on the landing trajectory/engine shut down.
Oh noes! A PhD screwed up! Oh noes!
So, besides being an "Aerospace Engineer", our "Engineer" looks down on PhDs. I'm guessing that means that he does not have a PhD, otherwise won't that make him a self-hating anti-Semite Doctor?
Since "Engineer" emphatically does not have a PhD -- just like GALILEO!!! -- I suppose that means his opinion trumps over those of Einstein and Asimov, who do have PhDs.
Yeah, those filthy ivory-tower elitists don't ever get their hands dirty mucking around with real stuff! They just sit in front of their terminals all day writing stupid equations! What can they know about anything?
I think I'll activate the [killfile] on our new The Next Galileo.
this is getting absurd.
i would love to hear your comments on the wiggles in the early part of a tension test...
http://tinyurl.com/5tnpgo
i am sure the real meaning is in those ups and downs after the elastic part...
"I would have thought an aerospace engineer would understand the difference between signal and noise, and have some tools for discussing signal/noise issues with a bit more rigour than engineer exhibits here."
Except that the signal behaves the same way across three channels, representing the lower, middle, and upper troposphere...which would indicate the troposphere is reacting just as it should to a cooling stratosphere.
Calling data that doesn't support AGW "noise" and tossing it out seems a common tactic by AGW zealots.
"So, besides being an "Aerospace Engineer", our "Engineer" looks down on PhDs. I'm guessing that means that he does not have a PhD, otherwise won't that make him a self-hating anti-Semite Doctor?"
I don't look down on Phds, just the arrogant foolish ones.
"this is getting absurd.
i would love to hear your comments on the wiggles in the early part of a tension test..."
Only after you explain your insistence that corrupt surface temperature data is more reliable than satellite data.
"I think I'll activate the [killfile] on our new The Next Galileo."
Don't worry, I'll leave. Dealing with you zealots is like walking into a Baptist church with a smoke in one hand and a beer in the other, and pronouncing yourself an atheist.
Dealing with you zealots
What a hypocrite.
Engineer asks:
"Simple question; why does the graph you provided show the RSS to have a 0.3 positive difference between 1980 and 2008, whereas the chart provided by Lambert in the blog above (taken directly from the RSS website) does not?"
Because the graph from RSS is a monthly time series, and the graph I provided is a yearly time series. RSS, HadCRUT and GISTEMP all show similar rates of warming, with UAH lagging behind. The recent drop in temperatures that you are so enamored with is due to La Nina. It will likely result in 2008 being the coldest year since 2000, which was also a La Nina year.
I remember Mark Bahner, an Environmental Injuneer, having a similar attitude, certitude, and crapitude. In addition to energyitude for promulgation of his wrongitude.
Dano used to have a Bahner klaxon to warn commenters against being sucked into the engineer certitude attitude.
Our New Galileo appears to be the Bahner replacement (can't see details, as I've [killfile]d).
"I don't look down on Phds, just the arrogant foolish ones. "
yes, apparently other arrogant fools aren't subject to similar scrutiny.
By z (not verified) on 05 Aug 2008 #permalink
If there is proof of their mistakes such as by general agreement then it will be. Until then we can apply it to people for whom such proof applies such as yourself.
If the stratosphere cools, won't the upper troposphere also cool, in order to reach this equilibrium?
Just because the stratosphere's average temperature cools, doesn't mean the bottom of it must also cool.
"Just because the stratosphere's average temperature cools, doesn't mean the bottom of it must also cool."
It's been proven the cold-point tropopause has risen (in altitude), and dropped in temperature:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AGUFM.A32B0147C
"If there is proof of their mistakes such as by general agreement then it will be. Until then we can apply it to people for whom such proof applies such as yourself."
Mann's hockeystick was discredited by the Wegman Report in 2006. Trenberth's predictions regarding hurricane frequency and severity were disproven by three-years of little to no hurricane activity. And we've still not seen 20% higher atmospheric warming than the surface.
Those are "facts", whether you choose to ignore them or not.
"Because the graph from RSS is a monthly time series, and the graph I provided is a yearly time series. RSS, HadCRUT and GISTEMP all show similar rates of warming, with UAH lagging behind."
I don't think your graph is inclusive of 2007. Here is a more up-to-date version, which really shows the drop (FYI- La Nina started in late 2007; well after averages started dropping):
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/ccm/0408_GTRs.htm
...nor does it include the "corrected" 1930's warming trend (making them warmer than the 1990s), which was not only supported by U.S. data, but Arctic, Greenland, and European data:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/u.s._temperature_ranki…
EngineerPlease, please, fix that link (or tiny it). I really want to see a graph that shows 1930s global temperatures higher than those in the '90s. I really do!!
By Hugh (not verified) on 06 Aug 2008 #permalink
OK, that's one way the average lapse rate from the surface to mid-stratosphere could increase with AGW. The troposphere gets higher and extends its lapse rate over a larger range of altitude while the stratosphere up to a certain altitude gets shorter and reduces the range of its lapse rate.
Mann's hockeystick was discredited by the Wegman Report in 2006.
The hockeystick wasn't discredited. It is produced by other methods. The Wegman report pointed out an insignificant bias in the MBH98 method.
1) The graph includes 2007. ENSO indexes have been dropping since at least December 2006, and bottomed out February 2008. Temperature lags ENSO about 4 months so temperatures should begin to recover.
2) Global temperatures in the '30s were not warmer than the '90s.
3) The Hockey Stick was vindicated by the National Research Council. Concerns pointed out by M&M, Wegman, and others were not significant. http://cce.890m.com/?page_id=18
4) Three years of data does not disprove any theory regarding hurricane intensity or anthropogenic global warming in general.
5) The increase in tropopause height is a fingerprint of warming.
"2) Global temperatures in the '30s were not warmer than the '90s."
A variety of research suggests otherwise:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/cool13.htm
http://acsys.npolar.no/meetings/final/abstracts/posters/Session_4/poste…
Even the southern hemisphere demonstrated the same rapid warming trend up until 1940:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/graphics/nhshgl.jpg
"The Hockey Stick was vindicated by the National Research Council. Concerns pointed out by M&M, Wegman, and others were not significant"
Wegman's Senate testimony, page 9:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/StupakResponse.pdf
An interesting take on Trenberth's claims:
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResign…
"The increase in tropopause height is a fingerprint of warming."
But if the net result of this is cooling of the troposphere, there's a climate feedback the models need to take into account.
But if the net result of this is cooling of the
new part of the
troposphere,
relative to the stratosphere that it replaces,
there's a climate feedback the models need to take into account
I don't see why they wouldn't.
NRC Panel Report
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
NRC Press Conference
http://www.nap.edu/webcast/webcast_detail.php?webcast_id=327
Q&A with Gerald North:
http://chronicle.com/live/2006/09/hockey_stick/
AAAS coverage of report:
http://www.issues.org/23.1/hill.html
Increase in tropopause height
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/santertext…
As part of the answers to Stupak, Wegman said:
Our report does not prove that the hockey stick disappears. Our work
demonstrates that the methodology is incorrect.
Wegman does not claim to discredit the hockey stick. His issue is with the methodology in MBH98. The hockeystick is also produced by other methods that are not in dispute.
Hugh writes:
'I really want to see a graph that shows 1930s global temperatures higher than those in the '90s.'
In his response, Engineer gives the following link: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/graphics/nhshgl.jpg
Gosh!
By Basse (not verified) on 06 Aug 2008 #permalink
Humff...Well, I was expecting something a little more 'Moncktonesque'...perhaps with an arbitrary 3x multiplication somewhere?I have to say, I'm very disappointed
So we have a commenter claiming to be an educated engineer but doesn't know what they are talking about wrt claims made or the data.
This is the best the denialists can do. The denialist industry's puppets have gotten no smarter over the years. The denialist industry is forced to use inferior minions to spread its FUD.
The denialists have nothing.
"Hugh writes: 'I really want to see a graph that shows 1930s global temperatures higher than those in the '90s.'
In his response, Engineer gives the following link:"
I also gave a link to McIntyre's corrected GISSTemp.
The link regarding the southern hemisphere predates Hansen's Y2K correction.
"So we have a commenter claiming to be an educated engineer but doesn't know what they are talking about wrt claims made or the data."
The denialists have nothing."
Right. And this guy must be an idiot or industry stooge, as well:
http://www.webcommentary.com/rwcohen.htm
"Wegman does not claim to discredit the hockey stick. His issue is with the methodology in MBH98. The hockeystick is also produced by other methods that are not in dispute."
Read pages 9 and 10; it says the hockeystick disappears when the data is properly centered, among other things.
Humff...Well, I was expecting something a little more 'Moncktonesque'...perhaps with an arbitrary 3x multiplication somewhere? I have to say, I'm very disappointed"
Translation: you ignored McIntyre's correction of Hansen's GISSTemp, and the three other links regarding documented warming (exceeding the current warming) of the Arctic, Greenland, and Europe during the 1930s...
"new part of the troposphere"
Doesn't that new, cooler part get circulated into the rest of the troposhere?
> I know I said that I was done with this blog,
When "Engineer" says something, a safe bet is to assume that it's false.
Engineer: "I also gave a link to McIntyre's corrected GISSTemp."
In the graph labelled "GISS Glb Land Surface", which is the only global temperature graph on that page, the present appears to be about 0.6 deg C warmer than the 1930's.
Engineer says:
"I also gave a link to McIntyre's corrected GISSTemp.
The link regarding the southern hemisphere predates Hansen's Y2K correction."
Tell me - why does this matter, engineer? Are you under the impression that the "Y2K" GISS correction somehow matters to the southern hemisphere?
Even in the US< where the correction does apply,it moves ONE YEAR form the 1930s from a statistical tie into a statistical tie with ONE YEAR from the recent decade. That one year waas truly exceptional in the 1930s - the one year in the recent decade is barely a record. The recent years are overall much warmer than the 19430s, even in the US alone - and globally, even that one year from the 1930s isn't close.
None of this is mysterious - anyone who looks at and takes the time to understand the analyses would know it.
"Read pages 9 and 10; it says the hockeystick disappears when the data is properly centered, among other things."
BBBBZZZZTTTTT!!!! Wrong!!
With uncentered PCA, as Mann did it, the "hockey stick" appears in PC1, with all lower order PCs of low enough weight to exclude from the analysis.
With centered PCA, the hockey stick shows up as PC4, one of 4 PCs that have enough weight to include in the analysis - lower order PCs are clearly lower weight adn can be excluded from the analysis. It has been shown that if one includes the first 4 PCs - the significant ones in a centered PVA - the overall Mann et al analysis is barely changed.
The hockey stick does not disappear in centered PCA - it simply moves from 1st to 4th, and the relative weighting of the PCs changes.
Wegman didn't discuss this. He said that decentering causes the hockey stick to appears the first PC, and that with centered analysis this no longer happens. He didn't discuss the other PCs, and he didn't discuss rules for selecting PCs to include in an analysis. This is a stunning omission for a statistician of Wegman's stature - selection rules for PCs is a major issue in any PCA. There is no way Wegman didn't know that changing to a centered PCA would require de novo application of selection rules for which PCs to include in the analysis.
Also, in my version of the Wegman report as provided by the congressional committee, page 9 is the end of the questions for MBH, and page 10 is the intro to paleoclimate reconstructions. I cant find anywhere on those pages - or anywhere else - where he says the 'hockey stick disappears.' He does say that decentering will pull it preferentially to the first PC, and that with a centered PCA it is not the first PC. That does not mean it disappears. Engineer, do you have an actual quote and cite for your claim?
Our report does not prove that the hockey stick disappears.
Don't you ever get tired of bullshitting? The hockeystick does not disappear when a correct methodology is used.
Doesn't that new, cooler part get circulated into the rest of the troposhere
That doesn't mean it cools the rest of the troposphere. The air cools down as it goes up and warms up as it goes down according to the adiabatic lapse rates.
Don't you ever get tired of bullshitting?
These types can't tire of it - if they do, their self-identity is invalidated. This is simply how it is.
no, it does NOT.
http://tinyurl.com/5vl3uo
i think for over a week ow, i have been telling you to READ the things that you talk about. could you please finally start doing that?!?
Current US temperatures are comparable (or slightly higher)now than the '30s/'40s.
http://cce.890m.com/temp-records/images/lower48-corrected.jpg
The arctic is warmer now than in the '30s/'40s.
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/arctic.jpg
Greenland is roughly the same temperatures as in the '30s/'40s.
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/greenlan.jpg
Europe is warmer now than in the '30s.
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/18europ.jpg
In other words, none of these examples show the '30s (or '40s) warmer than now, and none of these examples represent the globe, which is significantly warmer now than the in the '30s.
You're crushing the poor rube's self-identity with inconvenient facts. How dare you? How dare you, sir?
Fortunately, Teflon Denialists have no use for facts.
I just can't understand it, the ice is going to melt anyway, it going to become pretty obvious the place is heating up.
Perhaps arguing who is to blame has more legs, understanding requires a little science, the average wingnut isn't into science.
I would have thought "china should go first has more legs".
Why are they going for the argument that fights with reality, is it because they aren't bright enough to see reality trumps words written any day or do they just start with one argument and just go down the list when that one is lost.
By charles (not verified) on 09 Aug 2008 #permalink
Re Chris #115
Chris said: "Now, why do you think they added that
last paragraph in parenthesis if the monthly data is
not seasonally adjusted?"
Are you kidding? They are warning you NOT to add the monthly data, which are affected by seasonality, to the 30-year average, which is not.
If you do, you end up with a measure of temperature which is affected by seasonality and therefore potentially misleading.
That's why they say it's only OK to add the global annual means, Jan to Dec and Dec to Nov, because annual means aren't afected by seasonality.
By Gaz (not verified) on 10 Aug 2008 #permalink
Gaz at #256...
Um, I think you meant 'RH' rather than 'Chris' when you were referring to post #115. RH was having a spray at Chris, and it was RH who referred to seasonal adjustment.
I don't think the Chris with which we are familiar would mix up the use of monthly and annual data!
Re #257
"Um, I think you meant 'RH' rather than 'Chris' when you were referring to post #115. RH was having a spray at Chris, and it was RH who referred to seasonal adjustment."
Woops. My apologies to Chris! And to RH for my rather cavalier tone. Thanks to Bernard J for picking that up.
My point stands, though.
I could add also that the technique suggested by RH for producing seasonally adjusted data needs to be teased out a bit.
RH says "I assume that the adjustment is made by considering the difference between the absolute value for the month versus the the value for that same month in the base period".
Comparing the value for the current month with the value for the same month in base period would give you a rough-and-ready seasonally adjusted estimate of the CHANGE in temperature since the base period but not the LEVEL of the temperature in the current period.
That's because that month in both the base period and the current period will be affected by the same seasonal variation.
So, to take an economic example, let's say retail sales in December were 10% higher than retail sales last December.
Because sales are always strong in December (Christmas shopping), that gives us a rough estimate of a seasonally adjusted rise in retail sales from last December to this December.
However it does not give us a seasonally adjusted estimate of the level of retail sales in December, because retail sales are always, say, 30 per cent higher in December than in an average month.
To seasonally adjust, you have to do some number-crunching to disentangle the regular seasonal variation from the trend and random noise.
So if we were to look at temperature anomalies in a six-month period, the appropriate comparision would be with the average for the same six month period over the base period.
Then again, it would still be misleading if conclusions were to be drawn from that without taking note of known irregular events like ENSO.
You'd also be implicitly assuming that the temperature change for that half year would be matched by the change in the other half year. Given the hemispheric assymetry in predicted global warming I am not sure whether that assumption would be valid.
I can see why scientists do not bother posting in these sorts of threads.
Two people have had the guts to put their money where their mouth is. The rest don't have the same guts. If so many of you are convinced either way then put up or shut up.
I'm no scientist but like to check up on all the latest scientic ideas.
One of the latest ideas which will be prived either way come 2010 with a test in I think its the new Switerland accelarator which will do a test to see if sun spots are effecting the weather.
Last week it was on channel 10's hd channel 1 on one of those science programs they have on from around 4:pm to about 5:pm
The show maybe available for download on tens web site but not sure. Its a fairly recently made video and well worth a look.
I started out as a sceptic then bacame green motivated but the more reading I do the more I'm leaning back the other way so now I'm more sceptic on the so called green house effect.
I think once people see this video they'll be like me and have a re think.
2010 is the test in the accelerator. It will prive it either way on the cause of climate from sun spots. They have data collected from rocks and isotopes going back hundreds of thousands of years along with recorded sun spots from radiation it created going back the same length of time. Prove it in the lab where uv radiation from sun spots effect the creating of extra cloud cover and then you have your answer on climate change.
The science for global warming was quite large a few years back but that does appear to be changing now. More and more scientists are asking some questions and a brave number are re thinking and even having the guts to sat they maybe wrong.
So far as I see it global warming is just another theory with no evidence. Much like the theory of the universe. The big bang theory is now questioned as there has to be a singularity which starts the reaction off.
Come 2010 we should know the answer in that accelerator.
By Jason (not verified) on 17 Aug 2008 #permalink
> the more reading I do the more I'm leaning back the other way so now I'm more sceptic on the so called green house effect.
I have studied the topic fully,I have studied the topic fully,I have studied the topic fully,Early in the morning.
Hey ho, and up she rises,Hey ho, and up she rises,Hey ho, and up she rises,Early in the morning.
Re: Jason at #259.
It is admirable that you seek to further your scientific understanding, and that you gather together and synthesise the results of different types of study.
Similarly, the non-scientists on Marohasy's blog, who like to check up on all the latest scientific ideas, have built an edifice of evidence that HIV does not cause AIDS.
Oh, and there are rumours that the Discovery Institute has recently found a fossil of the remains of a Neanderthal with a brace of conies in the belly of T. rex, which brings into serious doubt the so-called 'theory' of evolution.
If and when these suppressed ideas are confirmed to be true, they have the capacity to proundly alter their respective fields of science. AFoaF tells me that the Swiss accelerator will be used also in analyses to prove these results, so 2010 should be a very interesting year...
Of course, I would absolutely advise any third party reading this to confirm or refute for themselves the veracity of such claims before taking any medical or spiritual action.
And if pain persists, see you doctor (or cleric).
Oh, and for anyone who might find themselves in the slightest doubt, my comment at #261 is firmly-tongue-in-cheek.
there are rumours that the Discovery Institute has recently found a fossil of the remains of a Neanderthal with a brace of conies in the belly of T. rex
and don't forget those Neanderthals were counting sunspots. That's how we have sunspot records going back hundreds of thousands of years.
All of this since July 19th!
I do not intend to challenge anyone on this blog. To do so would get me (us) nowhere.
My simple statements are these:
The scientific community has united, and includes vast numbers of scientists who were strongly opposed to those who recognized global warming as having devastating effects on all life on Earth, on all economies of the world, on all population centers and coasts of the world, and on the very ecosystem we ALL depend on.
The time for debate is long past. As potent as fossil fuels are (and they rightfully will never be completely out of the picture), the time for shifting from a fossil fuel-based economy (as we did from what you might call a "hay and coal" based economy) HAS come.
David Evans was selected by Lavoisier intentionally because he had been active (on some level) with the scientific community in the scientific explorations of global warming in Australia. Illegitimate "Authority by Association" you might call it.
Regardless of the causes of and answers for global warming, it is appropriate for all of us to refocus our attention and create a world where we actually sustain ourselves in a manner that is respectful of the planet we live on, the people and animals we share it with, and the ecosystem that we know (on multiple levels) we can destroy.
Let's divert our personal energies BACK to what matters (helping develop the coming green economies, reducing our eco-footprints, and living healthier lives), AWAY from the guys/gals who want to continue "hitching their team" to oil and burying their heads in the oil sands when they get home.
Tom Neff, KC, MO, USA
By Non-Scientist (not verified) on 18 Aug 2008 #permalink
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 18 Aug 2008 #permalink
Has anyone looked at the palaeoclimatology data?
The present is the only time in the last 250 million years that both the temperature of the earth and atmospheric CO2 levels have been this LOW.
If the historical data says anything it tells us that if there's one thing for certain about the Earth's climate it's that it WILL change.
By Paleo (not verified) on 24 Aug 2008 #permalink
> Has anyone looked at the palaeoclimatology data?
After throwing out the inconvenient parts, you mean?
Huh, lookit Paleo. You go, booooooyyyy!
Here it is in Public Policy 101, pp 16-17, Paleo's passing on the wisdom of the ages:
"The best public policy is made using conditions from as far back in time as possible, preferably before the Permian Extinction and when the continents were fused together as one, and conditions on earth were nothing as they are today".
Another Galileo graces us on this site!
What a mish mash of a "science". Causation of climate phenomena is a nonlinear combination of thousands of variables yet somehow the GW and antiGW circus think their models have anything to so with anything. There are a million models that may match some time slice of real climate data without any evidence that it represents the causal processes. The most dangerous thing we have ever done has been to place credence in the crystal balls of statisticians with an eye on the weather. Now it's a self sustaining industry that meshes with certain political and social objectives. But any modeller can turn an umbrella into an elephant's ear. And even worse,the raw data is contaminated, shifting, incompatible and brief. It pays mortgages but it's as vacuous as being a postman.
By peter mason (not verified) on 26 Aug 2008 #permalink
See Ben, this is how you end up when you spend too much time reading blogs specifically intedned "to make white people mad".
By Ian Gould (not verified) on 26 Aug 2008 #permalink
I don't know if the anger comment was directed at me. No matter. What WOULD matter would be if you devoted your time to real science like protein folding or dare i say biostats. You might even help cure somebody of something. Make no mistake, populations are tolerating GW now as a motherhood issue but once it affects their income/quality of life (read carbon trading schemes a la Australia's plan) then they will demand better evidence than the schoolyard that passes for debate here. And when they hear the level of "he said, she said", i.e. that data's wrong, no we corrected it, oh no you didn't and the instruments changed and whatever else, they will identify climate "science" for what it is- sandcastles for bright people who could be doing real things. Let's face it, by the time any GW signature emerges from the noise- if it exists at all- we're already stuffed. And that signature will beyond the masturbation mechanisms of bad statisticians. It will be beyond any doubt. Go get a life.
depp=true
notiz=[please do not feed the troll]
Well, that's as childish as your "science". Straight from the playground. I'm no troll. Real science is defensible. Don't worry, this gravy train will end when people are asked to pay real taxes toward it and they see your kind of behaviour as not worthy of the term science or their money. good luck!
Scienceblogs is shutting down
Well, scienceblogs is shutting down at the end of the month. I don't want all the old posts and comments to disappear, so I'm going to move them all to deltoidblog.blogspot.com.
June 2017 Open Thread
More thread.
March 2017 Open Thread
January 2107 Open thread
December 2016 Open Thread