USCCSP: Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere

One of the Kevins has drawn Appendix A “Statistical Issues Regarding Trends” in the recent USCCSP report "Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere" to my attention. The appendix is coauthored by the omnipresent Wigley.

Kevin writes:

It’s quite amazing and, from where I sit professionally, very disturbing. Re-inventing long-established methods (sometimes getting it wrong), strange terminology, blatant errors of omission and commission (MBH have lots of company) etc. all point to a divorce between the climate science community and the mainstream statistical community, as Wegman noted…

Even if there were no potential human cost to not doing things properly, I must say it irks me to see folks doing things that would land me in the street…and becoming celebrities in the process to boot!

Aside from the juvenile tone, what is wrong with it? As a start, the handling of autocorrelation. Readers of this site – or readers of Koutsoyannis or David Stockwell – know that AR1 is not a suitable model for a climate series null process.

I don’t mean to imply that there’s some great gotcha staring everyone in the face. It’s just that it’s a very bad piece of work. I don’t have time to fully discuss it, but perhaps others will.

Update: Against my better judgement, I’ve spend some time looking at the references for their AR1 autocorrelation model. Santer et al (Science 2000) discusses autocrrelation issues as follows in the legend to Figure 1:

Confidence intervals are adjusted to account for temporal autocorrelation in the data (21).

Footnote 21 says:

The method for assessing statistical signiàƒÆ’à…⽣ance of trends and trend differences is described by B. D. Santer et al. ( J. Geophys. Res., in press). It involves the standard parametric test of the null hypothesis of zero trend, modiàƒÆ’à…⽥d to account for lag-1 autocorrelation of the regression residuals [see J. M. Mitchell Jr. et al., Climatic Change, World Meteorological Organization Tech. Note 79 ( World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, 1966)]. The adjustments for autocorrelation effects are made both in computation of the standard error and in indexing of the critical t value.

Santer et al (JGR in press) turns up in JGR 105. It describes the AR1 saying:

The model that we use here is simple and has considerable empirical justification based on results from extensive stochastic simulations (D. Nychka et al., manuscript in preparation, 2000).

I have been unable to locate any publication Nychka et al,… which fits the bill. If there was no subsequent publication, this is academic check kiting worthy of Ammann and Wahl. They acknowldged Nychka as a consultant in Wahl and Ammann 2006. Perhaps that was one of the things that they consulted Nychka on. More to the point, surely Santer et al could have located some third party statistical reference.

Update(Aug 21):
Santer et al (JGR 2000) state:

There are various ways of accounting for temporal autocorrelation in e(t) [see, e.g., Wigley and Jones, 1981; Bloomfield and Nychka, 1992; Wilks, 1995; Ebisuzaki, 1997; Bretherton et al., 1999]. The simplest way [Bartlett, 1935; Mitchell et al., 1966] uses an effective sample size n_{eff} based on \rho , the lag-1 autocorrelation coefficient of e(t):
n_{eff} = \frac {1+ \rho}{1-\rho}
By substituting the estimated effective sample size n_eff for n in (4), one obtains “adjusted” estimates of the standard deviation of regression residuals and hence of the standard error and t ratio.

Bartlett is a famous statistician, although 1935 was early in his career, and one would like to see a more up-to-date statistical authority. Bartlett 1935 does not support the citation and arguably says the opposite:

First, there is no objection to our using the usual statistical tests as a preliminary measure. If coefficients are quite insignificant on these tests, there does not seem to be much point considering them further. Secondly, it a correlation coefficient appears significant, the extent to which the necessary conditions for a valid test appear to be fulfilled in the problem under consideration should be clearly stated. It should be noted that the complete independence of observations of one series is sufficient for a test to be valid… If neither series is random, no valid test can be recommended for it is not likely that the dependence of the observations can be specified in any satisfactory statistical way.

So I guess the authority for this procedure is a WMO technical report.

457 Comments

  1. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 12:48 PM | Permalink

    I’ll read it tonight. Deep in the throes of BSS/ICA research at the moment. :)

    Mark

  2. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 12:53 PM | Permalink

    I must be missing something here. I’ve referenced this paper several times on this site, and Steve M. was the first one to point it out. Why will the folks gasp?

    w.

  3. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 2:09 PM | Permalink

    Willis, I didn’t convey the right impression and I’ve edited this as follows:

    Aside from the juvenile tone, what is wrong with it? As a start, the handling of autocorrelation. Readers of this site – or readers of Koutsotannis or David Stockwell – know that AR1 is not a suitable model for a climate series null process.

    I don’t mean to imply that there’s some great gotcha staring everyone in the face. It’s just that it’s a very bad piece of work. I don’t have time to fully discuss it, but perhaps others will.

  4. Pat Frank
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 5:29 PM | Permalink

    Mr. Nychka seems to figure deeply in climate proxy reconstructions, doesn’t he. First he seems to advise everyone on the statistical methods to use, and then he sits on the committee judging whether everyone is using the right statistical methods. There seems to be a different sort of autocorrelation at work here.

  5. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 6:10 PM | Permalink

    I met Nychka in Washington and he seemed like a pretty pleasant guy but decent guys don’t always make good decisions. It was ridiculous that someone who had advised on Wahl and Ammann should be one of the two consulting statisticians on the NAS panel. Plus one of Nuchka’s most cited papers is by, ahem, Bloomfield and Nychka – Bloomfield being the other consulting statistician.

    After Mann’s presentation, I criticized the NAS panel for not following up on verification statistics with Mann. Mann told them that he hadn’t calculated the verification r2 statistic – that wold be a “silly and incorrect” thing to do, when he obviously had calculated it and it wasn’t a “silly and incorrect” thing to do. Nychka and Bloomfield as the statisticians had no business letting that comment pass, since maybe the non-statisticians didn’t know that.

    Nychka came up to me afterwards and said that just because no one had spoken out on this matter didn’t mean that they didn’t notice it. Well, they might as well not have noticed it. And if Bloomfield noticed this, how could he justify his comments at the press conference. As I said, Nychka seemed pleasant in the encounter and I’m sure that he’d be a good guy to go skiing with or hiking with, but zero courage in this instance.

    More fundamentally, he should have had better judgement than to place himself in this situation. I objected formally to him being on the panel during the comment period but didn’t have any acknowledgement. I asked Cicerone about this and he said that they got lots of suggestions and couldn’t accomodate them all. I wonder. How many people do you really think went to the trouble of commenting to NAS on the panel formation. I’d be surprised if anyone other than me did.

  6. bender
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 6:24 PM | Permalink

    Nychka is a very nice guy, and very competent, IMO. I think everyone’s pretty nervous about what this all means, Steve. You’re right – good judgement and courage are in scarce supply. I think a lot of people are looking around at the other newer methods that are being used (like RegEM) trying to figure out how flawed they are in extrapolative reconstruction. Lots of backroom talking since Wegman. But once a consensus starts to emerge, separate camps may start to form. Because this stuff is so complicated (and it’s the summer, and everyone’s busy, etc.) no one seems to be running from the main camp just yet. But it could start to happen this fall.

  7. bender
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 6:28 PM | Permalink

    As with a fragile economy, I think no one really wishes to see the bubble pop. I think what’s hoped for is a calm, deflationary adjustment process where no one gets hurt too badly and no one is scapegoated needlessly.

  8. Pat Frank
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 7:54 PM | Permalink

    #5 — I commented to the panel beforehand specifically on the choice of Mr. Nychka, and recommended independent statisticians. You’re always looking for the best from people, Steve, but when there are so many ad hoc excuses for why the right thing was not done, and the trend seems so uniformly in one direction, then there is either a widespread delusion or else people are opting for a pre-conceived conclusion. Tendentiousness is rife when righteousness is the driver.

    It’s not courage that is missing. In science, and presumably in both econometrics and your mining prospectives, it’s possible to make the argument with objective evidences. That is, the evidence speaks for itself — the correct judgment is not a matter of opinion or personal insistence — and therefore no onus should fall on the person making the argument. If such onus does fall, then it is immediately clear — because of the indisputable objectivity of the argument — that the blame is entirely unfair. The person blamed can readily show personal innocence. The accusers then have the option of either acceding to the argument or of openly engaging in a star-chamber proceeding. That is, their prejudice becomes openly declared. Not many scientists will opt for that (as opposed to politicians or clerics).

    It takes less courage to make an objective refutational argument in science than to engage an opinionated polemic, therefore. In climate science, and especially proxy reconstructions, the objective refutational argument exists and has been publicly made. It’s not courage these people lack; they lack some sort of integrity because the effect of what they’re doing is to stack the deck. The dishonesty may be non-conscious but the odor of fish is persistent.

  9. Pat Frank
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 8:00 PM | Permalink

    #7 — Someone needs to be scapegoated needfully. Tim Ball hasn’t been fooled by the trends in climate science. Neither have Roger Pielke Sr., or Richard Lindzen, or John Christy, or many others. It becomes a central and very important question as to why so many have willingly stampeded.

    In my view, it’s that these people have injected their politics into their science; their science has become pathological because of that infection. In my further view, it comes down to personal arrogance; a claim of precocious knowledge. A personality flaw writ large, if you will.

  10. JMS
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 8:01 PM | Permalink

    8: Talk about an ad hom… That is one of the most eloquent ones I’ve read…

  11. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 9:28 PM | Permalink

    #6. Jean S has written me offline with some delicious details on RegEM as implemented by Rutherford and Mann. ANyone want to bet that don’t have some weird undisclosed and unjustifiable biasing step in the program? Didn’t think so. You’ll have to wait until Jean S returns from holidays though.

  12. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 9:35 PM | Permalink

    I did a quick note on trends last summer pointing out that virtually all temperature series were ARMA(1,1) rather than AR1 and modeled this way typically had very high AR1 coefficients, generally above 0.9! Demetris Koutsoyannis has obaserved that taking averages of AR1 series results in ARMA(1,1) series so monthly averaging or annual averaging would change the properties. I did some back of the envelope calculations (and I’m not especially familiar with the topic and do not warrant these calculations):

    The probability of spurious trend identification through a t-statistic for a trend of 321 measurements with an AR1 coefficient of 0.92 and MA1 coefficient of -0.4 is about 34%, instead of 5%. (See Vogelsang Table 1).

    If you browse through the posts from last August in this category, there are some threads re4levant to this Appendix. IMHO my quick notes compare quite favorably with the accumulated wisdom of these IPCC lunimaries and collective wisdom of the USCCSP program.

  13. Pat Frank
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 9:42 PM | Permalink

    #10 — In climate science, specifically proxy climate reconstructions, the refutation has been made and published, and supported by independent review, JMS. Where is the ad hom?

  14. bender
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 9:54 PM | Permalink

    Actually, I had assumed PF in #8 was criticizing a process, not a person. JMS, aren’t you being a little quick with your accusations of late?

  15. bender
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 10:10 PM | Permalink

    Re #12 ARMA processes
    I’m not sure if I should post here or in that ARMA thread, so I’ll start here, and take it there if necessary. I’m not surprised temperatures are ARMA(1,1) – but I was very surprised to see that the MA1 coefficients in your global temperature plot were universally (-)! (I’m so used to working on trend-free tree-ring series, where MA(1) is almost always (+).) What is your interpretation of the (-) MA(1)? My wild guess is that it is an artifact of annual framing bias (?). Or possibly that the MA(1) (and more importantly, the AR(1)) coefficient is heavily biased because of the trend in the data. That would explain an AR(1)=0.9. ARMA models should be fit to detrended data, as stationarity is a critical assumption. What happens to the coefficients when you use ARIMA(1,1,1) to take out the trend?

  16. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 10:23 PM | Permalink

    bender, I haven’t studied this in detail. But on tree ring chronologies, my recollection is that a lot of them are ARMA(1,1) with negative coefficients. Actually I’m certain of this – remember my post on Ritson in May 2006 where his goofy Ritsonian formula for autocorrelation was OK for a process that actually was AR1, but was hugely off the mark for ARMA(1,1). realclimate had a thread which they cut off after about 15 posts when we started making fun of them.

    Deng 2005 has an interesting take on ARMA(1,1) series discussing a class of noise with high AR1 and negative MA1 that is “almost integrated almost white” that is resistant to some common statistical tests. He cites some hard papers by Perron.

    I forget whether I checked ARMA(1,1,1); I probably did, it’s the sort of thing I do and it probably wasn’t significant or else I’d have followed it. ARMA(1,1) is really a very strong feature and it’s amazing that such a simple observation has eluded so many observers.

    Demetris Koutsoyannis’ take is different and more subtle and I’ve been meaning for months to try to master his ideas – he thinks that the climate series are red on multiple scales – which is a simple, elegant and unexploited stochastic model.

    The trouble with climate is that every stone you turn over, there’s an interesting problem that would take a year to exhaust, but you can find a new stone every few days.

  17. JMS
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 10:30 PM | Permalink

    Steve has pointed out a problem with the methodology in MBH98/99. That is a given. Whether or not it makes a difference is something which has not been proved. I tend to lean in the “no difference” direction, as you can probably tell. The BCP issue has to do with proxy selection and is not necessarily a methodological issue. I will, for the sake of things, assume that Malcolm Hughes knows something about dedro studies. You would be well advised not to post stuff like this:

    It takes less courage to make an objective refutational argument in science than to engage an opinionated polemic, therefore. In climate science, and especially proxy reconstructions, the objective refutational argument exists and has been publicly made. It’s not courage these people lack; they lack some sort of integrity because the effect of what they’re doing is to stack the deck. The dishonesty may be non-conscious but the odor of fish is persistent.

    That is an an ad hom against an entire field and one which is made constantly here. As the NRC pointed out there are many lines of evidence pointing to an anthropogenic cause for recent warming — personally I think that the best evidence is the “fingerprint” evidence now that the satellite data has been sorted out. this might be the best summary of the evidence I have seen anywhere. Read it and think.

  18. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 10:47 PM | Permalink

    Well, we;ve not said that the MBH problems are “simply” the incorrect PC method although the PC method is important and its effects are pernicious. The flawed method interacts with flawed proxies. In this case, the NAS panel caught the nuance correctly.

    The NAS panel said that bristlecones should be avoided in temperature rconstructions. Hughes has not stood up and said one word about bristlecones in the past 2 years. His other articles (e.g. Biondi et al 1999) said that bristlecones were not a reliable temperature proxy in the 20th century. No wonder he isn’t saying a peep.

    The method interacts with the proxies. The incorrect method isolated and promoted a minor effect. Mann described it as the “dominant component of variance”. Mann now tries to argue that you MUST include a PC4 in a reconstruction, but there’s no mathematical rule saying that it’s a good idea to include a PC4 from a tree ring network.

    Plus consider Mann’s robustness claim – that his reconstruction was robust to the presence/absence of all dendro indicators (Mann et al 2000) when that claim was known to be false.

  19. Pat Frank
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 10:59 PM | Permalink

    #17 “this might be the best summary of the evidence I have seen anywhere.

    It’s wrong here: “Basic theory links these two trends.” Basic theory does not link specific surface temperatures with CO2 levels, because there is no predictive theory of climate. The effect of CO2 on surface temperatures could well be attenuated by negative fedbacks. No one knows whether this is the case, or not. That SciAm even makes the claim is prima facie evidence for the tendentiousness I noted in #8, because anyone who fairly reads the literature on GCMs can’t fail to conclude they are unable to predict climate, and thus unable to predict the effect of CO2.

    And frankly, JMS, that you could read MM03/05 and come away thinking the methodological errors ‘don’t matter,’ is yet more evidence of the will to believe.

    I might add that “fingerprint” evidence in the absence of any over-riding theory is no evidence at all. Absent a falsifiable and predictive theory, anyone can put any interpretation they like on the fingerprint.

  20. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 11:09 PM | Permalink

    Re #14: Oh, I don’t know, maybe his use of the term “these people” would be a clue to his having referenced person(s) rather than just a process? Then there were the various negative qualities he proceeded to ascribe to “these people.”

    JMS, I used to have a problem whenever I saw this stuff, but more and more I take the philosophical approach, the philosophy being that it’s important for visiting scientists, journalists and curious members of the public to see it.

    Thank you, Pat. Keep up the good work.

  21. bender
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 11:21 PM | Permalink

    Re #16

    ARIMA on the Briffa temperatures for foxtail area 1894-1996

    1. ARIMA(1,0,1)

    Coefficients:
    ar1 ma1 intercept
    0.86 -0.73 -0.15
    s.e. 0.18 0.24 0.10

    sigma^2 estimated as 0.2580: log likelihood = -76.44, aic = 160.87

    Supports what you say: AR(1)>>0, MA(1)

    2. Linear trend regression

    Coefficients:
    param Estim. S.Err. t value Pr(>|t|)
    intrcpt -8.840 3.293 -2.70 0.0085 **
    t i m e 0.004 0.0017 2.63 0.0099 **

    Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ‘ 1

    Residual standard error: 0.5108 on 101 degrees of freedom
    Multiple R-Squared: 0.06412, Adjusted R-squared: 0.05485
    F-statistic: 6.92 on 1 and 101 DF, p-value: 0.00986

    As I say, there is a weak, but significant upward trend.

    3. ARIMA(1,1,1)

    Coefficients:
    ar1 ma1
    0.0799 -0.9000
    s.e. 0.1234 0.0752

    sigma^2 estimated as 0.265: log likelihood = -77.76, aic = 161.52

    The AR(1) has dropped to insignificant because the trend has been removed by the I(1) term. But, as you say, the MA(1) term remains strongly (-). I suspect this is a result of framing bias. i.e. A year is defined arbitrarily as 12 months, always with the same start and end dates, but sometiimes winters/springs start soon and sometimes they start late. That the time-frame is fixed while the seasons are free to slide leads to (-) MA(1). If you let the framing window slide from year to year, the (-)MA(1) would probably disappear.

  22. bender
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 11:36 PM | Permalink

    Mr Bloom, there’s a post over at RC for you. #3. Thx.

  23. JMS
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 11:37 PM | Permalink

    Steve, since you are so sure of your conclusions why don’t you do a recon like the one I suggested. Take the two major recommendations of the NRC panel (use correct centering and avoid strip-bark BCP samples) and show us what happens. BTW, it was only the strip-bark forms which the NRC said should be avoided, so you can probably use most of the foxtails.

    You make your claims and they are answered. Most of the answers seem to fall in the “so what?” category; if the methods you advocate are followed, there is little or no difference in the final recon (outside of getting rid of the NOAMER data and Gaspe). You seem to know enough about the data and the methods to do your own work, so why not? Are you afraid that it might show a hockey stick?

  24. bender
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 11:40 PM | Permalink

    JMS: Patience, friend. Patience.

  25. bender
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 11:41 PM | Permalink

    JMS, check #22. Thx.

  26. gbalella
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 11:47 PM | Permalink

    Re#19

    What a bunch of non sensical babble. Yes basic theory does link CO2 and temperature. I suspect you don’t where a blanket to bed at night because from your logic there’s no predictive theory that it will keep you warm.

  27. gbalella
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 11:53 PM | Permalink

    Re # 17

    JMS that is an excellent article.

    Once again these guys are arguing twigs in the mist of a burning forest. These guys could come a long a factual sentence….”.The temperature trends of the lower atmsophere are consistent with modeled predictions”……and focus on the mis-spelling of the word atmosphere as if a spelling error precludes the truth of the sentence. That’s pretty much what you do when you’ve got nothing. Along with attack the messengers as you’ve already pointed out.

  28. gbalella
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 11:57 PM | Permalink

    Re #19

    I might add that “fingerprint” evidence in the absence of any over-riding theory is no evidence at all. Absent a falsifiable and predictive theory, anyone can put any interpretation they like on the fingerprint.

    Comment by Pat Frank

    Wow! Here is a person who just doesn’t want to believe. Giving up all rationality to hold onto his position. I’ve seen stomping screaming temper tantrum throwing 2 year olds that were more rational. Sad!!

  29. bender
    Posted Aug 18, 2006 at 11:59 PM | Permalink

    To answer the central question opening this thread:

    I have been unable to locate any publication Nychka et al,… which fits the bill.

    maybe what they are doing are calculating the effective degrees of freedom by using the “effective sample size” as prescribed in Eq. 9 on p. 135 of Appendix A? It’s hard to say. Blind alleys.

    Bloom, JMS, what do you say? Should one be forced to speculate like this as to the methods used to calculate confidence intervals? Or should the methods be clear, so that the experiments are repeatable by independent investigators? Say … what method do you guys use when you do your reconstructions?

  30. bender
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 12:07 AM | Permalink

    gbalella,
    Glad you’re here. Did you find the Nychka et al. reference yet? No? Could you have a look? Related: JMS and Bloom would like to see another BCP temperature reconstruction. Would you be willing to help them out? Thx. You’re a gem.

  31. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 12:09 AM | Permalink

    Re #29: Trees are difficult for global climate trends (although goood for regional information). I much prefer ice cores for global trends, with ocean sediment cores (much more on the way, soon) in second place. Regarding reconstructions, I’ll show you mine if you show me yours. :)

  32. bender
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 12:14 AM | Permalink

    That’s a deal, sir. But since you’re probably way ahead of me … could you please answer the questions in #29, while I catch up to you? Or maybe help locate the Nychka et al. reference? Or answer #3 at RC. Thx. You’re a gem too.

  33. bender
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 12:36 AM | Permalink

    Steve M,
    Presumably you’ve scanned through Nychka’s publication list in search of the missing reference?

  34. bender
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 12:48 AM | Permalink

    Based on Nychka’s papers on neural networks [1] and estimation of missing climate data [2] I would suspect he would be well aware of any frailties in algorithms such as RegEM.

    [1] Nychka, D. and O’Connell, M. (1996). Neural Networks in Applied Statistics – Discussion. Technometrics, 38, 218-220.

    [2] Johns, C. Nychka, D. Kittel, T., Daly, C. (2003). Infilling Sparse Records of Precipitation Fields. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 98, 796-806.

  35. Pat Frank
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 1:04 AM | Permalink

    #26 — Tell you what, gbalella, if you post a link to a journal article that includes the parameter uncertainties propagated through a GCM calculation, showing error bars less than or equal to the predicted temperature, I’ll change my mind about “basic theory” and admit here that I was wrong, and that you and JMS are right.

    If you can’t do that, then you accept ownership of the “nonsensical babble.”

    #20 — Steve B., your stretch to make an ad hom accusation shows much more about your extremist sensitivities than anything about me. And that you, who so regularly here attempted character assassination by pejorative reference to occupation, should claim injury on the strength of a trumped up insult evokes only a cynical regard.

    I am, here, a “visiting scientist,” by the way.

  36. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 1:15 AM | Permalink

    Re #32: Regarding #29, I think your energies would be far better spent doing original research.

    Regarding #3 at RC, what’s your point? Do you think the data being presented that way was inappropriate for the simplified analysis it supported? Would seeing the noise make the long-term trend go away?

    Regarding Nychka, you may want to check the NCAR site. I notice they produce quite a few technical papers that don’t end up in peer-reviewed publications.

  37. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 1:26 AM | Permalink

    Re #35: Of course you’re entitled to your opinions, Pat. But just out of curioisity, where in #20 did I claim injury? I thought I said I had become quite happy with your efforts.

  38. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 1:27 AM | Permalink

    RE #33: You got there first. No such papers that I can see.

  39. Pat Frank
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 2:01 AM | Permalink

    #37 — Show you have more than opinions, Steve B., by posting a link to the parameter uncertainties propagated through a GCM. Contrasting your brash challenge with lines 1&2 in #20 merely provides more “negative qualities” grist for the cynical mill.

  40. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 2:44 AM | Permalink

    Re #39: Pat, this stuff is to an extent beyond me, but have a look at this and this. Bear in mind that there are some who might consider the consequences of 3C to be a little on the disastrous side. Er, what brash challenge?

  41. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 3:21 AM | Permalink

    Re 17, JMS, thanks for the posting where you say:

    this (http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=are_you_a_global_warming_skeptic_part_iv&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1) might be the best summary of the evidence I have seen anywhere. Read it and think.

    Well, I read it and thought, and my thought was “They didn’t do their homework, it contains all kinds of errors”. In no particular order, some of their errors are:

    1) Neither their first nor their second piece of “evidence” for AGW shows anything about AGW. Yes, the earth has been warming for about 300 years, and yes, the CO2 levels have been rising for about 150 years, with a significant rise in the last 50 years. Neither of these facts prove anything at all about whether humans are affecting the climate.

    2) They wildly overestimate the effect of increased radiative forcing on global temperature. There is an excellent paper (CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change, Climate Research Vol. 10: 69–82, 1998, Sherwood B. Idso, available at http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10//c010p069.pdf#search=%22%22a%20skeptic's%20view%20of%22%20idso%22) that lists ten separate natural experiments that clearly establish that the sensitivity of the temperature to a change of forcing is on the order of 0.1°C per watt, or about 0.3 – 0.4° for a doubling of CO2. (Please, don’t anyone post yet another ad hominem attack on the Idsos. If you don’t agree with any of the ten natural experiments he cites, let me know which one and why; otherwise, don’t bother writing. I don’t give a damn what your opinion of the Idsos may be … I do care whether his claims make sense.)

    Your reference claims, with absolutely no citation, that “According to the geologic record, 1 W/sq m should lead to about half a degree Celsius of warming — which matches the observed increase.” While “according to the geologic record” sounds impressive and lends an air of accuracy to their claim, it means … absolutely nothing.

    Actually, the evidence (not computer modeling, but evidence) cited above shows that 1 W/sq m of increased forcing should lead to about a tenth of a degree of warming, far smaller than the observed temperature increase. This is why they have had to invoke a totally unsubstantiated “positive feedback” to get their models to agree even roughly with reality. Do you really think that they would have invoked the unproven “positive water vapor feedback” if the theoretical warming from CO2 actually matched the observed increase as your source claims?

    Finally, they ignore several other problems with the GHG explanation of temperature increase. One is that the earth warmed considerably from 1700 to 1945. One of the periods of greatest warming was from about 1915 to 1945, well before the large modern increase in CO2. None of this can be ascribed to GHGs, and thus it must be due to other natural factors.

    And then, after WWII, when CO2 started increasing radically, the earth … cooled down. That’s hard to explain with CO2. It is usually papered over with claims that it was “masked” by aerosols, but this claim fails under examination, because the aerosols are present mostly in the Northern Hemisphere, while the cooling was worldwide. All of these difficulties are ignored by your “best summary”.

    Next, there is another problem, which is the inadequacy of the ground station data. According to the HadCRUT3 figures, the temperature increase over the last century is 0.6°, with a minimum error of +/- 0.2°C (2 std dev, and ignoring UHI as well as inherent station inaccuracy). Since the contribution of CO2 to this temperature increase is estimated to be on the order of 0.1°C, our data is not adequate to say anything about whether CO2 is involved or not.

    Finally, the existence of the large temperature swings which predate the increase in CO2 means that there are correspondingly large drivers and/or feedbacks in the climate system which created such swings. Your “best summary” simply dismisses these unknown factors out of hand, saying “Natural factors, such as variations in the sun’s output, have been too small to account for the observed temperature increase.”

    But, although everyone agrees that the 1915-1945 temperature rise was not due to rising CO2, no one knows what natural factors led to that temperature increase … so how can your reference possibly say that natural factors have been too small to explain the recent rise, a rise which is smaller than the 1915-1945 rise?

    Overall, your reference is a very crude attempt to pin a simplistic explanation on a very complex subject. The climate system is a driven, resonant, chaotic, multi-stable, optimally turbulent, constructal, terawatt scale heat engine with a host of known and unknown drivers and feedbacks. It contains five imperfectly understood major subsystems (atmosphere, lithosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and biosphere), each of which interacts both with itself and with all of the other subsystems. We are discovering new drivers and feedbacks all the time.

    Your reference cites, and depends heavily upon, various computer model results. Climate is the most complex system that humans have ever attempted to model, and we have only been modeling it for a very short time. Given the general knowledge that the system is so complex that computers cannot predict next weeks weather, people’s childish faith in hundred year computer climate forecasts is … well, it’s a touching reminder that we have not escaped the thought processes that led us to imagine thunderbolts as coming from Zeus. Humans long for the certainty of explanations, even at the expense of rationality or logic.

    And given the complexity of the system and our imperfect understanding of it, anyone who makes foolish claims like “Natural factors … have been too small to account for the observed temperature increase” is suffering from terminal hubris. We are nowhere near being able to make such statements.

    w.

  42. Pat Frank
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 3:50 AM | Permalink

    #40 — Steve B., your first “this” says: “Climate sensitivity has been subjectively estimated to be likely to lie in the range of 1.5-4.5 C…(bolding added),” and “… we show how it is possible to greatly reduce this uncertainty by using Bayes’ Theorem.Bayes’ theorem is a sophisticated mode of guessing.

    Your second “this” is titled, “An overview of probabilistic climate prediction” in which the author admits to lack of knowledge concerning the response of the atmosphere to CO2 (“… partly because I am no expert on the subject …“). I’m glad to see you citing an honest man.

    These are supposed to be predictive?

    Come on, Steve B. You evince nothing but certainty for your position. Let’s have the projected temperature error obtained by propagating the parameter uncertainties through a GCM. GCMs are, after all, the best physical representation of the atmosphere we have. If they are trustworthy, let’s have the true error limits. If they’re not, then no amount of Bayesian analysis, or any other sort of empirical estimator, is going to tell us anything definitive about future climates. Oh, and if GCM projections are not trustworthy, then you have no “A” ground to stand on as regards GW.

    Er, what brash challenge?“? Oh, innocent you.

  43. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 6:27 AM | Permalink

    #23. You asked to see the impact of the NAS Panel recommendations on the MBH reconstruction. I’ve done this already in two different presentations.

    One of their recommendations was to use averages instead of principal components. I did this with the astonishing results reported here.

    BTW it’s nowhere been shown that PC applied to tree ring networks produces temperature proxies. But leaving that aside, I presented a graph to the House Energy and Commerce Committee – 2nd presentation - showing the effect of correct centering leaving out Graybill’s strip-bark samples. Graybill collected a couple (perhaps a few) foxtail sites and said that all of his sites were selected for strip-bark. So one cannot reasonably leave Graybill’s foxtail sites in – and, of course, the whole MBH methodology becomes even more absurd if it stands or falls on a couple of Graybill foxtail sites.

    One can see the impact of Graybill’s sampling practices by comparing Graybill’s Niwot Ridge sample to that of Woodhouse from what can be no more than a km away. Graybill’s are completely different. In fact, there’s a pressing need to verify exactly what Graybill did to ensure that independent samplers can replicate his results.

  44. bender
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 7:22 AM | Permalink

    Re #36
    Bloom:

    Regarding #3 at RC, what’s your point?

    You’re telling me you can’t see the point? Answer the questions, and I’ll tell you the point.

    Regarding your remark on the other post that temperature measurements are not subject to sampling error. You obviously don’t now what sampling error is. If temperatures are not subject to sampling error then there is no such thing as a global mean temperature field.

    Now, be a gem, and go track down the Nychka paper for me?

  45. bender
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 7:40 AM | Permalink

    Bloom, THIS is you’re “sort of” answer referred to in the Katrina thread? I thought you were saying you’d answered over at RC.

    You say you’re interested in the AGW-hurricane link. Then why is it so hard to answer a simple question about the statistical implications of summing observations across five-year windows, rather than analysing the data as annual observations?

    Hurricane frequency is a parameter that is not subject to sampling error? Bloom, you’re a good debater, but you have a lot to learn about statistical dynamics.

    Go look at Judith Curry’s Fig. 1 after reading this post, and then tell me again you don’t see the point. It’s staring you in the face. Open your eyes.

  46. bender
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 8:12 AM | Permalink

    #42 seems like a reasonable request:

    Let’s have the projected temperature error obtained by propagating the parameter uncertainties through a GCM.

    Who wouldn’t want to see that?

  47. bender
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 8:25 AM | Permalink

    Re #32

    I think your energies would be far better spent doing original research.

    So now you’re asking CA to NOT produce a reconstruction?

    You know what I think? I think you fear the truth. You fear the truth because you can not anticipate it. And you can not anticipate it because you have no understanding of statistics.

  48. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 8:30 AM | Permalink

    bender, I re-read some of my posts from last summer on some gridcells with odd ARMA(1,1) coefficients here here here.

    Obtaining and mapping ARMA(1,1) coefficients is actually a rather near quality control procedure for the gridcell results. It sure picked out a lot of wonky results like a champ. I liked the African gridcell where the CRU values were out by an order of magnitude every Januray. When you see examples like that, you wonder what their vaunted quality control procedures really are. I spotted that in the first hour or so that I played with the data. If their QC procedures can’t pick up

  49. bender
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 9:51 AM | Permalink

    Re #41
    Posts like this really get you thinking.

  50. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 10:16 AM | Permalink

    Re#41:

    And then, after WWII, when CO2 started increasing radically, the earth … cooled down. That’s hard to explain with CO2. It is usually papered over with claims that it was “masked” by aerosols, but this claim fails under examination, because the aerosols are present mostly in the Northern Hemisphere, while the cooling was worldwide. All of these difficulties are ignored by your “best summary”.

    I’ve been beating this drum a lot lately. All the info I can find (along with common sense) suggests anthropogenic aerosol emissions and GHG emissions went hand-in-hand, at least into the 1970s. It makes no sense that aerosols would wait until the 1940s to suddenly start masking GHG warming – it should have been there all along.

  51. mark
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 10:21 AM | Permalink

    That is an an ad hom against an entire field and one which is made constantly here.

    I think you need to brush up on what an ad-hominem means. Ad-hominem is NOT simply criticism or personal insult. Yes, criticism, and sometimes insult, are regularly made here, and there is so much to criticize. Ad-hominem is using said personal insult to refute an argument, which is not being done. Learn your terminology before making such claims. You personally enjoy the appeal to authority (actually in reverse), so logic claims are obviously not YOUR forte.

    Mark

  52. mark
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 10:25 AM | Permalink

    Take the two major recommendations of the NRC panel (use correct centering and avoid strip-bark BCP samples) and show us what happens.

    Michael Mann already did this experiment without the bristlecones, JMS. Pay attention, this information is located in the CENSORED directory folks like you continually refuse to admit “makes a difference.” Sans HS, btw.

    BTW, it was only the strip-bark forms which the NRC said should be avoided, so you can probably use most of the foxtails.

    Until a linear relationship between any tree-ring and temperature can be discerned, all tree-rings represent flawed data. This is assumption #2 in MBH98, btw. Also, there is a problem with using trees to represent global temperatures in the face of lacking correlations to local temperatures AND, trees only grow about 4-5 months per year. Hardly a “yearly” proxy.

    You keep asking for a “study” that is, inevitably, flawed. Garbage in, garbage out.

    Mark

  53. Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 10:55 AM | Permalink

    #48 about surface temperatures: there can be random error and systematic error. Random error has no effect on the mean temperature if the sample is large enough. It seems to me that about the only or the main possible cause of systematic error is UHI or similar effect. Both Pielke Sr. and John Christy have shown how you don’t need to have a weather station in the middle of a city to have a significant UHI effect. Now the UHI effect is only positive, or at least I haven’t seen any example of a negative systematic effect. The conclusion to be drawn from that simple line of reasoning is that the surface temperature record is most probably overestimated. Thus the trend is really an upper limit to what the actual trend is. To me it’s very likely that you could easily shove off 0.1C from last century’s warming. In any case, that would make the surface temps more in line with MSU data.

    Maybe someone can comment on that paper, linking temperature to CO2, but CO2 is really a spatial proxy for human activity (e.g. industrial). Sounds like an interesting hypothesis.

  54. Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 11:49 AM | Permalink

    Dear Francois #53,

    the paper you linked is now probably up-to-date because Christy et al. have recently found an imperfection in their satellite measurements and calculations.

    On the other hand, one of the previous climate audit articles was about some discrepancies in the surface measurements that point to UHI, indeed.

    Best
    Lubos

  55. Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

    now -> not

  56. bender
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 12:16 PM | Permalink

    Re #41
    Willis, that Idso paper you refer to is almost never cited in the literature. What do you make of that?

  57. 2dogs
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 1:04 PM | Permalink

    Are there any benchmarks for the acceptance of GCMs? For example, I would credit any GCM which could predict El Nino/La Nina events 10 years in advance with 75% accuracy.

  58. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 1:22 PM | Permalink

    Re 56, bender, I don’t know why the Idso paper is rarely cited … other than that it blows the entire AGW claim out of the water. If you have read it, you know it is a very solid and very interesting piece of work.

    It is not alone in the field, either. Climate sensitivity of the Earth to solar irradiance, Douglass, D.H. and Clader, B.D. 2002., Geophysical Research Letters 29: 10.1029/2002GL015345 came to almost exactly the same conclusion as the Idso paper, that the climate sensitivity (k) for the lower troposphere was 0.11° +/- 0.02°C per additional watt of forcing.

    The authors also showed that their studies of several other temperature records came to the same result. These included the Parker (1997) radiosonde temperatures (k = 0.13), Jones et al. (2001) surface air temperatures (k = 0.09), and Hansen et al. (1987) surface air temperatures (k=0.11)

    Douglass and Clader also said that White et al. (1999) calculated k as being 0.10° +/- 0.02°C for the upper ocean 1955-1994, and Lean and Rind (1998) calculated k = 0.12° +/- 0.02°C for the surface temperatures of the period 1610-1800.

    All of these estimates of k are much lower than the IPCC value, which is stated as mean 3.5°C, high 5.1°C, low 2.0°C for a doubling of CO2. Since the IPCC value for a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts/m2, the mean IPCC value for “k” is very close to 1. (Curiously, this is twice the value given in the reference which JSR cited in #17 above. Why? … dunno, because the only reference given for their figure is, curiously, the “geological record” … say what?)

    Why the discrepancy between the IPCC value and the others? The main reason is that all of the above estimates (Idsos, Douglass and Clader, White, and Lean and Rind) are experimental, real world measurements. The IPCC values, on the other hand, comes from computer models … I leave it to the reader whether to believe:

    a) the ten “natural experiments” of Idso, the four analyses of Douglass and Clader, the analysis of White, and the analysis of Lean and Rind, all of which give a result very close to k = 0.1°C/watt-m2, or

    b) the computer models of the IPCC, which give a figure ten times as large.

    w.

    REFERENCES:

    Hansen, J. and Lebedeff, S. 1987. Global trends of measured surface air temperature. Journal of Geophysical Research 92: 13,345-13,372.

    IPCC Climate Sensitivity http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/355.htm

    Jones, P.D., Parker, D.E., Osborn, T.J. and Briffa, K.R. 2001. Global and hemispheric temperature anomalies — land and marine instrumental records. In: Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN.

    Lean, J. and Rind, D. 1998. Climate forcing by changing solar radiation. Journal of Climate 11: 3069-3094.

    Parker, D.E., Gordon, M., Cullum, D.P.N., Sexton, D.M.H., Folland, C.K. and Rayner, N. 1997. A new global gridded radiosonde temperature data base and recent temperature trends. Geophysical Research Letters 24: 1499-1502.

    White, W.B., Lean, J., Cayan, D.R. and Dettinger, M.D. 1997. Response of global upper ocean temperature to changing solar irradiance. Journal of Geophysical Research 102: 3255-3266.

  59. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 1:25 PM | Permalink

    Moving back to the Wigley paper, I have a couple questions:

    1) Is the adjustment of “N” which Wigley proposes for AR(1) autocorrelation correct?

    2) Is that same adjustment appropriate for ARMA(1,1) type processes? If not, how are these adjusted?

    w.

  60. bender
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 1:33 PM | Permalink

    Re #58: Real-world empirical estimates are always interesting. Thanks for the additional refs.
    Re #59: Will have a closer look at 1 & 2 and get back to you.

  61. Martin Ringo
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 2:05 PM | Permalink

    I just read “Appendix A: Statistical Issues Regarding Trends,” and I don’t quite know what to make of it. In one sense I am sympathetic with Mr. Wigley, the principal author, because now-and-then I have to explain statistical issues to policy makers, and there is a no truly satisfactory way to do this. The trouble is that policy makers — administrators, legislators and their aides — just don’t have the time to understand the analytical principles, be they statistics or whatever. The “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere” is addressed to Congress and, as such, is meant for the legislatives aides (usually junior), agency sub-subalterns, and general policy wonks on the broader topic — climate change. As a whole that group is more likely to consider autoregressive behavior as a psychological aliment than a statistical framework and to say, “Oh, a statistical appendix: these guys must know their stuff.”

    As I read the Appendix I was irritated by the formally of the piece given the audience, and given the formally I would have expected a little more precision: “statistic” is poorly defined although not misleading, but Mean Square Error is simply incorrect (the difference is vis-àƒÆ’à‚➭vis the population parameter not some estimate, and it is usually not used with respect to observations but rather to the estimates themselves such as in a Monte Carlo experiment.) Why Wigley couldn’t use “squared residual” (fewer words and precise) baffles me. And then there is the little gem about the variance of the sum or difference of two random variables. What happened to the covariance term? Lastly there is the whole discussion of using difference between two series to reduce the confidence intervals. Think for a second: what happens when you subtract a negative trend series form positive trend series? What should we expect of from the difference? A bigger positive trend, right? What does that tell use about the significance of either of the two original trends? Not much.

    But my sympathy with the difficulty and my irritation with definitions and algebra are minor. The purpose of the Appendix is to present issues regarding the statistical analysis of trends, and in this it is, if not completely, largely misleading. Trends are problematic. Trend hunters should come to field with a large bag of humility. And if one hasn’t the time or inclination for econometrics texts — and if you do, I have a couple hundred econometric texts I could offer at a discount — one should at least recall the epistemological message of that English economist and sometime econometrician Sir Alexander Cairncross:
    A trend is a trend is a trend,
    But the question is, will it bend?
    Will it alter its course
    Through some unforeseen force
    And come to a premature end?

    Mr. Wigley did neither. Steve McIntyre has introduced the readers of these pages to the “spurious significance” problem of regressing [Granger and Newbold, 1974, Journal of Econometrics] a highly autocorrelated correlated variable on another such when there is no underlying relationship. When there is an important underlying relationship, the “spurious” part of the problem can disappear. In either case the tests of the residuals — such as the Durbin-Watson statistic which Steve has also introduced in these pages — will indicate the existence of problems. [Footnote for those who care: for temperature trend estimation, bounding or testing, I think that you need to use something like Engel's ARCH LM test ("autoregressive conditional heteroskedastic" Lagrange Multiplier), which is based on the regression of the squared residuals on the lagged squared residuals, for as many lags you want to include, and which the test statistic equal to the sample size times the R-squared is approximately a Chi-square. So if you R guys can't find it in the R packages -- though I bet it or the GARCH version is there somewhere -- it is real easy to write your own function. The larger and larger array of tests of the residuals come the continuing study of how to determine whether or not the regression residuals reflect the assumptions that underlie the model, usually white noise innovations.]

    The Appendix is disturbingly misleading because it treats the serially correlation problem facially. It shows a bit of the problem of estimating and testing for a trend and then leaves the impression that these have been accounted for. A year ago Steve introduced his readers to a paper by Timothy Vogelsang that proposes a test of trends over a broad range of ARIMA models. [Footnote for those interested in the bottom line: Fomby and Vogelsang used Vogelsang's test on a bunch of global and hemispheric temperature series and concluded, in amore readable paper, that there was a significant warming trend: Fomby, T and T. Vogelsang, "Tests of Common Deterministic Trend Slopes Applied to Quarterly Global Temperature Data."] There is no indication in the Appendix of a recognition of the type of problem Vogelsang [and Cajels, E and M. Watson, "Estimating Deterministic Trends in the Presence of Serially Correlated Errors," 1997, "Review of Economics and Statistics] addressed. Rather the Appendix gives the indication that with its ad hoc significance adjustment for first order autocorrelation all the problems disappear.

    [The Appendix says:
    "This dependence is referred to as "temporal autocorrelation' or "serial correlation.' When data are auto-correlated (i.e., when successive values are not independent of each other), many statistics behave as if the sample size was less than the number of data points, n."
    For any of standard test statistics there is a sample size adjustment that will give the correct significance. For a given regression there is a single adjustment factor depending on rho and n. However, the necessary adjustment is will almost always be difference for one coefficients t-stat versus another and similarly for Wald tests of linear combinations of coefficients. Thus, how does one know a priori which adjustment is correct? I am a great believer in ad hoc adjustments -- it and dumb luck are what keep one alive in combat -- but significance adjustment in the Appendix is bit too much for me.]

    OK suppose Wigley et al are allergic to econometricians — an understandable aliment. However, Messrs. Durbin and Watson published there original paper in Biometrika in 1950, which is probably early enough to have reached the authors. They run their trend estimation on the Hadley monthlies (coincident with the MSU series: Dec 1978 to present), and they get a D-W stat of around 0.5. For time series data, that spells big trouble, spurious significance, or whatever you want to call. [It does NOT spell bias. Serial correlation produces underestimates of the standard errors on the coefficients, but estimates themselves are not biased from the serial correlation.] Suppose they tried estimating with an AR1 term. The D-W test is out of the big-trouble zone and the trend estimate is roughly the same. So they quit? Now if they had paid any attention to their statistical package they would have found a further test. The ARCH LM would be nice, but the Breusch-Godfrey test (from a regression of residuals on exogenous plus lagged (2 or more lags) residuals, which is a standard in the linear model testing of R/S-Plus and SAS and presumably in appropriate module of Matlab) would tell them there was still trouble. When it comes to trends, Sir Alex was a very wise man. Wigley et al would then have continued with, say, an ARMA(1, 1) with trend … ARMA(3,3) and maybe more. Somewhere along the line they would have said “How about taking first differences? The linear trend is just the constant term of the first difference.” And when they did that, they would have been somewhat surprised to now find that there significant trend has become insignificant. Trends are problematic, as I said.

    That little exercise — from naàƒÆ’à‚⮶e OLS to AR1 to more involved ARMA models to first differencing or just jumping to the last part ala the suggestions of Box and Jenkins — doesn’t require a Ph.D. in statistics or econometrics. But it does require skimming a few text books or maybe googling serial correlation on the Web along with reading some of the documentation of the software they were using. And it would seem that if one is going to write about the “Statistical Issues Regarding Trends,” that one ought to know a little something about it.

  62. bender
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 3:02 PM | Permalink

    Well said, Martin Ringo. I think your assessment provides some support for the idea that the fields of cliamte science and statistics have been too much divorced from one another for far too long.

  63. gbalella
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 3:59 PM | Permalink

    Re 41

    1) Neither their first nor their second piece of “evidence” for AGW shows anything about AGW. Yes, the earth has been warming for about 300 years, and yes, the CO2 levels have been rising for about 150 years, with a significant rise in the last 50 years. Neither of these facts prove anything at all about whether humans are affecting the climate.

    Comment by Willis Eschenbac

    Willis …you seem to have left out their whole argument on fingerprinting analysis. A bit disingenuous I’d say.

  64. Hans Erren
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 4:14 PM | Permalink

    re 58:

    My take is that the climate system (being a closed loop amplifier) acts as a low pass filter, i.e. high frequencies have a lower gain than low frequencies

    The high frequency validation is Pinatubo (0.15 K/Wm-2) and annual response to solar irradiation (Hoyt 0.18 K/Wm-2)

    The midrange observations points to 0.282 K/Wm-2, (The “no feedback” value, as found using Modtran)

    Note that Mann and Bradley as coauthors of Waple use 0.3 K/Wm-2 [!]

    Ice age sensitivity already is approaching the horizontal asymptotic value:
    Hansen 0.750 K/Wm-2

    The low frequency response is in the Eocene using 5000 ppm and a temperature difference of 11 degrees

    Eocene forcing is 5.35*ln(5000/370) = 13.9 W/m-2 (stretching Myhre a bit here)
    Therefore equilibrium sensitivity has a maximum value of 11/13.9 = 0.789 K/W-2 or 2.89 K/2XCO2

    So in a summary graph:

    see also

    http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forumold/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=25003&start=1

    http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/waple2002.pdf

  65. Hans Erren
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 4:16 PM | Permalink

    oops:
    So in a summary graph:

  66. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 4:23 PM | Permalink

    Re #44/5: Bender, I don’t think I ever said anything to imply that temperature wouldn’t have a sampling error. Regarding TCs, I still can’t figure out what you mean when you talk about sampling error relative to the use of pentads in Figure 1 in the BAMS article. If you had said the use of pentads makes the record appear less noisy, of course it does, but the pentads still wouldn’t be hiding any sort of sampling error. I take sampling error to imply that the sample is not a sufficiently accurate reflection of the entire population, and in this case since the sample was all hurricanes, that would imply that something is missing. If it is missing, it would affect both an annualized graph and the pentad graph, so again how is it *the use of pentads as such* is hiding something? In any case, as I noted, there is a missing data controversy, but the article goes on to address that issue directly.

  67. gbalella
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 4:25 PM | Permalink

    Re # 41

    2) They wildly overestimate the effect of increased radiative forcing on global temperature. There is an excellent paper…………..that lists ten separate natural experiments that clearly establish that the sensitivity of the temperature to a change of forcing is on the order of 0.1°C per watt, or about 0.3 – 0.4° for a doubling of CO2.

    Ewwwee darn…nice estimate Willis but in case you an Idso missed it the earth has already warmed by 0.8C (2X Idso’s estimate) and we haven’t even doubled the effective CO2 concentration. And you actually believe that is an “excellent paper”??

  68. ET SidViscous
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 4:29 PM | Permalink

    So Gballela that 0.8C (In actuality for the 20th century it was 0.6C) was entirely from CO2

    I think you missed Willis’ point completely, and you ignore any possibility of Natural variability.

    I believe Willis’ point was in identifying how much was a result of CO2, the rest being from other causes.

  69. Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 4:37 PM | Permalink

    IMHO Douglas and clader mage an elegant breakdown of the contributers to tropospheric temperature:
    Enso
    Volcanics
    sun
    “unknown linear trend”

    figure 2 from:
    Douglass, D.H. and B.D Clader, 2002, Climate sensitivity of the earth to solar irradiance, Geophys. Res Lett. vol 29, no. 16, 10.1029/2002GL015345

  70. bender
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 4:43 PM | Permalink

    Re #66
    Bloom: “There is no sampling error as such.”
    Please clarify.

  71. bender
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 4:45 PM | Permalink

    Bloom, You do not understand statistics. Would you like to learn? Or would you prefer to play games with you pretending to know what you are talking about?

  72. George
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 5:19 PM | Permalink

    Re: #41 ff.

    Willis, great summary. I have given copies of Idso’s 1998 paper to lots of people. I think it’s one of the most innovative climate papers I’ve seen, based on the idea that, rather than using numerical models, we can test the Earth’s climate system’s response to various stimuli — as Idso says, “I decided to see if I could learn something about [climate science] from the natural experiments provided by the special meteorological situations I was investigating.” There was an amazing consistency in the experiments, showing temperature increases on the order of 0.4C for a 2X CO2 scenario.
    Idso’s been wrongly characterized as an AGW denier. He’s not — he’s an AGW “minimalist.” His co2science.org website is also the best source of journal article reviews I’ve seen.

  73. gbalella
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 6:16 PM | Permalink

    Re # 68

    So based on that paper, assuming a modern 0.8 C increase in temperatures, there must have been a net positive forcing of 8 watts that caused the temperature change. And apparently we can’t find what that forcing is as the Sun only contributed ~ 0.5 watt, GHG contributed ~2.0 watt. So some mysterious unknown forcing of about 5.5 watts has occured and we have NO idea what it is? Maybe it’s invisible pink flying elephhants……maybe it’s hiding with the WMD’s…maybe its just the power of persusion on susceptble minds…who knows?

  74. ET SidViscous
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 6:26 PM | Permalink

    Maybe you need to find what it is before you start blaming it completely on CO2, maybe your solar forcings are off.

    Regardless you haven’t made the case for it being 100% CO2.

    Your thoughts on the complexity of the climte (giving input to only two factors) is very simplistic.

  75. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 6:51 PM | Permalink

    Re 63, gballela, thanks for your question about their “fingerprint analysis”. You say:

    Willis …you seem to have left out their whole argument on fingerprinting analysis. A bit disingenuous I’d say.

    I did not comment on it because it had so many logical errors I couldn’t follow it. I agree with you that their “fingerprint analysis” is a bit disingenuous, actually more than a bit. However, let me take a crack at it:

    They say, for example:

    Horizontal patterns. Pretty much the entire surface has gotten warmer, high latitudes more than lower ones. In the early 20th century, land regions and oceans warmed at similar rates, but since the mid-1970s, the land has sped ahead. On the whole, the Northern Hemisphere has warmed more than the Southern. Again, this is just what greenhouse gases would do.

    This does not make sense, either from the point of view of the data or the logic. Regarding the data, there are so many misrepresentations in this I don’t know where to start, so I’ll list them as I come to them. The lower troposphere records (either MSU or RSS, take your pick) show no significant warming in the Southern Hemisphere since 1979. The high latitudes have not warmed more than the lower ones. Antarctica has not warmed at all. Alaska and Canada warmed in 1976 as a result of the PDO, and it is definitely disingenuous to claim that this was a sign of GHG warming. There is no “arctic amplification” as claimed by the GHG enthusiasts, see Polyakov et al. And while the land has warmed more than the ocean since the 1970’s as they state, this was also true during two-thirds of the ~150 year HadCRUT3 record, so it is not anomalous as they claim. In short, their “facts” are simply not true.

    And regarding the logic, while greenhouse gases would have the effect of causing a greater temperature rise in the Northern Hemisphere, so would any natural forcing which changed the forcing equally worldwide. Thus, it is not evidence for anything.

    The same logical error is present in the “temporal distribution fingerprint”. Although reduced day-night differences and warmer nights would be expected from GHGs, they are also a sign of UHI. As it is well known that UHI is not accounted for in the temperature records, again this “fingerprint” proves nothing.

    Thus, to call these things “fingerprints” is an error in itself. A fingerprint is unique to a single individual. These patterns could be the result of a variety of causes. They call them “fingerprints” precisely to disguise this fact, to convince the credulous that there is no other possible explanation. This is not science … this is false advertising.

    Finally, as I remarked above, some of their “fingerprints” depend on the climate models. If you believe the climate models, I can only recommend that you compare their hindcast results to reality. I have done so, and the results were hilarious — many of the models hindcast month-to-month swings of temperature that have never occurred in recorded history.

    This is one of the most amazing things to me about the whole climate discussion. People who are very aware that computers can’t predict next weeks weather simultaneously believe that computers can predict next century’s climate … how can that possibly be?

    w.

    PS – having claimed (above) that more warming is to be expected in the Northern Hemisphere from GHGs than in the Southern, they go on to say “Per unit area, the northern seas have warmed less than the southern ones, which makes sense if greenhouse gases have caused an overall warming trend, offset by sulfate aerosols in the northern climes where they are concentrated.”

    Talk about wanting to eat your cake and have it too. When it suits them, they claim the GHGs preferentially heat the Northern Hemisphere more than the Southern … until they need the opposite, when suddenly it makes sense that the GHGs preferentially heat the Southern Hemisphere …

    I’d call that as disingenuous as you can get …

  76. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 7:12 PM | Permalink

    Re #71: I think you’re just dodging now, Bender. To show you’re not, let’s consider this in terms of a concrete example:

    Year 1 has five storms, year 2 has eight, year 3 has six, year 4 has five, and year 5 has six. Graph that, then add them up to make a single point on a pentad graph (thirty storms for the five years). Now, where exactly is the potential *sample error* between the two representations?

  77. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 7:16 PM | Permalink

    Re 73, gbalella, thank you for commenting:

    Re # 68

    So based on that paper, assuming a modern 0.8 C increase in temperatures, there must have been a net positive forcing of 8 watts that caused the temperature change. And apparently we can’t find what that forcing is as the Sun only contributed ~ 0.5 watt, GHG contributed ~2.0 watt. So some mysterious unknown forcing of about 5.5 watts has occured and we have NO idea what it is? Maybe it’s invisible pink flying elephhants……maybe it’s hiding with the WMD’s…maybe its just the power of persusion on susceptble minds…who knows?

    Umm … not sure where you’re getting your numbers, some citations would be in order, as they disagree with the accepted figures, viz:

    First, the increase in temperature over the last century is at most 0.6°C, +/- 0.2°C (HadCRUT3 data, 1900-1999, no adjustment for UHI). This is also the figure accepted by the IPCC.

    Second, the increase due to the change in solar forcing (TSI and solar magnetic) over the last century is estimated to be ~ 0.4 – 0.5°C (see Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle, JàƒÆ’à‚⠮ Veizer, Geoscience Canada, 2005 Volume 32 Number 1, March 2005)

    Third, the temperature increase due to CO2 over the last century (from 296 ppm to 370 ppm), using a sensitivity of 0.1°C/watt-m2 and a forcing from doubling of 3.7 w/m2, is about 0.1°C.

    These numbers all agree quite well, within the limits of error. Part of the problem, of course, is that these error bars are quite wide. In addition, the error bars typically only include the statistical error, and ignore the measurement error. Thus, the situation is more uncertain than it generally is reported to be.

    w.

    PS – it does not help the credibility of your arguments to rave on about invisible pink flying elephants and WMDs …

  78. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 7:21 PM | Permalink

    Re #75: So there hasn’t hasn’t been any temp increase to speak of, eh? But, e.g., the GRACE results for Greenland and the Antarctic would be explained by…?

    Also, could you give me a cite for those RSS results showing no warming over Antarctica?

  79. mark
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 7:24 PM | Permalink

    Sample error is in the frequency estimate, Steve B., and bender clearly stated “frequency estimate”. Bender is correct, you need to brush up a bit.

    Mark

  80. jae
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 8:13 PM | Permalink

    Steve B: I think you are actually learning something here. You seem to have have dropped the supercilious, looking-down-the-nose arrogance (for now?) I sure wish I knew why you spend so much time here with the terrible skeptics.

  81. Michael Hansen
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 8:32 PM | Permalink

    #73 gbalella;

    Oh, but we do have a candidate for some of those 5.5W/sqm: cosmic radiation -> aerosols -> clouds; clouds are indeed the 800-pound gorilla in the climate-mist.

    Until recently the link between cosmic rays and cloud formation, were pure speculations (albeit a very good one), but an initial experiment performed by Henrik Svensmark, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Nigel Marsh, Martin Enghoff and Ulrik I. Uggerhàƒⷪ at Danish National Space Centre, using one 8 cubic meter reaction chamber, has indeed confirmed that the ionisation of the atmosphere inflict on the formation of aerosols, and thereby clouds.

    The mechanism has become so plausible that CERN is going to spend 20 mill.$ on a more advanced experiment, named CLOUD, in order to not only confirm the mechanism but also to estimate an effect. In Copenhagen the cosmic radiation were simulated using a radioactive source, but the CLOUD experiment will use particle accelerators instead.

    If the CLOUD experiment turns out positive (depending on view), consensus could very well swap around: CO2 is going to have the role the sun has today and visa versa, and rest assure that the fight for the public opinion is going to get bloody. Mann & Co. is not going down without a fight, mostly because they have invested all their authority in scaring and ridiculing everyone who dared questioning consensus. Only…this time around they’re going to wrestle top-notch physicists at a top-notch institution.

    Michael Hansen.

    PS: and thanks for that little WMD-wisecrack, gbalella. Just like Ray Pierrehumbert, Gavin Smith, William Connolly, and Rasmus Benestad, you try, and you try, and you try, to conceal your true colours, but it’s just so damned hard with those big activist-hearts pumping away. Quite revealing, actually.

  82. Gabe C.
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 8:40 PM | Permalink

    Re Idso:

    I came across this at Idso’s site I believe he is referencing a theory by Rudiman that says humans have caused warming since 8000 B.C. and thus have prevented an ice age:

    “Hence, even if the IPCC is correct in their analysis of climate sensitivity and we are wrong in suggesting the sensitivity they calculate is way too large, the bottom line for the preservation of civilization and much of the biosphere is that governments ought not interfere with the normal progression of fossil fuel usage, for without more CO2 in the atmosphere, we could shortly resume the downward spiral to full-fledged ice-age conditions. Ought we not be doubly careful, therefore, as the United States indeed is, in not rushing forward to implement the Kyoto Protocol or anything like it?ï〢½ We certainly think so.”

    So Idso says he could be wrong on his estimate of CO2’s forcing. But that’s not the interesting part. The interesting part is that Idso claims, if he is wrong then he will pick another theory rather than accept the consensus view. I hate to question someone’s principles, but this smacks of results-oriented thinking, and does not give me much confidence in his objectivity. The obsession in a scientific analysis with policy issues is another problem.

  83. Armand MacMurray
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 9:22 PM | Permalink

    Re:#82
    Gabe, the way I read that quote is as follows: If Idso is wrong on climate sensitivity, and the sensitivity number is higher, that means that the climate effect of human activities (including those of the past) has been greater. Given a greater effect of human activities, one needs to analyze the sum total of that effect, which may turn out to include delaying/preventing an ice age. He then argues that we should be extra careful before mandating policies that might reverse a delay/prevention of an ice age.

    Seems pretty clear that he says if he’s wrong he’ll accept the “consensus view” of a larger climate sensitivity. He’s just pointing out that not all the implications of a larger sensitivity value have been sorted out, and that it would be prudent to delay action until those are better understood, for fear of (e.g.) accidentally reverting to an ice age.

  84. JMS
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 9:27 PM | Permalink

    If you want to see what Ruddiman actually says check out this. We have a major climate conference going on here in town this weekend which is the reason for the article. Given my experience with the Idso’s site I have my doubts. The articles which I have read there invariably point to Idso written summaries of papers, without even links to the abstracts.

  85. jae
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 9:28 PM | Permalink

    Gabe: Why don’t you provide a better analysis of what’s going on? NOBODY KNOWS (from a scientific perspective). If you can show me that the MWP was cooler than today, I might have a reason to believe that CO2 is a problem. I’m still not convinced, OK? They may be making wine in higher latitudes, soon, just like the old days…

  86. Gabe C.
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 9:38 PM | Permalink

    Well, he’s certainly not being “doubly careful” if he’s wrong and Ruddiman is too. He seems to be bending over backwards to find an argument for the status quo.

  87. bender
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 10:34 PM | Permalink

    Bloom: dodge! Ha! You would know.

  88. bender
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 10:39 PM | Permalink

    Bloom, let’s start simple, and progress at a speed you can handle. “Hurricane frequency” is a random variable, yes or no?

  89. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 10:46 PM | Permalink

    Re #79: Um, nothing about frequency estimates in either thread, from Bender or anyone else. But maybe you could explain using the example I gave.

  90. gbalella
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 10:54 PM | Permalink

    Re # 77

    1st…the warming during the measured instrumental period is about 0.8 C

    2nd.. selective references that are not backed up by the literature found in the most prestigious journals is worthless….as was the original Idso article

    3rd…tautological argument based on a false unproven premise.

    P.S. The point was that the Idso paper is as credible as pink flying elephants…invisible ones at that.

  91. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 19, 2006 at 11:02 PM | Permalink

    Re #88: Oops, didn’t refresh before I sent that. But please just cut to the chase. I’m sure a short paragraph will suffice.

  92. mark
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 12:33 AM | Permalink

    bender said:

    Hurricane frequency is a parameter that is not subject to sampling error?

    Hate to be so obnoxious, but can’t you read, Steve B.? Hurricane frequency is the parameter he is talking about estimating, because it is, as noted, a random variable (for which we only have about 50 years of relatively accurate information). And sorry, but it is not a complete population sample as bender is implying.

    Mark

  93. mark
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 12:38 AM | Permalink

    Re #79: Um, nothing about frequency estimates in either thread, from Bender or anyone else. But maybe you could explain using the example I gave.

    These are fundamental concepts… I’m curious why you expect us to lecture you on first semester college statistics?

    Mark

  94. Bryn Hughes
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 12:46 AM | Permalink

    Re 90
    gbalella said
    “the warming during the measured instrumental period is about 0.8 C”
    Not in my book, the warming since 1970 is about as much as the cooling from the late 30s to the 70s.
    The instruments have been affected by “urban heat” which is now included in most readings, as a result the rate of global temperature increase is slowing down.
    There is absolutely no credible evidence that we are approaching the mythical “tipping point”.
    The Earth has been as warm before, and will get a good deal cooler within the next 20 or so years.
    The might be the end of AGW.
    It appears, however that some “climatologists” have the idea that such cooling could be an effect of AGW.

  95. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 1:48 AM | Permalink

    Re 78, Steve Bloom, you’re up to your usual, misquoting what I said. You say:

    Re #75: So there hasn’t hasn’t been any temp increase to speak of, eh? But, e.g., the GRACE results for Greenland and the Antarctic would be explained by…?

    Also, could you give me a cite for those RSS results showing no warming over Antarctica?

    Comment by Steve Bloom “¢’‚¬? 19 August 2006 @ 7:21 pm

    I did not say that there hasn’t been any temperature increase to speak of, so I have nothing to explain about the GRACE results. I said nothing about RSS results showing no warming over Antarctica, so I don’t owe you a citation.

    Why did I say nothing about RSS results for Antarctica? Because there is no RSS data for Antarctica, data south of 70° south is not produced by RSS. Do your homework.

    Steve, go away, please. You are neither asking serious questions nor contributing anything to the discussion.

    w.

  96. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 2:17 AM | Permalink

    Re 90: gbalella, you say:

    1st…the warming during the measured instrumental period is about 0.8 C

    2nd.. selective references that are not backed up by the literature found in the most prestigious journals is worthless….as was the original Idso article

    3rd…tautological argument based on a false unproven premise.

    P.S. The point was that the Idso paper is as credible as pink flying elephants…invisible ones at that.

    1) I made it abundantly clear that I was speaking of the temperature rise 1900-1999. You gave no dates for your claim.

    2) I cited the Idso paper, which was published in Climate Research, along with two other papers that were published in the Journal of Climate and the Journal of Geophysical Research. I invited comments on the substance of the papers, and asked that ad hominem arguments not be advanced.

    In response, you don’t say one damned word about the substance, but you whine about the the Journals that the papers were published in. Get real, come back when you’re ready to discuss the substance. If you think there are errors in any of the Idso natural experiments or the other papers, tell us what they are … otherwise, you’re wasting our time. Your claim that an idea is worthless unless it is published in some “prestigious” journal that gballela personally approves of is a pathetic sick joke. Forget where it was published, forget who wrote it, and think about the ideas and conclusions!!!

    3. I have given you 10 natural experiments and three peer reviewed studies that establish my premise. There is no way to “prove” these papers are correct — like any other scientific claim, they can not be proved, they can only be disproved. If you think one or more are incorrect, the onus is on you to disprove it. To date you have not even started to do that.

    Re pink elephants, it reminds me of the old joke … “How many legs does a cow have, if you consider its tail to be a leg?”

    “Four, because calling a tail a leg means nothing, it doesn’t change the fact that it is a tail.”

    In the same way, gbalella calling a paper “as credible as pink flying elephants” means nothing. If you can find something wrong with the papers I have quoted, bring it on … otherwise, you’re just calling a tail a leg.

    w.

  97. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 3:20 AM | Permalink

    Re #95: Testy, testy. Are you concerned about having another episode like the one over at Warwick’s a while back regarding your Coolwire 13 sea ice article? I’ll see if I can make the time. (Did Warwick ever correct your sea ice data set error, BTW?)

    You wrote (in #75): “The lower troposphere records (either MSU or RSS, take your pick) show no significant warming in the Southern Hemisphere since 1979. The high latitudes have not warmed more than the lower ones. Antarctica has not warmed at all.” Where exactly in that did you stop referring to MSU (I assume you mean UAH) and RSS? I’m well aware that RSS doesn’t cover Antarctica.

    In addition to saying there had been no warming of Antarctica, you went on to imply very limited warming of the Arctic (“no Arctic amplification”). My response was that something seems to be melting both Antarctica and Greenland. What do you think that might be?

  98. bruce
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 5:24 AM | Permalink

    re #97: Hey Steve B! Love your work. Still working on the explanation as to why the Summary for Policymakers for TAR was so VERY different from the supporting documentation? Looks like an egregious example of propagandising to me, but maybe I am missing something?

    End justifies the means? OK to lie if it is addressing a greater good?

  99. MarkR
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 5:36 AM | Permalink

    Re Hurricanes:

    “The data further refute recent claims that the rapid increase in non-normalized damages are due to climatic changes (cf. Changnon et al. 1997 )……Indeed, a climate signal is present in the normalized data, and this is of decreased impacts in recent decades.”

    Normalized Hurricane Damages in the United States: 1925–95
    Roger A. Pielke Jr
    link

  100. Tom Brogle
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 7:03 AM | Permalink

    Steve Bloom.
    Volcanic action is certainly responsible for meltng on the Antarctic Peninsula.I theorise that melting of the rest of Antarctica is illusory since winter sea ice around the Antarctic is expanding year on year.
    As to the Arctic, it must have melted similarly in the past because it was warmer in the late 1930’s than in the late 1990’s.
    Oldham Sceptic’s of analysis of Nansens 1896? voyage indicates that it must have been similar in temperature then, as it is now.
    I read somewhere that a mediaeval map demonstrates that someone sailed along the North East passage during the MWP.It took a Soviet Nuclear powered Ice Breaker to do that in the 1960’s.
    How can you still assert that today’s temperatures are the warmest in 1000 years and that the 1960s were warmer than the MWP?

  101. Gabe C.
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 7:57 AM | Permalink

    #85: “Why don’t you provide a better analysis of what’s going on?”

    Oh, I can’t. I was just pointing out a logical inconsistency and an appearence of bias. It’s fun.

  102. gbalella
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 8:00 AM | Permalink

    Re# 41

    Finally, they ignore several other problems with the GHG explanation of temperature increase. One is that the earth warmed considerably from 1700 to 1945. One of the periods of greatest warming was from about 1915 to 1945, well before the large modern increase in CO2.

    Do you really think this is an accurate statement you made?

  103. bender
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 8:05 AM | Permalink

    Re #89
    Bloom, you are a lousy student, and that was your last dodge. Because you are so unreasonable, I will give it to you straight.

    Hurricane frequency over any interval is a random variable subject to sampling error. Using a five-year window lessens that sampling error, and in so doing improves the optics on the hurricane trend statistics, which Judith Curry, laughably, does not report in her Fig 1. This allows her, like you, to dodge the complexity of statistics & confidence intervals, and to argue black-and-white, when the issue is really shades of gray. If the statistics were calculated on annual hurricane frequency the statistics would drop in significance, and she would be forced to draw in the trend line, the confidence intervals, and to report the regression statistics and reveal the uncertainty in her inference of a trend. And that would make her argument seem less certain.

    The reason this is significant is not because of inferences about hurricane frequency over time. As I say at RC, I’m confident that changing the time-frame to one year rather than five will not completely erode statistical significance. It is because we’ve seen this pattern of behavior before. This is exactly what the reconstructionists and IPCC have been arguing in regard to “uncprecedented” 20th c. warming trend. Sure, you pretend those reconstructions are error-free and it’s a no-brainer. But when you see the width of those confidence envelopes – a mile wide during the MWP – then you realize what a pile of crap that argument is.

    And I’ll tell you this too. Choice of a five-year window is suspicious. Why not three? Why not seven? Is this yet another instance of cherry-picking/model-overfit?
    Her regression trend analysis should have a degree of freedom chopped off of it to account for that little cherry.

    Bloom, the only dodge available for you at this point is to take issue with my choice of words, or to twist around what I’ve said, trying to discredit me. Don’t bother. My argument is rock solid, so you’ll only make a spectacle of yourself.

    And yes I’m testy, testy. Professor bender is fed up with student Bloom.

  104. gbalella
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 8:11 AM | Permalink

    Re 96

    Willis,

    About Idso’s first experiment he states;

    Consequently, the surface air
    temperature sensitivity factor I obtained from this nat-
    ural experiment was (29.4°C — 18.3°C)/64.1 W m–2, or
    0.173°C/(W m–2) (Idso 1982).from that of the first experiment.

    How in the heck is this measurement any measure of climate sensitivity when it in NO ways includes feedback effect? Plan and simple it is NOT a measure of climate sensitivity and most of his “experiments” are similarly flawed.

    You might want to look at a real piece of science, in a real journal, estimating real climate sensitivity using empiric evidence not models.

  105. bender
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 8:25 AM | Permalink

    Re: #92:

    [hurricane count over a given interval] is not a complete population sample as bender is implying

    Correct. The number of hurricanes realized over any given interval is just one sample realization from the ensemble population of hurricanes that could have been produced in alternative stochastic realizations. Hurricane frequency (or count over an interval) is thus subject to sampling error because if the chaotic turbulent weather system were to replay itself, it would likely produce a different number of hurricanes despite similar conditions.

    [Note: A time-series analysis across (say 1-year or 5-year) intervals makes the assumption that the "populations" (=ensemble means) being sampled in each interval are the same.]

    I think this is maybe what Bloom does not understand. Which is not too suprising, as it is a foreign concept to most of those not used to making inferences about the time-series behavior of stchastic dynamic systems. But it is a pity when someone is so afraid to display their ignorance that it impedes their learning. And these are the people who seek to influence global climate policy?

  106. welikerocks
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 8:36 AM | Permalink

    #102 gbalella
    You haven’t provided an explaination for the problems brought up in the statement you quoted with that graph. Where’s the temp data?

  107. bender
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 8:44 AM | Permalink

    Re #104
    What’s this – a warmer claiming that refuting one element of an argument refutes the whole argument? I thought we agreed that skeptics have to look at the whole body of GW evidence, not just one piece of it. A sixth example of the AGW double-standard. Keep going, gbalella, there are nine more experiments to refute.

  108. Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 9:11 AM | Permalink

    How in the heck is this measurement any measure of climate sensitivity when it in NO ways includes feedback effect? Plan and simple it is NOT a measure of climate sensitivity and most of his “experiments” are similarly flawed.

    gbalella, are you seriously suggesting that when he measures the ACTUAL greenhouse effect, somehow his measurement “misses” the feedbacks?

    If the feedbacks have no effect.. there are no feedbacks, or they cancel out. If they do have an effect, then they affect the temperature, which is what he’s measuring. So it’s impossible for his measurement to NOT include feedbacks.

    That really does take the cake. How you could miss that astounds me.

    If you made the argument that some of his experiments don’t include LONG-TERM feedbacks, that I could understand. Both others of his experiments are based on longer terms, yet they agree with the shorter term measurements, which tends to support the hypothesis that any long-term feedbacks are net neutral.

  109. Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 9:16 AM | Permalink

    By the way, when ones thinks one has found an astoundingly fundamental flaw in something someone much smarter and more knowledgeable than one’s self wrote, I find it’s generally a good idea to assume that it’s one’s self who is making the fundamental mistake and carefully go through the logic before shooting one’s mouth off.

    Unfortunately, this blog seems to have been troll-infested of late. I used to enjoy reading the comments here. There was some occasional drivel, but I ignored it or skipped over it. Now that the comments on this blog are >=50% rubbish, it’s getting a bit ridiculous. If I wanted to read ignorant ramblings of ill-informed trouble makers there are plenty of other web sites I could go to. What’s worst is the trouble-makers make fools of themselves every time they write something, yet they keep coming back for more. Guys, none of us are impressed with your logic-free comments. Please do us a favour and either say something intelligent, or get lost?

  110. bender
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 10:31 AM | Permalink

    Jab, dodge, exit. Jab, dodge, exit. If these ADD trolls would sit still and listen they might learn why it is that their arguments rest upon a very shaky foundation. But they would rather go down swinging.

  111. mark
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 10:51 AM | Permalink

    And yes I’m testy, testy. Professor bender is fed up with student Bloom.

    You are mistaken bender, students have a desire to learn. Bloom does not.

    Mark

  112. Gabe C.
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

    “By the way, when ones thinks one has found an astoundingly fundamental flaw in something someone much smarter and more knowledgeable than one’s self wrote, I find it’s generally a good idea to assume that it’s one’s self who is making the fundamental mistake and carefully go through the logic before shooting one’s mouth off.”

    So basically you’re saying “Trust us, you idiot. We’re smarter than you.” But there are other people smarter than me who have the backing of peer review and journals like Science and Nature. If Idso’s arguments are so fundamentally correct, then I must assume that most other scientists are stupid or biased. But anyone can be stupid or biased. It could just as well be you, for all us idiots know. And do you have backup? Just asking.

    “If I wanted to read ignorant ramblings of ill-informed trouble makers there are plenty of other web sites I could go to.”

    I feel the same way, alas. I guess you’re smarter than me. Golly, smugness, attitude and hubris do not seem to be very persuasive.

    Cheers.

  113. MarkR
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 12:19 PM | Permalink

    Re#41

    “And then, after WWII, when CO2 started increasing radically, the earth … cooled down.”

    Could debris from the destruction during WWII explain this.
    I would have thought that the destruction by fire and explosion of many major cities, in Europe and the Far East, would have an effect similar to a Volcanic eruption.

  114. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 12:31 PM | Permalink

    Re 104, gbalella, you astound me. You abuse me for my choice of journals, then quote a study from one of the very same journals, Journal of Climate, that I had referenced … IT’S THE SAME JOURNAL I CITED, DUMMY!

    In any case, you claim that

    You might want to look at a real piece of science, in a real journal, estimating real climate sensitivity using empiric evidence not models.

    Unfortunately, your claim is not true. The paper says, for example, that:

    To complete the calculation, information is needed
    about the average heat flux into the ocean during 1861–
    1900, in order to calculate F. In the absence of ob-
    servational data, experiments both with AOGCMs and
    with simpler climate models (e.g., Stott et al. 2000;
    Forest et al. 2002) commonly assume that the climate
    was in a steady state at the starting point of their integrations,
    typically in the late nineteenth century. We
    investigate this assumption using the simple climate
    model of Raper et al. [1996], …

    Didn’t you read the paper? Their value IS calculated using model results, and not even a complex model, a simple model. Another model related problem comes from this statement:

    The effect of internal (unforced) variability of the climate
    system on F and Q is also neglected, because
    estimates based on 1300 years of the HadCM3 control
    run show these fluctuations to be an order of magnitude
    smaller than the uncertainties.

    Oh, good. They neglect internal variability of the ocean because one climate model doesn’t show much internal variability … that makes perfect sense.

    Well, unlike you, I read the paper, and I had some problems with it. In addition to the use of the models when they claimed in the abstract that theirs was an “observational result”, a major problem was the method whereby the value of k was calculated. To use their words, k was calculated by:

    … assuming àƒ⣃ ‹’€ ”‚¬⟔, F, and Q to be normally distributed.

    where àƒ⣃ ‹’€ ”‚¬⟔ is surface temperature change of the ocean, Q is radiative forcing, and F is heat flux into the ocean.

    Now as any reader of this site should know, yourself included, this is not a reasonable assumption, and in fact it is a very dangerous assumption. I would place absolutely no credence in this result until they are able to demonstrate, rather than merely assume, that these variables are in fact normally distributed.

    Finally, what were their results? Well, they don’t really have results. They end up with a range of probabilities that goes from the floor to the ceiling. All in all, a pretty information-free paper.

    w.

    PS – I was highly amused by their estimate of the difference in global temperature between the periods 1861-1900, and 1957-1994

    Folland et al. (2001) calculated annual surface temperature
    anomalies, with uncertainties, by combining landand
    ocean-based observations using an optimal averaging
    technique. From their data, the difference in global-
    average temperature between the two periods is àƒ⣃ ‹’€ ”‚¬⟔
    = 0.335° +/- 0.033°C …

    I laughed out loud when I read this, a two sigma error of 3 HUNDRETHS OF A DEGREE for 19th century observations? Get real. Plus, haven’t these folk heard about significant digits? In any case, I went back to the Folland et al. (2001) paper to see if these numbers had any relation to reality. Folland et al. don’t give figures for those exact periods, so I don’t know how these folks got their answer, but in any case, the only estimates in Folland et al. are for the uncertainties in the trend, viz:

    Global trend from 1861 – 2000 0.61°C +/- 0.16°
    NH trend, 1861 – 2000 0.64°C +/- 0.26°
    SH trend, 1861 – 2000 0.51°C +/- 0.14°

    Well, that looks very suspect already. The number of observing stations in the Southern Hemisphere is way, way less than the Northern … how can the error possibly be smaller? But I digress, the rest of the Folland et al. numbers are

    Global trend from 1901 – 2000 0.57°C +/- 0.17°
    NH trend, 1901 – 2000 0.64°C +/- 0.22°
    SH trend, 1901 – 2000 0.48°C +/- 0.15°

    Again very suspect. Why would the error in the more recent global trend, when we have more and better measurements, be greater than the error in the longer trend, where the number of data points in the early record is so much smaller? But I digress …

    My main point here is that the paper you cited, gbalella, is claiming a two sigma error of 0.033°C, three hundredths of a degree, for the difference in the temperature of the globe between the late 1800’s and the late 1900’s … do you really think that this is possible?

    I can assure you that it is not. The latest Jones et al. data (HadCRUT3) lists the uncertainty (2 SD) of the current temperature, not the fifty year average temperature but a single month, as +/- 0.158°C. The uncertainty of the temperature in 1861, on the other hand, is given as +/- 0.30°C. With those large uncertainties, the idea that the error in the difference between the calculated average temperatures of the late 1800s and the late 1900s could be three hundredths of a degree is a joke. The error in the current month’s temperature is five times that large.

    Let me recommend a new, innovative technique to you, gbalella, to use in place of your current method, which seems to consist of just reading the abstract of a paper, and judging it by whether the journal is “prestigious”:

    1) Read the whole paper.

    2) Think about it critically. I mean, really think about it. Examine the premises. Look at the numbers to see if they seem reasonable. Consider the methods used. Follow the logic. Dissect the conclusion, to see if they follow from the premises.

    3) Report back with your findings.

    w.

  115. John Creighton
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 12:54 PM | Permalink

    Just a small note why are we writing ARMA(1,1,1) and not ARMA(1,2). I checked wikipedia and they used the latter notation which is what I thought would be standard. In the first notation it is not clear to me which coefficients belong to the auto regressive part and which to the moving average part. Or in the first notation is one of the inputs for the direct feed though term?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoregressive_moving_average

  116. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 12:54 PM | Permalink

    Re 112, Gabe, thanks for your comment where you say:

    “By the way, when ones thinks one has found an astoundingly fundamental flaw in something someone much smarter and more knowledgeable than one’s self wrote, I find it’s generally a good idea to assume that it’s one’s self who is making the fundamental mistake and carefully go through the logic before shooting one’s mouth off.”

    So basically you’re saying “Trust us, you idiot. We’re smarter than you.”

    Clearly, you didn’t read what he said. He said nothing like your papaphrase.

    He’s not saying “trust us.” He’s saying, be careful when you think you’ve found some astounding fundamental flaw, and make very sure that it’s not you making a mistake before shooting your mouth off.

    For a perfect example of this fundamental error, see post # 112 …

    w.

  117. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 12:55 PM | Permalink

    Re 116 papaphrase = paraphrase, mea culpa …

    w.

  118. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 12:58 PM | Permalink

    Re 113, markr, thank you for your interesting question. You say:

    “And then, after WWII, when CO2 started increasing radically, the earth … cooled down.”

    Could debris from the destruction during WWII explain this.

    While it is possible, as you speculate, that soot and ash from the bombings could have had an effect on the climate, it is not possible that the effect could have continued unabated for thirty years.

    w.

  119. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 1:20 PM | Permalink

    Re 97, Steve, you miss the point again as usual. You say:

    Re #95: Testy, testy. Are you concerned about having another episode like the one over at Warwick’s a while back regarding your Coolwire 13 sea ice article? I’ll see if I can make the time. (Did Warwick ever correct your sea ice data set error, BTW?)

    You wrote (in #75): “The lower troposphere records (either MSU or RSS, take your pick) show no significant warming in the Southern Hemisphere since 1979. The high latitudes have not warmed more than the lower ones. Antarctica has not warmed at all.” Where exactly in that did you stop referring to MSU (I assume you mean UAH) and RSS? I’m well aware that RSS doesn’t cover Antarctica.

    In addition to saying there had been no warming of Antarctica, you went on to imply very limited warming of the Arctic (“no Arctic amplification”). My response was that something seems to be melting both Antarctica and Greenland. What do you think that might be?

    Episode regarding Coolwire 13? Dude, I think you might have forgotten to take your medications again. I went to your link to see what you were on about, and found a claim by some guy named Steve Bloom that I had made an unspecified error in my Coolwire 13 paper, and a dead link to some extinct web page somewhere … that’s an “episode”?

    Regarding where I stopped referring to RSS, it was at the end of the sentence about RSS.

    Finally, what is warming the poles? I assume the primary forcing is same thing that has been warming the globe for the last 300 years since the Little Ice Age … (hint: it’s not GHGs)

    Recent studies show that during several periods of the Holocene, the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free during the summer (see http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/07/12/open-arctic-ocean-commentary-by-harvey-nichols-professor-of-biology/) … the melting of the poles is a RECURRING NATURAL PHENOMENON, and thus requires no special explanations.

    Steve, you’re nit-picking and throwing dust in the air. If you disagree with Polyakov and think there is polar amplification of warming, please cite us chapter and verse. If you think that Idso and the other three papers I discussed above are wrong, cite us chapter and verse. Heck, if you think something is wrong with my Coolwire 13 article, cite us chapter and verse (although, obviously, not on this web site).

    Otherwise, as I said above … please go away. You’re only embarassing yourself.

    w.

  120. gbalella
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 1:21 PM | Permalink

    Re 104, gbalella, you astound me. You abuse me for my choice of journals, then quote a study from one of the very same journals, Journal of Climate, that I had referenced … IT’S THE SAME JOURNAL I CITED, DUMMY!

    Sorry Willis your Idso article is from, Climate Research, which is schmucky. Mine is from a respectable publication, Journal of Climate, from the AMS (the American Meterological Society).

  121. bender
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 1:21 PM | Permalink

    Re #115
    JC, I started this, by writing ARIMA(1,1,1) –
    the second “1” indicating removal of first-order linear trend by differencing. The “I”, if I recall, stands for “integrated”.

  122. John Creighton
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 1:38 PM | Permalink

    Oh, okay, that is interesting. So it is essentially a high pass filter. So if the second input was a two would that mean you would take the second divided difference? Of course one slight difference from weighted least means squares is the transformation is not linear it is affine.

  123. Gabe C.
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 1:47 PM | Permalink

    Willis,

    I did go the hyperbolic route, but I don’t think the hyperbole is far off the intent of his post. And Nicholas’ post was pure hyperbolic drivel, to use his word. If you guys want debate here, then the attitude and hubris from the top down needs to stop or you will be relegated to the darkest corner of the internet along with unspeakable umage archives and Rick Springfield fan sites. If this hasn’t happened already. No wonder the real climate scientists won’t play with you anymore.

    I shan’t be back. See what happens when you ask the question:

    “Please do us a favour and either say something intelligent, or get lost?”

    Getting lost,
    Gabe

  124. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 1:59 PM | Permalink

    Let me add a little perspective on “k”, the temperature sensitivity. This is the amount that the earth’s temperature would be expected to change as a result of a 1 watt/square metre change in radiative forcing.

    In the simplified situation, where we consider the earth as a black body and neglect losses, we can use the Stefan-Bolzmann equation to determine the temperature change. It turns out that this is 0.18°C for a one w/m2 forcing change, or k = 0.18.

    However, as I said, this is neglecting losses. The climate system can be very accurately described as a terawatt scale heat engine. One characteristic of heat engines is that additional heat input inevitably incurs additional losses. Given these unavoidable losses, the figure of k = 0.1°C per w/m2 given by the various studies I listed above seems quite reasonable.

    Now the IPCC claims that k has a low value (95% confidence) of 0.54, a mean value of 0.94, and a high value of 1.37. Obviously, the only way that these values could be possible is if there is a very strong net positive feedback. The feedback they posit must be strong enough not only to overcome the inherent losses, but to go beyond that to heat the earth about ten times as much as would reasonably come from the original change in forcing.

    This huge theoretical net positive feedback flies in the face of common sense. The climate system has maintained a fairly narrow temperature range for several billion years. During that time we have experienced meteor strikes, worldwide vulcanism, a change in the power of the sun of about 30%, and other major climate disturbances. For the earth to enjoy this kind of stability, negative feedbacks must predominate over positive feedbacks.

    Now, the modelers and the IPCC say that their postulated postulated feedback is due to increased water vapor (a greenhouse gas that is otherwise generally ignored by the IPCC). Their argument runs increased water vapor => increased IR absorption => increased temperature. While this makes sense theoretically, a net positive water vapor feedback has never been demonstrated experimentally.

    This is because there is a fundamental problem with the water vapor feedback idea. This is that increased water vapor is the center of the main negative feedback system that has kept our climate steady for billions of years. This feedback has a variety of loops. One is:

    increasing temperature => increasing water vapor => increasing clouds => increasing albedo => decreasing temperature

    The next is:

    increasing temperature => increasing water vapor => increasing clouds => increasing rain, snow, and other hydrometeors => decreasing temperature

    The next is:

    increasing temperature => increasing water vapor => increasing clouds => increasing snow => increasing ground albedo => decreasing temperature

    The next one is:

    increasing temperature => increasing water vapor => increasing vertical heat transportation in clouds => increasing high altitude IR radiation, above most GHGs => decreasing temperature

    The final one is:

    increasing temperature => increasing evaporation of water in lieu of temperature increase => reduced temperature increase

    All of these act as negative feedbacks, helping to reduce the temperature when it gets too hot, and increase the temperature when it gets too cold. Because of these effects, the world has maintained its temperature over billions of years. Given the existence of these large negative feedbacks, the idea that a one-watt change in forcing will result in a ten times larger change in temperature due to imaginary “positive feedback” simply does not pass the common sense test.

    w.

  125. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 2:07 PM | Permalink

    I wrote::

    Re 104, gbalella, you astound me. You abuse me for my choice of journals, then quote a study from one of the very same journals, Journal of Climate, that I had referenced … IT’S THE SAME JOURNAL I CITED, DUMMY!

    gbalella replied:

    Sorry Willis your Idso article is from, Climate Research, which is schmucky. Mine is from a respectable publication, Journal of Climate, from the AMS (the American Meterological Society).

    I cited four articles. One (Lean and Rind) is from Journal of Climate. It comes to a conclusion which is diametrically opposed to the conclusion of your article in Journal of Climate. Since your gold standard seems to be where an article is published rather than what it says … how do you solve that conundrum? How do you decide which one to believe? Do you see why being published in Journal of Climate is no guarantee of anything? Two articles in Journal of Climate with opposite results, imagine that.

    Let me say again, it makes no difference where an article was published. This is a very common logical error, called an “appeal to authority”, with the authority in this case being the journal.

    Please, gbalella, I ask of you again — read the articles and think about the ideas. If you are unwilling to do that, then I suggest you take your appeals to authority elsewhere.

    w.

  126. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 2:15 PM | Permalink

    Re 123, Gabe, you say:

    Willis,

    I did go the hyperbolic route, but I don’t think the hyperbole is far off the intent of his post. And Nicholas’ post was pure hyperbolic drivel, to use his word. If you guys want debate here, then the attitude and hubris from the top down needs to stop or you will be relegated to the darkest corner of the internet along with unspeakable umage archives and Rick Springfield fan sites. If this hasn’t happened already. No wonder the real climate scientists won’t play with you anymore.

    I shan’t be back. See what happens when you ask the question:

    “Please do us a favour and either say something intelligent, or get lost?”

    Getting lost,
    Gabe

    Gabe, the intent of his post was far from your hyperbole. The intent of his post was to encourage people (myself definitely included) from making fools of themselves by assuming that someone else has made a stupid mistake. Or, as my father used to say “If something seems too good to be true … it probably is.”

    I do not understand what you mean by “attitude and hubris from the top down”. Steve M is very restrained in his postings. Some posters, such as Steve Bloom, take a lot of heat for repeating ad hominem arguments and refusing to engage with the facts. Me, I get my butt kicked periodically when I make a mistake. But none of that strikes me as “attitude and hubris”.

    However, if a call for intelligent comments drives you away … so be it. Me, I’d prefer that you stay and contribute, but your mileage may vary.

    w.

  127. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 3:42 PM | Permalink

    Intrigued by a comment about GRACE satellites and the supposed melting of the Greenland Ice Cap, I took a look at the Science magazine article which claimed the melting.

    The most surprising part of the study to me was that in addition to Greenland supposedly losing 70-90 km3 per year from the ice cap, various areas of the open ocean are supposedly losing or gaining mass as well. Around 52N 40 W, an area is measured by GRACE as losing 90 km3/yr. Two other ocean areas showed losses of 40 and 50 km3/yr, while an area around Rekjavik increased in mass by 40 km3/year. (see Supplementary Online Materials for details.)

    In addition, Hudson Bay and Scandinavia are shown as gaining 470 and 130 km3 per year, which is explained by the authors as PGR, post glacial rebound.

    Now, my questions are:

    1. If the historical loss of ice over Hudson Bay and Scandinavia causes a mass increase, why does the supposed loss of ice over Greenland cause a mass decrease?

    2. What is the cause of the open ocean changes? These are comparable in size and sign to the Greenland loss, but obviously have nothing to do with ice.

    Seems to me like we need more study here, and that the GRACE results might not be ready for prime time …

    w.

  128. Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 3:50 PM | Permalink

    re 124:

    The simplified expression of the forcing of CO2 on temperature is given by Myhre et al.
    dE=\alpha \ln([CO_2]/[CO_2]_{orig})
    where
    \alpha = 5.35

    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm

    substituting for CO2 doubling yields:
    dE=5.35 \ln(2) = 3.708 W/m2

    Stefan-Boltzmann:
    E=\sigma T^4
    using the derivative of Stefan-Boltzmann:
    \frac{dT}{dE} = 1/(4\sigma T^3)
    substitution gets:
    dT=\frac{\alpha \ln([CO_2]/[CO_2]_{orig})}{4\sigma T^3}

    This is the equation without all feedbacks.

    Substituting a doubling CO2 level
    and substituting T= 15 °C = 288.15K:

    dT=5.35ln2/(4*5.6705E-08*(288.15^3))
    or
    dT=0.6833 °C for a doubling of CO2

    Sensitivity is then dT/DE = 0.6833/3.708 = 0.18426 K/Wm-2

    However:
    If the average emission temperature for the earth (-18 °C) is used:

    T= -18 °C = 255.15K
    dT=5.35ln2/(4*5.6705E-08*(255.15^3))
    or
    dT=0.9843 °C for a doubling of CO2, this agrees with modtran calculations.

    Sensitivity is then dT/DE = 0.9843/3.708 = 0.265429 K/Wm-2

    Willis, Please explain why you use T= 15 °C to calculate the Stefan-Boltzmann sensitivity.

  129. Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 4:09 PM | Permalink

    I think I found what Willis omitted:

    The complete Stefan-Boltzmann reads:
    T=\epsilon \sigma T^3
    where \epsilon is emissivity
    present day emissivity is 0.6293 (37% of infrared is absorbed)

    so, in the 15 °C case, emissivity should be included:
    dT=5.35ln2/(4*0.6293*5.6705E-08*(288.15^3))
    or
    dT=1.0859 °C for a doubling of CO2

    Sensitivity is then dT/DE = 1.0859/3.708 = 0.2928 K/Wm-2

  130. John Creighton
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 5:15 PM | Permalink

    This site:

    http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/JudyTang.shtml

    Says the average temperature of the earth is 15 degrees Celsius. I am not sure if we should use average temperature. I think instead it would be better to average the fourth power of the temperature (in Kelvin) and then take the forth root as that as I think that temperature measure would be closer to what is predicted by the black body model.

  131. John Creighton
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 5:21 PM | Permalink

    As a side note a voltage measured by taking the average of the voltage squared and then taking the square root is called the rms voltage. So by analogy should we call the temperature obtained by taking the average of the forth power and then taking the forth root the rms voltage or is that comfusing. How about the 4th_rms temperature. Or in terms of norm

    http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Norm.html

    we can call it the p4 norm temperature.

  132. John Creighton
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 5:45 PM | Permalink

    #128 looks like one of those glossed over sections of the IPCC that actually has good science. This section I think probably wouldn’t get referenced much on real climate.

  133. Jeff Weffer
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 6:05 PM | Permalink

    Great posts by Willis in this thread.

    Particularly the negative feedback analysis of water vapour and clouds. Water vapour is the key to this whole global warming debate. The global warmers will never give up until their models are shown to be wrong and the feedbacks of water vapour have to be the area where they are most wrong. When it is shown that water vapour is not a positive feedback, they will subtly give up and factual temperature reconstructions and analysis will take over and we will finally see what is actually happening in the climate.

    The Grace satellite gravity anomalies is also good since it points out that these measurements cannot be relied on. Greenland loses gravity could be the result of the opposite effect (increasing ice mass causing land deformation) if Hudson Bay is increasing due to rebound.

  134. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 7:05 PM | Permalink

    Re #99: MarkR, you cannot simultaneously claim to be interested in the science if you make claims for out-of-date papers without checking to see of there has been more recent work. So that 1997 study was through 1995 and there’ve been ten seasons since then? Google Scholar would be your friend if you gave it a chnace.

  135. bender
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 7:11 PM | Permalink

    Good posts, Willis. And I agree: I hope Gabe C stays too. I don’t mean to get all uppity about statistics. But when people like Bloom go on with their drivel & dodge, I’m really not sure how to put them in their proper place. Which, I assure you, is quite low. Bloom is a good debater, ususally has a good grasp of the more basic facts, but doesn’t understand much at all about inferences in the case of stochastic dynamic time-series. And I assure you, this is a debate about significance levels and confidence intervals. (No offense intended, by the way, Bloom. You have much good company. I just wish you were a better student.)

  136. gbalella
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 8:20 PM | Permalink

    So Willis I’m waiting for your reply to Hans…..thanks Hans.

  137. ET SidViscous
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 8:25 PM | Permalink

    He lives on the other side of the world. Give him some time.

  138. John Cross
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 8:44 PM | Permalink

    RE #41 – Willis: You put out a challenge with your Idso article so let me reply by saying that his Natural Experiment number 6 gives an answer which he claims is identical to his other experiments. But his other experiments include feedbacks where as this one is based the greenhouse effect on Venus and Mars. There is no reason to expect that the feedbacks for the other planets is the same as for earth – if there is a feedback at all. This seems like a significant error.

    Regards,
    John Cross

  139. gbalella
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 8:53 PM | Permalink

    Re #125

    Poor Willis, you can’t seem to get anything right.

    We were talking about the Idso paper which is from a different journal then the one I cited.

    Next you changed the subject to the Lean/Rind 1999 paper. You were right that this paper IS published in a respectable journal but sorely wrong of their conclusions when you said;

    One (Lean and Rind) is from Journal of Climate. It comes to a conclusion which is diametrically opposed to the conclusion of your article in Journal of Climate.

    From their paper ( page 3084);

    a. Equilibrium simulations

    Although the climate system response to radiative
    forcing likely depends on the strength, history, geographical
    distribution, and attitudinal localization of the
    specific forcing, these relationships are poorly quanti-
    fied.

    In practical applications, climate sensitivity is specified
    to be in the range k5 0.38–18C per W m22,

    such that an equilibrium temperature change DT 5 kDF (8C)
    results from a radiative forcing of DF (W m22).

    Changes
    in solar radiation DS cause radiative forcing DFs 5 DS
    3 0.7/4 where the factor 0.7 accounts for the reflection
    back to space of a portion of the incident solar energy
    (the albedo) and the factor 4 is the spherical average.
    With this simple prescription, an equilibrium surface
    temperature change in the range 0.078–0.248C is estimated
    to result from the total irradiance change in solar
    cycle 21 (DS 5 1.1 W m22, Fig. 10)

    (Wigley and Raper
    1990) and a larger temperature change in the range 0.17
    to 0.578C is estimated for the speculated longer-term
    irradiance change of 0.24% (DS 5 3.3 W m22) from
    the seventeenth century to the present. Consistent with
    this an equilibrium simulation by the Goddard Institute
    for Space Studies (GISS) general circulation model
    (Hansen et al. 1983)”¢’‚¬?whose sensitivity is in the range
    0.78–18C per W m22″¢’‚¬?estimates a global surface temperature
    decrease of 0.478C for a 0.25% solar irradiance
    decrease (Rind and Overpeck 1993). ………..

    OOPS wrong again Willis.

  140. gbalella
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 8:55 PM | Permalink

    Here is the link to the Lean/Rind paper that Willis apparently didn’t read.

  141. gbalella
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 8:56 PM | Permalink

    Re 137

    Gonna change the basic laws of Physics is he?

  142. gbalella
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 9:10 PM | Permalink

    Re 124

    Oh Willis come on now!

    I don’t know what the exact numbers are but the total GHG effect including CO2, water vapor and others warms the planet by some 33C. Of that something like 9C is from CO2 and most of the rest, say 24C, is from water vapor.

    Now Willis made up is own little feedbacks thinking he’s a lot more accurate then the Hadley computer and said;

    This is because there is a fundamental problem with the water vapor feedback idea. This is that increased water vapor is the center of the main negative feedback system that has kept our climate steady for billions of years. This feedback has a variety of loops. One is:

    increasing temperature => increasing water vapor => increasing clouds => increasing albedo => decreasing temperature

    The next is:

    increasing temperature => increasing water vapor => increasing clouds => increasing rain, snow, and other hydrometeors => decreasing temperature

    The next is:

    increasing temperature => increasing water vapor => increasing clouds => increasing snow => increasing ground albedo => decreasing temperature

    The next one is:

    increasing temperature => increasing water vapor => increasing vertical heat transportation in clouds => increasing high altitude IR radiation, above most GHGs => decreasing temperature

    The final one is:

    increasing temperature => increasing evaporation of water in lieu of temperature increase => reduced temperature increase

    Willis??? Did you notice what was in EACH of your little feedback loops?? UMMM….HUUUHH??? I wish I knew how to color the text because if I could each time you wrote “INCREASING WATER VAPOR” it would be in large red bold face fonts.

    You are ignoring the primary effect of INCREASED WATER VAPOR and only crediting its secondary effect and ASSUMING the secondary effect is ALL that matters.

    Tell me Willis how does water vapor contribute 24 C warming to the GHG effect and then in your little “models it suddenly goes away???UMMM HUHH?? UMMM?

    Based on your water vapor feedbacks the Earth should be 24 C cooler then it is.

    This is why GCM models are important Willis and why people like yourself can get hurt when they try to pretend they are a human supercomputer GCM droid-bots.

  143. Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 9:17 PM | Permalink

    So basically you’re saying “Trust us, you idiot. We’re smarter than you.” But there are other people smarter than me who have the backing of peer review and journals like Science and Nature. If Idso’s arguments are so fundamentally correct, then I must assume that most other scientists are stupid or biased. But anyone can be stupid or biased. It could just as well be you, for all us idiots know. And do you have backup? Just asking.

    No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. Did you read the post I was responding to?

    gbalella read the first few lines of a post by Idso, someone much smarter than me, and apparently him too, at least in the Climate field. He then pointed out what he thought was an astoundingly simple error which made the entire thing completely invalid.

    Now, don’t you think Idso or someone else during the review process would have noticed if it was such a simple error, and at least written a reply to the journal pointing out why the study is totally invalid?

    Of course thanks to people like Mann, Bradley and Hughes, we can no longer trust what scientists tell us or what we read in journals. Idso is not infallible and there may well be problems in his study. In fact, I personally can think of several, and John Cross has pointed out of them out a few comments ago. That’s the kind of constructive and intelligent comment that is worthy of discussion. Idso may even made have a very simple error too. But, (a) gbalella provided not supporting evidence or explanation for his extraordinary claim and (b) it seems to me to be prima facae false, at least without any qualifications.

    Mr. McIntyre has done a lot of work and double-checking to make sure he has indeed found a problem with MBH98/99/etc. before he criticises them. gballella, on the other hand, just sees something he doesn’t like and shoots his mouth off.

    Now if you could point me to where one of these other smart scientists has refuted Idso’s experiments, I’d love to see it. As I said I can think of several problems with his study worthy of discussion. Here’s one to kick it off:

    Idso’s various experiments occur on a number of rather different time scales. Some measure temperature changes in response to radiation fluctuations on the order of hours, others days, others months. Yet they all arrive at roughly the same figure. This suggests that any long-term feedbacks are net neutral, because otherwise the figures derived from longer term changes in radiation (e.g. seasonal) would be affected by longer term feedbacks and those measured over the course of hours would not, giving different figures. How do we account for this? Could there be no non-neutral long term feedbacks? Seems unlikely to me.

    Another problem I noticed is that the various phenomena that he is measuring the effects of – e.g. dust or solar incidence changes – do not behave quite the same as CO2. For one thing, dust exists in a much smaller slice of the atmosphere than CO2, so it will cause heating differently at different layers, and solar incidence changes affect how much energy enters the top of the atmosphere, not how much reaches the bottom. Those would likely give at least a slightly different result, surely.

    See how easy it is to criticise a paper on its scientific basis? Why can’t we discuss the actual science more often?

  144. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 9:38 PM | Permalink

    Re #133: Well, Jeff, check out this. Dr. Dessler might even be willing to answer some of your questions.

  145. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 9:44 PM | Permalink

    Re #127:

    1) Follow the citations in the article. See here.

    2) Changes in salinity and currents. There are lots of papers on this.

  146. John Creighton
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 10:52 PM | Permalink

    The statement that the greenhouse effect warms the planet by some 33 degrees Celsius has always bothered me. Does anyone have a source that derives this? Maybe it is true but I remember doing basic black body calculations years ago I got results to within a few degrees of what the average temperature of the earth is. I can’t help but wonder if the significance of the greenhouse effect is highly over played on earth.

  147. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 20, 2006 at 11:46 PM | Permalink

    gbalella, thanks for actually talking about the ideas rather than where they were published. The quotes you have given are all Lean and Rinds statements of the sensitivities “k” used in climate models. We are in agreement about those figures. For actual experimental data, check out figure 16 in the paper. This figure shows that from 1610 to the present, for each 1 watt change in the sun’s output, the summer temperature changed by ~ 0.125°.

    Steve Bloom, regarding the water feedback loops, yes, increasing water vapor is in each of the feedback loops. Your point is? … You seem to believe there is some problem with water vapor adding some 24°C or so to the temperature and then reaching equilibrium … what’s the problem with that? This behaviour is actually quite common in heat engines, where a change in say the efficiency of a radiator will increase the output by a certain amount, and then reach a new equilibrium beyond which it will not go.

    For a more relevant example, there appears to be a limit on the temperature of the tropical oceans of about 30°C. Why? Because as the water temperature rises, more and more of the incoming radiation is converted to latent heat through evaporation, and less and less into sensibile heat. In addition, the latent heat in the increased evaporation is concentrated in clouds, where it is transported vertically up to ~ 6,000 metres of elevation, far above most of the GHGs, and then radiated directly into space.

    When the water vapor condenses into clouds, the clouds shade the area below them, cooling the ocean. The cooled vapor falls as rain, which also cools the ocean below, and the dry air sinks and circulates to take up moisture again. Thus, although there is more water vapor in the air, it is concentrated into a small wet area surrounded by large area of dry air, and it is moved in such a way that it does not always warm the surface, but instead often acts to cool the surface.

    Part of the problem that people have in understanding these processes is that they are accustomed to thinking about CO2 or methane, which are well mixed in the atmosphere and don’t change state. Water vapor is very different from other GHGs. It is concentrated, at times in very wet patches and very dry patches, often within a few hundred feet of each other. In addition, it changes state, almost always in a way that acts to cool the earth (rain, snow, hail, dew, frost, clouds, etc.). Thus, increasing water vapor does not always act to warm the earth in any straightforward way.

    Regardless of the exact details, however, the fact remains that there is a practical limit on the heating of the tropical oceans, a situation which you seem to think is impossible.

    w.

  148. John Creighton
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 12:17 AM | Permalink

    #147 I don’t completely buy your ocean explanation. It sounds very logical and well thought out but if the tropical ocean is kept at a constant temperature by increased evaporation shouldn’t this result in more storms. How come we don’t see evidence of more storms in periods of warmer temperatures.

  149. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 12:17 AM | Permalink

    Re 128 – 129, Hans, thank you for your clear analysis. You are looking at the average emission temperature of the earth as a whole, including the atmosphere, which as you point out is about 235 w/m2, or about -19°C.

    However, the sensitivity question is not how much the entire planetary system temperature would change from a 1 watt change in forcing, but how much the surface temperature would change. To calculate this, we have to use the surface temperature, which is about 390 w/m2, or about +15°C. Remember that the forcing is an additional downward radiation directed at the surface, and we are interested in the change at the surface, not at the top of the atmosphere.

    The emissivity of the earth’s surface is quite different from the emissivity of the entire planet including the atmosphere and clouds, which as you point out is about 0.63. I used a black body approximation to the earth’s emissivity, that is, an emissivity of 1.

    This is actually a good approximation, as the emissivity of the ocean is usually stated as 0.98, well vegetated land is about the same, and bare land about 0.90 – 0.98 depending on the exact wavelength.

    For more accuracy, a so-called “gray-body emissivity” of 0.98 is often used as the average planet-wide surface emissivity. However, at the accuracy level I am discussing, the blackbody approximation is quite adequate, leading to an error of only 2%.

    All the best to you, thanks for the question,

    w.

  150. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 12:35 AM | Permalink

    Re 148, John Creighton, thanks for an interesting question. You say:

    I don’t completely buy your ocean explanation. It sounds very logical and well thought out but if the tropical ocean is kept at a constant temperature by increased evaporation shouldn’t this result in more storms. How come we don’t see evidence of more storms in periods of warmer temperatures.

    Having lived for many years on various islands in the tropical ocean, I can assure you that the hotter it gets, the more storms (usually called “squalls”) there are. This can be seen most clearly on a daily basis. In the morning, the ocean can be bare of clouds. As the day heats up, individual, widely separated squalls start to form. By the afternoon, if it is warm enough, they will form into “squall lines”, which are long rows of individual cumulonimbus squalls, separated by long aerial canyons of clear, dry descending air.

    These persist until late afternoon, when, as the solar input drops, the squalls gradually begin to dissipate, and generally vanish around sunset. So you are quite correct, the warmer the ocean, the more the squalls.

    Another curiosity about the heating of the tropical ocean is that the warm water doesn’t mix downwards much. Instead, it forms a thin warm layer on the surface during the day, because it is lighter than the colder water below. At times, I have swum in such a layer where when I stroke with my arms, they go down into perceptibly colder water. The fact that the sun is only heating this warm layer is part of the reason that the temperature is limited to around 30°C.

    During the night, of course, the surface layer radiates the day’s heat away. There is less water vapor in the air at night (due to less evaporation), so there is less greenhouse effect, and the surface cools quickly. As fast as it cools, however, it sinks, bringing warmer water to the surface to continue to cool … the intricacies of the water cycle on this marvelous planet are endless. The idea that there is some obvious equation like “more water vapor = more greenhouse warming” is absurdly simplistic.

    w.

  151. gbalella
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 12:43 AM | Permalink

    Re #147

    gbalella, thanks for actually talking about the ideas rather than where they were published. The quotes you have given are all Lean and Rinds statements of the sensitivities “k” used in climate models. We are in agreement about those figures. For actual experimental data, check out figure 16 in the paper. This figure shows that from 1610 to the present, for each 1 watt change in the sun’s output, the summer temperature changed by ~ 0.125°.

    And Willis if you look to the units in the y-axis of fig 16 they are in Solar Total Irradiance (STI). Then read the paragraph below the figure (the one I quoted above) and you’ll see the formula to convert that to incident radiation (forcing at the surface). Basically 1 watt/m^2 STI = 0.175 W/M^2 forcing at the surface.

    Which gives you a sensitivity of 0.71C per W/M^2. Which means about 2.8C warming for a doubling of CO2….Hummm looks familiar. But certainly not anything familiar to at least the last 5,000 years of the Holocene.

  152. Tom Brogle
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 2:52 AM | Permalink

    gbalella
    How much energy does it take to evaporate water to yield water vapour?
    That energy will either warm the air or be lost to uoter space.
    How does this energy compare with the amount of energy due to greenhouse warming. It appears that this energy of evaporation is orders of magnitude greater than the radiative greenhouse effect If a small fraction of it warmed the air,it would reduce the warming due to CO2 to zilch.

  153. bender
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 3:45 AM | Permalink

    Re #144: Bloom cites Dessler (appeal to authority). Dessler attempts to discredit Lindzen (ad hominem), pointing out he’s, suspiciously, the only one to get a paper published that argues for negative feedback in water vapour. It is fair to describe Bloom’s argument against negative water vapour feedback as an indirect ad hom.

    I’m glad to see the question of water vapour feedback is now being addressed in a substantive way in this thread, thanks largely to Willis’ posts and some relevant responses.

    Dessler is free to jump in at any point.

  154. bender
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 4:59 AM | Permalink

    Re: #76
    Bloom, your example is 5,8,6,5,6 for the number of storms in five successive years. The mean is 6.0, and the standard deviation is 1.22. If you accept that hurricane occurrence is the part product of a chaotic/random process, then you understand that you could have gotten a different set of hurricane numbers if you “replayed” the earth’s climate a second time, with identical initial conditions. Thus each of the 5 observations is a sample from a hypothetical population of hurricanes that could have been realized (but weren’t). If the hurricane-generating processes are stationary, then the principle of ergodicity allows you to conclude that the mean and standard deviation of those five samples applies to each of the samples. If you plot the annual numbers you get some sense for how noisy the process is. Integrating over increasingly large time-frames reduces that noise, by the central limit thereom (assuming the process remains stationary).

    If you plot the data based on “pentads”, the result is going to look less noisy than if you used the annual counts. If you compute your regression trend line based on “pentads”, the result is going to look more significant than if you used the annual counts. Judth Curry does not report the statistics of her category 4+5 hurricane occurence trend line because she ‘doesn’t need to’. She ‘doesn’t need to’ because by integrating across pentads she’s deflated the sampling error on her observations to the point where the trend line has little high-frequency variation in it.

    The question is: why did she analyze her data this way, in pentads? It looks suspicious because it allows her to get past peer-review despite leaving out the statistics and the confidence intervals on the regression parameters. It looks like there’s no uncertainty on her trend line (which she doesn’t actually draw in her figure!) … and there is. The question is, how big is this uncertainty? But you look at her paper, and the average reader would never think to ask the question … because the data are presented in a way that suppresses skepticism.

    I want to know if this is done intentionally. JMS, for example, is deeply concerned about “intellectual honesty” in climate science. He needs to know the answer to this question.

    My point, however, is not about Judith Curry or hurricanes. I mean to ask a broader question. Is there a systematic tendency to suppress uncertainty estimates in documents fed to policy people? Given the desire and effort to formulate a consensus view where there is none, I think this may be the case. (Many of the sources you cite, such as the James Annan blog, agree that there is little or no consensus on the most critical details affecting the magnitude of the CO2 sensitivity coefficient.)

    Got it?

  155. Dan Hughes
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 5:08 AM | Permalink

    bender knows stats and I’m very happy that he’s on the case.

  156. bender
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 5:18 AM | Permalink

    Re #59:

    1) Is the adjustment of “N” which Wigley proposes for AR(1) autocorrelation correct?

    I think that no one knows if it is actually “correct”. But it is a correction method that is widely used, albeit somewhat unquestioningly.

    2) Is that same adjustment appropriate for ARMA(1,1) type processes? If not, how are these adjusted?

    That is a good question. I think not. I think the MA(1) term adds a second order to the autocorrelation structure. I do not think that corrections have been proposed for higher-order AR processes. Obviously the closer the MA(1) term is to zero, the more reasonable the correction. So magnitude matters.

    Willis, the question that needs to be answered – and I’m sure the answer is “out there” – is why the MA(1) term is always (-). I’ve asked here if it’s because of framing bias, but I haven’t gotten any feedback yet on that. This matters because framing bias can be corrected, in which case the series could be reconstituted as an AR(1) process. i.e. We need to know if that MA(1)functional or just arithemtical. I can’t answer that because I’m not a climatologist.

  157. bender
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 5:30 AM | Permalink

    Dan, I know enough to get by. But to put it in perspective, I’m very, very far below a guy like Wegman. I am a statistics user, not an innovator. It’s important to know where you sit, otherwise the users get to thinking they’re innovators. (And we’ve all seen the product of that kind of hubris.)

  158. Douglas Hoyt
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 5:50 AM | Permalink

    If you accept that 33 C warming is due to the greenhouse effect and the greenhouse downward radiation is 148 W/m2, then you get a climate sensitivity of 0.22 C/W/m2.

    Why should the next anthropogenic W/m2 have a sensitivity 3 or 4 times larger than a natural W/m2?

  159. Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 7:10 AM | Permalink

    In addition to #114:

    The effect of internal (unforced) variability of the climate system on F and Q is also neglected, because estimates based on 1300 years of the HadCM3 control run show these fluctuations to be an order of magnitude smaller than the uncertainties.

    The same HadCM3 model significantly ignores any natural cycle (10-100 years), like short-to-long solar cycles, in ocean heat content. See figure S1 of the supporting on-line material of the study by Barnett ea.. Ocean heat content is the major accumulating factor for the radiation balance & resulting climate of the earth…

  160. jae
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 10:31 AM | Permalink

    124: Willis, that was a great post. I will take Idso’s natural experiments and tthese type of analyses anytime over complex computer models, especially when there is no way to check the models.

  161. jae
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 10:46 AM | Permalink

    Incidently, I agree that much of the stability of our climate is due the the unique and “magic” nature of the water molecule. It can be a positive or negative feedback, depending on what is necessary to moderate the climate. Hurray for the Blue Planet!

  162. muirgeo
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 10:56 AM | Permalink

    RE 160 & 161

    LOL

  163. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 11:03 AM | Permalink

    RE: #64 – My own inclination is also to view this from a standpoint of filter theory. All them danged geophysics courses and tensors must have gone to me ‘ead!

  164. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 11:08 AM | Permalink

    RE: #80 – Living here in the SF-Oak-SJ metroplex, I am sure Bloom has run into quite a few sci/eng types. Although he was probably a psych major, he may be secretly attracted to sci and eng (and math).

  165. jae
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 11:21 AM | Permalink

    164: Yeah, he’s attracted, because it is his job with the Sierra Club to keep this AGW “crisis” alive. He is apparently not interested in learning anything, just blabbering to make sure some of the visitors here are sufficiently confused and don’t learn anything, either. I’ll bet most, if not all, of the other trolls here (gballea, muirgeo, etc.) are also active members of environmental activist organizations–not just folks that want to learn something.

  166. ET SidViscous
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 11:37 AM | Permalink

    gballea and muirgeo are one and the same.

  167. Dano
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 11:47 AM | Permalink

    153:

    Dessler attempts to discredit Lindzen (ad hominem), pointing out he’s, suspiciously, the only one to get a paper published that argues for negative feedback in water vapour.

    No.

    1. The point is that his is the only argument for a – feedback, and it hasn’t withstood peer review. One of my assertions is the [snip ad hominem] have no testable hypotheses of their own, so they atomistically quibble to stay in play; this is evidence of my assertion.

    BTW, note how a commenter below 153 believes that there is a – feedback despite there being no evidence for such.

    2. For some reason , most [snip ad hominem] I see on comment threads use ad hom incorrectly. Or not, depending upon the need for rhetorical advantage to maintain viability of worldview.

    Anyway, Dessler said:

    Unfortunately (for him), subsequent tests of other scientists failed to verify this idea. At the present time, there is virtually no support in the community for it. Lindzen still gives talks on this and claims that the iris hypothesis is still viable. However, as far as I can tell, no one, including Lindzen, is working on it, so that indicates exactly how vibrant the idea is.

    Hardly ad hom, as Andrew explains why the argument is invalid, rather than ignoring Lindzen’s argument and attacking Lindzen without addressing the argument (_that_ is ad hom).

    IOW, if you want to be taken seriously outside of this website, you have to drop the bad habits enumerated above.

    HTH,

    D

    [Dano, if you want be taken seriously at all, drop the Lambertisms]

  168. bender
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 12:00 PM | Permalink

    Dano,
    You have quoted Dessler selectively, leaving out the ad hom (a phrase whose defintion I understand perfectly well, thank you). Shall I reproduce it for you, or can we agree you’re wrong, and move on?

  169. bender
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 12:21 PM | Permalink

    Re #167
    Here, Dano, is what Dessler wrote:

    I did a quick search on the Web of Science and found out these statistics:

    70 papers contained the phrase “water vapor feedback”
    18 of them contained “negative” and “water vapor feedback”

    If you go through the abstracts, you find that only four articles talk about a negative water vapor feedback (in other abstracts, the word “negative” was modifying another phrase). I’m adding a fifth paper that was not flagged in my search because it was published in 1990, before the WOS included abstracts. Also, I’m dropping one paper for reasons I won’t go into here.

    Here is the resulting list of peer-reviewed literature on the negative water vapor feedback:
    1. Lindzen, R. S. (1990), Some coolness concerning global warming, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 71, 288-299.

    2. Sun, D.-Z., and R. S. Lindzen (1993), Distribution of tropical tropospheric water vapor, Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 50, 1643-1660.

    3. Sun, D. Z., and R. S. Lindzen (1993), Water-vapor feedback and the ice-age snowline record, Annales Geophysicae, 11, 204-215.

    4. Lindzen, R. S., M.-D. Chou, and A. Y. Hou (2001), Does the Earth have an adaptive iris?, Bull. Am. Met. Soc., 82, 417-432.

    Hmmm. There’s a pattern here that I just can’t quite figure out. Just joking. The pattern, of course, is that only Dick Lindzen has been able to publish a paper arguing for a negative water vapor feedback.

    Ha ha. Dessler is clearly attempting to discredit Lindzen by pointing out that he’s a special case, an outlier that is easily dismissed, given the consensus that exists when he’s excluded. This is a rhetorical trick, designed to bias the reader’s judgement before heading into the more substantive discussion that follows:

    But if you look carefully at the papers, they make a much weaker argument than you might expect.

    The criticism is legitimate, and this is the section from which Dano cites. My point is that this legitimate discussion is prefaced by an ad hom attack. Why?

    Is this an egregious ad hom? No, no more so that JMS’s accusation in #8.

    Dano/JMS: if you want to set the standard, you’ve got to live by it. Dessler uses both ad hom and legitimate means to make his case. But it’s the ad hom, as a rhetorical device, that is most effective in the public arena.

    JMS, what do you make of the “intellectual dishonesty” factor here?

  170. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 12:25 PM | Permalink

    re 128, Doug Hoyt, thanks for your most interesting analysis and question, where you say:

    If you accept that 33 C warming is due to the greenhouse effect and the greenhouse downward radiation is 148 W/m2, then you get a climate sensitivity of 0.22 C/W/m2.

    Why should the next anthropogenic W/m2 have a sensitivity 3 or 4 times larger than a natural W/m2?

    An excellent point. However, a more generally accepted figure for the downward radiation is not 148 w/m2, but on the order of 320 w/m2 (see Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget, J. T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 78, No. 2, February 1997, for the most widely used figures).

    Since as you point out this causes some 33° of warming, a first-order estimate of the contribution from radiative IR forcing would be on the order of 33°per 320 w/m2. This, of course, is the same number that was found by the Idso paper, about a tenth of a degree per watt.

    You pose a fascinating and very important question, which is, if the addition of 320 w/m2 caused a temperature rise of a tenth of a degree per watt, why should one more additional watt, the 321st, cause a temperature change ten times as large. Perhaps Steve Bloom or gbalella can answer that one … I cannot.

    w.

  171. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 12:30 PM | Permalink

    gballea and muirgeo are one and the same.

    Hmmm. I can’t gainsay that but I don’t recall knowing it. OTOH, I was surprised while looking through my old archives to see only muirgeo in the early years and gballea appearing later. I suppose I should check. Certainly both had the same MO; appeal to authority and lack of science knowledge…

    Yep. I was able to confirm that on 11/24/2003 his messages switched from MrMuir to George Ballela on my system when he switched from AOL to sbcglobal.net but the underlying name was still muirgeo. I probably knew that at one time but had forgotten.

  172. jae
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 12:31 PM | Permalink

    I have not read all the posts on this thread, and maybe I’m way out in left field. Are you guys discussing just water vapor and not clouds? Surely nobody would deny that clouds can cause negative feedbacks.

  173. ET SidViscous
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 12:38 PM | Permalink

    Dave

    He revealed that here about 3 weeks ago.

    One of the posts on one log-in got caught in Karma, so he came in on the other and said something along the lines of “I’ve been banned I see this as a victory” and signed it as the other log in.

  174. Douglas Hoyt
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 12:49 PM | Permalink

    Willis,
    You are right. I looked at one of my old papers on the subject and found I calculated it to be 325 W/m2, close to your 320 figure. Thanks for pointing that out.

  175. Douglas Hoyt
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 1:11 PM | Permalink

    Per the above comments, my comment #158 should be revised to say:

    If you accept that 33 C warming is due to the greenhouse effect and the greenhouse downward radiation is 320 W/m2, then you get a climate sensitivity of 0.103 C/W/m2.

    Why should the next anthropogenic W/m2 have a sensitivity that is 6 to 10 times larger than a natural W/m2?

  176. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 1:16 PM | Permalink

    RE: “surely nobody would deny that clouds can cause negative feedbacks.”

    And to think that there are some folks out there who call US denialists? Harumph!

  177. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 1:29 PM | Permalink

    Re #176: Steve S., what’s the point of comments like that? In fact, there is absolutely no one who denies that clouds can (and do) cause negative feedbacks. Since you participate on RC, I know you have seen information to that effect.

  178. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 1:33 PM | Permalink

    RE: #177 – But also at RC are folks who either greatly downplay or outright deny clouds being negative feedbacks in all cases. They typically argue “H2O is a greenhouse gas, ergo, clouds are a positive feedback….” Granted they are not the site owners, but are probably non scientifically trained posters from the general public.

  179. Michael Hansen
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 1:33 PM | Permalink

    #167 Come one, Dano, don’t go there…

    Bender has practically buried Bloom and various RealClimate proxy-debaters in sharp and on-spot remarks attacking the science, the whole science, and nothing but the science. Surely he can go slightly of the limp on occasion without discrediting the other points being made. The very fact that you try this pathetic attack indicates that he’s getting under your skin. But I guess we should all feel much more comfortable with Jim 10-years-from-tripping-point Hansen, Stephen we-have-to-offer-up-scary-scenarios Schneider, Bob world-could-heat-11-degree-and-we-have-to-keep-politicians-on-track Spicer, Michael they-just-want-to-find-flaws-in-my-work-waaaa-waaaa Mann, Gavin we-have-a-responsibility-to-future-generations Smith, Ray I’m-an-environmentalist Pierrehumbert, William I-censor-the-living-crap-out-of-Wikipedia Connolly

    I’ll chose Steve M, bender, Willis, Jean S, and Erren, over that gang any day. Not because they are better scientist — I couldn’t really tell — but because they come out a lot more credible AND polite. Whenever I debate the credibility of climate scientists, I’ll just redirect people to the original correspondence between Mann and McIntyre, and its game, set, and match. No one outside the closed circles of environmentalism comes out unaffected by that correspondence.

    At this point in time and space you have the luxury of arrogance because you have the momentum. Fair enough. Use it. Enjoy it. But for a soft landing, you might start reading up on sunspots, Dano. It’s going to be a killer. And your Lindzen-crackpot-Singer-oil-sucking-stooge line of attack isn’t going to work on CERN and their CLOUD experiment.

    Michael Hansen

  180. John Cross
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 1:36 PM | Permalink

    Willis, where did you get your number of 320 from? In your reference I found a number of 342 W/m2, but this is found from the solar radiation (1367 W/m2) divided by 4.

    Anyway, unless you are saying that we are heated only by the greenhouse effect then your estimate of greenhouse enhanced downward radiation is by far too large. If you are saying that we are heated only by the greenhosue effect then you must use the value of 290K, not 33.

    John

  181. jae
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 2:06 PM | Permalink

    I think Willis did a great job on this thread explaining the possibilities for moderation/cooling of the climate by water vapor/clouds. Just go out in a thunderstorm. What do you feel. Cold! Where did the heat go? To the upper atmosphere and space! What is happening to the surface temperature? Cooling! Now, don’t tell me that the thunderstorm is not getting rid of heat. The more water vapor, the more thunderstorms (as well as other cloud formations which block the sun). It is 5th grade science! That is exactly why there is no “tipping point,” and why life is possible on Earth.

  182. bender
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 2:13 PM | Permalink

    Re #179
    I apologize to Dessler if he took offence at my remark, though I’m not sure he would. I apologize to Steve M’s blog for a 3:45am weakness. My only excuse is that dodginess of that order is infuriating. I was trying to stick to the science, but those incessant dodges … Maybe I need to take up yoga … and think happy thoughts, about the little blue planet, magic water …

  183. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 2:18 PM | Permalink

    RE: #181 – Since great inventions tend to mimic grand nature, it is more than a coincidence that “tower” heat sinks (e.g. ones of circular cross section with fins consisting also of circular shapes, with radii larger than the heat sinks’ cores’) are so similar in function to cumulonimbus clouds having extensive vertical development. I’ve seen some of them penetrating the stratosphere.

  184. muirgeo
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 2:39 PM | Permalink

    Re #175

    Douglas imagine an atmosphere with no GHG. I believe at – 18C we would have a snow ball Earth.

    Tell me how much water vapor you would have to add to the snowball Earth to warm it 33C to its current 15C?

    Answer that correctly and you have the answer to why your’s/Idos’s calculation is RUBBISH!

  185. Tom Brogle
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 2:48 PM | Permalink

    Bloom and gballea
    I’ve posted in this thread hoping to elicit a response.
    Does the evaporation of water vapour transfer any heat to the air?
    Is the historical evidence of the MWP not overwhelming?

    How sure are you that the effects of UHI have been eliminated from the Global temperature record when you accept that stations adjacent to populations of up 10000 are unaffected by it,whereas truly rural stations show a much lower temperature increase.For example the temperatures for stations above 70N show no net warming between the late 30s and the present day.Most of these stations are virtually uninhabited

  186. Dano
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 2:50 PM | Permalink

    169:

    let us atomistically quibble about this over at Andrew’s site, eh?

    Best,

    D

  187. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 2:53 PM | Permalink

    Re #180, John, thanks as always for your interesting questions. You ask:

    Willis, where did you get your number of 320 from? In your reference I found a number of 342 W/m2, but this is found from the solar radiation (1367 W/m2) divided by 4.

    Anyway, unless you are saying that we are heated only by the greenhouse effect then your estimate of greenhouse enhanced downward radiation is by far too large. If you are saying that we are heated only by the greenhosue effect then you must use the value of 290K, not 33.

    John, take a look at Figure 7 in the Trenberth/Kiehl paper. They show “Back Radiation” (that is, downwelling IR radiation from the “greenhouse effect”) as being 324 w/m2.

    Remember, this is only a part of the surface energy balance. There are other inputs and outputs as well, so you can’t figure the surface temperature just from the downwelling IR.

  188. muirgeo
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 2:58 PM | Permalink

    Re# 185

    Is the historical evidence of the MWP not overwhelming?

    Sure there was a MWP. But the trees coming out of the glaciers are 5,000 or more years old.

    Steve has a 99% feeling that there are MWP forest buried under the ice….somewhere. Once those are exposed I’ll be a skeptic too. Otherwise looks like its as warm as it has been in not only 1000 years but in 5,000 years or maybe 50,000 years…and STILLLLL warming.

  189. Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 3:19 PM | Permalink

    re 146:
    Stefan-Boltzmann:
    P=\epsilon\sigma T^4

    A = radiating surface
    T emissiontemperature in Kelvin
    \epsilon_e  emission factor ( 100% for blackbody)
    \epsilon_r Re-emission factor ( co-albedo 100% for blackbody)

    Incoming radiation (earth is flat disk):
    P_i_n = A_{in}*S= \pi R^2 S
    where
    S=S_0/r^2 solar constant
    outgoing radiation (earth is sphere)
    P_o_u_t = A_{out}*S_E = 4\pi R^2  \sigma  T^4

    Energy balance:

    \epsilon_r P_i_n = \epsilon_e P_o_u_t

    \epsilon_r   S \pi R^2 = \epsilon_e 4 \pi R^2 \sigma T^4
    or
    T =(\frac{ \epsilon_r S} {\epsilon_e 4\sigma})^\frac1{4}

    Substituting:
    \epsilon_r =0.7 (co-albedo)
    \epsilon_e =0.6293 (present day infrared emissivity)
    \sigma = 5.6703 \times 10^{-8} W / ( m^2 K^4)
    S = 1366 W/m-2
    yields
    T= 12.942 ºC

    \epsilon_e =1 (no absorption)
    yields
    T= -18.338 ºC

    see also:

    http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/sb.htm

    (modified from http://www.schulphysik.de/solar.html )

    met dank aan:

    http://www.schulphysik.de/solar.html%5B/quote%5D

  190. Kenneth Blumenfeld
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 3:19 PM | Permalink

    Jae, Steve Sadlov:

    Thunderstorms are indeed magnificient. The top of the “anvil” that you see at the top of a thunderstorm is actually the level at which buoyant parcels reach equilibrium with the surrounding airmass, which is generally isothermal (in the vertical) at that height (i.e., the tropopause). Some of the higher-end storms will have little “overshooting tops” that can persist (for minutes) above this equilibrium level, but this is usually still within the tropopoause. It is not implausible that a convective element, given enough instability, could make it into the lower stratosphere, but considering the negative lapse rates at that level (i.e., increases in temperature with height), buoyant parcels would run out of energy very quickly. In any case, if you observe the overshooting top phenomenon, just know that you are witnessing an extra-special display of power.

    Jae, I am looking for a good diagram of the energy budget of thunderstorms. I have seen them in meteorology textbooks, but all of textbooks are at school. If anyone knows of a good one online, it would certainly be a good tool to use for advancing this discussion. In any case, you say:

    Just go out in a thunderstorm. What do you feel. Cold! Where did the heat go? To the upper atmosphere and space!

    It is true that thunderstorms are effective mechanisms for restoring atmospheric stability. That is, they transport the heat from low levels to higher levels, mostly in the troposphere. But to say that the heat went directly into the upper atmosphere and space would be an oversimplification. For one, the cold air is generally drawn down from higher levels by the thunderstorm itself. Secondly, much of the heat that is now missing from the surface was used to energize the thunderstorm itself. Again, an energy budget diagram would be helpful here. I’ll look for one, unless it becomes obvious that nobody cares.

  191. Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 3:23 PM | Permalink

    (I notice some tex rendering errors)
    T =(\frac{ \epsilon_r S} {\epsilon_e 4\sigma})^\frac{1}{4}

  192. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

    Re #178: And they generally get corrected when they say ridiculous things like that, as do you.

  193. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 3:43 PM | Permalink

    A note on negative feedbacks and losses.

    The greenhouse effect attempts to further heat the planet beyond the temperature it would have without an atmosphere. If there were no losses, this would result in a very high temperature, far above the current temperature. For a 2 shell greenhouse (the simplest model that can provide enough energy to match the known global energy balance) this would be three times the incoming radiation, or 3 x ~235 w/m2, which is ~705 w/m2 or 63°C (145°F).

    Why isn’t the planet that hot? One reason is because the global heat engine we call climate, like all real heat engines, contains losses. None of these losses serve to increase the greenhouse effect, that is thermodynamically impossible.

    What are the losses? They fall into three main groups — latent heat losses (through evaporation/condensation), sensible heat losses (by conduction/convection), and hydrometeor losses (from rain, snow, hail, sleet, graupel, etc.).

    All of these losses are driven by àƒ⣃ ‹’€ ”‚¬⟔, the temperature difference between the surface and the upper atmosphere. Without that temperature difference, we would not have any losses. Since the losses are some function of àƒ⣃ ‹’€ ”‚¬⟔, as the surface temperature increases, so do the losses.

    This is why all of the meteorological phenomena, from wind to evaporation to clouds to Hadley cell circulation to hydrometeors and on down the list, cool the earth — because they are parasitic losses to a heat engine, and thus cannot possibly heat the surface. Basic physics, differences in heat (àƒ⣃ ‹’€ ”‚¬⟔) tend to equalize rather than become more exaggerated.

    In fact, the Constructal Law indicates that the system is being driven at something very near its maximum temperature. Natural flow systems, such as the climate heat engine, evolve to maximize the surface of the interface. For a fascinating paper on the subject, see Thermodynamic optimization of global circulation and climate, Adrian Bejan and A. Heitor Reis, Int. J. Energy Res. 2005; 29:303–316, published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/er.1058

    In addition to these losses, however, there is a separate, very powerful feedback system which regulates the amount of incoming solar radiation. This is the albedo feedback, which reflects away solar energy before it ever enters the greenhouse system. Among other things, the albedo is regulated by the amount of snow and clouds, both of which are functions of the amount of water vapor in the air. As an example of the sensitivity of this system, a 1% change in the average planetary albedo is enough to totally cancel out a doubling of CO2.

    The net effect of this albedo feedback has to be negative, rather than positive. If it were positive, we would have spiraled long ago into either a frozen or a boiling planet. Since we have not done so, we can conclude that the feedback is negative.

    Thus, we have both losses and feedbacks which tend to increase the cooling of the earth when it is hot, and decrease the cooling of the earth when it is cold. This is the reason that, although the theoretical (Stefan-Bolzmann) temperature change from one watt of additional forcing is ~0.18°C, the actual change in the real world must be smaller.

    w.

    PS – in the longer term, the cloud albedo is also regulated by the solar magnetism/geomagnetism => cosmic ray => cloud formation => changing albedo link. It is this link which is the principal driver of the long term changes in climate. See the October 29, 2005 article regarding the work of Sylvia Duhau at http://www.nuclear.com/environment/climate_policy/default.html for more information on this mechanism.

  194. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 3:46 PM | Permalink

    RE: #190 – No doubt, the mechanical and electrical energy of a thunderstorm help to balance the equation. Net of it is, thunderstorms are nature’s heat sinks, well, at least, are a type of them. Their aspect ratio speaks to their ability to move energy vertically in both directions, thermal energy upward and electrical engergy and mechanical energy bidirectionally. If and only if there is an abnormal amount of warming versus innate levels of expected variation, then I would imagine that the magnitude of these energy flows may also increase abnormally. Does that mean mega hurricanes, superstorms and other fire and brimstone sorts of things? Probably not, as we’re talking about subtle effects integrated over vast volumes.

  195. Dano
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 3:47 PM | Permalink

    190:

    In any case, if you observe the overshooting top phenomenon, just know that you are witnessing an extra-special display of power.

    Indeed. Way back when I was a weatherman, if’n we saw one of these it was immediately reportable, as it was practically guaranteed that any cloud displaying these properties was a hazard to aviation.

    Again, an energy budget diagram would be helpful here.

    Are you looking for a CAPE diagram/equation, or an optic with, say, a side cutaway view with E at certain points?

    Best,

    D

  196. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 3:54 PM | Permalink

    Re 190, Kenneth, thank you for your analysis. I look forward to your thunderstorm energy budge.

    I agree with you when you say:

    It is true that thunderstorms are effective mechanisms for restoring atmospheric stability. That is, they transport the heat from low levels to higher levels, mostly in the troposphere. But to say that the heat went directly into the upper atmosphere and space would be an oversimplification.

    It is an oversimplification, but it is also true that thunderstorms greatly increase the IR emissions to space. This can be seen in the IR satellite photos of such storms, where the top of each storm is glowing bright white compared to the surrounding area. This is because the surface heat has been transported (as both latent and sensible heat, as well as heat of condensation) well above the main concentration of GHGs, and thus can emit longwave radiation directly to space.

    w.

  197. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 3:57 PM | Permalink

    I just realized that I haven’t thanked bender for answering my questions about the correction of time series statistics for autocorrelation, which was actually the subject of this thread. So, many thanks. I’ll continue to see what I can find on the subject, and perhaps do some monte carlo analyses on ARMA(1,1) random datasets.

    w.

  198. Douglas Hoyt
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 3:59 PM | Permalink

    Snowball Earth has a surface temperature of -64 C. It absorbs 24 W/m2 of solar radiation at the surface compared to 160 W/m2 at present. The downward IR flux at the surface is about 181 W/m2 in the snowball Earth compared to 320 W/m2 at present. So combined IR and solar absorption at the surface increases by 275 W/m2 and temperature rises about 78 C. So climate sensitivity in that case comes in at about 78/275 = 0.28 C/W/m2 or still much less than IPCC values.

    As the temperature rises, one would expect the sensitivity to steadily decrease since gains in absorbed solar radiation from albedo changes disappear, so the value of 0.1 C/W/m2 for present conditions is probably reasonably close to what is happening now.

  199. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 3:59 PM | Permalink

    RE: #196 – Yet another extreme sport (DO…NOT…TRY…THIS…AT…HOME!) – thunderhead soaring! Imagine it, the ultimate thermal!

  200. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 4:02 PM | Permalink

    Passing thought …. looking over the posts on this thread, maybe someday this site will morph into something like “The Virtual International University of Energetics” – ;)

  201. bender
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 4:02 PM | Permalink

    Re #186 Actually, Dano, I would prefer that Bloom not initiate his attacks here, and we just stick to the science. But thanks all the same for the generous invite.

    But, hey, Dano, since Bloom has apparently given up on my #3 at RC, maybe you could be a gem and go on over there and help him out with an answer? Or do you accept #154?

  202. Kenneth Blumenfeld
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 4:44 PM | Permalink

    Willis,

    The “glowing” cloud tops on the IR images are not what you think they are. The bright colors (or bright whites, same thing) indicate colder temperatures associated with the high cloud tops. Independent, high cirrus clouds will often appear very bright too, though there is no convective energy in them. Here is an image scaled with warm=red, cool-blue.

  203. Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 4:44 PM | Permalink

    Re #186,

    Dano, Dessler asks the wrong questions, as some extra warming may expected from water vapor, but cooling from extra (low level) clouds, depending of the area under consideration. That cloud feedback is one of the weakest points in climate models is proven again and again, as well in the tropics as for the Arctic…

  204. Kenneth Blumenfeld
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 4:50 PM | Permalink

    Dano,

    Thanks for the skew-T and the eq., though I was thinking of a systematic diagram. E.g., MUCAPE 3000 J/kg at the surface (cinh ~ 0), of which x % goes gets spent on the storm itself, leaving 100-x% for “space” or whatever. I have seen it, maybe in one of Roland Stull’s books, and it is certainly more complex than what I just explained, but it does exist. That last option you gave may be what I’m trying to describe.

    Thanks.

  205. Lee
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

    199
    Steve S – I remember reading a LONG time back (in my teens – a VERY long time – meaning my memory of it or any skeptical analysis while reading it is likely not very reliable) about a military pilot who ejected into a thunderstorm, and was cycled up and down over several tens of thosuands of feet a couple times before he finally fell out of the storm.

  206. jae
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 4:55 PM | Permalink

    re 169 and related:

    did a quick search on the Web of Science and found out these statistics:

    ?? That must been a hell of a quick search. Look at all of these studies of cloud effects.

    Maybe the poor results of the search relate to the key words used.

  207. Kenneth Blumenfeld
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 4:58 PM | Permalink

    I should not that in my reply to Willis, the first image gives positive values for bright colors. That is the pixel brightness index, and you need to use their simple equation to get the actual temperature from there.

    The second is a temperature scale (C), but it would be nice if they said so and used legible type.

  208. Kenneth Blumenfeld
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 5:00 PM | Permalink

    And my last comment should say “note,” rather than “not.” Sors.

  209. jae
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 5:10 PM | Permalink

    re 182, Bender: You don’t find any better magic in this world.

  210. David Smith
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 5:11 PM | Permalink

    A question: does anyone know if the amount of longwave radiation leaving an area typically decreases at late night?

    The reason I ask is that in many areas the overnight temperature is determined by the dew point. At night, as the dewpoint is approached, the sensible temperature stops falling and dew/fog form. The dew/fog slows/stops the earth from radiating heat into space.

    If the earth were warmer due to GHGs, then it seems like it would take a little longer at night to approach the dew point, but in the end, we still get to the same temperature.

    Agreed, there would be less dew/fog to burn off (absorb heat) in the morning, but dew tends to be absorbed by leaves and I wonder if light fog is easily burned off by much less solar raditaion than the fog blocked that night (a guess). On balance, the late night water vapor effects (dew/fog) may create a sort of reserve of heat removal capacity: a negative feedback mechanism.

  211. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 5:16 PM | Permalink

    Santer et al (JGR 2000) state:

    There are various ways of accounting for temporal autocorrelation in e(t) [see, e.g., Wigley and Jones, 1981; Bloomfield and Nychka, 1992; Wilks, 1995; Ebisuzaki, 1997; Bretherton et al., 1999]. The simplest way [Bartlett, 1935; Mitchell et al., 1966] uses an effective sample size n_{eff} based on \rho , the lag-1 autocorrelation coefficient of e(t):
    n_{eff} = \frac {1+ \rho}{1-\rho}
    By substituting the estimated effective sample size n_eff for n in (4), one obtains “adjusted” estimates of the standard deviation of regression residuals and hence of the standard error and t ratio.

    Bartlett is a famous statistician, although 1935 was early in his career, and one would like to see a more up-to-date statistical authority. Bartlett 1935 does not support the citation and arguably says the opposite:

    First, there is no objection to our using the usual statistical tests as a preliminary measure. If coefficients are quite insignificant on these tests, there does not seem to be much point considering them further. Secondly, it a correlation coefficient appears significant, the extent to which the necessary conditions for a valid test appear to be fulfilled in the problem under consideration should be clearly stated. It should be noted that the complete independence of observations of one series is sufficient for a test to be valid… If neither series is random, no valid test can be recommended for it is not likely that the dependence of the observations can be specified in any satisfactory statistical way.

    So I guess the authority for this procedure is a WMO technical report.

  212. Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 5:20 PM | Permalink

    I find this one always very instructive:

    sun in Halpha

    and earth in inverse ir

    look in both images at the low emitting cool clouds.

  213. muirgeo
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 5:36 PM | Permalink

    Re # 198

    …. so the value of 0.1 C/W/m2 for present conditions is probably reasonably close to what is happening now.
    Comment by Douglas Hoyt

    Except for the inconvenient fact that we’ve had about a 0.8C increase in measured temperatures with NO evidence for a forcing on the order of 8 W/m2. The real time data from the current experiment we are doing on the Earth kinda supersedes your spurious calculations that can likewise find NO support in the peer reviewed literature.

    Where oh where can 8 watts of forcing be hiding?

  214. Dano
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 5:53 PM | Permalink

    196:

    This [whiteness on IR sat fotos] is because the surface heat has been transported (as both latent and sensible heat, as well as heat of condensation)

    No.

    If you look at the key for any sat piccie, you can see the brightest white = coolest temps.

    Unless you mean all the latent/sensible heat has been transported away and it is now cold [expressed as white on an IR satpic] as a result, then yes. Otherwise, no.

    HTH.
    ———-

    201:

    maybe you could be a gem and go on over there and help him out with an answer? Or do you accept #154

    I take your premise to be the author chose the filter with some purpose in mind. I don’t see how anyone’s contribution but the author’s matters.

    HTH.
    ———-

    203:

    Dessler asks the wrong questions, as some extra warming may expected from water vapor {etc}

    No.

    WV influences heat when uncondensed. You’ll also recall that incrd cloud cover warms the surface (Venus being real cloudy-like).

    ———-
    206:

    Look at all of these studies of cloud effects.

    [/ignore]

    Sigh…the topic is WV. WV. WV. Not clouds (which are a subset of WV). Your hint is the search term “water vapor feedback “. The search term was not “clouds”

    WV. Not clouds.

    HTH.

    [ignore]
    ==========

    Best,

    D

  215. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 5:56 PM | Permalink

    Re 213, muirgeo, under your other sock puppet name of gbalella, you tried this exact same question earlier, in post #73.

    It was answered, clearly and in detail, in posts number 74, 77, and 81. Somehow, you neglected to reply to these …

    Asked and answered. Do you find this interesting? You’re destroying your own credibility. Go away.

    w.

  216. jae
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 5:58 PM | Permalink

    213: A lot of them are “hiding” in erroneous surface air temperature measurements. But we don’t get to look at how they are derived, do we?

  217. John Cross
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 5:59 PM | Permalink

    Re # 187

    Re #180, John, thanks as always for your interesting questions.

    Thanks for your reply Willis (although I take it that my comment on Idso’s paper was not all that interesting ;) )

    I admit that I have no idea where the 320 W/m2 comes from! However I refer you to the text on page 202 where they talk about the 125 W/m2 clear sky greenhouse effect.

    Regards,
    John

  218. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 6:02 PM | Permalink

    I found the following reference to Nychka et al 2000 (unpublished) here:

    The drawback to this approach is that it is based on the true autocorrelation coefficient \rho , and in practice one only has the sample autocorrelation coefficent r, which underestimates \rho , and therefore leads to overestimates of n_{eff} Nychka et al. (Confidence intervals for trend estimates with autocorrelated observations, unpublished manuscript, 2000) have proposed that this problem can be addressed by adding a correction factor to (21) as follows:
    n_{eff} =n\frac{1-r-0.68/\sqrt{n}}{1+r+0.68/\sqrt{n}}  (22)

    Nychka et al.’s Monte Carlo simulations show that this gives reasonably accurate and unbiased uncertainty estimates for trend analyses. They also note that when n_{eff}< 6 , estimates of uncertainties and confidence intervals are likely to be unreliable even if equation (22) is used.

  219. Dano
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 6:05 PM | Permalink

    210:

    does anyone know if the amount of longwave radiation leaving an area typically decreases at late night?

    Yes [1.]

    Best,

    D

  220. jae
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 6:06 PM | Permalink

    214. Err, clouds are feedback to water vapor. You can’t really discuss one without the other in any meaningful way. Also, clouds only DECREASE THE RATE OF COOLING (they don’t cause warming) at night; they cause cooling during the day.

  221. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 6:13 PM | Permalink

    Dano and Kenneth, you are correct. My error on the white showing the most intense infrared emission, as you point out, it does not.

    However, my point still stands — thunderstorms shift the emitting regions up high in the atmosphere, above the majority of the GHGs. This allows them to radiate directly to space.

    In support of this, take a look at Wisconsin HIRS 6.5 Year Cloud Climatology which says in part:

    When the satellite sensor views very dense clouds, all the vertically propagating IR radiation is coming from the cloud top or very close to it.

    This is my contention, which I believe to be true, that part of the effect of a thunderstorm is to move heat vertically where it can radiate more easily directly to space.

    w.

  222. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 6:22 PM | Permalink

    RE: #221 – Simply put, a thunderstorm is a miniature version of the Hadley Cell, or of a convection cell in a molten or liquid medium. It is vertical heat flow upward and descending cooled air downward. It is nature’s swamp cooler.

  223. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 6:26 PM | Permalink

    I might add, “warmers” like to argue that thunderheads are simply small features that help to “feed” poleward transfer. No doubt, that is partially true, but I also have to concur with Willis that once you have moved the thermal energy up to 40K feet in the atmosphere, there is not much keeping it from getting out entirely. Yes of course the lapse rate reverses in the Stratosphere, but we are talking about miniscule amounts of matter in the column above versus below. Its potential to insulate the thermal energy is not perfect. Therefore, while some of the thermal energy will end up pole ward, not all of it will. Yet another great topic for the budding PhD.

  224. David Smith
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 6:39 PM | Permalink

    RE #219 Dano, thanks!!! First time I’ve seen that.

    What’s the source? It’s be great to find similar plots for other locations.

  225. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 6:39 PM | Permalink

    Re #217, John Cross, my apologies for not answering your question. You say:

    Thanks for your reply Willis (although I take it that my comment on Idso’s paper was not all that interesting )

    which I assume refers to:

    Willis: You put out a challenge with your Idso article so let me reply by saying that his Natural Experiment number 6 gives an answer which he claims is identical to his other experiments. But his other experiments include feedbacks where as this one is based the greenhouse effect on Venus and Mars. There is no reason to expect that the feedbacks for the other planets is the same as for earth – if there is a feedback at all. This seems like a significant error.

    As Idso points out,

    Consider what we can learn from our nearest planetary
    neighbors, Mars and Venus. In spite of the
    tremendous differences that exist between them, and
    between them and the Earth, their observed surface
    temperatures have been said to confirm “the existence,
    nature, and magnitude of the greenhouse effect’ by 2
    select committees of the U.S. National Research Council
    (Smagorinsky et al. 1982, Nierenberg et al. 1983),
    which conclusion appears also to be accepted by the
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Trenberth
    et al. 1996).

    Since all of those good folks assume that the laws of physics operate the same way on the other planets as on ours, and because it makes sense to me as well, it does not strike me as improbable that the sensitivites would be similar on any planet with a CO2 atmosphere. In any case, it appears from Idso’s calculation that they are similar, so unless you can find a problem with the calculations …

    w.

    PS – I do not find that he calls the result “identical” to his other results. Having said that, this has always struck me as the weakest of the ten arguments … which doesn’t make it wrong. For more on the subject, see this link.

  226. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 7:16 PM | Permalink

    Re 218, Steve M., many thanks for the research. It appears that the situation is even worse than we thought …

    w.

  227. Douglas Hoyt
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 7:27 PM | Permalink

    RE 213 “Where is the 8 watts hiding? More accurately you mean 6 watts. It could easily be in unforced variation in cloud cover as reported in a number of papers. Michaels gives a summary at http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/10/global-warming-something-new-under-the-sun/

    Enhanced greenhouse effect during industrial era: 2.4 W/m2. According to page 66 of the 2001 compendium of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC), about a quarter of this amount, or 0.6 W/m2, has occurred since the mid-1980s.

    Change in solar radiation absorbed by the earth from 2000 to 2004, estimated from low-orbiting satellite data, reported by Wielicki et al.: 2.06 W/m2.

    Change from 1983 to 2001 in solar radiation absorbed by the earth, estimated at the surface by satellites, reported by Pinker et al.: 2.7 W/m2.

    Change from 1985 to 2000 solar radiation absorbed at the surface, as measured at the surface, reported by Wild et al.: 4.4 W/m2.

    If we average the results of Pinker et al. and Wild et al., we get 3.55 W/m2 for the period 1985 to 2000. To this we add 2.06 W/m2 from 2000 to 2004 and get 5.61 W/m2. If we divide this by 0.6 W/m2 (the total change in greenhouse forcing from 1985 to 2004, we get 9.35. The added forcing from increased solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface has contributed nearly 10 times as much energy as greenhouse changes! When compared to the overall greenhouse forcing since pre-industrial times, it’s four times larger.

    Probably you won’t like the source, but you can always read the original papers. 5.61 W/mw is close to 6 W/m2 and it only covers a few years.

    Other possibilities include poor surface temperature measurements, solar forcing, regional land use changes, cosmic rays, etc.

  228. Dano
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 7:51 PM | Permalink

    224:

    Here.

    Best,

    D

  229. TAC
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 8:14 PM | Permalink

    #61 Use of an AR(1) model to establish trend significance seems inconsistent with what we know about climate variability. For example, Koutsoyiannis (here) argues persuasively that

    a stochastic approach hypothesizing stationarity and simultaneously admitting a scaling behaviour reproduces climatic trends (considering them as large-scale fluctuations) in a manner that is logically consistent, easy to apply and free of paradoxical results about uncertainty.

    Along these lines, Cohn and Lins (here), considers the type I and type II error rates for trend tests. It is found that trend tests that fail to consider scaling behavior when it is present will generally overstate trend significance. Moreover, tests that can accommodate the possibility of scaling behavior are almost as powerful as the traditional tests if no scaling behavior is present.

  230. John Cross
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 8:31 PM | Permalink

    RE 225: Willis:

    I think that he calls it pretty close to identical. In method 7 he says:

    And it is the essentially perfect
    agreement of the results of these
    last 4 global equilibrium natural
    experiments …

    In regards to the feedbacks, I remain unconvinced. I have not read the NRC reports but I do not think they assume the feedbacks are the same. I believe that the continents on Venus are in different positions and I understand that Martian oceans are smaller than Earth’s.

    Goodnight.
    John

  231. jae
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 8:44 PM | Permalink

    I think Danoboy protests too much. Tree ring studies are now a proven joke, so he quit defending them. Branching out into fields he knows nothing about, with his characteristic arrogance. He’s now taking the methodology of Bloom, with all the simple little linkies. (ad hom meant) LOL.

  232. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 9:01 PM | Permalink

    John, thanks for your comments in 230. I see that you are unconvinced about the feedbacks. However, that does not change the issue of whether the actual numbers and calculations are correct.

    Also, the details of the feedbacks may not be issue. The Constructal Law indicates that all three planets will be in a similar state of optimal turbulence, which may be more important in terms of their reaction to a change in forcing than the details of the actual feedbacks involved.

    w.

  233. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 9:04 PM | Permalink

    Re 231, hey, Danàƒⶠactually sent some information in response to a request, with no side comments or anything, I thought that was good … and surprising … so let’s cut some slack here.

    w.

  234. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 9:24 PM | Permalink

    Re #201: Actually, Bender, I went back and looked over the whole interchange, but just hadn’t gotten around to writing up the embarrassing (for you) results. For starters, go back and have a look at that first comment you made over at RC. You screwed up at the very start by conflating pentads with a running average. Even I, with no statistics background whatsoever, know better than that. Time to turn in your statistics merit badge, yes?

    But just for fun, and thanking you again for your forbearance given my lack of a statistics background, answer me this: Hold up your two hands in front of your face. Count the fingers. Get a couple hundred people together and have them count them, too. Everybody gets ten, right? (Of course we assume your past doesn’t include any birth defects, digital accidents, etc.) Now, as a purely technical exercise, what’s the sample error? This is the same sense in which there is no error in the hurricane count during the peiod of comprehensive satellite coverage. Much like fingers held in front of your face, they’re a little hard to miss.

    After your answer, we’ll talk about the TC satellite record as it pertains to Figure 1 in Curry et al.

    BTW, I should add that of course I realize that use of pentads or a running average could (and does in this case) hide subtleies in trends. But in the instance under discussion, the difference shown (the large low frequency trend) is so blatant that worrying about a relatively slight statistical uncertainty is pointless. As you admitted at the outset, the difference is so large that the graph isn’t capable of hiding anything meaningful. (Also, to the extent there are higher frequency trends of interest, they’re going to be within individual basins. Lumping things together globally means losing all of that at the outset.)

    Note that none the attacks on the Webster et al work are being made on the basis that the representation of the trend is somehow invalid, but instead have entirely to do with whether the hurricanes have been properly counted as to intensity category.

    Oh, and regarding your #154:

    “If you accept that hurricane occurrence is the part product of a chaotic/random process, then you understand that you could have gotten a different set of hurricane numbers if you “replayed” the earth’s climate a second time, with identical initial conditions.” Well, no, not if what you’re interested in is trends in actual past behavior. But very much yes if you’re interested in hindcasting to validate your hurricane prediction model.

  235. bender
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 10:50 PM | Permalink

    Re #324 Yes, I admit that I made the first part of that post very hastily (never a good idea) and incorrectly described that data manipulation in RC#3 as a moving average. I corrected myself withing 5 minutes however (at CA), you will note. If you’d like to gloat, go ahead. Minor errors don’t bother me when I can catch them before anyone else does. (Changing the phrase doesn’t change the argument in this case.)

    If you do not understand in what sense a hurricane count is a sample realization of a stochastic process, then that may explain alot about the problem warmers have in determining whether or not one trend is significantly different from another trend.

    Bloom, I don’t want to argue with you. I was just trying to keep you busy with something I thought you needed to understand. If you want to believe that hurricane counts are free of sampling error, you go right ahead.

    Tell you what, you get Judith Curry’s raw data, and I’ll produce the correct graph for you, showing you exactly what the problem is with her presentation and analysis. It’s relevant because it’s the same problem with MBH98 that got us into this mess. Some people haven’t learned a thing.

  236. Dano
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 10:58 PM | Permalink

    233:

    Danàƒⶠactually sent some information in response to a request, with no side comments or anything

    In response to customer feedback, occasionally I’m cutting down on side comments for which readers may not understand the context** (still, here, I put them in titles to mouseover on HTML linkies, and I could be doubly insufferable if’n I take the time to look into that latexrender feature). :o)

    Best,

    D

    **Not intended toward David, BTW.

  237. bender
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 10:59 PM | Permalink

    Bloom, the reason the number of fingers on your hand is not subject to sampling error is because you’re only born once, so your sample size is one and there is no underlying stochastic process to sample from in order to obtain multiple realizations. The number of fingers on the human hand in general IS a random variable, but its variance is very low because of strong genetic determinism. The number on a given hand is fixed, which is not at all like stochastic dynamic systems. With hurricane frequency one is trying to make inferences about a trend over time. What would be the comparable inference you would be trying to make in your example? I think your example is nonsensical. I’d be willing to try another one though, if you’re serious about wanting to udnerstand this important concept.

  238. mark
    Posted Aug 21, 2006 at 11:16 PM | Permalink

    I’d be willing to try another one though, if you’re serious about wanting to udnerstand this important concept.

    You’re feeding the bears in a national forest, bender. If Bloom were interested in learning, he would.

    Mark

  239. bender
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 12:06 AM | Permalink

    Re #238 Maybe you’re right, Mark. It’s just hard for me to imagine. The guy is obviously bright enough to understand it. I can’t tell if he really doesn’t get it, or if he is just trying to play games with me to waste my time. I should just move on.

    I just can’t imagine going through life not understanding what sampling error and random variables are. The number of hurricanes in a season is no different from the number of ducks on a pond on a given day or the number of hikers you encounter along a hiking trail. The larger the pond, the longer the trail, the more observations you have and the lower the sampling error. It’s Stats 101 … with a small twist in the repeated measures/time-series context.

    Point is: if hurricane frequency is subject to error, then where the heck are Judith Curry’s Fig. 1 regression statistics and error bars? To exclude them is, well, funny (in that RC sort of way). And why did she sum the data over five-year intervals? To improve the optice?

    These are fair questions. IMO a reviewer slipped up on this one.

    P.S. I make mistakes all the time in my daily work. But thankfully I catch most of them before they go to print. I think making mistakes is one of the best ways to learn. The trick is to admit your mistakes and commit yourself to improvement. I guess that’s the difference between being a good scientist and being a good debater.

  240. bender
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 12:26 AM | Permalink

    Does anyone have a physical explanation for the negative first-order moving-average term that tends to crop up in these temperature time-series? I think this is an important question.

  241. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 12:29 AM | Permalink

    Bender, my first guess would be that in general these series are “anomalies” which have had the monthly averages subtracted from the data … but I haven’t had time to test this hypothesis.

    w.

  242. bender
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 12:36 AM | Permalink

    Re #234
    Bloom, I recall making another error as well, by the way. When I first started complaining about the Judith Curry Figure 1 (after Sadlov’s announcement) I erroneously started talking about temperature rather than hurricane frequency. This was a reflex reaction, caused by the fact that I had been working alot lately with moving average models of temperature data, and had that phrase stuck in my mind.

  243. gbalella
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 12:56 AM | Permalink

    Re 227

    Change from 1983 to 2001 in solar radiation absorbed by the earth, estimated at the surface by satellites, reported by Pinker et al.: 2.7 W/m2.

    We observed an overall increase in S (solar radiation at Earth’s surface) from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year; err uh…Pinker et al

    Mr Hoyt you are not even worth my time. What is it about fellas like yourself that you hate the idea of anthropogenic climate change so much that you are capable of making such stuff up and either lying to yourself or others to defend a position with is clearly indefensible….. Jeez…do you actually believe yourself when you say 6 W of energy is hiding in unforced cloud cover variation?….in changes in cosmic radiation?…Really why didn’t you just include invisible flying pink elephants?

  244. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 1:04 AM | Permalink

    Re 241, bender, you asked:

    Does anyone have a physical explanation for the negative first-order moving-average term that tends to crop up in these temperature time-series? I think this is an important question.

    I said:

    Bender, my first guess would be that in general these series are “anomalies” which have had the monthly averages subtracted from the data … but I haven’t had time to test this hypothesis.

    This turns out to be the case. I just looked at the HadCRUT3 actual monthly temperature averages, 1850-2006. This gave the following statistics:

    Coefficients:
    _______ar1_____ma1___intercept
    _____0.8256___0.7156___14.9545
    s.e.___0.0132___0.0121___0.1000

    Then I looked at the anomaly record, that is, the same data with the monthly average temperatures removed. The statistics for the anomalies were:

    _______ar1_____ma1___intercept
    _____ 0.9755___-0.5260___-0.1756
    s.e.___0.0059___0.0271___0.0534

    Note the negative ma1 term in the anomaly dataset …

    w.

  245. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 1:06 AM | Permalink

    P.S. I make mistakes all the time in my daily work. But thankfully I catch most of them before they go to print. I think making mistakes is one of the best ways to learn. The trick is to admit your mistakes and commit yourself to improvement. I guess that’s the difference between being a good scientist and being a good debater.

    I make mistakes myself, regularly. The nice thing about working for a commercial entity, however, is that you often have people checking your work in detail before a mistake has time to really make a difference. I’d estimate I’ve been through peer review nearly 100 times in an 11 year career, plus whatever I went through in school (not much other than my thesis, btw). Peer review in the defense industry, at the technical level, can often be humiliating.

    Unfortunately, I now find myself in a situation where the closest thing I have to “peers,” are the folks that understand what ergodic means on this website. Well, here and my advisor, who’s not a slouch by any means. :) Not that I’m dissing anyone here, it’s just that it would be nice to have a colleague or two that can at least pretend (I work with several software/linux engineers, but they don’t have much background in DSP)… Hehe. I guess that just means I have to be extra careful any time I say something as an authority (like an upcoming conference presentation that none of my co-workers will review… sigh).

    Mark

  246. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 1:11 AM | Permalink

    We observed an overall increase in S (solar radiation at Earth’s surface) from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year; err uh…Pinker et al

    You really need to get off your high horse. 0.16 W/sq. meter per year works out to 2.88 W/sq. meter over 18 years from 1983 to 2001 (Hoyt said 2.7, but probably only counted 17 years). He said nothing about “per year” only total… If you paid attention and stopped slinging so much mud, you might not look like such an imbecile when you make such an obvious mistake.

    I think you owe Mr. Hoyt a serious apology, not that it will help your credibility any.

    Mark

  247. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 1:37 AM | Permalink

    Re 243, gbalella/muirgeo, I don’t understand what you mean. You say:

    Re 227

    “Change from 1983 to 2001 in solar radiation absorbed by the earth, estimated at the surface by satellites, reported by Pinker et al.: 2.7 W/m2.”

    We observed an overall increase in S (solar radiation at Earth’s surface) from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year; err uh…Pinker et al

    Mr Hoyt you are not even worth my time. What is it about fellas like yourself that you hate the idea of anthropogenic climate change so much that you are capable of making such stuff up and either lying to yourself or others to defend a position with is clearly indefensible….. Jeez…do you actually believe yourself when you say 6 W of energy is hiding in unforced cloud cover variation?….in changes in cosmic radiation?…Really why didn’t you just include invisible flying pink elephants?

    What is your point here, gb/muir? What do you think Doug Hoyt made up? By my calculations, Pinker et al. said there was an increase of +0.16 w/m2 each year during an 18 year period … which works out to a total increase of 2.88 W/m2, slightly larger than the figure quoted by Mr. Hoyt, who gave a conservative number.

    Where is the error here?

    w.

    PS – I repeat, raving about pink flying elephants only makes you sound like you’re in grade school …

    PPS – Let me quote again what Nicholas said above:

    By the way, when one thinks one has found an astoundingly fundamental flaw in something someone much smarter and more knowledgeable than one’s self wrote, I find it’s generally a good idea to assume that it’s one’s self who is making the fundamental mistake and carefully go through the logic before shooting one’s mouth off.

    If you think Doug Hoyt is wrong, a far better course for you to take would be to say “Doug, aren’t you wrong about the 2.7 w/m2? Seems to me that Pinker et al. said it was only 0.16 w/m2.” Then you wouldn’t look like such an idiot when you turn out to be way off the rails. Me, I’m wrong far more often than I’d like, so I prefer to post my objections in some gentler form … it makes my words that much more palatable when I’m forced to eat them …

  248. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 2:55 AM | Permalink

    Re #242: Yes, mistakes were made.

    Re #239: Here’s the data. I understand working with it is a little time-consuming.

  249. John A
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 6:03 AM | Permalink

    Re #248

    You mean, like this one?

  250. John Cross
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 6:44 AM | Permalink

    #232: Willis

    When I say I remain unconvinced that means that as far as I can see and in terms of what has been presented to me here Idso’s numbers do not add up! The Constructal hypothesis may apply but that does not change the fact that there is very little water vapor on Mars. Other conversations on this thread are discussing the importance of clouds and thunderstorms. Are you now saying that these aren’t important?

    Regards,
    John

  251. Jeff Weffer
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 6:56 AM | Permalink

    In terms of the impact of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, we actually have three real-world examples that could be compared, Venus, Earth and Mars.

    Venus – CO2 content 98% (no other significant GHGs) – Atmosphere Mass 91 times Earth – Surface Temp. 464 C – Solar Irradiance 2614 w/m2

    Earth – CO2 content 0.03% – Surface Temp 15 C – Solar Irradiance 1367 w/m2

    Mars – CO2 content 95% (no other significant GHGs)- Atmosphere Mass 0.008 times Earth – Surface Temp. -64 C – Solar Irradiance 589 w/m2

    Maybe someone can crunch a few numbers and see how CO2 content compares to temperature in the real world examples we have.

  252. bender
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 8:07 AM | Permalink

    Re #248
    Bloom, the ‘mistakes’ were trivial, totally inconsequential to the argument. The questions remain: Why did Curry use pentads? Why did she not publish confidence intervals, trend lines, and regression statistics? Is there a systematic tendency to oversimplify the uncertainty issue in material fed to climate policy makers? I know the answers, my friend. Why don’t you tell me what you think the answers are?

    Bloom, that’s a website full of datafiles, not a datafile. Tell me which datafile she used and I’ll have your answer for you in 30 minutes.

  253. Paul Penrose
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 9:00 AM | Permalink

    bender,
    From the context of his messages (which were painful to read), it’s obvious that Steve Bloom was applying the common definition of “error”, as in “to make a mistake”. So he thought that you were claiming that the number of storms for each year was being miscounted or something. He is really talking about measurement accuracy, and did not realize that statisticians have a different meaning for the word “error”. Given this gulf between the two of you on the statistics of time-series analysis, I don’t think you can have a meaningful debate on the subject at hand.

  254. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 9:12 AM | Permalink

    RE: “Everybody gets ten, right?”

    Mr. Bloom, you have apparently never been exposed to a Measurement System Analysis (MSA) aka “Gage R & R” before. That may be a seemingly compelling assumption for a simple finger counting exercise. However, let me up the ante a bit. Let us repeat the experiment but a bit differently. Instead of counting fingers, let’s give 100 people a caliper and ask them to measure the width of a metal part. In fact, let’s add the following little twist. We won’t give one caliper for 100 people to share, but instead, each one will have their own caliper. Now, with that in mind, go and google on “Six Sigma” and do a bit of reading on some of those sites. Regards …

  255. Paul Penrose
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 9:13 AM | Permalink

    bender,
    I think you want the two track files at the top of the page, one is for the Pacific and one for the Atlantic. There is a link to a readme file that explains the record formats. I think you just want to pick off the ‘A’ type records since they contain all the information you need. The rest are locations of the storm as it was tracked (record type ‘B’) and the final disposition (landfall info) in record type ‘C’. As far as I can tell you have one ‘A’ type record for each storm, followed by multiple ‘B’ type records, followed by a single ‘C’ type record.

  256. bender
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 9:13 AM | Permalink

    Paul,
    I think you are right. But this is why I’m pursuing this so vigorously: I think there are alot of people, not just Bloom – even specialists in the field – who do not understand some basic things about how to make inferences in regards to stochastic dynamics time-series. They do not understand how awfully constraining that damned uncertainty really is.

    I apologize if the exchange has been painful. But I think we’re getting somewhere finally. At least now he’s interested in seeing what Judith Curry’s data look like when analysed and presented properly. Let’s do a psychology experiment where I post her graph and my graph side by side, and we get policy people to tell us which of the two they would prefer to act on, the one with uncertainty suppressed (hers), or the one with uncertainty expressed (mine).

  257. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

    So he thought that you were claiming that the number of storms for each year was being miscounted or something. He is really talking about measurement accuracy, and did not realize that statisticians have a different meaning for the word “error”.

    The problem is that he’s debating this with an arrogance that presumes bender does not know what he’s talking about. bender has, thoughtfully, attempted to explain the concept, to no avail. Given that these topics almost all revolve around statistical inferences and methods, it should be a given that one not trained would at least debate with a “teach me” attitude rather than a “you’re wrong” attitude. This is one of the fundamental problems in climate science today: those using these statistical methods refuse to understand/learn why they are using them incorrectly and why their conclusions are therefore either suspect, or wrong.

    Given this gulf between the two of you on the statistics of time-series analysis, I don’t think you can have a meaningful debate on the subject at hand.

    Hehe, the understatement of the century. :)

    Mark

  258. jae
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 9:52 AM | Permalink

    bender, paul, Mark, SteveS, Willis, etc.: The extremely arrogant attitudes of Bloom and Dano convince me that they do not WANT to learn anything. They are propagandists, not scientists (especially Sierra Club Bloom). You are probably wasting your time arguing with them, if you think you will change them. However, I think your discussions are VERY valuable to many others (me, for sure). I am learning a lot from them.

  259. bender
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 9:52 AM | Permalink

    those using these statistical methods refuse to understand/learn why they are using them incorrectly and why their conclusions are therefore either suspect, or wrong

    I agree this is a problem. Perhaps THE problem!

    I’m not sure, but I think there’s a certain arrogance factor on the part of people who are smart enough to get the software to run (and they’re pretty smart, mind you), but aren’t smart enough to know when what the software is calculating is meaningless.

    I can say this because I’ve been there myself. The difference is that I use Feynman as my reality check. “Have I merely fooled my computer into telling me what I want to hear in order to believe my pet hypothesis? How could I disprove what I’ve just ‘proven’?”

  260. bender
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 10:06 AM | Permalink

    Re #255
    Thanks, Paul. Looking at that file I see this is pretty raw stuff. I don’t have time for data pre-processing. Bloom can do penance by assembling the annual time-series for me and posting them. Bloom, that’s a single vector of 31 numbers (2004-1974) of hurricane counts in the Atlantic basin. If you want to get fancy, post three vectors, one each for cat 3/4/5 storms. We’ll do the psychology experiment described in #256 and publish the result as a reply to Curry in BAMS, Bender & Bloom. What do you say?

  261. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 10:09 AM | Permalink

    RE: #258 – jae, I deal with a lot of this in my day job, so it comes fairly naturally. Famous last words “well we qualified 3 of them and they met spec – ship it!”

    I can never resist a teaching moment, even with a tough couple of folks like Bloom and Dano.

  262. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 10:12 AM | Permalink

    RE: #260 – it would be of great interest to me to know which storms were at or near a boundary between categories and if so, just how far were they from the boundary, how long were they on which side of the boundary / near it, measured, how, etc.

  263. bender
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 10:19 AM | Permalink

    They are propagandists, not scientists (especially Sierra Club Bloom).

    If you want to be a good propagandist, if you want to save the planet, you need to pay attention when someone who understands something about time-series analysis is talking.

    Re #262 – that file pointed to by #248 & #255 seems to have it all. A sensitivity analysis would take very little additional time.

  264. jae
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 10:24 AM | Permalink

    263. LOL. The problem is that these folks are afraid of the truth, since it might damage their egos and their paychecks. I think they are both smart enough to know that you have valid statistical issues; but they do not want to face them head-on. People interested in the truth simply do not act that arrogant.

  265. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 10:30 AM | Permalink

    I’m paying attention to what gets said as best I can. As noted in other posts, I don’t have a lot of “peer” interaction at work so I need outside opinions/comments regarding the basis of my work (I am currently implementing a PCA-based noise reduction method known as the Generalized Sidelobe Canceller using Modified Gram-Schmidt Orthogonalization). The comments in here by the likes of bender, Jean S., Steve M., et. al. are beneficial to my understanding of the other side of the fence (beyond signal processing). Much of this applies to my own needs (career and education), and missing such discussions would be a detriment to my own ability to be a user and/or innovator.

    In short, your teachings are not all lost on deaf ears as not everything you (bender) have discussed is part of the standard signal processing view/teachings of statistics and related methods! :)

    Mark

  266. bender
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 10:35 AM | Permalink

    Re #264
    Wow – afraid of the truth?! I’ve heard those kinds of people exist – and I’ve seen them on TV – but I’ve never met any before. What scares ME is ignorance & lies.

  267. Dano
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 10:36 AM | Permalink

    221:

    This is my contention, which I believe to be true, that part of the effect of a thunderstorm is to move heat vertically where it can radiate more easily directly to space.

    Yes.

    The issue, however, is whether this transport is greater than the increased forcing from the additional CO2 in the atm. IIRC, there is empirical evidence for increased forcing by CO2 (expressed as an increase in W/m^2 at the sfc). I haven’t seen modeling evidence or data which say that tstms can potentially transport more heat than the increased forcing.

    Perhaps, willis, you have read some papers that I have not and can share.

    Best,

    D

  268. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 10:55 AM | Permalink

    I think they are both smart enough to know that you have valid statistical issues; but they do not want to face them head-on.

    In some instances, I think arrogance is blinding the ability to see that a valid issue(s) has (have) been raised. Whether or not such ideological views lend themselves to being “smart enough to know” is debatable.

    I think my evidence of this, btw, is rooted in JMS’ repeated request to Steve M. to do his own reconstruction with an unmodified procedure and “better data.” In science, falsification does not work that way. It is enough that Steve M. has shown the methods (and data) to be flawed. The onus is on the climate community to either a) revise their conclusions or b) prove otherwise. Instead, they simply attack Steve M. and Ross (“those two Canadians” and “those two economists”), do a bunch of hand-waving, and then “move on” (with yet another flawed method using the same flawed data no less).

    Mark

  269. bender
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 11:12 AM | Permalink

    In science, falsification does not work that way. It is enough that Steve M. has shown the methods (and data) to be flawed. The onus is on the climate community to either a) revise their conclusions or b) prove otherwise.

    This is true, and it has been pointed out several times before in various threads. The alarmists may not understand this, or may be in denial as to where the burden of evidence lies, but I can almost guarantee that the peers of the MBHs of the world very much understand it in exactly this way.

    Go ahead, now, Dano, JMS, etc. Say it isn’t so. The fact is, Wegman turned the table. You just don’t know it yet because you’re too far removed from the core.

  270. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 11:24 AM | Permalink

    Danàƒⶬ thanks for your question in 267. You ask:

    This is my contention, which I believe to be true, that part of the effect of a thunderstorm is to move heat vertically where it can radiate more easily directly to space.

    Yes.

    The issue, however, is whether this transport is greater than the increased forcing from the additional CO2 in the atm. IIRC, there is empirical evidence for increased forcing by CO2 (expressed as an increase in W/m^2 at the sfc). I haven’t seen modeling evidence or data which say that tstms can potentially transport more heat than the increased forcing.

    Perhaps, willis, you have read some papers that I have not and can share.

    Best,

    D

  271. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 11:25 AM | Permalink

    Grrr … pushed the wrong button too fast, and couldn’t get it back … more to come …

    w.

  272. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 11:27 AM | Permalink

    Yes, it works this way in every other scientific facet of life. My numerous design reviews, btw, have often resulted in simple little questions akin to “why did you do this, wouldn’t this be better?” or “I think this is incorrect, find out for me” which often results in many hours/days of work dedicated to either a) finding proof that I was right in the first place (happens sometimes) or b) a revision in what I had done in the first place (most common). In either case, the onus was on ME to prove one way or another, and without it, the design does not proceed to the next milestone (in a worst case scenario, people lose jobs for failure to comply).

    Mark

  273. Dano
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 11:35 AM | Permalink

    269:

    You just don’t know it yet because you’re too far removed from the core.

    It’s enjoyable for me to watch, on this site, how premises are constructed, then how conclusions follow from them, and finally how contagion and dispersal occur. Fascinating, too, the frameworks used and the meanings that arise from them.

    Others see this as well, but perhaps they don’t obtain the same enjoyment and fascination from the show that I do.

    Best,

    D

  274. jae
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 11:40 AM | Permalink

    273: Is it a false premise?

  275. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 11:46 AM | Permalink

    It’s enjoyable for me to watch, on this site, how premises are constructed,

    Unfortunately, your “false premise” assertion is false by itself. The flaws in the statistical methods and data have been shown to be true. Nobody has been able to show otherwise and despite pleas from such as yourself, Michael Mann’s assertion that “it doesn’t matter” does not constitute proof of the contrary.

    You should read your own words and compare them to reality once in a while.

    Mark

  276. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 12:00 PM | Permalink

    re: #274,

    What Dano is missing is the ability to introspect. If he did have it, he’d be able to apply what he observes here to what has happened in the climate science world and start to wonder if perhaps his own world-view was subject to the same dynamics.

    Now there’s a sense in which what he’s intending as a knock on CA is true and universal. Indeed, I think that’s what Wegman was pointing to in his analysis of the interconnections among the paleoclimate reconstruction community. Of course one thing which Dano misses here is the tendency of the “center”, i.e. Steve M, not to be able to control the community he’s built up except via fairly heavy-handed methods (and I’m not referring to stopping trolling or insult-mongering, but actually getting people to concentrate solely on the particular items Steve is most interested in). Now Steve has kept out thermodynamics and theology fairly well, though I’d be happy to discuss either, but SSTs, UHI, Hurricanes and icecaps have forced their way in to the point Steve has had to start paying attention to them. And I might add that bringing up Wahl’s religious interest isn’t the best way to keep religion out of the threads either.

    OH, and for that matter, there were the couple of threads on the theory that the climate system tends to maximize entropy increase, which Steve started, though perhaps for his own purposes rather than to start discussions on thermodynamics.

  277. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 1:03 PM | Permalink

    Re #262: And there we are. There is a very real uncertainty issue (as discussed in the paper), it’s just not the one that bender chooses to focus on. bender also illustrates nicely the assumption made by many of the regulars here that a good understanding of statistical techniques combined with nearly no understanding of the behavior of the physical quantity being measured can allow one to successfully critique the work of those who do have that understanding.

    I will repeat that even though Figure 1 from the BAMS study was published nearly a year ago, there has been absolutely no criticism of it (as a means of presenting the low frequency signal that was found) from Chris Landsea, Pat Michaels or anyone else on the other side of the debate. Why? Because they know there is no high frequency information that is obtainable from a global data set of maximum wind speeds that has lost all basin-specific information. (Wouldn’t it even be misleading to purport to directly apply statistical validity tests to data presented in that way? It might be possible to get a result, but could it mean anything?) This is a mode of presenting the data that would be used only if one had found a low frequency signal and wanted to present it in a clear way. Any criticism of the results will need to be basin-specific or storm-specific. Everyone in the hurricane biz understands that perfectly.

    Let’s turn this around. Assume that the apparent low frequency signal was much more subtle (remembering that Webster et al found a *doubling* of strong cyclones over the study period). Would the data as presented in Figure 1 be usable? No, and presenting the data on an annual basis wouldn’t fix the problem. To get at a subtle signal, you’d want to go back to look at trends in the individual basins. Even with the apparent large signal, such an analysis would allow one to make sure that there wasn’t some coincidental combination of different basin-specific factors that were somehow combining to make a spurious global signal. In fact, if I were the Webster team that’s the very next thing I would have done!

    Re #266: I’m scared by lies too. Remember what they say about statistics taken out of context.

    Re #269: bender, I thought you were properly suspicious of global warming alarmists? Why then do you believe anything Wegman has to say?

  278. Barney Frank
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 1:07 PM | Permalink

    bender said in #239,

    “I just can’t imagine going through life not understanding what sampling error and random variables are.”

    As a lurking non-scientist and non-statistician who still finds this site fascinating, I can assure you it is possible to live a fulfilling and happy life not knowing the first thing about either one.:)

  279. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 1:12 PM | Permalink

    Danàƒⶬ thanks for your posting # 267. You ask:

    This is my contention, which I believe to be true, that part of the effect of a thunderstorm is to move heat vertically where it can radiate more easily directly to space.

    Yes.

    The issue, however, is whether this transport is greater than the increased forcing from the additional CO2 in the atm. IIRC, there is empirical evidence for increased forcing by CO2 (expressed as an increase in W/m^2 at the sfc). I haven’t seen modeling evidence or data which say that tstms can potentially transport more heat than the increased forcing.

    Perhaps, willis, you have read some papers that I have not and can share.

    Best,

    D

    A very interesting question, Danàƒⶬ and one we can answer without consulting a study. Here’s some thoughts on the matter:

    1. Everyone agrees that to date, some 340 w/m2 of radiation forcing have raised the earth’s temperature by about 33°C. This gives what I would consider to be the most unassailable evidence that climate has an overall sensitivity of about a tenth of a degree C per watt/m2. By overall I mean the average sensitivity from the time when the earth was a bare ball with no greenhouse effect, to the current atmosphere containing the GHGs such as CO2, methane, water vapor, etc.

    2. However, the current sensitivity is likely to be less than that. In a real-world heat engine such as the climate, losses as a percentage of ‘ˆ’€ T always increase with ‘ˆ’€ T. This implies that the current sensitivity must be less than the overall sensitivity, since ‘ˆ’€ T started at zero and is now around 33°C. It also implies that if the earth warms slightly, the sensitivity will decrease commensurately, although this change is likely to be small.

    3. Heat losses, such as those in the vertical transport of heat thunderstorms, can never remove more heat than is added. They are parasitic losses driven by ‘ˆ’€ T, and thus cannot exceed the amount of extra added heat.

    Therefore, my first conclusions would be:

    a) The amount of temperature change from the “increased forcing from the additional CO2″ is going to be very small (something less than 0.4W/m2 from a doubling).

    b) Part of the reason that it will be that small is because of existing parasitic heat losses, such as those from thunderstorms.

    c) To directly answer your question, this thunderstorm heat loss will be less than the added forcing.

    Now, a digression here. The amount of “excess” (above pre-industrial levels) carbon sequestered from the atmosphere annually can be estimated very accurately (r^2 = .992) by assuming that the sequestration follows a pattern of exponential decay. It turns out that the globe sequesters about 3.4% of the “excess” (above pre-industrial levels) atmospheric carbon annually. In other words, as we would expect from say Le Chateleir’s Principle, the more “excess” CO2 in the air, the more (absolutely) is sequestered.

    A consequence of this which is not generally appreciated is that if emissions stabilize, at some point the amount sequestered will equal the amount emitted, and the atmospheric CO2 level will also stabilize. If, for example, we were magically able to stabilize the emissions at the 2000 rate (about 8.7 GtC, including both fossil and landuse), the atmosphere would stabilize at only about 406 ppm.

    A second underappreciated consequence is that, since sequestration increases with increasing atmospheric excess, it will take a long time to get to a doubling of CO2. Using the IPCC “business as usual” assumption that the emissions will continue to increase at about a percent per year, we find that we will reach a doubling of current atmospheric levels (2 x ~380 ppm = ~ 720 ppm) around the year 2160 … but reaching the doubling even that soon is doubtful for a couple reasons.

    One is that by then other energy sources will be in play. The other is that the assumption of 1% growth per year is not really business as usual. The emission growth rate peaked in about 1950 at about 4%, and has been dropping steadily ever since. The 1990-2000 average growth in emissions was only 0.6%.

    So it is extremely unlikely that the world will see double the current levels of CO2 in the near future. To see a doubling by the year 2100, for example, would require an annual growth in emissions of 1.8% per year, about three times the current growth rate. This kind of large, sustained, long-term exponential growth is extremely unlikely.

    How much CO2 warming are we likely to see from this increase in the course of the century? Well, we can put some constraints on it. An unlikely bottom end would be emissions stabilizing at the current rate, or 405 ppm by 2100. An equally unlikely high end would be an increase to a 1% growth in emissions, maintained for the entire century, leading to 540 ppm by 2100. Using a maximum climate sensitivity figure of a tenth of a degree per watt, this gives us 3.7 * log2(405/380) * 0.1 = 0.03°C for the low end estimate, and 3.7 * log2(540/380) * 0.1 = 0.19°C for the high end estimate.

    So my final conclusions are:

    d) The amount of heating due to increased CO2 forcing over the next century is likely to be less than 0.2°C, an amount too small to be measured with our current crude measuring system.

    e) This amount is so small that it would easily be counteracted by the cloud/snow albedo feedback system. Unlike parasitic losses, which can never be greater than the added heat, the cloud/snow albedo feedback system has the potential to set the temperature within a wide range. The expected maximum change in CO2 forcing during this century (see above) is about 2 watts/m2. This could be counteracted entirely by a mere half percent change in the cloud/snow created albedo …

    w.

    PS – Part of the reason that the CO2 question has attracted so much attention is the terminology used. A change from preindustrial atmospheric CO2 levels (280 parts per million) to the current level (380 ppm) to say my high end 2100 projection (540 ppm) sounds huge. People say “can the atmosphere sustain that load”, and “won’t the sequestration mechanisms break down?”

    However, what we are really talking about is going from a preindustrial CO2 level of just above a quarter of one percent of the atmosphere, to the current level, just above a third of a percent, to a projected 2100 high end level just above half a percent …

    This represents a possible net change in CO2 levels of a quarter of a percent, an amount which clearly will not change matters much. As an example, to date there is no evidence of any change in the rate of exponential sequestration of CO2 … and why should there be, we’ve only changed A TENTH OF A PERCENT from pre-industrial CO2 levels … man, I’ve never seen so much ink and money spilled over a tenth of a percent of anything …

  280. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 1:13 PM | Permalink

    Interesting:

    http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/conf/SANTA_FE_CD-ROM/sf_papers/wu_lin/wu_lin.html

  281. jae
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 1:13 PM | Permalink

    277: If you are dealing with uncertainty, you are dealing with statistics. And I don’t think a statistician has to be an expert on the subject matter in order to evaluate the statistics. Look at the mess made by the Team because they didn’t understand the statistics. Ideally, the authors of these studies would team up with statisticians, when uncertainties are so great.

  282. bender
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 1:32 PM | Permalink

    Dano will find devils wherever he chooses to look because he’s using a statistically untenable Mannomatic pattern-matching algorithm with no self-correcting attempt at refutation. Good ideas and bad ideas spread by the same mechanism, Dano.

    What are you so afraid of Bloom? Post the hurricane data and I’ll analyse it for you. Then we’ll put it to peer review. Meanwhile … if you could answer my questions, which I won’t bother repeating a fourth time …

  283. bender
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 1:34 PM | Permalink

    Re #278 I don’t doubt it. Give time-series analysis a try though. You don’t know what you’re missing. :)

  284. bender
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 1:41 PM | Permalink

    though Figure 1 from the BAMS study was published nearly a year ago, there has been absolutely no criticism of it (as a means of presenting the low frequency signal that was found) from Chris Landsea, Pat Michaels or anyone else on the other side of the debate. Why?

    Maybe because they aren’t interested in the bigger problem, which is that pseudo-scientists are feeding oversimplified uncertainty-free pablum to policy makers. If so, I wonder why.

  285. Curt
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 1:45 PM | Permalink

    Willis — You’re off by a factor of 10 in your percentages, but correcting that makes your point even stronger. 280 ppm is close to 1/40 of one percent, not 1/4. (Remember that 1% is 10,000 ppm.) So we’re really talking about going from 1/36 of 1% to 1/26 of 1%. Put another way, the 100ppm increase to date is an increase of 1/100 of 1%.

  286. Dano
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 1:49 PM | Permalink

    279:

    Generally excellent comment sir.

    d) The amount of heating due to increased CO2 forcing over the next century is likely to be less than 0.2°C, an amount too small to be measured with our current crude measuring system.

    I appreciate the effort, willis, certainly refreshing. The folk who do this for a living disagree; I’m kinda funny this way, but when a pipe in my bathroom breaks, I don’t call a vacuum repairperson, I call a plumber. That is: I go with the guy who does pipes for a living.

    However, what we are really talking about is going from a preindustrial CO2 level of just above a quarter of one percent of the atmosphere, to the current level, just above a third of a percent, to a projected 2100 high end level just above half a percent …

    This represents a possible net change in CO2 levels of a quarter of a percent, an amount which clearly will not change matters much

    Excellent! In our new science, concentrations no longer matter! You’ll have no qualms in upping your child’s dose of, say, Atavan and letting us know what happens. Plz make your data available so we can all audit it.

    Best,

    D

  287. Barney Frank
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 1:56 PM | Permalink

    Re #283.
    "Give time-series analysis a try though."

    I will if you promise to come out and use my caterpillar dozer to skid some logs.
    (Yes, I confess to being a one man carbon de-sequestration machine):O

  288. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 1:57 PM | Permalink

    Re #281: Rah, rah, statisticians.

    But maybe I was being too subtle. bender needs to look directly at Webster et al (2005) and Hoyos et al (2006) (for starters) if he wants to critique any statistics in relation to this discussion. And of course now he has the Webster team’s data set.

  289. Barney Frank
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 2:00 PM | Permalink

    Re #283.
    “Give time-series analysis a try though.”

    I will if you promise to come out and use my caterpillar dozer to skid some logs.
    (Yes, I confess to being a one man carbon de-sequestration machine, although I do a good bit of dendrochronolgy):O

  290. JoeBoo
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 2:02 PM | Permalink

    Re #288

    And I thought you were a Congressman! haha.

  291. ET SidViscous
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 2:08 PM | Permalink

    “man, I’ve never seen so much ink and money spilled over a tenth of a percent of anything … ”

    You’ve never done Bill Gates taxes I take it.

  292. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 2:13 PM | Permalink

    Re #254: Steve S., how about instead we ask 100 people to look at the same piece of metal and ask them whether it exists or not? The calipers could be a complimentary gift for participating.

  293. jae
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 2:35 PM | Permalink

    Excellent! In our new science, concentrations no longer matter! You’ll have no qualms in upping your child’s dose of, say, Atavan and letting us know what happens. Plz make your data available so we can all audit it.

    Did you see 285? I would increase any med by .01 % without any qualms.

    re 291: you just don’t understand ANY statistics, do you!

  294. ET SidViscous
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 2:37 PM | Permalink

    Jae, I hope you mean 292, in which case I agree.

    If you mean mine, I’d take a 1/0th of a percent of his money and retire tomorow.

  295. jae
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 2:42 PM | Permalink

    I mean 292. Some people just WILL NOT face an issue fair and square. Bloom is an expert at diversion. Good politician, except for his arrogance.

  296. bender
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 2:46 PM | Permalink

    Bloom, call I just call you ‘Dodge’ from now on? This ain’t about hurricane dynamics (though I’m happy to help you analyse any data you want to post). It’s about watered-down science being force-fed to policy makers. Does the bolding help clarify the issue any? Or are you blind to that too?

  297. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 2:49 PM | Permalink

    Interesting discussion at Climate Science:

    http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/08/22/real-climate-post-on-weather-and-climate/

  298. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 2:51 PM | Permalink

    Pielke Sr. also linked it into this one at RC:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/short-and-simple-arguments-for-why-climate-can-be-predicted/

  299. Dano
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 3:05 PM | Permalink

    293:

    Did you see 285? I would increase any med by .01 % without any qualms.

    This is part of what I meant in 273 above.

    Plz allow me to use this example to illustrate how the drill goes:

    The conc of atm CO2 has increased by ~35%, and ~19%** on the Keeling curve.

    So, the rugged new scientist now takes 10mg Ativan (the upper end of the dosage) to allow others to cope with their behavior.

    Now, bravely, qualmlessly, the new scientist increases their dosage by 35% to 13mg. Perhaps the brave, qualmless new scientist can keep track of their symptoms and give us the data so we can audit it.

    Best,

    D

    **Not .01%.

  300. jae
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 3:11 PM | Permalink

    OOPS, Dano, I screwed up and you are correct. However, 0.0001 parts of the atmosphere don’t cause too much alarm to me.

  301. John Cross
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 3:15 PM | Permalink

    Re 279: A couple of comments Willis.

    1) As I pointed out to you earlier, the paper claims that the total longwave radiative forcing is 155 W/m2 which includes clouds. If you take out the clouds you get 125 W/m2. This is from the text.

    2) Regarding your comments on thunderstorms, while they are important here, do you know the equivalent forcing on Mars so that they would have the same feedback?

    Regards,
    John

  302. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 3:24 PM | Permalink

    RE: #289 – that’s what I call industrial strength dendro! ;)

  303. Dano
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 3:26 PM | Permalink

    300:

    However, 0.0001 parts of the atmosphere don’t cause too much alarm to me

    Excellent. Then you’ll up your Ativan the equivalent amount in your body without alarm. Let us know how that goes for you.

    Best,

    D

  304. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 3:26 PM | Permalink

    RE: #292 – You really do not want to learn. Sad.

  305. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 3:30 PM | Permalink

    I realized this also fits in here, a special gift for Steve “I don need no stinking Sigma” Bloom:

    “Something fun. Can anyone guess where I found the following?:

    “While we can not go back and guess how many storms were missed, or how many higher categories were not detected, we can examine recent seasons and apply early 20th century observational technology to them. Neil Frank did this with the 2005 season (as a casual exercise) and came up with about 19 to 22 named storms, instead of the record setting 28.”

    And this is only one aspect of it. Classification is a whole other discussion topic. Etc.

  306. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 3:35 PM | Permalink

    Sigma 101:

    Big Y: “Average Hurricane Intensity”
    X1: “Annual number of Cat 5″
    X2: “Annual number of Cat 4″
    X3: “Annual number of Cat 3″
    X4″ “Annual number of Cat 2″
    Etc….

    Little x’s: possibly, maximum sustained wind speed, time spent above wind speed x, mileage traveled at Cat Z, etc …..

    Take it or leave it. Enlightenment is there for the taking. Or, you could be like the guy who says “ship it!” Whatever …. :P

  307. jae
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 3:37 PM | Permalink

    Yeah, Dano, if I have a 5 mg tablet and I increase it to 5.0001mg, I would not worry. After all, do you think the amount of Ativan in a 5 mg tablet is within 5 +/- 0.0001 mg? I’ll bet it’s on the order of 5 +/- 0.1 mg, 2 sigma.

  308. Dano
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 3:49 PM | Permalink

    308:

    if I have a 5 mg tablet and I increase it to 5.0001mg, I would not worry.

    Crikey.

    You said “0.0001 parts of the atmosphere“. I equated that to medicine dosage, meaning 0.0001 parts of the body. You figger it out.

    On second thought, Don’t. Have Sadlov do it for you. Then let us know how that dosage goes for you.

    Best,

    D

  309. jae
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 3:54 PM | Permalink

    Dano: you know damn well what I meant.

  310. John Cross
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 3:58 PM | Permalink

    Re # 307: JAE, umm, you realize that according to the analogy this means you have a body mass of 5 mg. I look forward to you elaborating.

    Regards,
    John

  311. John Cross
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 4:00 PM | Permalink

    Opps, I see that Dano already pointed this out. Moderator, I won’t take offence if you delete this comment.

    John

  312. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 4:02 PM | Permalink

    jae – the “little bitty” argument has got nothing to do with this thread. It’s an argument that I think is particularly weak and I really don’t want it to consume much more bandwidth here.

  313. jae
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 4:11 PM | Permalink

    Sorry, Steve, it’s so tempting to get into these side conversations. No prob. if you delete the comments.

  314. Dano
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 4:16 PM | Permalink

    309:

    I do, esp. since you took the time to do a 2à?Æ’ on the likelihood of the accuracy of your increase.
    —–

    312:

    I’m personally using it to illustrate part of my point in 273, which is dependent upon your post, so it’s arguably aproposly relevant to the original point. But I understand and I’ll save your bandwidth Steve.

    Best,

    D

  315. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 5:19 PM | Permalink

    bender also illustrates nicely the assumption made by many of the regulars here that a good understanding of statistical techniques combined with nearly no understanding of the behavior of the physical quantity being measured can allow one to successfully critique the work of those who do have that understanding.

    If a method is flawed, no amount of understanding of the underlying data will change that. It still equates to garbage in, garbage out. If one using statistics to analyze data that he knows intimately, yet he implements the statistics incorrectly, exactly how are his conclusions supported? (hint: they aren’t).

    Mark

  316. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 5:52 PM | Permalink

    Fascinating:

    http://capita.wustl.edu/Asia-FarEast/reports/DustMcarloSim/Dust_Mcarlo_Sim_files/v3_document.htm

  317. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 6:39 PM | Permalink

    Re 286, gosh, DanàƒÆ’à‚ⶬ no sooner do I say something nice about you than you start up with ad homs again. You say:

    279:

    Generally excellent comment sir.

    d) The amount of heating due to increased CO2 forcing over the next century is likely to be less than 0.2°C, an amount too small to be measured with our current crude measuring system.

    I appreciate the effort, willis, certainly refreshing. The folk who do this for a living disagree; I’m kinda funny this way, but when a pipe in my bathroom breaks, I don’t call a vacuum repairperson, I call a plumber. That is: I go with the guy who does pipes for a living.

    However, what we are really talking about is going from a preindustrial CO2 level of just above a quarter of one percent of the atmosphere, to the current level, just above a third of a percent, to a projected 2100 high end level just above half a percent …

    This represents a possible net change in CO2 levels of a quarter of a percent, an amount which clearly will not change matters much

    Excellent! In our new science, concentrations no longer matter! You’ll have no qualms in upping your child’s dose of, say, Atavan and letting us know what happens. Plz make your data available so we can all audit it.

    Best,

    D

    Gee, I’m so surprised to find out that the folks that do this for a living get different answers from mine … I suppose you mean those noted plumbers like Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen … this is the problem with the ad hom arguments. The arguments have nothing to do with the data or the conclusions. But what on earth do you do when the good homs get different answers from each other?

    Let’s take as an example the statement from your first cited paper, which says “the IPCC includes CO2 growth rates that we contend are unrealistically large.” Now, the IPCC contains “folks who do this for a living”, and the paper was written by “folks who do this for a living”. So your contention, that we should trust the “folks who do this for a living”, leads us nowhere — one of them has to be wrong.

    That’s why I advise you to look at the numbers yourself. In fact, the only difference between your first citation and my figures is the climate sensitivity — we both come out with about the same forcing change (which is different from results from the IPCC, who “do this for a living”), of about one watt in the next fifty years.

    So, your citation and I disagree about the sensitivity. I’ve given you numbers from Sherwood Idso saying the sensitivity is about 0.1°C per W/m2. I have also added what I think is the best and clearest evidence, which is that some 324 w/m2 of greenhouse radiation has produced a warming of about 33°C. This gives the same sensitivity as obtained by Idso (who also does this for a living) that is to say, one tenth of a degree C.

    Your citation, on the other hand, gets its sensitivity, not from evidence, but from a computer model … wow, that’s real convincing …

    So, since they disagree … what do YOU think? Is it reasonable that after 324 w/m2 of downwelling IR have made a difference of 0.1°C per W/m2, that the next W/m2 addition will have an effect eight or ten times that large?

    (John asked again about where the 324 w/m2 data for downwelling long wave comes from … it comes, as I said before, from Figure 7 of the Kiehl/Trenberth paper, Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. As the text states:

    The new estimate of the annual global energy budget
    is shown in Fig. 7, where the sources of the individual
    components are discussed in sections 2, 3, and
    4. The budget in Fig. 7 is based on the results that do
    not include any additional atmospheric solar absorption
    that may be present, as discussed in section 3. The
    budget is coincidentally close to that provided by
    Henderson-Sellers and Robinson (1986) (to within
    1 W m-2).

    Now, all the people I know of who do this for a living agree that the Kiehl/Trenberth energy budget is the best we have, and that their downwelling IR figure of 324 w/m2 is pretty close to the mark. See, for example, Ten-year global distribution of downwelling longwave radiation, K. G. Pavlakis et al., Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 127–142, 2004, who say:

    The global ten-year average of the DLF [downwelling longwave flux] was found to be between 342.2W/màƒ⣃ ‹’€ ‘2 and 344.3W/màƒ⣃ ‹’€ ‘2, depending on the dataset.

    The folks who do this for a living also agree on the ~33°C or so warming from the downwelling IR.

    So … think about it …

    Regarding the change in CO2 of a tenth of a percent, I brought it up to highlight the way that the choice of numbers shapes our perception.

    However, having brought it up, the best comparison is not to Ativan, but to the percentage of the major greenhouse gas in the air, water vapor. We don’t even know the average water vapor content of the air to an accuracy of a tenth of a percent. At any given point, the concentration of water vapor goes up and down like crazy. To give you a sense of the turnover, according to NASA (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Water/water_2.html) there’s somewhere on the order of 12,900 cubic km of water vapor in the atmosphere … and about 495,000 cubic km are added to the atmosphere by evaporation every year. More is added than rains out over the oceans, and more rains out than is added over the land. A tenth of a percent change in water vapor is lost in the bookkeeping.

    But if you don’t like that example, lets look at the size of the predicted CO2 change in a different way. In the midst of all of the natural climate changes, do you really think the 1 watt/m2 which your paper says (and I agree) may be added over the next 50 years will make any difference at all? The earth’s surface is warmed by a combination of the sun (about 168 W/m2) and downwelling IR (about 324 w/m2), for a total of surface heating of about 492 W/m2 … it’s predicted to increase to 493 watts per m2 over a 50 year period … EVERYONE PANIC!

    … we’re talking about a possible change in total downwelling radiation of about a twentieth of a percent over fifty years, folks, no matter what sensitivity you are using. Do you really think, given that the downwelling radiative forcing changes by hundreds of watts/m2 between day and night, that this change of a twentieth of a percent will even be detectable?

    w.

    PS – you say “Plz make your data available so we can all audit it.” In fact, I have given my data and described my methods to you as I went along, with citations and numbers. So you can start by auditing my figures for downwelling IR (324 w/m2), the heating due to that IR (~33°C), and the resulting sensitivity (~ a tenth of a degree per w/m2).

    Please let all of us know the results of your audit, and we can proceed from there. If you can’t find any mistakes in my numbers or my logic, I’d be glad to hear of it.

    PPS — Since you have called for this audit, if you do not answer, I’ll assume that you have not found any mistakes but you haven’t got the … … gentility … to admit it.

  318. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 6:51 PM | Permalink

    An interesting scenario appears to be developing. Those of us who have lived on the W. Coast for years know that when a dying typhoon gets entrained in a cold front, strange things can happen. Generally speaking, the early onset of cold, wet weather has been known to occur in similar scenarios. There has also been quite a bit of energy brewing over the Gulf of Alaska all summer long – resulting in a depressing endlessly rainy summer in Anchorage. The Pacific High is under early assault this year. Pielke Sr. reported cooling upper column sea temps. The jet stream is wavy in a manner more typical of early fall. Etc. Just when the main stream media and doomsayers are all wound up about the “great heat wave of 2006″ ….. :)

    http://sat.wrh.noaa.gov/satellite/showsat.php?wfo=mtr&area=west&type=wv&size=28

  319. jae
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 7:04 PM | Permalink

    317: Great post, Willis. It’s gonna be hard for Mr. Dano to dodge that.

  320. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 7:55 PM | Permalink

    The hurricane database for the Atlantic used by Curry et al. is very interesting. It is available as an excel spreadsheet at http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/easytoread-spreadsheetap.xls

    The analysis of it is fascinating. My analysis focused on the average power dissipated per year. To me, the number of storms is meaningless. You could have 10 very small storms, or a couple of really big storms. But I was very unhappy with the division of the storms into class 3,4,5, etc. I wanted a continuous measure, rather than a categorical measure. So instead of using the Saffir Simpson scale, I looked at total power dissipated over the storm lifetime.

    The spreadsheet gives the storm wind speed for each 6 hour interval of the storm’s life. Since the power in wind is proportional to the cube of the wind speed, I derived an index for the total wind power by cubing each six hour wind speed, and summing the cubed speeds over the life of the storm. This gives a measure of power dissapated. (I divided the power dissipation index by a million for ease of use).

    The results were very interesting. Since 1850, while the average has gone up and down a bit, there has been very little change in the power dissipated by Atlantic hurricanes. The validity of the use of power dissipation is supported by an analysis of the distribution of storm strengths. It turns out that this follows a power law very closely, as we would expect.

    I append the data for your interest. Note that the power dissipated by the individual hurricanes varies by a factor of 100, showing the shortcoming of the “3, 4, 5″ type of categorization.

    w.

    Year Power Dissipation Index
    1851.49 , 5.046
    1851.51 , 0.729
    1851.53 , 0.216
    1851.63 , 25.747
    1851.70 , 3.456
    1851.79 , 4.199
    1852.64 , 35.299
    1852.68 , 2.688
    1852.69 , 9.31
    1852.73 , 21.25
    1852.77 , 18.622
    1853.60 , 0.216
    1853.61 , 0.125
    1853.67 , 76.601
    1853.69 , 19.28
    1853.72 , 0.216
    1853.74 , 9.742
    1853.74 , 0.216
    1853.80 , 10.856
    1854.49 , 3.837
    1854.65 , 0.343
    1854.69 , 25.946
    1854.72 , 6.268
    1854.80 , 3.354
    1855.60 , 1
    1855.61 , 6
    1855.61 , 0.512
    1855.65 , 4.29
    1855.71 , 10.944
    1856.61 , 19.395
    1856.62 , 4.096
    1856.64 , 2.376
    1856.64 , 0.216
    1856.65 , 27.805
    1856.72 , 7.366
    1857.50 , 1.728
    1857.69 , 20.936
    1857.73 , 10.24
    1857.73 , 13.514
    1858.45 , 0.512
    1858.60 , 0.512
    1858.71 , 7.115
    1858.71 , 21.096
    1858.73 , 7.54
    1858.81 , 12.478
    1859.50 , 1
    1859.63 , 12
    1859.67 , 3.072
    1859.70 , 5.482
    1859.71 , 5.883
    1859.76 , 31.8
    1859.79 , 2.867
    1859.83 , 15.976
    1860.61 , 20.362
    1860.65 , 7.65
    1860.70 , 0.512
    1860.70 , 19.853
    1860.72 , 4.362
    1860.75 , 8.138
    1860.80 , 11.928
    1861.52 , 13.7
    1861.62 , 8.349
    1861.65 , 19.664
    1861.71 , 0.512
    1861.74 , 2.142
    1861.77 , 4.98
    1861.77 , 0.216
    1861.84 , 3.899
    1862.46 , 2.592
    1862.63 , 12.187
    1862.70 , 27.794
    1862.77 , 0.216
    1862.79 , 6.238
    1862.89 , 4.112
    1863.61 , 5.506
    1863.63 , 6.482
    1863.64 , 13.819
    1863.66 , 7.458
    1863.69 , 14.186
    1863.71 , 3.64
    1863.72 , 1.114
    1863.74 , 0.773
    1863.75 , 2.427
    1864.54 , 5.468
    1864.57 , 0.343
    1864.65 , 12.629
    1864.68 , 3.456
    1864.81 , 4.622
    1865.42 , 0.216
    1865.50 , 0.216
    1865.64 , 5.59
    1865.68 , 32.978
    1865.69 , 0.343
    1865.74 , 0.512
    1865.80 , 15.89
    1866.53 , 17.468
    1866.62 , 16.227
    1866.68 , 6.83
    1866.72 , 0.512
    1866.73 , 7.854
    1866.73 , 60.648
    1866.83 , 5.991
    1867.47 , 2.86
    1867.58 , 18.35
    1867.59 , 1
    1867.67 , 6.84
    1867.69 , 0.216
    1867.75 , 6.747
    1867.76 , 20.09
    1867.77 , 0.125
    1867.82 , 11.7
    1868.67 , 12.47
    1868.75 , 7.999
    1868.76 , 12
    1868.79 , 8.964
    1869.62 , 4
    1869.63 , 6.468
    1869.66 , 2.048
    1869.67 , 2.236
    1869.68 , 3.925
    1869.69 , 11.857
    1869.70 , 24.343
    1869.71 , 0.343
    1869.75 , 0.216
    1869.76 , 5.288
    1870.58 , 0.512
    1870.67 , 15.43
    1870.67 , 3.854
    1870.69 , 24.664
    1870.71 , 10.362
    1870.76 , 31.294
    1870.77 , 0.512
    1870.78 , 3.072
    1870.80 , 11.114
    1870.81 , 1
    1870.83 , 7.691
    1871.42 , 3.214
    1871.44 , 1.668
    1871.62 , 26.739
    1871.63 , 32.144
    1871.67 , 16
    1871.68 , 6.29
    1871.75 , 10.007
    1871.78 , 6.872
    1872.52 , 2.836
    1872.64 , 29.867
    1872.69 , 21.168
    1872.75 , 10.928
    1872.81 , 4.528
    1873.42 , 0.777
    1873.62 , 42.664
    1873.72 , 5.51
    1873.73 , 1.955
    1873.74 , 33.876
    1874.51 , 2.38
    1874.59 , 8.042
    1874.66 , 17.512
    1874.67 , 2.384
    1874.69 , 3.456
    1874.74 , 7.2
    1874.83 , 7.973
    1875.63 , 8.192
    1875.67 , 18.002
    1875.69 , 32.723
    1875.73 , 3.028
    1875.77 , 11.446
    1875.78 , 6.338
    1876.69 , 6.77
    1876.70 , 14.595
    1876.71 , 2.592
    1876.75 , 12.919
    1876.78 , 27.624
    1877.59 , 4.631
    1877.71 , 10.189
    1877.71 , 13.66
    1877.72 , 36.928
    1877.73 , 3.728
    1877.79 , 5.184
    1877.82 , 2.705
    1877.91 , 1.864
    1878.50 , 1.402
    1878.61 , 12.932
    1878.64 , 6.77
    1878.65 , 14.706
    1878.67 , 22.598
    1878.70 , 19.434
    1878.73 , 82.364
    1878.77 , 9.689
    1878.77 , 12.3
    1878.79 , 25.812
    1878.80 , 15.355
    1878.90 , 8.216
    1879.61 , 5.376
    1879.62 , 16.079
    1879.64 , 10.478
    1879.66 , 17.104
    1879.76 , 2.948
    1879.77 , 5.722
    1879.82 , 6.5
    1879.88 , 8.599
    1880.47 , 2.054
    1880.59 , 32.262
    1880.62 , 6.902
    1880.65 , 19.876
    1880.65 , 19.004
    1880.68 , 7.072
    1880.69 , 5.744
    1880.74 , 42.34
    1880.76 , 8.711
    1880.78 , 15.492
    1880.80 , 3.723
    1881.59 , 1.827
    1881.61 , 1.358
    1881.61 , 18.504
    1881.63 , 6.994
    1881.64 , 18.179
    1881.69 , 10.548
    1881.72 , 6.209
    1882.65 , 2.56
    1882.67 , 26.632
    1882.71 , 6.224
    1882.72 , 1.932
    1882.73 , 8.718
    1882.76 , 25.442
    1883.63 , 18.222
    1883.65 , 34.715
    1883.68 , 40.965
    1883.81 , 7.52
    1884.67 , 7.892
    1884.67 , 42.88
    1884.69 , 16.509
    1884.77 , 21.553
    1885.60 , 14.37
    1885.64 , 17.325
    1885.66 , 1.955
    1885.71 , 7.579
    1885.72 , 6.67
    1885.73 , 6.871
    1885.74 , 5.582
    1885.78 , 2.8
    1886.45 , 3.165625
    1886.46 , 11.769875
    1886.49 , 10.0065
    1886.54 , 15.99575
    1886.62 , 31.46325
    1886.62 , 50.484375
    1886.64 , 15.926
    1886.71 , 16.679
    1886.73 , 28.224375
    1886.77 , 18.29975
    1886.78 , 2.29525
    1886.81 , 3.728625
    1887.37 , 3.506875
    1887.38 , 2.6055
    1887.45 , 0.790375
    1887.55 , 23.662125
    1887.58 , 4.556125
    1887.62 , 27.3855
    1887.63 , 46.332
    1887.67 , 12.6435
    1887.70 , 35.03775
    1887.71 , 5.73825
    1887.77 , 1.528125
    1887.77 , 1.883375
    1887.77 , 20.886125
    1887.78 , 4.363125
    1887.79 , 10.867375
    1887.83 , 9.9345
    1887.91 , 8.59125
    1887.93 , 7.325375
    1887.94 , 3.3685
    1888.46 , 2.393375
    1888.51 , 1.126125
    1888.62 , 26.493625
    1888.67 , 29.09825
    1888.68 , 2.4185
    1888.73 , 3.678875
    1888.77 , 8.958375
    1888.84 , 4.370625
    1888.88 , 33.813
    1889.38 , 5.734625
    1889.46 , 3.8835
    1889.64 , 11.77225
    1889.67 , 38.90475
    1889.67 , 12.35175
    1889.70 , 26.956
    1889.70 , 4.188625
    1889.75 , 5.0065
    1889.76 , 2.91725
    1890.41 , 1.099625
    1890.63 , 5.524
    1890.65 , 32.301
    1890.83 , 3.254625
    1891.51 , 7.59625
    1891.63 , 18.568625
    1891.63 , 28.948125
    1891.67 , 19.493625
    1891.71 , 26.084875
    1891.75 , 18.463375
    1891.76 , 2.444375
    1891.77 , 4.507125
    1891.78 , 13.407125
    1891.84 , 1.82925
    1892.44 , 3.159625
    1892.62 , 9.891875
    1892.67 , 35.761375
    1892.69 , 4.568625
    1892.70 , 33.92475
    1892.74 , 1.64025
    1892.76 , 30.94075
    1892.79 , 10.9735
    1892.81 , 3.646875
    1893.45 , 10.97625
    1893.51 , 6.01625
    1893.62 , 39.750375
    1893.62 , 33.598125
    1893.62 , 8.645375
    1893.62 , 57.643125
    1893.64 , 26.9695
    1893.68 , 8.13025
    1893.74 , 94.635625
    1893.74 , 22.9765
    1893.80 , 1.59575
    1893.85 , 5.521875
    1894.43 , 1.024
    1894.60 , 2.330125
    1894.67 , 34.75275
    1894.72 , 34.78325
    1894.75 , 36.82175
    1894.78 , 43.133375
    1894.81 , 30.752625
    1895.62 , 1.771125
    1895.64 , 27.106
    1895.74 , 6.55125
    1895.76 , 1.329375
    1895.78 , 44.621625
    1895.79 , 0.965875
    1896.51 , 9.727375
    1896.67 , 51.73825
    1896.72 , 32.999875
    1896.73 , 27.0385
    1896.77 , 14.436625
    1896.82 , 41.590625
    1896.91 , 1.579375
    1897.67 , 31.4425
    1897.69 , 7.08975
    1897.72 , 4.33225
    1897.74 , 1.524125
    1897.77 , 8.52875
    1897.81 , 7.304125
    1898.59 , 1.2645
    1898.67 , 3.21025
    1898.67 , 5.292
    1898.68 , 55.16775
    1898.70 , 6.946125
    1898.72 , 6.276375
    1898.74 , 34.8415
    1898.74 , 0.963625
    1898.76 , 11.55025
    1898.81 , 0.903625
    1898.82 , 6.5475
    1899.49 , 0.325875
    1899.58 , 7.834125
    1899.59 , 108.336625
    1899.66 , 19.929
    1899.67 , 51.395875
    1899.76 , 2.914875
    1899.78 , 1.549125
    1899.82 , 14.164375
    1899.85 , 1.75
    1900.66 , 36.163375
    1900.69 , 30.384
    1900.69 , 31.074375
    1900.70 , 1.494875
    1900.76 , 5.304625
    1900.78 , 1.42725
    1900.82 , 1.98225
    1901.45 , 0.8995
    1901.50 , 9.069125
    1901.51 , 9.078375
    1901.59 , 12.803875
    1901.63 , 1.080625
    1901.66 , 34.81125
    1901.69 , 8.416375
    1901.70 , 2.38725
    1901.72 , 3.298875
    1901.76 , 4.832125
    1901.79 , 1.853375
    1901.83 , 6.705625
    1902.45 , 2.314
    1902.47 , 4.357375
    1902.71 , 13.3675
    1902.76 , 16.81425
    1902.84 , 3.95175
    1903.56 , 5.682375
    1903.60 , 39.031125
    1903.69 , 10.003125
    1903.70 , 9.713375
    1903.72 , 2.7425
    1903.74 , 11.979375
    1903.75 , 20.314125
    1903.76 , 4.544375
    1903.81 , 3.136375
    1903.88 , 12.406625
    1904.44 , 2.761625
    1904.69 , 10.51975
    1904.78 , 6.102875
    1904.80 , 2.053375
    1904.83 , 1.865
    1905.68 , 1.17475
    1905.70 , 2.20425
    1905.73 , 2.52025
    1905.75 , 24.84075
    1905.76 , 2.21025
    1906.44 , 2.405625
    1906.46 , 15.66475
    1906.64 , 2.356125
    1906.65 , 84.234125
    1906.67 , 20.053375
    1906.72 , 21.416375
    1906.73 , 11.7445
    1906.77 , 34.852375
    1906.79 , 1.315375
    1906.79 , 1.58625
    1906.85 , 3.37825
    1907.48 , 3.030875
    1907.72 , 1.513375
    1907.74 , 0.841
    1907.80 , 1.43225
    1907.85 , 2.226
    1908.18 , 6.30225
    1908.40 , 5.844125
    1908.57 , 10.86575
    1908.58 , 2.4405
    1908.67 , 1.238625
    1908.69 , 37.668375
    1908.71 , 1.6315
    1908.72 , 35.305125
    1908.79 , 7.413875
    1908.80 , 1.130875
    1909.46 , 1.53225
    1909.49 , 4.91375
    1909.49 , 1.813375
    1909.54 , 11.63175
    1909.60 , 1.155375
    1909.64 , 29.68575
    1909.66 , 1.12175
    1909.70 , 24.409875
    1909.73 , 1.743875
    1909.77 , 23.644375
    1909.86 , 11.022875
    1910.65 , 1.604125
    1910.65 , 1.1355
    1910.68 , 34.65125
    1910.73 , 10.262375
    1910.77 , 44.94625
    1911.59 , 2.010625
    1911.61 , 3.97975
    1911.65 , 12.81375
    1911.67 , 10.372
    1911.71 , 3.365875
    1911.82 , 2.14875
    1912.44 , 7.10125
    1912.53 , 1.34875
    1912.67 , 1.468625
    1912.69 , 6.853625
    1912.76 , 8.933125
    1912.78 , 11.033375
    1912.86 , 25.314125
    1913.47 , 4.976
    1913.62 , 0.685125
    1913.65 , 11.93525
    1913.67 , 6.55175
    1913.76 , 7.2325
    1913.83 , 1.871125
    1914.71 , 2.066375
    1915.58 , 1.405125
    1915.60 , 50.569625
    1915.66 , 66.665625
    1915.67 , 11.79075
    1915.73 , 35.6245
    1916.50 , 20.109625
    1916.53 , 34.429
    1916.53 , 7.68
    1916.62 , 32.54325
    1916.64 , 5.344
    1916.66 , 17.448625
    1916.68 , 0.539
    1916.69 , 1.722125
    1916.71 , 12.331125
    1916.71 , 31.4645
    1916.76 , 0.954125
    1916.77 , 23.574375
    1916.78 , 31.68075
    1916.86 , 5.2175
    1917.60 , 1.6445
    1917.67 , 29.83475
    1917.72 , 41.67575
    1918.59 , 7.001875
    1918.64 , 7.31025
    1918.65 , 1.40625
    1918.67 , 11.459875
    1918.69 , 1.576625
    1919.51 , 1.60975
    1919.67 , 68.712875
    1919.86 , 1.270375
    1920.69 , 24.195125
    1920.71 , 5.203875
    1920.72 , 4.094375
    1920.74 , 4.602875
    1921.46 , 14.862
    1921.68 , 3.166875
    1921.69 , 38.116125
    1921.69 , 2.011625
    1921.79 , 3.5345
    1921.80 , 37.479375
    1922.45 , 1.44275
    1922.70 , 81.158
    1922.78 , 2.247
    1922.79 , 13.02325
    1923.67 , 18.195625
    1923.73 , 37.597625
    1923.78 , 6.83275
    1923.79 , 6.890375
    1923.79 , 1.5775
    1923.79 , 0.866125
    1923.82 , 1.164125
    1924.47 , 1.076
    1924.63 , 42.672125
    1924.65 , 29.817875
    1924.70 , 6.948875
    1924.74 , 1.453
    1924.78 , 1.20275
    1924.79 , 18.2175
    1924.85 , 15.893125
    1925.68 , 0.6265
    1925.91 , 5.4625
    1926.56 , 29.446
    1926.58 , 29.624625
    1926.64 , 14.448625
    1926.67 , 105.85425
    1926.69 , 13.40375
    1926.70 , 65.567875
    1926.70 , 1.7745
    1926.72 , 29.64775
    1926.76 , 0.490875
    1926.79 , 31.807
    1926.87 , 1.066875
    1927.64 , 34.847375
    1927.67 , 14.993625
    1927.73 , 4.691625
    1927.73 , 25.84325
    1927.75 , 1.409125
    1927.80 , 0.985
    1927.83 , 1.212875
    1928.59 , 8.97025
    1928.60 , 8.0435
    1928.67 , 3.336625
    1928.68 , 81.339625
    1928.69 , 2.632375
    1928.78 , 4.146625
    1929.49 , 3.0375
    1929.73 , 41.7755
    1929.79 , 13.731125
    1930.64 , 20.433625
    1930.67 , 36.162875
    1931.49 , 1.165625
    1931.53 , 2.316375
    1931.61 , 4.259375
    1931.63 , 1.322875
    1931.68 , 7.919625
    1931.69 , 11.90325
    1931.74 , 0.682875
    1931.80 , 1.246875
    1931.89 , 1.0745
    1932.35 , 1.905
    1932.62 , 8.970625
    1932.65 , 6.547875
    1932.67 , 74.877625
    1932.69 , 2.619625
    1932.72 , 0.66275
    1932.74 , 14.502875
    1932.77 , 3.199875
    1932.77 , 1.4465
    1932.83 , 65.20875
    1932.84 , 10.97725
    1933.37 , 1.5225
    1933.49 , 23.781875
    1933.54 , 2.164875
    1933.56 , 1.263625
    1933.57 , 17.7805
    1933.62 , 3.827125
    1933.63 , 1.15825
    1933.63 , 23.901375
    1933.65 , 2.478875
    1933.65 , 0.810875
    1933.66 , 29.805375
    1933.67 , 32.601125
    1933.69 , 39.33325
    1933.69 , 6.722875
    1933.71 , 20.37675
    1933.74 , 1.070625
    1933.74 , 0.682875
    1933.75 , 40.8625
    1933.82 , 11.013625
    1933.82 , 3.6645
    1933.87 , 0.490875
    1934.41 , 1.382125
    1934.43 , 14.791375
    1934.56 , 3.20575
    1934.64 , 0.66175
    1934.65 , 6.351375
    1934.68 , 10.69275
    1934.71 , 1.718125
    1934.75 , 5.42775
    1934.75 , 2.3135
    1934.80 , 1.229625
    1934.89 , 8.522375
    1935.63 , 35.147875
    1935.66 , 35.801875
    1935.67 , 0.609
    1935.73 , 36.91575
    1935.80 , 12.416875
    1935.83 , 11.475625
    1936.45 , 1.536
    1936.47 , 0.795
    1936.49 , 1.95975
    1936.57 , 0.481125
    1936.57 , 5.889875
    1936.59 , 1.972125
    1936.60 , 1.450875
    1936.62 , 7.319125
    1936.64 , 0.86475
    1936.66 , 3.089625
    1936.66 , 34.607625
    1936.69 , 0.298875
    1936.69 , 48.62475
    1936.69 , 1.20175
    1936.72 , 20.262875
    1936.77 , 0.4695
    1937.58 , 2.36025
    1937.59 , 2.739625
    1937.65 , 0.256
    1937.69 , 13.966125
    1937.70 , 22.299375
    1937.71 , 1.68475
    1937.72 , 21.63625
    1937.74 , 1.479625
    1937.75 , 1.285875
    1938.61 , 1.2835
    1938.61 , 12.105
    1938.65 , 14.800125
    1938.69 , 65.82725
    1938.78 , 2.937625
    1938.80 , 1.0105
    1938.81 , 0.63625
    1938.85 , 2.950625
    1939.45 , 1.6015
    1939.60 , 6.480625
    1939.73 , 1.0745
    1939.78 , 19.248375
    1939.83 , 8.074875
    1940.39 , 2.667875
    1940.59 , 7.821
    1940.60 , 12.11975
    1940.67 , 7.550875
    1940.69 , 16.092125
    1940.72 , 1.795375
    1940.80 , 1.1295
    1940.82 , 0.50825
    1941.70 , 1.5095
    1941.71 , 15.89325
    1941.72 , 10.865875
    1941.73 , 16.821125
    1941.76 , 17.285125
    1941.79 , 2.152375
    1942.63 , 6.03275
    1942.64 , 25.70625
    1942.65 , 17.239125
    1942.71 , 3.027875
    1942.72 , 2.31775
    1942.74 , 1.102375
    1942.75 , 2.142625
    1942.78 , 0.556
    1942.79 , 2.2455
    1942.85 , 8.456
    1943.57 , 5.424625
    1943.62 , 3.600625
    1943.64 , 39.651125
    1943.67 , 38.874
    1943.70 , 1.650625
    1943.71 , 9.902375
    1943.74 , 1.683125
    1943.75 , 2.949375
    1943.78 , 16.988375
    1943.80 , 0.845625
    1944.54 , 9.824
    1944.57 , 3.077875
    1944.58 , 5.6075
    1944.63 , 21.346125
    1944.64 , 2.07225
    1944.69 , 0.81925
    1944.69 , 32.209875
    1944.72 , 5.705375
    1944.72 , 11.09575
    1944.75 , 0.717625
    1944.78 , 26.304375
    1945.47 , 11.034875
    1945.55 , 1.147875
    1945.59 , 1.795375
    1945.63 , 2.513375
    1945.65 , 22.414125
    1945.66 , 1.406
    1945.67 , 0.622625
    1945.69 , 1.592125
    1945.70 , 29.543625
    1945.76 , 4.915875
    1945.78 , 6.13725
    1946.45 , 0.795
    1946.51 , 5.870875
    1946.65 , 0.298875
    1946.70 , 9.1305
    1946.76 , 9.9255
    1946.83 , 0.752
    1947.58 , 0.630375
    1947.61 , 10.96475
    1947.63 , 8.423375
    1947.68 , 103.233
    1947.69 , 0.38025
    1947.72 , 2.231875
    1947.77 , 0.701125
    1947.77 , 10.6795
    1947.79 , 19.625125
    1948.39 , 2.29275
    1948.52 , 0.732625
    1948.65 , 26.751875
    1948.67 , 0.873125
    1948.67 , 4.26625
    1948.68 , 52.52925
    1948.72 , 25.091
    1948.76 , 23.8665
    1948.86 , 4.242375
    1949.64 , 20.92225
    1949.65 , 18.254125
    1949.67 , 1.278375
    1949.67 , 36.049625
    1949.67 , 0.927
    1949.68 , 2.379
    1949.70 , 1.90825
    1949.72 , 10.273875
    1949.72 , 2.78675
    1949.74 , 12.7335
    1949.78 , 12.03525
    1949.79 , 1.99325
    1949.84 , 0.998
    1950.62 , 51.186625
    1950.64 , 21.637
    1950.64 , 33.142625
    1950.67 , 122.225375
    1950.67 , 20.30125
    1950.69 , 42.067375
    1950.74 , 20.611375
    1950.75 , 1.878
    1950.77 , 5.315
    1950.78 , 17.842125
    1950.79 , 15.12025
    1950.80 , 5.3405
    1950.80 , 7.729375
    1951.37 , 22.601875
    1951.59 , 1.77425
    1951.62 , 38.329
    1951.66 , 13.38075
    1951.67 , 63.074125
    1951.67 , 25.3025
    1951.72 , 1.026
    1951.74 , 18.345625
    1951.78 , 4.70575
    1951.79 , 4.644625
    1952.09 , 1.599
    1952.63 , 14.990125
    1952.67 , 39.471125
    1952.73 , 24.861125
    1952.74 , 4.043375
    1952.77 , 5.136125
    1952.80 , 29.463
    1953.40 , 6.95375
    1953.61 , 11.747625
    1953.66 , 1.705125
    1953.66 , 45.172
    1953.69 , 16.05325
    1953.71 , 20.801
    1953.71 , 8.093375
    1953.73 , 13.464875
    1953.76 , 2.98725
    1953.76 , 5.583375
    1953.76 , 2.359375
    1953.77 , 4.363625
    1953.90 , 1.315375
    1953.94 , 0.49675
    1954.48 , 2.266
    1954.57 , 0.701625
    1954.65 , 19.163875
    1954.67 , 6.912375
    1954.67 , 29.3185
    1954.70 , 1.539
    1954.73 , 3.10875
    1954.74 , 15.3805
    1954.76 , 65.88975
    1954.88 , 2.234
    1955.00 , 8.56875
    1955.58 , 1.764125
    1955.59 , 76.606375
    1955.60 , 33.2105
    1955.64 , 23.339
    1955.65 , 1.828625
    1955.67 , 19.002375
    1955.68 , 2.407375
    1955.69 , 30.264
    1955.69 , 27.738
    1955.72 , 66.39775
    1955.78 , 3.284625
    1955.79 , 8.748125
    1956.45 , 1.076625
    1956.57 , 1.72475
    1956.61 , 36.993625
    1956.68 , 1.846
    1956.69 , 2.585125
    1956.70 , 1.535625
    1956.72 , 6.28725
    1956.83 , 19.073375
    1957.44 , 3.638625
    1957.49 , 12.579
    1957.61 , 1.83
    1957.67 , 96.584625
    1957.69 , 0.53375
    1957.71 , 1.099875
    1957.72 , 5.273125
    1957.81 , 1.341125
    1958.46 , 0.570375
    1958.61 , 3.359
    1958.61 , 52.957375
    1958.65 , 24.085875
    1958.67 , 13.76075
    1958.68 , 7.939375
    1958.70 , 1.146125
    1958.72 , 29.633625
    1958.73 , 22.63825
    1958.76 , 13.839125
    1959.41 , 1.326875
    1959.46 , 2.284375
    1959.47 , 3.4725
    1959.51 , 3.97375
    1959.56 , 3.51925
    1959.63 , 0.676
    1959.69 , 4.428625
    1959.72 , 27.051875
    1959.74 , 50.859875
    1959.77 , 0.73275
    1959.80 , 5.470375
    1960.48 , 0.62875
    1960.53 , 10.240375
    1960.58 , 1.253375
    1960.63 , 5.7315
    1960.66 , 117.529625
    1960.71 , 8.171625
    1960.71 , 1.2245
    1961.55 , 19.617125
    1961.67 , 49.224375
    1961.67 , 51.14
    1961.68 , 29.848625
    1961.69 , 84.521
    1961.70 , 0.69
    1961.75 , 27.413625
    1961.79 , 2.949125
    1961.82 , 37.926625
    1961.84 , 4.867
    1961.85 , 3.871
    1962.65 , 6.314
    1962.66 , 0.869625
    1962.70 , 2.70875
    1962.75 , 16.505625
    1962.79 , 18.16725
    1963.58 , 14.02325
    1963.64 , 22.89
    1963.69 , 3.081
    1963.71 , 2.9025
    1963.72 , 4.016625
    1963.73 , 7.983625
    1963.74 , 79.569375
    1963.79 , 28.692625
    1963.82 , 0.92425
    1964.42 , 2.6505
    1964.58 , 1.9895
    1964.60 , 0.92625
    1964.60 , 1.234
    1964.64 , 58.4625
    1964.66 , 52.348
    1964.68 , 30.810875
    1964.68 , 1.06375
    1964.70 , 49.961375
    1964.74 , 32.3025
    1964.77 , 14.427625
    1964.85 , 0.85775
    1965.45 , 1.385
    1965.64 , 7.31825
    1965.66 , 73.987375
    1965.71 , 22.731375
    1965.73 , 1.06625
    1965.78 , 7.113
    1966.43 , 18.138875
    1966.50 , 1.7955
    1966.54 , 4.11575
    1966.56 , 11.10525
    1966.56 , 2.2365
    1966.64 , 63.56125
    1966.67 , 1.59125
    1966.72 , 0.528125
    1966.72 , 84.586625
    1966.74 , 0.936875
    1966.84 , 10.981125
    1967.66 , 6.148625
    1967.68 , 75.436375
    1967.68 , 37.748625
    1967.69 , 13.616625
    1967.74 , 1.3155
    1967.75 , 3.52325
    1967.76 , 0.832375
    1967.80 , 19.82625
    1968.42 , 5.981875
    1968.46 , 7.013125
    1968.48 , 0.8825
    1968.61 , 6.2765
    1968.70 , 3.7835
    1968.71 , 9.71025
    1968.73 , 2.24925
    1968.79 , 11.276125
    1969.57 , 5.457
    1969.61 , 3.064125
    1969.62 , 46.315375
    1969.62 , 40.31075
    1969.65 , 0.9325
    1969.66 , 12.32325
    1969.68 , 8.222125
    1969.71 , 5.585125
    1969.72 , 36.53675
    1969.72 , 5.284375
    1969.73 , 5.294875
    1969.75 , 1.408875
    1969.75 , 0.758625
    1969.77 , 13.87325
    1969.80 , 9.858375
    1969.83 , 3.01175
    1969.83 , 9.245625
    1969.89 , 5.529375
    1970.38 , 2.706125
    1970.55 , 1.837125
    1970.58 , 11.016375
    1970.62 , 1.5805
    1970.63 , 3.0835
    1970.69 , 8.073375
    1970.70 , 1.835875
    1970.74 , 1.614625
    1970.78 , 7.039375
    1970.80 , 7.314625
    1971.51 , 1.687375
    1971.59 , 3.418
    1971.61 , 5.595875
    1971.63 , 1.73475
    1971.64 , 2.5155
    1971.68 , 20.852
    1971.67 , 6.365625
    1971.68 , 50.79175
    1971.70 , 1.97125
    1971.70 , 4.00025
    1971.72 , 1.703
    1971.80 , 0.974375
    1971.87 , 7.91325
    1972.40 , 2.41275
    1972.46 , 6.753375
    1972.64 , 15.558625
    1972.66 , 3.927375
    1972.68 , 6.105875
    1972.72 , 2.303625
    1972.84 , 1.3995
    1973.50 , 6.90475
    1973.58 , 0.540875
    1973.63 , 3.645875
    1973.65 , 5.345375
    1973.67 , 3.695
    1973.71 , 17.079125
    1973.77 , 7.265125
    1973.79 , 8.929125
    1974.48 , 0.87225
    1974.54 , 1.514
    1974.61 , 1.97425
    1974.62 , 1.150625
    1974.65 , 19.914625
    1974.66 , 37.82625
    1974.67 , 1.008875
    1974.68 , 3.998625
    1974.71 , 12.720625
    1974.74 , 4.338875
    1974.76 , 1.346625
    1975.49 , 6.2455
    1975.57 , 4.362625
    1975.65 , 7.22575
    1975.66 , 17.02925
    1975.70 , 11.87625
    1975.72 , 13.589
    1975.73 , 28.74975
    1975.82 , 0.937125
    1975.94 , 2.022125
    1976.39 , 1.34575
    1976.58 , 2.01475
    1976.60 , 12.91875
    1976.63 , 8.774875
    1976.63 , 0.73825
    1976.64 , 37.8755
    1976.66 , 21.146
    1976.70 , 0.531625
    1976.74 , 13.068875
    1976.81 , 3.806375
    1977.66 , 20.953
    1977.67 , 2.431375
    1977.68 , 3.67875
    1977.74 , 4.015125
    1977.79 , 2.53975
    1977.79 , 0.7215
    1978.05 , 1.167375
    1978.58 , 0.392875
    1978.60 , 0.8495
    1978.60 , 4.5795
    1978.65 , 0.655125
    1978.67 , 28.1275
    1978.68 , 12.3365
    1978.70 , 15.784125
    1978.70 , 4.64875
    1978.76 , 0.9575
    1978.77 , 1.548
    1978.83 , 3.99425
    1979.47 , 0.983625
    1979.52 , 2.400625
    1979.54 , 2.074625
    1979.65 , 79.90575
    1979.67 , 0.67875
    1979.66 , 24.6875
    1979.68 , 19.740875
    1979.71 , 4.097375
    1979.81 , 1.509875
    1980.58 , 0.13975
    1980.62 , 9.4805
    1980.64 , 4.631875
    1980.68 , 0.61175
    1980.68 , 6.39425
    1980.68 , 48.628625
    1980.67 , 3.498375
    1980.72 , 3.8435
    1980.75 , 25.2885
    1980.85 , 0.159625
    1980.90 , 5.682375
    1981.35 , 0.780375
    1981.50 , 1.767125
    1981.59 , 1.385625
    1981.60 , 4.934625
    1981.67 , 14.93475
    1981.67 , 17.0305
    1981.69 , 11.54175
    1981.70 , 21.83425
    1981.72 , 30.060875
    1981.83 , 1.047125
    1981.84 , 3.830875
    1981.87 , 5.54175
    1982.42 , 2.112875
    1982.47 , 3.248
    1982.66 , 5.294
    1982.69 , 1.352
    1982.70 , 25.670375
    1982.75 , 1.5495
    1983.62 , 7.724875
    1983.65 , 3.063
    1983.69 , 3.80425
    1983.74 , 2.865125
    1984.63 , 1.21775
    1984.66 , 1.516
    1984.67 , 0.769
    1984.67 , 1.244375
    1984.69 , 18.9255
    1984.71 , 0.651625
    1984.71 , 2.900125
    1984.71 , 0.718
    1984.73 , 5.564125
    1984.74 , 2.67175
    1984.77 , 22.937125
    1984.85 , 13.700125
    1984.95 , 15.509125
    1985.54 , 2.181
    1985.56 , 2.5585
    1985.61 , 6.7175
    1985.62 , 4.20575
    1985.66 , 22.329375
    1985.71 , 3.0435
    1985.71 , 32.563
    1985.72 , 0.92475
    1985.77 , 3.71925
    1985.82 , 7.811375
    1985.87 , 24.6405
    1986.43 , 1.48175
    1986.48 , 2.971
    1986.62 , 8.272125
    1986.69 , 1.3585
    1986.69 , 26.377
    1986.88 , 3.715125
    1987.61 , 0.718125
    1987.61 , 0.101375
    1987.63 , 1.649
    1987.68 , 1.460375
    1987.69 , 2.867375
    1987.72 , 11.856375
    1987.77 , 3.12975
    1988.60 , 0.496625
    1988.61 , 0.8195
    1988.64 , 1.533375
    1988.67 , 2.332125
    1988.67 , 1.083625
    1988.69 , 1.34625
    1988.69 , 2.713125
    1988.69 , 57.856875
    1988.72 , 46.686
    1988.74 , 0.5415
    1988.78 , 31.071
    1988.88 , 7.6705
    1989.48 , 1.20625
    1989.52 , 1.275125
    1989.58 , 2.439875
    1989.58 , 17.785125
    1989.63 , 16.788625
    1989.65 , 10.172375
    1989.67 , 59.733375
    1989.69 , 72.90225
    1989.71 , 2.294125
    1989.78 , 3.67575
    1989.91 , 0.11275
    1990.56 , 2.10275
    1990.57 , 8.656625
    1990.58 , 2.47475
    1990.59 , 4.267375
    1990.59 , 1.980875
    1990.61 , 0.51525
    1990.65 , 30.00125
    1990.65 , 2.8925
    1990.68 , 19.990125
    1990.72 , 6.834
    1990.76 , 5.434875
    1990.77 , 9.971375
    1990.77 , 1.27825
    1990.79 , 6.20125
    1991.50 , 0.257125
    1991.63 , 11.129875
    1991.68 , 18.498125
    1991.69 , 1.467875
    1991.69 , 1.67675
    1991.79 , 0.680625
    1991.82 , 5.675375
    1991.83 , 5.13025
    1992.31 , 0.902875
    1992.63 , 61.623375
    1992.71 , 28.610875
    1992.72 , 14.113625
    1992.73 , 1.946
    1992.74 , 2.9455
    1992.81 , 7.84875
    1993.47 , 0.62125
    1993.59 , 2.9625
    1993.62 , 0.688875
    1993.65 , 1.582875
    1993.64 , 27.415875
    1993.69 , 7.12525
    1993.71 , 4.05925
    1993.72 , 2.00875
    1994.50 , 1.507
    1994.62 , 0.846
    1994.63 , 6.560875
    1994.69 , 1.2445
    1994.72 , 1.332375
    1994.84 , 12.55125
    1994.86 , 6.857
    1995.42 , 5.1435
    1995.51 , 2.857375
    1995.53 , 6.969125
    1995.58 , 0.69275
    1995.58 , 7.514625
    1995.61 , 37.6795
    1995.61 , 1.28525
    1995.64 , 26.802
    1995.64 , 29.02675
    1995.64 , 0.740125
    1995.65 , 2.41
    1995.66 , 88.481625
    1995.70 , 28.23075
    1995.74 , 9.80725
    1995.74 , 15.5775
    1995.76 , 1.849625
    1995.77 , 17.67175
    1995.80 , 1.629375
    1995.82 , 9.740875
    1996.46 , 1.574625
    1996.51 , 21.520375
    1996.57 , 3.59925
    1996.64 , 3.501625
    1996.64 , 86.114375
    1996.65 , 29.227625
    1996.65 , 1.732125
    1996.67 , 30.48975
    1996.73 , 16.093875
    1996.76 , 6.2495
    1996.78 , 0.42675
    1996.79 , 28.09125
    1996.87 , 0.30025
    1997.42 , 0.160875
    1997.50 , 1.027875
    1997.53 , 2.095875
    1997.54 , 1.049375
    1997.54 , 6.511375
    1997.67 , 36.73525
    1997.76 , 0.983
    1997.79 , 0.85
    1998.57 , 1.83225
    1998.64 , 33.624375
    1998.64 , 0.825375
    1998.65 , 32.070875
    1998.67 , 7.575375
    1998.69 , 1.467875
    1998.71 , 58.3645
    1998.71 , 0.71175
    1998.72 , 9.6915
    1998.72 , 22.782375
    1998.73 , 8.715875
    1998.76 , 4.63175
    1998.81 , 70.69725
    1998.90 , 8.133875
    1999.45 , 2.615875
    1999.63 , 18.262375
    1999.64 , 32.942375
    1999.65 , 22.91125
    1999.65 , 1.44875
    1999.69 , 46.18125
    1999.70 , 68.25725
    1999.72 , 1.573125
    1999.78 , 0.08975
    1999.80 , 10.2445
    1999.83 , 0.55125
    1999.87 , 30.4445
    2000.59 , 43.3815
    2000.62 , 0.68575
    2000.63 , 0.300375
    2000.64 , 5.669
    2000.67 , 0.539625
    2000.69 , 7.893875
    2000.71 , 3.695
    2000.71 , 3.6695
    2000.72 , 43.155125
    2000.74 , 7.393375
    2000.74 , 16.3355
    2000.76 , 2.5195
    2000.79 , 7.546
    2000.80 , 1.33
    2000.82 , 2.98125
    2001.43 , 1.9345
    2001.59 , 2.097125
    2001.62 , 4.471375
    2001.64 , 3.40725
    2001.67 , 25.478
    2001.69 , 19.6365
    2001.70 , 9.89925
    2001.72 , 10.78125
    2001.76 , 14.250375
    2001.77 , 0.816
    2001.78 , 5.1295
    2001.82 , 0.81275
    2001.83 , 26.055125
    2001.84 , 3.102
    2001.90 , 11.147375
    2002.54 , 2.28925
    2002.59 , 0.401625
    2002.60 , 1.1
    2002.66 , 2.51225
    2002.67 , 1.257625
    2002.68 , 1.19575
    2002.69 , 6.458875
    2002.70 , 1.37775
    2002.71 , 23.256625
    2002.71 , 0.664625
    2002.72 , 13.486625
    2002.72 , 21.795625
    2003.30 , 3.727125
    2003.49 , 0.169375
    2003.52 , 8.537
    2003.54 , 4.734875
    2003.62 , 1.71775
    2003.66 , 70.601875
    2003.67 , 0.422375
    2003.67 , 1.047625
    2003.68 , 113.857
    2003.73 , 11.294875
    2003.74 , 30.32725
    2003.74 , 0.170125
    2003.78 , 0.7925
    2003.79 , 7.085
    2003.93 , 3.14875
    2003.94 , 1.557375
    2004.58 , 14.848375
    2004.59 , 2.642375
    2004.61 , 14.101875
    2004.62 , 15.254625
    2004.62 , 0.6135
    2004.65 , 73.952875
    2004.66 , 3.07425
    2004.66 , 1.11975
    2004.67 , 131.44075
    2004.70 , 28.688125
    2004.71 , 46.406
    2004.72 , 10.59
    2004.77 , 0.711875
    2004.78 , 0.79675
    2004.90 , 2.412
    2005.44 , 2.340125
    2005.49 , 0.288875
    2005.51 , 2.00375
    2005.51 , 29.950375
    2005.53 , 54.089125
    2005.56 , 5.6055
    2005.56 , 0.4385
    2005.59 , 6.536375
    2005.59 , 14.24375
    2005.64 , 0.322875
    2005.65 , 34.03125
    2005.66 , 0.809875
    2005.67 , 20.365125
    2005.68 , 7.87275
    2005.68 , 17.1475
    2005.71 , 5.299
    2005.72 , 45.25275
    2005.75 , 2.14925
    2005.76 , 0.14975
    2005.76 , 0.5005
    2005.77 , 2.25525
    2005.79 , 71.791875
    2005.81 , 0.63525
    2005.82 , 7.564375
    2005.87 , 1.631625
    2005.89 , 7.17825
    2005.91 , 13.036625
    2005.99 , 5.16625

    w.

  321. John Creighton
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 8:14 PM | Permalink

    #320 (Willis Eschenbach) That is a very interesting post. If non one else does within the next week or two I might try putting that data trough a low pas filter with a time constant of one year. If any trends look apparent I might try some regression on the data. I am working on something else now though so I’ll let anyone else step up to the plate that wants to. I have bookmarked your post.

  322. David Smith
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 8:32 PM | Permalink

    RE #318 I’ve checked the Arctic sea ice coverage maps and it appears that 2006 Arctic ice coverage at this point (mid to late August) is a bit higher than in 2005. Coverage along the north shore of Alaska and Bering Sea is definitely greater this year.

  323. jae
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 8:38 PM | Permalink

    It is becoming clear to me, mainly from Willis’ posts, that we currently have plenty of power in the physics realm to know what’s going on. We don’t need all the sophisticated ? proxies and GCMs.

  324. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 8:43 PM | Permalink

    Willis, would you like to post up the spreadsheet so that the calcs can be shown? If so, email it to me and I’ll post it up.

  325. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 9:02 PM | Permalink

    I can do that, Steve, but I’ve removed a number of the formulas because they take a while to calculate.

    I also used some special functions to retrieve the information. The spreadsheet looks like this:

    Storm NOT NA MED is number 1 of t he year 18 51
    ********** ** ******** ******** ******* ********** ***
    Month D ay Hour Lat. Long. Dir. —-Sp eed—– —–Wi nd—— Pressur e ————Type———–
    June 25 0 UTC 28.0N 94.8W — deg — mph — kph 90 150 — mb Hurricane – Category 1
    June 25 6 UTC 28.0N 95.4W 270 deg 5 mph 9 kph 90 150 — mb Hurricane – Category 1
    June 25 12 UTC 28.0N 96.0W 270 deg 5 mph 9 kph 90 150 — mb Hurricane – Category 1
    June 25 18 UTC 28.1N 96.5W 285 deg 4 mph 7 kph 90 150 — mb Hurricane – Category 1
    June 26 0 UTC 28.2N 97.0W 285 deg 4 mph 7 kph 80 130 — mb Hurricane – Category 1
    June 26 6 UTC 28.3N 97.6W 280 deg 5 mph 9 kph 70 110 — mb Tropical Storm
    June 26 12 UTC 28.4N 98.3W 280 deg 6 mph 11 kph 70 110 — mb Tropical Storm
    June 26 18 UTC 28.6N 98.9W 290 deg 5 mph 9 kph 60 90 — mb Tropical Storm
    June 27 0 UTC 29.0N 99.4W 310 deg 5 mph 9 kph 60 90 — mb Tropical Storm
    June 27 6 UTC 29.5N 99.8W 325 deg 6 mph 11 kph 50 70 — mb Tropical Storm
    June 27 12 UTC 30.0N 100.0W 340 deg 5 mph 9 kph 50 70 — mb Tropical Storm
    June 27 18 UTC 30.5N 100.1W 350 deg 5 mph 9 kph 50 70 — mb Tropical Storm
    June 28 0 UTC 31.0N 100.2W 350 deg 5 mph 9 kph 50 70 — mb Tropical Storm

    Storm NOT NA MED is number 2 of t he year 18 51
    ********** ** ******** ******** ******* ********** ***
    Month D ay Hour Lat. Long. Dir. —-Sp eed—– —–Wi nd—— Pressur e ————Type———–
    July 5 12 UTC 22.2N 97.6W — deg — mph — kph 90 150 — mb Hurricane – Category 1

    Etc.

    Thus, I had to use some special functions to collect the information for each storm. These are excel functions that I have written.

    However, I will rebuild what I can of the erased formulas, annotate it, and send it to you. I’ll mail it to the climateaudit address?

    w.

  326. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 9:16 PM | Permalink

    You need to learn R for things like this. Could youpost up the url’s for the data or remind me of the post # if you posted it up already.

  327. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 9:20 PM | Permalink

    BTW I talked to a climate scientist today who said that the upper winds were stronger this year (which stops heat from accumulating and needing vortices to escape if I got the nuance right) and also the SSTs are cooler. You’d that the hurricane people should be chopping their forecasts in half, but right now the unamended Aug 6 forecasts imply that the rest of 2006 will be as active as the corresponding period of 2006. It doesn’t sound like it’s possible. But who will be the first climate scientist to break ranks and chop the forecast in half?

  328. ET SidViscous
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 9:27 PM | Permalink

    “the unamended Aug 6 forecasts imply that the rest of 2006 will be as active as the corresponding period of 2006. ”

    Gee I hope so.

  329. jae
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 9:31 PM | Permalink

    I currently see it like this:

    1. There have been temperature swings in the last 2000 years.
    2. CO2 levels have been relatively constant for the last 2000 years.
    3. The Sun is the source of virtually all our energy.
    4. The Sun goes through well defined cycles that affect the Earth’s temperature.
    5. Volcanos, small meteors, etc. can effect temperature for relatively short periods of time, but not for hundreds of years running.
    5. The Sun, not CO2, is responsible for the temperature swings.

    Now, what is WRONG with that logic?

  330. John Creighton
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 9:34 PM | Permalink

    #129 if y=a*b is a or b responsible for y

  331. ET SidViscous
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 9:35 PM | Permalink

    It doesn’t sit with some political positions.

    PS #1 should be changed to

    “1. There have been temperature swings in the last X years.”

    With X being any amount of years since the formation of the Earth (Mother Earth if you will).

    Also works with days, months, minutes, hours, centuries…

    You get the point.

  332. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 9:43 PM | Permalink

    Steve, thanks to your prodding, I have learned R and find it extremely useful … but this data came in as an Excel spreadsheet, and required lots of massaging to get at the actual data.

    The spreadsheet is located at

    http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/easytoread-spreadsheetap.xls

    I’ve annotated my version with all of my graphs, calculations, and such, and emailed it to you.

    w.

  333. bender
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 10:06 PM | Permalink

    Re #19
    No, Bloom is “Dodge”. Dano is “Witchhunter”.

  334. bender
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 10:07 PM | Permalink

    That’s #319.

  335. John Cross
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 10:14 PM | Permalink

    Re # 317 Willis:

    you said:

    (John asked again about where the 324 w/m2 data for downwelling long wave comes from … it comes, as I said before, from Figure 7 of the Kiehl/Trenberth paper, Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. As the text states

    Just to set the record straight I was not asking about it again. I am sure that you read my post 217, but in case it has slipped your mind let me remind you that in it I agreed with what was said in Figure 7 but gave what I thought was the important section from the text.

    In regards to your figures, lets look at it another way. You claim that:

    The earth’s surface is warmed by a combination of the sun (about 168 W/m2) and downwelling IR (about 324 w/m2),

    I think we can also agree that the greenhouse effect is about 33C and that blackbody temperature of the earth (with the same albedo) is about 254K.

    Now you claim that the 324 is responsible for the 33C increase from the greenhouse effect. Does this mean that the 168 W/m2 is responsible for the 254K blackbody temperature?

    Goodnight
    John

  336. mark
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 10:15 PM | Permalink

    Now, what is WRONG with that logic?

    According to Dano, it must be a false premise somehow.

    Mark

  337. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 10:17 PM | Permalink

    Bender, what did you think about my explanation for the negative ma(1) coefficients in post 244?

  338. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 11:54 PM | Permalink

    Re #320: Willis, what you’re doing is along the lines of Emanuel’s work. I don’t think you’re using the same variable, though. Why? If you did use the same variable, it would make the results more strictly comparable.

  339. bender
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 11:54 PM | Permalink

    Willis, you explained how you go from MA1(+) to MA1(-) by focusing on the anomalies in this dataset. The results you get support what you say. But this is what I might call a procedural “explanation”. What I’m looking for is a functional explanation.

    But before getting into that, a clarification. It seems you are talking here about monthly data? In my #21 was referring to annual data. So it is not clear we are talking apples & apples. Both series exhibit MA1(-); it may or may not be the same functional cause.

    I am typically skeptical of parameters from ARMA models unless they are accompanied by the data. (That way I can judge for myself the degree and pattern of nonstationarity.) I’m curious to know if your time-series give the same visual pattern as the one I analyse in #21 – the “foxtail” annual temperatures of Briffa.

    Let me see if I can figure out how to paste in graphs at CA and I’ll show you what my analysis is pointing to.

  340. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 1:07 AM | Permalink

    For any who are curious, Emanuel’s page has links to his data and most of his papers. He discusses various corrections that have been made to the raw data. I’m not sure what differences there are with HURDAT, but I suspect some.

    Emanuel’s work is based on an entirely different metric (power dissipation over the life of each storm)) from that of the Webster group (maximum wind speeds, which is the basis for the standard Saffir-Simpson hurricane intensity scale).

  341. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 2:03 AM | Permalink

    Re 338, thanks, Steve. Never having heard of Emanuel, I just looked up his method. Turns out he’s doing the exact same thing, using an index which is the integral of v cubed over the lifetime of the cyclone. Man, I love it when that happens, that I independently develop a method which someone else is using … why am I not using his variable? Because I never heard of him before today …

    My results are a bit different from his, though. He found a large increase in the last couple decades, while I show a much smaller increase. In addition, he only showed the data back to 1950. Extending it back another hundred years gives a much more complete picture …

    In particular, it shows that there have been two other times in the past, 1850-1890 and 1920-1950, during which an increase of the modern kind occurred. Since he only shows since 1950, he doesn’t show the similar historical times. This is in line with his alarmist title for the study, which is about hurricane power dissipation but is titled as being about hurricane “destructiveness” … seems like that boy has an agenda …

    w.

  342. ET SidViscous
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 2:22 AM | Permalink

    “In particular, it shows that there have been two other times in the past, 1850-1890 and 1920-1950, during which an increase of the modern kind occurred.”

    Which is in line with the other literature on the mater.

    Destructiveness a more variable metric, as less “destruction” happens when no people are in the area. Fallen trees not a matter for as much concern.

  343. bender
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 2:41 AM | Permalink

    Thanks to Willis for the link to the hurricane spreadsheet. Here is a comparison of what you get from annual data vs. four-year summaries of storm counts (all categories).

    Top left graph is much like Judith Curry’s. Below that shows the regression line with moderately high r2=0.55. Top right is the annual time-series. Note r2 is cut in half. Finally, note the high variability in the full dataset.

    My point? A policy activist will prefer top left (curry) over top right (bender) any day.

  344. bender
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 2:47 AM | Permalink

    Re #343 Graphic not displaying, but looked ok in preview.

  345. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 3:32 AM | Permalink

    Re #343: Pay attention, bender. Did you make this kind of conflation with the tree ring stuff of which Steve M. speaks so highly? I’m beginning to think probably so.

  346. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 3:55 AM | Permalink

    Re #341: You say *he* has an agenda? *snork* If you were paying any attention whatsoever to events in the larger world, or even if you had read through Emanuel’s site prior to your triumphant bout of spreadsheet analysis, you would have found out that Chris Landsea, the person responsible for the data you’ve been working with, was only able to come up with a minor criticism of Emanuel’s results; see comment and response in Nature. Landsea did threaten that additional work on the data base would prove Emanuel wrong, but he has yet to produce that work (and it is not reflected in HURDAT); this was a year ago, BTW. In any case, we are to believe that in a few hours you spotted something that Landsea didn’t. Well, email him with those results immediately! You could generously offer him second author on the paper.

  347. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 4:01 AM | Permalink

    Re #342: Literature, Sid? Let’s see those citations! There’s lots to the contrary. BTW, do you have idea who Muthuvel Chelliah is, and that he admitted in a very public venue that the NHC/HRC has *nothing* in terms of demonstrating a natural cycle connection to hurricane activity?

  348. welikerocks
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 6:19 AM | Permalink

    Index of atlantic hurricanes 1851-2005:

    http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/index.html

    Current list:

    http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/index.html

  349. Jeff Weffer
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 7:04 AM | Permalink

    Steve please post the plots of hurricanes developed by Willis and bender here.

    It was very clear that Judith Curry’s paper was using data selection in the EXTREME to criticize the NWS for not declaring global warming responsible for the increase in hurricanes in recent years.

    Despite there being an absolutely extensive HURDAT dataset series for hurricanes and tropical storms going back to 1850, she uses 6 pentad (5 year) averages and 2 10-year periods (1945-1955 and 1995-2005) to PROVE? her point that hurricanes are increasing.

    Just use/show all the data, Judith.

    The reason she didn’t is that HURDAT series shows NATURAL VARIABILITY in hurricanes. We can’t have no NATURAL VARIABILITY if we are going to prove that CO2 is responsible for global warming and hurricanes.

    Post the plots and the analysis and put another nail in the coffin of these data selectors. This is a big one.

  350. bender
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 7:58 AM | Permalink

    Re: #345
    1. Conflation?
    2. If you have a problem with the analysis, why didn’t you say so beforehand?

  351. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 8:24 AM | Permalink

    RE: #320 – Thanks so much. If I can find some time, I might mess around with Star Sigma on these. I really like Power as a measure. I think that looking at the interfaces (and internals) of the troposphere in terms of power or work is a key to developing more effective GCMs.

  352. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 8:31 AM | Permalink

    RE: #329 – CO2 is actually highly variable, not constant. But, to borrow an oft used phrase from the Team, is likely does not matter all that much, in the big picture.

  353. Cliff Huston
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 8:37 AM | Permalink

    Re:# 340, 341, 346.
    Great work Bloom. With one link, you manage to refute Judith Curry and validate Willis’ line of thought. From Emanuel’s site at: http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/anthro2.htm

    “I.  Frequently Asked Questions about Global Warming and Hurricanes

    1.)        Q: Is global warming causing more hurricanes?

                A: No. The global, annual frequency of tropical cyclones (the generic, meteorological term for the storm that is called a tropical storm or hurricane in the Atlantic region) is about 90, plus or minus 10.  There is no indication whatsoever of a long-term trend in this number.”

    … And further down under Essay, 2. Intensity:

    “There is some uncertainty, however, about the magnitude of the increase in potential intensity of hurricanes accompanying increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The main source of uncertainty plaguing calculations of the increase have to do with uncertainties in predicting global warming itself; these have to do with feedback processes in the climate system, especially those involving water vapor and clouds.  the principal feedback in the climate system: the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Were water vapor content and cloudiness to remain fixed, doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide would yield a tropical sea surface temperature increase of only about 0.5 C and a barely perceptible rise in the potential intensity of tropical cyclones. Most climate model simulations give much larger increases than this, owing to a positive feedback loop involving increasing atmospheric water vapor. But the physics of the processes controlling water vapor in the atmosphere are poorly understood and even more poorly represented in climate models, and what actually happens in the atmosphere is largely unknown because of poor measurements. It is now widely recognized that improvements in understanding and predicting climate hinge largely on a better understanding of the processes controlling atmospheric water vapor and clouds.”

  354. ET SidViscous
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 8:55 AM | Permalink

    #347

    Sure Sierra Club Steve. Just as soon as you post the information to back up your “This is turning into a terrible storm season” information.

    You made the comment even though in the Atlantic basin it is below normal, or the opposite of terrible.

    So do you have actual information or did you really make it up so you could do a little fear Mongering.

  355. bender
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 9:32 AM | Permalink

    Re #345 The only “problems” I can see with what I’ve done is:
    1. lumping all categories of storms
    2. using a 4-year window instead of 5-year

    The first was a matter of convenience, as I’m currently short for time. If you want the analysis dones a little differently, tell me how, and I’ll do it. The second is because with 32 observations they divide more neatly into 4y windows than 5y.

    Shifting these parameters any is not going to change the fact that temporal integration reduces sampling error and improves the optics of the statistics – which was my point at RC #3:

    In Curry et al.’s Fig 1. the trends are so obvious that no statistics are required to convince a skeptic of their significance. But the observations are for 5-year windows. Taking a moving average will tend to exaggerate a trend by reducing interannual noise. [And so will integrating across a longer time-frame.]* If they had presented annual observations, how much would that have fuzzed up the trends? How much would it have compromised the statistics? Their argument 1 on p. 1028 is fine … as long as the uncertainty surrounding the statistics is taken out of the picture. Why did the authors choose to eliminate the uncertainty by using a 5-year window? Because it simplified a story intended for a lay audience? Is this a simplification, or an oversimplification?

    Comment by bender “¢’‚¬? 18 Aug 2006 @ 12:43 pm

    (* Remark not contained in original post.)

  356. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 10:55 AM | Permalink

    A: No. The global, annual frequency of tropical cyclones (the generic, meteorological term for the storm that is called a tropical storm or hurricane in the Atlantic region) is about 90, plus or minus 10. There is no indication whatsoever of a long-term trend in this number.”

    People often prefer to only look at the Atlantic basin, which has (was) been up. They fail to notice that the Pacific has been down, so the average has been about the same for some time.

    Mark

  357. jae
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 11:08 AM | Permalink

    These storms are fantastic negative feedback mechanisms, I’m thinking. Is this accounted for in the GCMs?

  358. Dano
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 11:55 AM | Permalink

    317:

    Thank you willis.

    Plz learn how to use ad hom. Never did I attack you (the definition of ad hom, frequently malused for tactical purposes). Had I used ad hom tactics, I’d have said something like: x, your conclusions are wrong because you are an y. As I did not do this, ad hom is an inappropriate characterization.

    To clarify: I commented (in the Dano character way) on the robustness of your conclusions in the comment above, arising from my point in 273. I did not comment on your character or you directly.

    As to your extended comment, you should write that up and submit it. Let us know how that goes. I’m sure the folk in the field would like you to share, as they don’t read this blog, so your contribution would be valuable.

    More generally, I’m starting to think all the fantastic science that goes on in these comment threads should be rolled up into a journal. Sales from which can be used to pay for the bandwidth costs (certain commenters would be freeloading, but hey). Just take the comment thread (and delete out certain commenters, of course) and make a journal out of it and compete with Science, Nature, GRL, etc…

    Think about it: all the discoveries in this blog’s comment threads can overturn not only climate science, but as soon as the prodigious talents here turn their auditing powers to the real heavy hitters such as medicine – why, all of society will be turned on it’s head!

    I think someone should run with this. I really do.

    333:

    Keep it up. I like the fact that you do this. It makes it easier.

    =====

    341:

    Since he only shows since 1950, he doesn’t show the similar historical times. This is in line with his alarmist title for the study, which is about hurricane power dissipation but is titled as being about hurricane “destructiveness” … seems like that boy has an agenda …

    What does the paper say about the 1950 choice, willis?

    Best,

    D

  359. jae
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 12:04 PM | Permalink

    Hey, Dano:

    Think about it: all the discoveries in this blog’s comment threads can overturn not only climate science, but as soon as the prodigious talents here turn their auditing powers to the real heavy hitters such as medicine – why, all of society will be turned on it’s head!

    There’s no need to “overturn climate science.” The science speaks for itself and indicates a lot of uncertainty. Only the media and politically motivated people like you keep saying that there is clear evidence for AGW. Look the hundreds of studies that demonstrate this. (still waiting for your big expose on why this information is “tainted”….)

  360. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 12:19 PM | Permalink

    DanàƒÆ’à‚ⶬ thanks for your comment in 358. You indeed used an ad hom by saying that I was not qualified to comment, a “vacuum repairperson” rather than a “plumber”. Doesn’t matter which one I am, DanàƒÆ’à‚ⶻ what matters is, am I right or wrong?

    I would rather think that the proper comparison would be, if you want to know the estimated cost to repair your plumbing, do you ask a plumber for an estimate to repair it, or an independent appraiser? Me, I’d take the appraiser. Why? Because he has no financial stake in the number he presents. The plumber, on the other hand, has a financial stake in the outcome, so he’s likely to exaggerate the numbers … as we have seen all too often with those noted plumbers such as Michael Mann.

    Regarding your comment about publishing, I haven’t noted too many papers that you’ve published based on your claims on this blog, but it’s quite possible I’ve missed them … are there any?

    Regarding your claim that the “folk in the field” don’t read this blog, of course you can provide us with a citation or some other evidence that this is true? … Me, I suspect they read it quite often, just as I often read RC, to keep up with what’s going on. I don’t comment on RC (got tired of being censored and ignored), they don’t comment here … which proves nothing about who is reading what. Please provide some evidence for your claim … you do remember evidence, don’t you? It’s those inconvenient facts …

    Finally, I had said:

    Since he only shows since 1950, he doesn’t show the similar historical times. This is in line with his alarmist title for the study, which is about hurricane power dissipation but is titled as being about hurricane “destructiveness” … seems like that boy has an agenda …

    You replied:

    What does the paper say about the 1950 choice, willis?

    Dang, DanàƒÆ’à‚ⶬ I give up, I don’t know what he said about the choice. He didn’t mention 1950 at all … please let me know the answer to this question, as despite re-reading the paper, I can’t find anything about the reason for the choice.

    w.

  361. Dano
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 12:33 PM | Permalink

    360:

    Thank you willis. I see your point on what I said in 286 and I apologize.

    The intent was to illustrate that I get my science from journals, not blog comments. That didn’t come across and I meant no malintent toward you. Generally I enjoy your comments and the (from what I can tell with necessarily limited information) sincere effort behind them.

    I haven’t noted too many papers that you’ve published based on your claims on this blog, but it’s quite possible I’ve missed them … are there any?

    No, the Dano character exists to attempt to illustrate/track down climate/ecological mis/malinformation. On this site, the Dano character usu points out gross misinformation when the author of the Dano character has a few moments (this week is a slow week). My papers are in the policy/science interface arena and of course not published under Dano.

    Regarding your claim that the “folk in the field” don’t read this blog

    Boy, I’ve gotta talk to my editor. S/B ‘folk in the field don’t read this blog’s comment section’.

    I don’t know what he said about the choice. He didn’t mention 1950 at all … please let me know the answer to this question, as despite re-reading the paper, I can’t find anything about the reason for the choice.

    Yet you impute agenda and alarmism.

    Best,

    D

  362. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 12:35 PM | Permalink

    Re #347 – **who Muthuvel Chelliah is, and that he admitted in a very public venue that the NHC/HRC has *nothing* in terms of demonstrating a natural cycle connection to hurricane activity? **
    Admit or state?? To “admit” to something, it first has to be a fact. However, you are constantly making statements not based on fact.

  363. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 12:41 PM | Permalink

    Re#358,

    Plz learn how to use ad hom. Never did I attack you (the definition of ad hom, frequently malused for tactical purposes).

    Since when is being a sarcastic smart ass to someone not an attack?

    Had I used ad hom tactics, I’d have said something like: x, your conclusions are wrong because you are an y.

    You clearly implied that since he’s a “vacuum repairperson,” you are dismissing his “plumbing” work and siding with the “plumbers.” You don’t explicitly state that he’s wrong, but we all know you would never choose the wrong side, and since you don’t agree with him…

    As I did not do this, ad hom is an inappropriate characterization.

    So you are an expert in the field of philosophy, specializing in logical fallacies? Or are you just a “vacuum repairperson” acting as a “plumber” when it comes to such things?

  364. jae
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 12:45 PM | Permalink

    361: thanks for that post, Dano. Now, I think I finally know where you are coming from. “Policy/science interface,” eh? Here I thought you were a scientist, who knew what he was talking about. Could you possibly be a representative of an environmental activist organization (one of the largest industries in the world, BTW), similar to Brother Bloom? And if so, could you possibly have a financial incentive to push the AGW scare? I sure would not doubt it. But I know that it is OK to have a financial incentive, as long as it isn’t provided by “industry.”

  365. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 1:24 PM | Permalink

    The following thread has evolved (well, maybe a bit of *directed* evolution) in a quite interesting direction, note in particular Mr. Berg’s posts:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/fact-fiction-and-friction/

  366. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

    Re 361, DanàƒÆ’à‚ⶬ thanks for the explanation. I remain confused about one thing:

    I had said:

    Since he only shows since 1950, he doesn’t show the similar historical times. This is in line with his alarmist title for the study, which is about hurricane power dissipation but is titled as being about hurricane “destructiveness” … seems like that boy has an agenda …

    You replied:

    What does the paper say about the 1950 choice, willis?

    Thinking that you had found an explanation in the paper that I had not caught, I re-read the paper without success, and replied:

    Dang, DanàƒÆ’à‚ⶬ I give up, I don’t know what he said about the choice. He didn’t mention 1950 at all … please let me know the answer to this question, as despite re-reading the paper, I can’t find anything about the reason for the choice.

    You responded:

    Yet you impute agenda and alarmism.

    Well … in a word, yes. When Emanuel has 150+ years of data available, and without explanation makes a number of strong statements based on only the last fifty years of data, I do suspect that he has an agenda.

    His reasoning may be that the earlier data is poorer than the later … which is true, but is true of virtually all of our climate records. If someone were to make strong statements based on an analysis of only the last 50 years of the HadCRUT3 temperature records, I’d wonder why. Similarly, the ACIA published a graph of Arctic temperatures since 1960, which gave a very distorted view of the arctic temperature variations.

    So yes, it does make me suspicious. He may have explained it somewhere in his paper, and I didn’t see it, but if not … wouldn’t anyone be suspicious?

    w.

  367. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 3:56 PM | Permalink

    Re#366,

    So yes, it does make me suspicious. He may have explained it somewhere in his paper, and I didn’t see it, but if not … wouldn’t anyone be suspicious?

    No. When a plumber tells you that you need to replace all the plumbing in your house in order to fix what you think is just a dripping faucet, you shouldn’t be suspicious. To question his conclusions would be to impute agenda and alarmism. Just write a check to cover the costs, recommend the plumber to all of your friends, then anonymously and playfully irritate and scorn any of those who dare to be s(c)eptical. HTH.

  368. Dano
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 3:59 PM | Permalink

    366:

    Thank you willis.

    When I have a question about a paper I’m using, I:

    o e-mail the author [to find the information I seek],
    o give my name & title [to show I'm not a crank],
    o usually give a one-sentence who I studied under [credentials],
    o then state my question with an explanation [why I'm e-m'g author].

    The author may or may not reply with an explanation. Sometimes I get a 2-3 reply thing going until I understand.

    You may want to try this technique. Let me know if you get a reply.

    Best,

    D

  369. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 4:45 PM | Permalink

    Consider the following scenario. In spite of our best efforts, the idea that “we are past the tipping point” and that “drastic action is needed now” takes hold among the masses and politicians. Geoengineering efforts are kicked off at the same time that a 25% global carbon tax gets put into place to fund them.
    Subscenario A: It was a complete overreaction to innate variation. The global economy crashes and the next LIA gets missed until we are in the thick of it. Due to the global economic crisis, the response to the new LIA is pathetic. Famine ensues.
    Subscenario B: The geoengineering efforts go too far, plunging the Earth into the next Ice Age.
    Subscenario C: There are unintended consequences due to the geoengineering and although it starts to cool the climate, there are many extinctions and chain reaction events resulting in a global disaster of epic proportions.
    =======================

    And if anyone thinks this is far fetched, those who have spent time at RC know they get seriously discussed by people who ought to know better. Comments?

  370. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

    Thanks, Danàƒⶬ done. We’ll see what he says.

    w.

  371. Dano
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 4:59 PM | Permalink

    369:

    I see Ralph’s has Reynold’s Wrap on sale in the 50ft roll. Looks like you could drive to, say, Willits (or is that a Safeway up there?) and get some and get a nice drive out of it.

    Two birds with one stone, I say. Redwoods would be a bonus. Mattole valley thru the redwoods & then the beach – nice and relaxing, take the stress off. Maybe some humpies moving south. I miss that stuff…

    Best,

    D

  372. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 5:05 PM | Permalink

    RE: #371 – Nice dodge. Pretty uncomfortable topic I see. That’s the thing. You could pretty much turn around the typical “the ole bidness/car companies/Bush are playing with the fate of Earth” and say essentially the same thing about some of the more extreme elements who post at RC. “We must do something now!” – what, pray tell? Just what? Show me the plan!

  373. Dano
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 5:26 PM | Permalink

    373:

    Not uncomfortable at all, nor a dodge.

    Who cares what a few fringe people rant about, and when they do, why would you want to conflate them with the mainstream?

    You asked for comments, and in the Dano way I commented on the quality and usefulness of the comment.

    Best,

    D

  374. Dano
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 5:28 PM | Permalink

    370:

    Not a problem willis.

    Bset,

    D

  375. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 6:14 PM | Permalink

    Re #362: So you don’t know who Chelliah is, hmm?

  376. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 6:41 PM | Permalink

    Re #375 – Read my comment again Steve B. I did not say I do not know who Chelliah is – I suggested that you will quote as proof or authority anyone who says what you want to hear. I suggest that there is enough documentation of natural cycles. Again, I repeat, what was stated (in your words “admitted”) was not fact, but more an opinion as you did not produce a peer-reviewed paper. Your problem is that you need a clear conscience to see the golden apparel of the King, hmmm.

  377. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 7:52 PM | Permalink

    Re #376: Ah, so you haven’t seen all the peer-reviewed papers on the other side of the debate. That’s a credibility-stretching quantity of inattentiveness, Gerald, but fair enough: I’ll pull all the links together and post them. Then you can post all the papers on the other side — not the ones that speculate or provide anecdotes, but the ones that actually have *proof*. It shouldn’t take long. In fact, it should take no time at all! :)

  378. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 8:06 PM | Permalink

    Re #370: See below from Emanuel’s Q+A, saving Willis some time. The whole Q+A is here.

    4.) Q: But aren’t there lots of errors in the hurricane record?

    A: Yes, there are. Reliable records of wind speeds in hurricanes over the open ocean go back only to around 1950, when aircraft reconnaissance of hurricanes began over the North Atlantic and western North Pacific; before that, the only good measurements of wind speed were made when hurricanes made landfall or passed over islands or ships with measuring equipment. Unfortunately, methods of measuring or estimating wind speed from aircraft have evolved over time, and these changes were not always well documented. Since about 1980, there are wind estimates for all hurricanes globally, based on satellite images, but these are not as good as aircraft measurements.

    5.) Q: Then how can you determine trends with such data?

    A: Fortunately, the means of estimating the central surface pressure in hurricanes have remained fairly constant with time. In practice, central pressure is well correlated with maximum wind speed, and therefore can be used to detect changes in the way winds were estimated from pressures. Also, in a large enough sample of events, the wind speeds are well correlated with a quantity call the “potential intensity”, which is a function of the temperature of both the ocean and atmosphere. We have fairly good records of the information needed to calculate potential intensity, and so can compare estimated wind speeds with estimated potential intensity for large enough samples. This is another check on the quality of the wind estimates. Even in the Southern Hemisphere, where there have never been aircraft observations of hurricanes, the satellite-based estimates compare well with estimates of potential intensity.

    6.) Q: You say that reliable records of hurricane wind speeds go back only to about 1950, so how can you say that there were not even more intense storms before 1950? How can you assert that the upswing in the last 50 years is a consequence of global warming?

    A: We cannot say for sure. What we can say is that everywhere we have looked, the change in hurricane energy consumption follows very closely the change in tropical sea surface temperature. When the sea surface temperature falls, the energy consumption falls, and conversely, when it rises, so too does the energy consumption. Both theory and models of hurricane intensity predict that this should be so as well. In contrast to the hurricane record, the record of tropical ocean temperature is less prone to error and goes back 150 years or so. Moreover, geochemical methods have been developed to infer sea surface temperature from corals and from the shells left behind by micro-organisms that live near the surface; these can be used to estimate sea surface temperature for the past several thousand years. These records strongly suggest that the 0.5 degree centigrade (1 degree Fahrenheit) warming of the tropical oceans we have seen in the past 50 years is unprecedented for perhaps as long as a few thousand years. Scientists who work on these records therefore believe that the recent increase is anthropogenic.

  379. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 8:24 PM | Permalink

    Had to get clear to the end to encounter the bogus logic:

    “These records strongly suggest that the 0.5 degree centigrade (1 degree Fahrenheit) warming of the tropical oceans we have seen in the past 50 years is unprecedented for perhaps as long as a few thousand years. Scientists who work on these records therefore believe that the recent increase is anthropogenic.”

    So, SST records go back a few thousand years? That’s news to me. Even within the actual record horizon, I’d say the quality of the records would need to be characterized before I’d hang my hat on them. Personally I’d trust no SST records earlier than the onset of automated bouys. It’s always back to that same “unprecedented in X years” thing. That’s what sunk the IPCC.

  380. Dano
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 8:25 PM | Permalink

    378:

    1950. Measurement type. Huh.

    ;o)

    Best,

    D

  381. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 9:06 PM | Permalink

    Re #378 – **Scientists who work on these records therefore believe that the recent increase is anthropogenic.””
    “Believe” is not scientific. Is that the type of “proof” you refer to in #377. If you are going to give me links, you can forget about the 30 or 35 year studies by Emmanuel and Curry. Those only give the results you want. And I know you are going to ignore Landsea and Gray, so you will stretch your credibility. I also notice you have been ignoring the thread of Bender’s plot of the number of hurricanes and the discussion.

  382. Dano
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 9:39 PM | Permalink

    382:

    “Believe” is not scientific.

    That’s all you got? It’s a conversation, not an abstract in a journal. Come now. Sheesh.

    Best,

    D

  383. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 9:42 PM | Permalink

    Re 378, Steve, thanks for the information. However, I fear that I am far from convinced by his arguments.

    He says that he started in 1950 because that’s when aircraft reconnaissance started. Before that, hurricane wind speeds were based on data collected by ships. While this is true, in many cases ship-based collection would result in better data (because the ships could record barometric pressure, which the planes could not do until the development of the “drop probes”), and because the ships would spend many hours in a hurricane, where a plane would only be in the hurricane for an hour or so.

    In fact, there is no significant change in either the number of reported hurricanes or in the strength of the hurricanes in 1950. I just posted some graphs at Bender’s Plot of Hurricanes, so you can see for yourself — very little difference.

    Finally, the idea that we should ignore perfectly good data just because it is less accurate than more modern data flies in the face of all other climate research. No one ignores the pre-1900 HadCRUT3 temperature data just because the error bars are twice as large as for the modern data.

    In short, I find his reasoning specious and tortured.

    w.

  384. Dano
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 10:02 PM | Permalink

    383:

    While this is true, in many cases ship-based collection would result in better data (because the ships could record barometric pressure, which the planes could not do until the development of the “drop [sondes])

    Ships steering into eyewalls, eh, and making multiple penetrations?

    Who knew?

    No one ignores the pre-1900 HadCRUT3 temperature data just because the error bars are twice as large as for the modern data.

    Yet Warwick Hughes and Daly want to nit-pick over the accuracy of moved stations when making their UHI arguments.

    Best,

    D

  385. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 10:06 PM | Permalink

    #378. Steve Bloom posted the following from Emanuel’s Q&A:

    Moreover, geochemical methods have been developed to infer sea surface temperature from corals and from the shells left behind by micro-organisms that live near the surface; these can be used to estimate sea surface temperature for the past several thousand years. These records strongly suggest that the 0.5 degree centigrade (1 degree Fahrenheit) warming of the tropical oceans we have seen in the past 50 years is unprecedented for perhaps as long as a few thousand years. Scientists who work on these records therefore believe that the recent increase is anthropogenic

    The NAS Panel did not mention any coral records that say this and I’m sure that would have if they could. Schrag’s presentation said that corals didn’t go back that far. I guess Emanuel’s just pulling our legs – the Team are such pranksters. Steve Bloom, do you mind emailing Emanuel and asking him about the basis for his assertion about corals that you quoted for us.

  386. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 23, 2006 at 10:19 PM | Permalink

    Re #385: It would be even easier to get you to re-read what he said, only more carefully this time. Note that he referred to both coral and foraminifers as constituting the record. I don’t take the phrasing to mean that the corals go back that far.

  387. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 12:39 AM | Permalink

    Re 384, Dano, thanks for your post. I said:

    No one ignores the pre-1900 HadCRUT3 temperature data just because the error bars are twice as large as for the modern data.

    Your reply:

    Yet Warwick Hughes and Daly want to nit-pick over the accuracy of moved stations when making their UHI arguments.

    I fear that you missed my point entirely. Of course we all want the best data, and we know that there is no adjustment in the HadCRUT data for UHI. It is a valid issue (and your description of questioning it as “nit-picking” just reveals your inherently unpleasant attitude.)

    Despite that, we all still use the data, because it’s the best we have. I don’t find anyone saying, as Emanuel says, “I’ll just use the recent HadCRUT3 data, thanks, but not the older data”.

    w.

  388. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 1:48 AM | Permalink

    Re #387: Willis, Emanuel’s reasoning about not using that earlier data (also see my response on the other thread) is that 1) it’s unreliable (bearing in mind especially the type of data needed to derive PDI), 2) it’s North Atlantic only and so global comparisons using a large data set are not possible, and 3) SST trends were not such during that period that they could have been a major factor in PDI trends. Figuring out what factors did drive PDI then is interesting, but probably very difficult (due to a lack of data on historical wind shear, e.g.) and certainly not relevant to figuring out how future climate change is likely to affect future hurricane activity.

  389. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 2:18 AM | Permalink

    Re 388, Steve, thank you for your comments. I am well aware of Emanuel’s reasoning for throwing out 2/3 of the data. But as I remarked on the other thread:

    … perhaps you could point to a climate dataset that doesn’t have problems? … My point is simply that generally we work with the best data we have, which of course is always subject to revision.

    What is unusual about Emanuel’s work is that he has picked the data he likes, and thrown out the rest. Perhaps, while you’re finding a problem-free climate dataset, you could also find an example of someone other than Emanuel working with half a dataset …

    w.

  390. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 7:57 AM | Permalink

    Reading the FAQs, I’m surprised Emanual isn’t considered a borderline s(k)eptic.

  391. ET SidViscous
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 8:56 AM | Permalink

    Willis

    Before Steve B Gets you your perfect climate data, I was under the assumption he was going to provide a reference to why this storm season is shaping up to be “Terrible”

    I’ve got a feeling it’s a combination of models and “gut feelings” by other scare mongerers like him. NOthing based in reality.

  392. Curt
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 10:10 AM | Permalink

    Re 390: “Reading the FAQs, I’m surprised Emanual isn’t considered a borderline s(k)eptic.”

    Actually, he is, or at least was, a pretty profound AGW skeptic. (Disclosure: He was a college buddy of mine in the 70s.) He delivered the best take-down I have EVER heard of AGW certainty. (I still remember his quip that he was starting a group called the Union of Scientists Concerned about the Union of Concerned Scientists — I think of it every time I see a press release from the UCS.) I noted also that he was very careful not say that AGW was not happening — his point was that there was far too much uncertainty. But that was back in 1990.

    Reading some of his more recent stuff, he seems influenced by what he sees as a rapid rise in ocean temperatures, so his thinking may have changed somewhat since then.

    I’m puzzled by the criticisms above that he only went back to 1950, because before then the data is far sparser and tougher to relate to modern data. Isn’t one of the main criticisms of the Hockey Team on this website that they are trying to stitch together too many different types of data that cannot necessarily be matched together? Emanuel seems to me to be a much more careful scientist than the Hockey Team, he is stating carefully the limits of his data set and conclusions. Yes, I think the next step is to try (very carefully) to take this data back further, but whoever does this has to be very careful to avoid Hockey-Team-type issues.

  393. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 10:15 AM | Permalink

    Isn’t one of the main criticisms of the Hockey Team on this website that they are trying to stitch together too many different types of data that cannot necessarily be matched together?

    Yes and no. Really, the main criticism with the data is that they are trying to stitch together data that does not provide a good indicator of their a-priori conclusions. They could just as well be using the stock market to determine temperatures. The other main criticism is that they don’t know how to use the statistical methods that form the basis nearly every one of these studies.

    Mark

  394. Dano
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 10:40 AM | Permalink

    383, 387 (389):

    Thank you willis.

    Do let us know the outcome of your e-m with Emanuel, esp his answer to your assertion that he picked the data he likes. And why he threw out that multiple-penetration ship data.

    Best,

    D

  395. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 11:52 AM | Permalink

    Danàƒⶬ I wrote Emanuel saying

    I was curious as to why you only analyzed the the last 50 or so years of the HURDAT data. While the earlier data is not as good as the later, this is true of all climate datasets, and merely widens the uncertainties on the earlier results.

    I just received this from Emanuel:

    Before about 1950, measurements of tropical cyclone intensity were so few and far in between that I am not sure I could even put a meaningful error bar on estimates of power dissipation. One way we could try to do this is to take a synthetic (but realistic) tropical cyclone data set and sub-sample it in a way that represents earlier estimatation techniques using ship and island observations. But this would be a rather involved undertaking.

    I have grave reservations even about the data from 1950 to around 1958. During this time, aircraft flew into many storms but lacked any means of quantitatively estimating storm intensity, relaying on pilot observations of the sea surface.

    Hope this helps…Yours, Kerry Emanuel

    While he is clearly sincere, this is not convincing.

    Regarding your “multiple penetrations” question, sounds kinda kinky, but hey, that’s you. Your reference says nothing about multiple penetrations. It does say that even in the aircraft era, wind speeds continued to be measured by barometric pressure (from ships or planes) in preference to aircraft:

    This was especially the case during the 1970s, when aircraft flight-level winds were often discarded in favor of using the measured central pressure [to estimate wind speed] since there was considerable uncertainty as to how to extrapolate flight-level winds to the surface (Paul Hebert, personal communication).

    In any case, the existence of better data does not invalidate the older data. The HURDAT reanalysis project has spent thousands of man-hours on perfecting their data. Here’s a description of their method:

    Method:
    Hurricane re-analysis requires the collection of all available original storm “raw” observations (ships, land stations, buoys, research and reconnaissance aircraft, radar and satellites), then addressing them in the context of today’s best scientific understanding and analysis techniques. This allows for adjustment of the existing track and intensity estimates as well as occassionally adding a new tropical storm or hurricane to the database that was not previously recognized as being a tropical cyclone.

    And here’s a typical report, this one from 1856:

    The New-York Daily Times, Aug. 16, 1856 p.1, col.1, published that there had been a storm in the New Orleans area on August 10 and that such a storm had been most disastrous at Last Island (Ile Derniere). A narrative of what had happened at Last Island included some meteorological remarks: Heavy N.E. winds prevailed during the night of August 9 and a perfect hurricane started blowing around 10 A.M. August 10. The water commenced to rise about 2 P.M. and by 4 P.M. currents from the Gulf and the Bay had met and the sea waved over the whole island (The New-York Daily Times, Aug. 21, p.3, col.4).

    The ship “C. D. Mervin” passed through the eye of the storm off the Southwest Pass. Captain Mervin checked the barometer at 8 A.M. Aug. 10 and noticed a reading of 28.20 inches, a 24-hr drop of 1.70 inches. At 9 A.M. the ship had a calm which lasted for 5 minutes. The sun shone and there was every appearance of clearing off but the wind suddenly struck the ship from the opposite direction. For two more hours, more a southerly hurricane struck the ship and then gradually abated. After the hurricane, the ship location was found to be only 60 miles to the W.S.W. of Southwest Pass.

    At Iberville, Parish of Vermillon, the Aug. 10-11 storm raged with terrific force but only gales were reported at New Orleans, where the maximum wind at observation time was force 8 on the Beaufort scale (39-46 miles per hour) from an easterly direction at 2 P.M. August 10

    This is perfectly valid data, and it makes no sense to ignore it. The worst that can happen from using these and other reports of this type is that we would underestimate the strength and number of hurricanes. However, there’s not much sign of that in the data. If you look at my graph of the Hurdat data at Bender’s Plot of Hurricanes, you can see that we have two choices:

    a) the underestimation was not very large, or

    b) the underestimation was large, and the average number or power of the storms has decreased markedly.

    In any case, the data is there and has been subject to far more rigorous examination and correction that the HadCRUT3 temperature database. You can advocate throwing it out if you wish. Me, I’ll use it.

    Hey, I just thought of something. There should be some kind of relation between landfalling hurricanes (for which we have better records) and total hurricanes (worse records) for any given year. Let me see if the fraction of recorded landfalling ‘canes has changed, I suspect it has dropped, and we can estimate the size of the underreporting from that … back in a minute … OK, here’s the results:

    As you can see, the reported figures drop from about 25% during the majority of the ship era, to about 15% during the modern aircraft and satellite era. A comparable analysis of the relative strengths of the landfalling and non-landfalling hurricanes should allow us to correct the early records with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

    My point is simple. The data is there, and it’s good, albeit sparse, data … we should use it. This is particularly true since we know the direction of the error in the data (underestimation). Emanuel even talks in his email about one of the ways it could be done. I have added another here.

    w.

  396. jae
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 12:05 PM | Permalink

    Really interesting and intriguing, Willis! You should publish this stuff. Don’t bother sending it to Science or Nature, though…

  397. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 12:22 PM | Permalink

    RE #389,

    have grave reservations even about the data from 1950 to around 1958.

    Is this caveat noted in the paper? Does the removal of this data affect the results (I assume not)?

    I could never use data I had “grave reservations” about.

  398. Dano
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 12:25 PM | Permalink

    395:

    Thank you again willis.

    I _am_ kinda kinky, willis, for which my fiancé is often grateful.

    But the larger point is that there is a data quality difference between plane and ship; as even when on specific assignment to get data, ships have difficulty surviving penetrating eyewall and thus central BP is often estimated (hence part of the reason for the HURDAT project); I suspect this is the concern. Nonetheless, certainly if you feel the need to want to include that data you mention above, write it up and submit it – Journ Clim or Int J Clim is where I’d send it. IIRC Emanuel in his paper explained the diff between just thinking about landfalling hrcns and total hrcns so there’s more math there.

    Best,

    D

  399. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 12:39 PM | Permalink

    Re #398,

    It was disturbing enough we have to hear from Steve B that Gore is one of the greatest VPs ever – now we have to hear this? It begs the question though: is this kinky one the person behind Dano himself/herself, another facet to the Dano character, or yet another of the multiple personalities? One has to wonder if maybe said fiance is just another personality, or another character.

    Emanuel in his paper explained the diff between just thinking about landfalling hrcns and total hrcns so there’s more math there.

    Certainly. But one could interpret Willis’ graph as suggesting that warming may keep hurricanes out at sea, where large populations of coastal and inland land-lubbers aren’t impacted quite so much.

  400. Douglas Hoyt
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 12:43 PM | Permalink

    Willis,
    Why not correct the total count of hurricanes using your plot of percentage that are landfalling? You could take the mean percentage for 1958-present (about 15%) and divide that into the smoothed percentage means you show (about 25% in the earlier data) for a multiplication factor about 1.67 on average, for the earlier, with a smaller multiplier for say 1930-1957.

    If you do so, I think you will find peaks in hurricanes centered around 1890 and 1935 that have higher counts than now using decadal means.

    Looking forward to seeing such a plot.

  401. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 12:46 PM | Permalink

    Re #395: You’re trying to make something out of nothing, Willis.

    "(T)he existence of better data does not invalidate the older data." Not as such, I suppose, but it sure could change the conclusions that could be drawn from analyzing it.

    "A comparable analysis of the relative strengths of the landfalling and non-landfalling hurricanes should allow us to correct the early records with a reasonable degree of accuracy." I don’t think so. The landfalling record fundamentally lacks enough data points. Even if it were large enough, one would have to be able to deconvolute with some confidence various factors (e.g., trends in the behavior of the Bermuda High) that might influence tracking over a period of time.

    But this is your worst nightmare, isn’t it? A long-time confirmed skeptic, the originator of hurricane theory (you knew that, yes?) whose own work predicted we shouldn’t be seeing a detectable signal yet, compelled by his research to revise his views.

    Re #396: Or anywhere. But do post the rejection emails, please. But I take that back (a little): Maybe E&E will publish it.

  402. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 12:49 PM | Permalink

    RE: #401 – You definitely do not understand the plot in #395 and just what is its significance, do you? Or, if you do understand it, you simply cannot face it. Pathetic.

  403. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 12:51 PM | Permalink

    RE: the new #401 – referred to the now deleted old #401.

  404. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 12:52 PM | Permalink

    Re #399: "Certainly. But one could interpret Willis’ graph as suggesting that warming may keep hurricanes out at sea, where large populations of coastal and inland land-lubbers aren’t impacted quite so much." It’s just that one would have a hard time imagining that (for the North Atlantic) given the 2004/5 seasons.

  405. jae
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 1:03 PM | Permalink

    In any case, as I explained in the former #401 (just so all if us understand that posts with substance are being deleted), the plot has no significance.

    ?? Because YOU say so?

  406. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 1:22 PM | Permalink

    RE: #404 – because he is either not trained well enough analytically, or, he is, and simply cannot face it. He cannot face the fact that the “baseline” used by hysteria mongers to claim “hurricanes have increased / are increasing” (e.g. pre 1950 or so) is artificially depressed due to the fact that not all hurricanes were counted way back when, and the fact that the past peaks of occurrence therefore are also washed out, data wise.

  407. Dano
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 1:38 PM | Permalink

    405:

    This is what Emanuel was trying to show. Apparently you disagree. Let us know which journal accepts your manuscript.

    Best,

    D

  408. jae
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 2:13 PM | Permalink

    405. He is trained well enough. It just fascinates me that an obviously very intelligent person can ALWAYS take the extreme “warmer” side on ALL topics. Never a shred of doubt. That is not scientific, for sure. It is proof of a real agenda and financial compensation. I call it prostitution.

  409. Douglas Hoyt
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 2:37 PM | Permalink

    Just a follow-on to my previous comment.

    For 1864-2005, there were 244 landfalling hurricanes. If this represents 15% of the total, as recent years suggest, then there were about 1625 hurricanes and tropical storms for 1864-2005. 1199 storms were observed, so it appears that about 400 storms occurred that were never recorded.

  410. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 2:57 PM | Permalink

    Another one deleted! Well, well, John A. *is* up to his old tricks. The mouse will play. It’s irritating to have to ask Steve M. to squelch him as often as seems to be necessary, especially as rhetoric like that used in #405 (“hysteria mongers”) and #407 (“proof of [...] financial compensation. I call it prostitution.” — say, isn’t that libel?) seem to be an acceptable baseline around here.

    BTW, I say “libel” because I have explicitly told jae that I am not paid to do this stuff (or any of my environmental work), and with occasional minor exceptions don’t even ask for reimbursement for expenses; i.e., I pay to do it.

  411. Lee
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 3:02 PM | Permalink

    Bloom, stom whining. We all know those rules arent intended to apply to members of the club – especially Steve’s attack dog co-moderator. They exist to keep the interlopers under control.

  412. Dano
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 3:19 PM | Permalink

    410:

    Dano is completely banned from RP Sr & RP Jr too. At least I can post here.

    Best,

    D

  413. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 3:22 PM | Permalink

    Re#403:

    It’s just that one would have a hard time imagining that (for the North Atlantic) given the 2004/5 seasons.

    So by that logic, it’s justifiable to you when a cold winter or two makes it hard for someone to imagine global warming (either anthropogenic, natural, or both) is real?

  414. John A
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 3:26 PM | Permalink

    Dano is completely banned from RP Sr & RP Jr too. At least I can post here.

    It must have been something you said.

  415. Dano
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 3:35 PM | Permalink

    413:

    It must have been something you said.

    Probably.

    I don’t think someone liked me enumerating the cherry-picked items from a see-oh-too article that a commenter on RP Sr used to support an argument.

    After I submitted that I couldn’t comment any more.

    Best,

    D

  416. John A
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

    Re #395 Willis,

    The underestimation problem is well known which is why some alarmists point to the satellite era (from the 1970s onwards) and the apparent rise there. The only problem is that mutlidecadal oscillations in hurricane frequency are misinterpreted (or misrepresented) as linear increases in activity (and this is on a basin-by-basin basis)

    Has _global_ hurricane intensity/frequency increased? No. Some basins (the Atlantic) have recently increased while others are remarkably quiet.

    To me, it’s much more likely that increased hurricane frequency/intensity is linked with global cooling events, but the records are simply too sparse on the scale of centuries to make much of a conclusion one way or the other.

  417. John A
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 3:43 PM | Permalink

    I don’t think someone liked me enumerating the cherry-picked items from a see-oh-too article that a commenter on RP Sr used to support an argument.

    After I submitted that I couldn’t comment any more.

    It must have had something to do with the way you said it. Usually with maximum sarcasm and minimal argumentation, if your efforts on here are anything to go by.

    In any case the Pielkes have become remarkably more skeptical of wild claims made in climate science. I think they’ve realised that another Hockey Stick fiasco could send climatology back to the scientific backwater whence it came.

  418. jae
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 3:47 PM | Permalink

    Wait a minute–I have never said you were affiliated with the Sierra Club. That’s Bloom. I take back my apology.

  419. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 4:03 PM | Permalink

    Bloom – Sierra Club, Green Party, …….. ,

  420. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 6:33 PM | Permalink

    In any case the Pielkes have become remarkably more skeptical of wild claims made in climate science.

    Sr. has always had a more conservative viewpoint (though not really as “skeptical” as he seems now). Jr., however, in my opinion, was almost an alarmist of sorts. Some of his recent statements have been rather grounded.

    Mark

  421. Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 6:52 PM | Permalink

    #420 Pielke Sr. makes some valid scientific points. We need more like him. Jr. knows nothing about the science (and doesn’t claim to). His views on climate policy are not always easy to follow though. Social scientists can say one thing one day and another thing the next day, and still claim to be consistent…

  422. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 11:09 PM | Permalink

    Re 400, Doug, thanks for your comment. You say:

    Willis,
    Why not correct the total count of hurricanes using your plot of percentage that are landfalling? You could take the mean percentage for 1958-present (about 15%) and divide that into the smoothed percentage means you show (about 25% in the earlier data) for a multiplication factor about 1.67 on average, for the earlier, with a smaller multiplier for say 1930-1957.

    If you do so, I think you will find peaks in hurricanes centered around 1890 and 1935 that have higher counts than now using decadal means.

    Looking forward to seeing such a plot.

    Comment by Douglas Hoyt “¢’‚¬? 24 August 2006 @ 12:43 pm

    Well, easier said than done. Come along with me on a journey through the math.

    I thought about doing it your way (increase the numbers by some kind of multiplier), but that assumed that the missing hurricanes were proportional to the number of landfalling hurricanes. So first, I thought I’d see if that was true.

    To determine that, I took the linear regression of total hurricanes over landfalling hurrincanes for the period since 1951 (where I figured we have the most accurate figures), and compare it to the earlier century (1851 – 1950). To my surprise, I found that the slopes were identical to two significant digits::

    1851-1950 T = 1.30 L + 5.4
    1951-2005 T = 1.26 L + 9.0

    where T = Total hurricanes and L = landfalling hurricanes.

    This strongly implied that the chances of missing a hurricane did not depend on the number of landfalling hurricanes.

    This left the problem of exactly how to apportion the missing hurricanes. Should they be apportioned based on the number of total hurricanes in a year, figuring if there were more hurricanes in a given year, that more were more likely missed? Or the reverse, figuring that if the numbers were low, it meant that some were missed?

    Actually, the slope of the two linear regressions implies that on average we are missing 3.6 hurricanes each year over the earlier period. The best way to apportion the hurricanes, in the absense of any other information, is to add them evenly along the entire period. Kinda bozo, but it has one great advantage, which is it leaves any underlying cycles and standard deviations unaltered. Here are the two records, the original unadjusted version and the one with my adjustments:

    Now, before Steve Bloom or DanàƒÆ’à‚ⶠmakes some disparaging, sly, nasty remark about my ancestry or my qualifications or my motives or the value of my analysis, let me explain why I do these kinds of analyses. It’s because I don’t trust the plumbers that Steve and DanàƒÆ’à‚ⶠput so much stock in, not one bit. I’ve seen too much scamming and bogus statistics and hype and bad mathematics and all kinds of bovine excrement being passed off as science by those jokers. If this were being done by amateurs, it might be understandable, but this is being done by Michael Mann and Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt and far too many of the stellar luminaries in the field.

    So me, I do the math myself. I go back to the original sources and run the numbers myself, draw up the graphs, and come to my own conclusions. That’s one of the beauties of climate science … it’s not rocket science. In this case, my conclusion is, the number of Atlantic hurricanes hasn’t changed much in the last 150 years.

    Steve and DanàƒÆ’à‚ⶠand a lot of folks seem to think that if some piece of research has been done by somebody with a degree or somebody who does this for a living, and then has been published in some prestigious journal, you don’t have to think about it critically, you can simply believe it.

    Me, I take a different tack “¢’‚¬? I read the research, and I think about it. I don’t pay any attention to who wrote it, or where it was published. I read it and think about it.

    Often, I apply the simplest of common sense tests to the data. If we add one watt/m2 to the 490 watts/m2 currently heating the surface, will it make much difference? If 324 watts of downwelling IR have changed the earth’s temperature by 33°, will another watt change it one degree?

    In general, I am very suspicious of several things. One is correlations that are too good to be true. Hansen’s “smoking gun” alignment of computer results and ocean temperatures comes to mind, you can read about it here.

    Correlations in nature are rarely that good. (I seriously doubt whether Hansen will extend his study for two years, given the recent paper in Nature showing that the ocean has cooled markedly from 2003 to 2005. He’ll just say he’s “moved on” …)

    The second is computer models of the climate. I have said it before, but it bears repeating. The climate system is a non-linear, multi-stable, internally and externally driven, resonant, optimally turbulent, constructal terawatt-scale heat engine with a large number of known and unknown drivers and feedbacks. It has five major subsystems (ocean, atmosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere), each of which has feedbacks both within itself and with all the other subsystems. We cannot even successfully model any of the five subsystems. Computer simulation of turbulent systems is in its infancy. The climate is far and away the most complex system that humans have ever tried to model, and we’ve only been at it for a few years. The idea that we can now predict the climate of 100 hears hence is a joke.

    The third is results which require sophisticated analysis to tease out a tiny signal which is buried in a mass of noise. The potential for error and either conscious or unconscious manipulation of the results is simply too large to put much trust in any such results.

    The fourth is any explanation involving “positive feedback”. The earth’s climate has stayed amazingly stable for a couple billion years. This means that negative feedbacks must predominate.

    The final one is consensus, particularly the IPCC consensus. For example, the IPCC blindly accepts the results from all climate models, without even the slightest attempt to find out if each one is any good. This is all too typical of the thought processes, or lack thereof, of the IPCC. The current state of climate science is a scandal. If Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and Gavin Schmidt all agree on something, it’s most likely wrong — see their recent Svalbard nonsence that I have chronicled on this site. The consensus of fools is worthless, and a consensus of savants is not much better.

    So, my response to this torrent of bad data and hyped results is, I run the numbers myself, and I think about them. I don’t depend on anyone else “¢’‚¬? not on a plumber, not on a prestigious journal, not even on Steve M. I know it’s a novel concept, but I highly recommend it. So, Steve Bloom, and DanàƒÆ’à‚ⶬ before reaching for your electronic pens … think about this stuff yourself. Don’t listen to anyone, think for yourselves. Don’t both with ad hominem attacks, don’t waste your time being snide and nasty about my work, just think about it …

    Radiation heating the earth’s surface is predicted to go from 490 to 491 w/m2 … EVERYONE PANIC!!!

    w.

  423. James Lane
    Posted Aug 24, 2006 at 11:38 PM | Permalink

    Nice post Willis.

  424. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 12:58 AM | Permalink

    Re #424: Yes, a very nice invention of those storms entirely out of thin air. Willis, I’m a believer in proper skepticism, but that’s hardly a justification for what you did here. Just two points off the top of my head: Observations improved throughout that period such that missed storms would have to be concentrated in the early part of it, and the data problem is probably primarily not missed storms at all but rather underestimeated/overestimated intensity and incomplete track information.

    BTW, Lyman et al was in GRL, not Nature. It’s an interesting paper, but if you followed the discussion you will know that there is a problem with the authors’ conclusion that to account for thie observations the freshwater inflow into the oceans must be 6 mm/yr for the last two years (rather than the 2 mm/yr figure inferred from the very recent GRACE data). This would be rather getting very close to abrupt climate change territory if true, and is hardly something in which denialists should take comfort! On the face of it, scientists who commented thought it more likely that there was a problem with the data collection or that warm water is escaping into the deep oceans. Both of those explanations would be far less amazing, but Lyman et al seem convinced it must be freshwater inflow.

    I should add that I did not respond to Michael Jankowski’s attempted refutation (in a different thread) of the above reasoning. He had brought up older data to try to show that there must have been comparable freshwater water inflows in the recent past. The short answer is that very recent data (via GRACE just in the last year or so, the ARGO float network in the last two years, and increased accuracy in sea surface altimetry) are vastly more accurate, so we can be much more sure that there’s a real conflict in the numbers.

  425. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 2:00 AM | Permalink

    Re 424, Steve, first you bust me for the “invention” of storms “out of thin air” … then you bust me for not inventing them properly …

    The data problem is missed storms as well as intensity and track info, we’ve been through that already, I showed that the ratio of known storms to total storms had changed from about 25% in the early record to about 15% in the later record, clearly indicating missed storms. See post 395, which also refutes your idea that “observations improved throughout that period”. Other than the first decade of the record, the ratio remained around 25% … haven’t you been following this thread?

    Finally, yes, there are questions about the Lyman data … my point was simply that Hansen’s paper, showing perfect alignment of sea temperatures and his computer model, was doubtful because it was too good. The Lyman data was only a small part of that, you can ignore my comment entirely, because Hansen’s study was bogus with or without Lyman.

    In the future, please engage your brain before speaking up. I requested that you not get all nasty about my calculations, I explained why I do them, I explained that they are a first cut at improving what we all agree is problematic data, data that everyone agrees is missing storms in the early part of the record, and what’s the first thing out of your mouth?

    Foul nastiness, accusations of inventing storms …

    w.

  426. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 2:57 AM | Permalink

    Re #425: Willis, referring me back to your own prior calculation doesn’t help. But as I re-read tour #395 I did spot this sentence from the HURDAT methodology: “This allows for adjustment of the existing track and intensity estimates as well as occassionally adding a new tropical storm or hurricane to the database that was not previously recognized as being a tropical cyclone.” Note the misspelled word. IOW, they don’t expect to find many. If there was any validity to the adjustment you propose, don’t you think it would have occurred to some hurricane specialist? Also, you make a very big and very unjustified assumption that there was nothing in the past that affected either the proportion of landfalling storms or the records of them.

  427. jae
    Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 10:51 AM | Permalink

    426: Hey, Dano, a lot of this stuff has already been published in peer-reviewed journals.

  428. John Cross
    Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 11:35 AM | Permalink

    Willis – I give up. I already posted a way of looking at your numbers that shows that something is wrong with them and you just ignored it. I gave a reference in the text that disputed your number and you ignored it. This is of course your right, but in that case please don’t use several paragraphs to explain how you examine the science.

    John

  429. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 11:54 AM | Permalink

    re: #427

    You’ve got me confused. What message of Willis are you complaining about? I just went back and looked at every message you have on this thread and none of them concerns storms, what Willis is discussing lately. You had a lot of messages on IR feedbacks, but unless you mention a message number nobody, including Willis, is able to guess what you’re talking about.

  430. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 11:56 AM | Permalink

    But this is your worst nightmare, isn’t it? A long-time confirmed skeptic, the originator of hurricane theory (you knew that, yes?) whose own work predicted we shouldn’t be seeing a detectable signal yet, compelled by his research to revise his views.

    From the Q&A, response to #7:

    When this increase in population and wealth is accounted for, there is no discernible trend left in the hurricane damage data…we estimate that it would take at least another 50 years to detect any long-term trend in U.S. landfalling hurricane statistics, so powerful is the role of chance in these numbers.

    Maybe his grandkids will be able to “detect” a “discernible trend” of any importance before they die.

  431. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 12:09 PM | Permalink

    RE: “Observations improved throughout that period such that missed storms would have to be concentrated in the early part of it”

    And so, based on that, an even better correction factor might be possible. Now, imagining that such a factor would distribute more of the missed storms earlier in the pre 1950 period, think about how the curve would then turn out. Great idea Steve B. Maybe Willis can try it.

  432. charles
    Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 1:53 PM | Permalink

    I like W’s ability to put things in context.

    “Radiation heating the earth’s surface is predicted to go from 490 to 491 w/m2 … EVERYONE PANIC!!!”

    Rather than panic I look forward to the world edging ever so slightly toward a tropical climate (mental picture!) away from an artic climate (mental picture!).

  433. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 2:43 PM | Permalink

    Re 431, Steve S., thanks for picking up on this question. You say:

    RE: “Observations improved throughout that period such that missed storms would have to be concentrated in the early part of it”

    And so, based on that, an even better correction factor might be possible. Now, imagining that such a factor would distribute more of the missed storms earlier in the pre 1950 period, think about how the curve would then turn out. Great idea Steve B. Maybe Willis can try it.

    I had considered doing that, but I felt that if I did so, I would be accused of introducing an artificial trend into the data. So I added the storms level all the way across the board, no introduced trend.

    However, it is clear that, while for the most part the landfall/total ratio is either about 25% or about 15%, there are two transition periods. The first is at the start of the data, where the ratio is about 40%, and the other is during the transition from the 25% to the 15%.

    To weight the additional storms based solely on the L/T ratio, however, would remove other cyclical swings … actually, it could be done, by using a very wide gaussian average to filter out decadal differences, and use that to determine the appropriate amount of additional storms …

    Let me think about that one …

    w.

  434. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 2:45 PM | Permalink

    Re #431: I never underestimate the power of imagination in AGW denialism, Steve S. But, taking your comment at face value:

    “And so, based on that, an even better correction factor might be possible.”

    Well, I suppose it might be. But does anyone in the hurricane field think there’s the faintest possibility that it is? Not to my knowledge. Do you have some scientific basis for actually thinking so? By all means let’s hear it.

  435. jae
    Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 2:53 PM | Permalink

    I never underestimate the power of imagination in AGW denialism, Steve S. But, taking your comment at face value:

    Why does this make me think about climate models?

  436. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 3:17 PM | Permalink

    Well, per the suggestions by Steve Bloom and Steve Sadlov, here’s the latest adjustments:

    Recent measurements have shown that one hurricane in six (14%) of all hurricanes make landfall in the US. This has remained the same for the entire modern period (1960 onwards).

    Early observations (1850s) of total hurricanes found only about three times the number of landfalling hurricanes, indicating that about half were missed. This number gradually increased to about four times landfalling, and basically held there until about 1925, when it gradually started to decrease to the modern value.

    I have adjusted the number of total hurricanes upwards based on the year to year average value of landfalling/total hurricanes, using a long-period (57 year = +/-3 SD) gaussian average to retain decadal fluctuations.

    w.

  437. Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

    re 422:

    Willis (and doug)

    Often, I apply the simplest of common sense tests to the data. If we add one watt/m2 to the 490 watts/m2 currently heating the surface, will it make much difference? If 324 watts of downwelling IR have changed the earth’s temperature by 33°, will another watt change it one degree?

    As mentioned earlier the radiative equilibrium concept dictates that earth+atmosphere Top of atmosphere outgouing radiation is in equilibrium with incoming radiation.

    Let’s say that
    this modtran run pictures the case of present equilibrium. 375 ppm midlatitude summer.
    Iout = 279.648 W/m2
    Ground T = 294.20 K

    Double CO2 to 750 ppm:
    this modtran run pictures the case of 750 ppm midlatitude summer.
    Iout = 276.791 W / m2
    Ground T = 294.20 K

    restoring equilibrium:
    this modtran run pictures the case of 750 ppm midlatitude summer, with a surface temperature offset of 0.85 degrees.

    Iout = 279.648 W/m2
    Ground T = 295.05 K

    so for a doubling of CO2 a temperature increase of 0.85 degrees is needed to restore radiative equilibrium.

    finally, removing all major greenhouse gases (including water vapour and stratospheric ozone) NB this can’t be completely done in this online version as NOx cannot be set to zero:

    this modtran run pictures the case of 0 ppm midlatitude summer.

    Iout = 371.776 W/m2
    Ground T = 294.20 K

    Balancing radiation:
    this modtran run pictures the case of 0 ppm midlatitude summer, with a surface temperature offset of -21.9 degrees.

    Iout = 279.648 W/m2
    Ground T = 272.30 K

    so climate sensitivity:
    zero ghg: 21.9/(371.776-279.648) = 0.23771 K/Wm-2
    double CO2: 92.128/(279.648-276.791) = 0.29751 K/Wm-2

  438. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 4:19 PM | Permalink

    Hans, thanks for the calculations. You say:

    As mentioned earlier the radiative equilibrium concept dictates that earth+atmosphere Top of atmosphere outgouing radiation is in equilibrium with incoming radiation.

    While this is true, that balance only applies to the whole earth over a period of time, not to one point on the earth at one time (say midlatitude summer, as in your example). Therefore, your calculation, which assumes that balance, is not correct “¢’‚¬? there is no reason to assume the balance at that one point in time and space.

    For the whole earth, the accepted value of the TOA outgoing radiation is about 235 w/m2, not 279 w/m2 as your example shows for the midlatitude summer.

    Thus, your calculations are far from correct, and do not give the right answers to the questions that you are asking.

    w.

  439. Douglas Hoyt
    Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 4:27 PM | Permalink

    Hans, Modtran only calculates numbers for clear skies, if I recall correctly. The empirical results involve both clear and cloudy skies. This may explain why one gets different answers. Also, negative feedbacks as indicated in Karner’s study, such as increased cloud cover, may depress the climate sensitivity.

  440. Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 4:58 PM | Permalink

    Thus, your calculations are far from correct, and do not give the right answers to the questions that you are asking.

    are yours any better?

  441. Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 5:04 PM | Permalink

    willis you still haven’t explained why the blackbody approximation is valid on a planet with an ghg atmosphere. I think it isn’t, because the lapse rate won’t go steeper, ending up with a radiation deficit, the surface being to cool for radiative equilibrium. Hence the surface will warm up until equilibrium is reestablished.

  442. Phil B.
    Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 5:39 PM | Permalink

    Re 437, Hans, in your Intensity vs Wavelength plots what are the 300k, 280k, etc lines. I thought they were from Planck equation but the maximums (peaks) don’t seem to match up. Thanks Phil

  443. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 5:56 PM | Permalink

    Re 441, Hans, not sure what your question is. The surface of the planet radiates close to a blackbody, as the emissivity is >0.95. What does a GHG atmosphere have to do with it? Everything radiates, trees, houses, people and planets, with or without an atmosphere. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you are asking.

    Also, you ask if my calculations are any better … which calculations of mine are you referring to?

    Many thanks,

    w.

  444. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 8:50 PM | Permalink

    Hans, I’ve been thinking about your statement that the surface is too cool for radiative equilibrium. The reason is, the equilibrium does not involve just radiation. Let me start with the Kiehl/Trenberth energy budget, which most everyone in the field agrees is at least close on the major flows. It is not internally balanced, but let me deal with that later. Here’s the budget:

    Now my point here is that the surface is not in radiative equilibrium, but in total equilibrium. It receives radiation from the sun, and from downwelling IR from the “greenhouse effect.” It loses heat through radiation, conduction, evaporation, and hydrometeors. These all balance, so that on average the surface both receives and loses about 490 w/m2.

    Now, the whole system is in balance, and in approximate thermal equilibrium. The planet as a whole receives about what it radiates, and the same is true of the atmosphere and the surface. However, this is only on average.

    For example, the equator receives much more energy from the sun than it radiates back out into space. It gets rid of the excess by circulating it to the poles. At the poles, on the other hand, the earth radiates much more energy than it receives.

    And this is why your calculation doesn’t work “¢’‚¬? because at any point on earth at any time, there is no balance. It will radiate more than it receives, or less, but the odds of any point being in balance at any moment are almost nil … and if it is in balance, it will go out of balance within minutes as the conditions change.

    w.

  445. maksimovich
    Posted Aug 25, 2006 at 9:16 PM | Permalink

    Re 327 the observations are correct.There are also substantial decreases in both SH m-high latitude SST and stratospheric temperatures.This is expected due to the stage of the solar mimima occuring in march this year.The unpredicted occurence of La Nina and the observation of increased EEP(energetic electron precipitaion).The decreasing SH high latitude pressure gradients etc.

    Somewhat higher SH stratospheric temperature changes from 0.5mid to 2k are evident as expected.The increased EEP should see further T decrease of around 5k over the High southern latitudes due to increased ozone depletion of around 30% to 45% in spring due to increased stratospheric cloud and photolysis.

    The decreasing SH winter T should bring some intersting results to the Atlantic temperature gradients.

  446. David Archibald
    Posted Aug 26, 2006 at 9:47 PM | Permalink

    Re 358, Dano, you thought you were mocking when spoke of switching to medicine, but you speak a beautiful truth. I am already there. I published in Energy and Environment in March, and at the same time my anticancer formulation, which I co-invented with two professors from Purdue, has a number of people with throat cancer and prostate cancer in remission. You don’t have to give up your day job to do this, because I drilled a couple of oilwells (as operational director) and ran a company that discovered a zinc deposit (as CEO) in the first half of the year.

    Re 445, the solar polar magnetic fields are weak, and the sunspot minimum may not be until 2008.

  447. maksimovich
    Posted Aug 27, 2006 at 1:13 AM | Permalink

    re 446 No we are at solar mimima,this does not preclude X solar events or enhanced cosmic radiation,indeed we would increased cosmic radiation.

    Early correlation would be in the SH after spring sunrise in the Antarctic and observation of increased stratospheric ozone.

  448. bender
    Posted Aug 27, 2006 at 6:09 PM | Permalink

    bender:
    “If you accept that hurricane occurrence is the part product of a chaotic/random process, then you understand that you could have gotten a different set of hurricane numbers if you “replayed” the earth’s climate a second time, with identical initial conditions.”

    Bloom:
    Well, no

    Say what?! I missed this laughable retort the first time around.

    Bloom, there is a 1963 paper called “Deterministic nonperiodic flow” by Lorenz you may want to read … and understand. Weather, in case you haven’t heard, is a chaotic process. Do you know what that means, or do you need a lesson there too?

  449. Steve Bloom
    Posted Aug 27, 2006 at 9:15 PM | Permalink

    Re #448: bender, try to tone down the contempt, OK? As a purely theoretical exercise, I’ll take your word for that. In the real world, our knowledge about the number of hurricanes since 1970 is complete and accurate. As we have discussed (and as did Curry et al at some length), there is uncertainty about the intensity categorization, but that’s a different matter.

    To return to my finger analogy, there is some uncertainty prior to the exercise, but after 200 people have independently counted them? In the real world, no.

    If you disagree, please go out and find even *one* hurricane specialist who will agree the satellite-era (post-1970) number is uncertain. Good luck with that.

  450. Mark T
    Posted Aug 27, 2006 at 10:10 PM | Permalink

    Re #448: bender, try to tone down the contempt, OK?

    I suppose he’s simply tired of your contempt. I don’t blame him.

    Your finger analogy, as has been _repeatedly_ pointed out, is not legitimate. That you continue to harp on it is evidence of not only your contempt, but your unwillingness, or inability, to learn.

    Mark

  451. Pat Frank
    Posted Aug 27, 2006 at 10:19 PM | Permalink

    #449 — Steve B., you missed Bender’s point. His point is not that the number of hurricases since 1970 is not well-known.

    His point is that if one could scroll Earth back to 1970 and then let it go again, the emergent re-run climate between 1970 to the present would exhibit a different number of hurricanes with a different pattern of annual incidence.

    That’s the nature of a chaotic multiple-feedback process. It’s quasi-random with a high dependence on initial conditions, and with multiple underlying quasi-periods that produce unpredictable short-term excursions and occasional jumps to new meta-stable states. All without the need for external forcings, by the way.

    Therefore, in terms of climate, the number of hurricanes and their annual tempo is not, and never can be, strictly a measure of some linear climate trend. The 1970-present enumeration of hurricanes should be seen in that light.

  452. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 27, 2006 at 10:29 PM | Permalink

    Steve Bloom:

    But just for fun, and thanking you again for your forbearance given my lack of a statistics background, answer me this: Hold up your two hands in front of your face. Count the fingers. Get a couple hundred people together and have them count them, too. Everybody gets ten, right? (Of course we assume your past doesn’t include any birth defects, digital accidents, etc.) Now, as a purely technical exercise, what’s the sample error? This is the same sense in which there is no error in the hurricane count during the peiod of comprehensive satellite coverage. Much like fingers held in front of your face, they’re a little hard to miss.

    Steve B. – look, there’s no reason why anyone should have to explain to you why finger counts as you define them isn’t a stochastic process. Get a high school statistics text and find out why finger counting and hurricane counting are different. Come on back to the discussion after you’ve done that, but otherwise I’d appreciate it if you stayed on the sidelines in such discussions. Sorry about that.

  453. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 28, 2006 at 4:50 PM | Permalink

    Here’s an pdate to an interesting working paperu by Ai Deng that I discussed once before which discusses testing problems with ARMA(1,1) noise:

    One of the reasons that Phillips’ (1986) asymptotics is not expect to be adequate in explainingFSS’s findings is because his asymptotic framework does not capture the fact that dependent variable (the stock returns) behaves like nearly white noise, but has strong AR persistence, with cancelling MA persistence. However, this feature fits well in the asymptotic framework of nearly white noise developed in Nabeya and Perron (1994), see also Perron and Ng (1996).

    One of the reasons that Phillips’ (1986) asymptotics is not expect to be adequate in explainingFSS’s findings is because his asymptotic framework does not capture the fact that dependent variable (the stock returns) behaves like nearly white noise, but has strong AR persistence, with cancelling MA persistence. However, this feature fits well in the asymptotic framework of nearly white noise developed in Nabeya and Perron (1994), see also Perron and Ng (1996).

  454. Posted Aug 30, 2006 at 3:31 AM | Permalink

    #61 (Martin Ringo) :

    But my sympathy with the difficulty and my irritation with definitions and algebra are minor. The purpose of the Appendix is to present issues regarding the statistical analysis of trends, and in this it is, if not completely, largely misleading. Trends are problematic. Trend hunters should come to field with a large bag of humility.

    I agree. Chap 3:

    All climate records, therefore, are ‘noisy,’ with the noise of this natural variability tending to obscure the externally driven changes.

    In other words, due to this damned temperature signal, we can’t find the true signal. How can we distinguish natural variability and external drivers? I wouldn’t accept ‘all signals are smooth’-solution. (..signals are smooth, sometimes the signal does not exhibit long-term memory of its phase.. where do these come from?)

  455. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Sep 5, 2006 at 12:07 PM | Permalink

    Hmmmmm……

    “Two climate change sceptics, who believe the dangers of global warming are overstated, have put their money where their mouth is and bet $10,000 that the planet will cool over the next decade.

    The Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev have agreed the wager with a British climate expert, James Annan.

    The pair, based in Irkutsk, at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics, believe that global temperatures are driven more by changes in the sun’s activity than by the emission of greenhouse gases. They say the Earth warms and cools in response to changes in the number and size of sunspots. Most mainstream scientists dismiss the idea, but as the sun is expected to enter a less active phase over the next few decades the Russian duo are confident they will see a drop in global temperatures.” (The Guardian)

  456. ET SidViscous
    Posted Sep 5, 2006 at 12:12 PM | Permalink

    This first happened a year ago.

  457. Bob K
    Posted Sep 5, 2006 at 12:58 PM | Permalink

    I wonder whose figures are they going to consider as being the deciding authority.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,329 other followers

%d bloggers like this: