Unthreaded #23

Let’s try this again. If there are things that people think are interesting to read, please post them here. If there are topics that people would like to have covered in a thread, please make the suggestion here. But please don’t use this thread for extended debate of issues – even if they seem important to you (and even if they are important.) If the topic is important, I’d rather have a thread so that anything useful can be located subsequently. Topics such as IR radiation, solar correlations, CO2 forcing, H2O feedbacks, are all important topics and all worthy of separate threads. If I haven’t posted a thread, it’s not because I don’t that that the issue isn’t worth discussing, it’s because I haven’t got to analysis of the topic because the way that I do each topic takes time and I’m already over-extended. If there is some article that you think worth reading, post the reference, but please refrain from exposition of your own views on these matters until the matter is threaded.


629 Comments

  1. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 7:33 AM | Permalink

    My 84-year old mother has a travel article published in today’s Globe and Mail here.

  2. MrPete
    Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 7:50 AM | Permalink

    Steve, your mom sounds wonderful!

    Suggestion: make a page with “future topics” — things you recognize ought to be covered some day. You can add as you see fit. Encourage people to look there before piling on the requests here…

  3. Randy
    Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 7:57 AM | Permalink

    a kindred spirit – most be something about the water in Canada . . . another math “snoop”

    CRUSADE AGAINST SLOPPY MATHEMATICS

    With large frauds found in global warming claims

    Douglas Keenan, a London-based Canadian mathematician, has made it his mission to lead the battle against the sloppy or malicious use of mathematics. You might think there isn’t much scope for different opinions in mathematics, but when you’re dealing with the interpretation of data, it’s entirely possible for divergences of views to arise. The wrong interpretation can be made at times, and even consciously made. In particular, in the field of climate studies, opposing points of view are often backed up by scientific research that is based on the mathematical analysis of data. Because mathematics gives such pieces of work a stamp of credibility, politicians often rely on them. It is therefore all the more important for them to be carried out with care.

    . . . the rest is at http://antigreen.blogspot.com/ entries for Sunday Oct 21st (he’s in Oz)

  4. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 8:10 AM | Permalink

    Steve, this should be Unthreaded # 23, not a second Unthreaded #22

  5. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 8:32 AM | Permalink

    I signal a very early start of European winter.
    Snow and frost by mid October in Russia, Finland or Scandinavia may be unusual but surely not exceptional. Even in Poland and the Baltic states it is unusual but not a record.
    It is more rare and almost exceptional in Central-Southern Europe: today we had snowfalls in Munich, Salzburg and Vienna; and, really exceptional and maybe record-breaking, we had some flake of snow or some snowfall in Italian towns like Bologna (plain south of river Po, North Italy) or Ascoli and Teramo (near the Adriatic Sea, hills of Central Italy), even with frost just above 200-400m altitude in the North and 600-900m altitude in Central Italy; while, on the Italian Alps, they are already preparing ski paths with snow cannons below 2000m altitude (very early, mid altitudes ski season begins on 8th December, sometime before even November, it was since 2003 and 1997 that we did not have snow so low for October), and remember that snow cannons may work only with temperature some °C

  6. Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 8:32 AM | Permalink

    You have a cool mother.

  7. Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 8:38 AM | Permalink

    Excellent article on CRUSADE AGAINST SLOPPY MATHEMATICS, “Douglas Keenan, a London-based Canadian mathematician, has made it his mission to lead the battle against the sloppy or malicious use of mathematics.” http://antigreen.blogspot.com/ and http://www.informath.org/ his website. I suggest Mr. Keenan as a mathematician would be a potent ally in your work here.

    Steve: If you look at the early posts in this category, you’ll see that the Chinese issue, one of the issues mentioned here, was originally raised at climateaudit (which Doug K acknowledges in his article) http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=52 .

  8. Larry
    Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 8:54 AM | Permalink

    7, this has a familiar ring to it:

    The work aroused Keenan’s suspicion, and he wanted to test its mathematical foundations. In order to do this however, he needed the raw data-but the authors were not prepared to hand it out. It was only after two requests to Nature that they finally handed their documents over. Keenan immediately made a find.

  9. Larry
    Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 8:57 AM | Permalink

    OMG, it gets worse:

    The authors had smoothed the data for their study, confused standard errors with standard deviations, used incorrect parameters, and confused daily temperatures with average temperatures. Once all these sources of error are taken into account, the year 2003 does indeed display high temperatures, but not unexpectedly high ones. It’s no surprise that the Nature editors hadn’t noticed anything, since the data was never put at their disposal, and they never asked for it either. Had they done so, they would easily have seen through the authors’ game. The mere fact that the grape harvest model gave a temperature for 2003 that was 2.4 degrees Celsius above the temperature actually measured by Meteo France should have made the editors suspicious.

    This makes dendrothermometry look like science by comparison.

  10. Larry
    Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 10:32 AM | Permalink

    What would that be? Vinothermometry?

  11. See - owe to Rich
    Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 11:25 AM | Permalink

    I think this article, which I drafted before seeing Steve’s plea at the top of Unthreaded 23, fits in nicely with his suggestion that we should nominate subjects worthy of threads.

    I should like to add some comments to the topic which John V and others have aired recently, on what else other than CO2 could explain the increase of about 0.5C in the period 1975-2005. This seems to be an important enough topic to be worth its own location on this site (or should there be a wiki for it?). So consider the following, all under the assumption that significantly less than 100% of the 0.5C is due to CO2:

    1. It is a natural variation and we shall probably never know what caused it. This sounds lame, but it is approximately the position of an eminent climatologist. I asked Lindzen this question at the Institute of Physics in June, and that was basically his answer, plus a murmur about oceans.

    2. It is due to heat exchange with oceans, and while we do not understand it now, one day we might. This is a serious possibility, since it is known that the oceans have a vast heat content compared with the atmosphere. If ocean currents change in cyclical ways, and have recently brought less cold deep water up to the surface than usual, then global warming would be expected. Kristen Byrnes (http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderd/id11.html but this link isn’t working for me) has analyzed La Ninas and El Ninos and found that a predominance of the former was a possible explanation of cooling from 1940-1970. Of course, in cycles, what goes up must come down and vice versa

    3. It is due to changes in albedo, which may, or may not, be understood in terms of solar changes and length and strength of the solar cycle. Anthony Watts has recently posted on albedo here.

    4. It is due to pollution (oil) on the oceans (I saw that suggestion somewhere here).

    There may be several others of which I am not aware.

    Rich.

  12. Stephen Richards
    Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 11:38 AM | Permalink

    Don’t knock the vinothermometry. My neighbours all had enormous vignoble until they retired and kept maticulous records of rainfall, temperature and humidity (mildiou). Incidently, we had our first octobre frost for many years here in SW france this morning.

  13. Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

    Your mom is a brilliant writer, Steve M.

  14. Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 12:06 PM | Permalink

    # 12

    Stephen Richards,

    Nothing unusual here. An autumn with 93.20 °F at noon during 17 seconds and subtle cold dew at night. The temperature yesterday was 87.80 °F at San Antonio-New Braunfels area, although the higher temperature at New Braunfels was 86.00 °F. That is the heat island effect because San Antonio is a larger city. We had tried to plant vines here and Ginkgo biloba, but they did not survive to the extreme heat and dryness of the region.

  15. Anna Lang
    Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 12:55 PM | Permalink

    RE #1

    That is an eloquent piece of writing, Mrs. McIntyre. Thank you for the momentary escape from another rainy and snowy weekend!

  16. Mhaze
    Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 1:36 PM | Permalink

    An interesting topic I would nominate for a thread would be the shallow ice core drilling gas composion work. This has been used to give CO2 data for the last 200 years, but to what precision and accuracy?

    Obviously, this is a problematic area. Can it be reasoanbly said that shallow ice core data supposedly 50-150 years old provides an accurate reading of CO2 gas within 2% or 5%? There are conflicts with stomata data and ice cores, but it seems that ice cores predominate in mainstream work on climate.

    There have been some threads on ice cores on CA, but these seem to have been rather short. Perhaps no one was interested?

    Steve: I have no plans to initiate a thread on this topic. It’s a topic that I have repeatedly discouraged here as it leads to papers that I do not endorse but I do not wish to take the time to argue about and I do not want this blog to be associated with.

  17. Philip_B
    Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 2:31 PM | Permalink

    I agree with John V that you cannot just dismiss the ROW data. Other places have high quality networks and they clearly show warming, in particular parts of Western Europe and Australia. Where I differ, is I consider a global mean temperature, further reduced to a decadal trend, an uninteresting statistic, which doesn’t tell us very much about what is causing the warming, and arguably obscures far more than it reveals. What I’d like to see is a thread that looks at when and where warming (and cooling) is occuring and discussion of why?, winter, summer, day, night, urban, rural, etc. What do sites that are cooling have in common, what do sites that are warming in daytime during the winter have in common, etc?

    For example, this study from Pune, India finds winter cooling and summer (monsoon season) warming over the 20th century. Their explanation of increasing particulates causing the winter cooling and the monsoon rains clearing the particulates along with an increase in cloud cover causing the summer warming seems plausible.

    Note, the link above is to a Google cache as the link to the original article is (temporarily?) broken.

  18. JM
    Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 3:00 PM | Permalink

    I have a problem to put to all of you:

    Temperature of the Earth atmosphere should depend of the heat flux from Earth’s interior. How do we know that this flux is constant?

  19. Larry
    Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 3:32 PM | Permalink

    RC is attempting to rebut Botkin.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/global-warming-delusions-at-the-wall-street-journal/

    It’s one of their lamer columns, but this is news to me:

    Botkin: The medieval optimum was a good time

    Response: Maybe it was, if you’re interested in Europe and don’t mind the droughts in the American Southwest. But the business-as-usual forecast for 2100 is an entirely different beast than the medieval climate. The Earth is already probably warmer than it was in medieval times. Beware the bait and switch!

    That’s the first time I’ve heard anyone claim that the medieval warm period coincided with a drought in the desert SW. Is this a new claim?

    Steve: There’s evidence of drought in the American SW. Some medieval trees are presently underwater in Sierra lakes. This was held by Llloyd and Graumlich to have produced lower treelines for foxtails (and presumably narrower rings) – which in the rubbery Team World is then interpreted as cold temperatures.

  20. Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 3:42 PM | Permalink

    # 18

    JM,

    We say it is constant just for convenience to make predictions and calculi about the core geodynamo. The heat flux from Earth’s core obviously is not constant; for example, the tip of the iceberg is that it varies with perihelion-aphelion of Earth and other physical variables of the system, like gravity, the Moon’s orbit, etc. Heat flux variability has not been considered for modeling climate because the energy sources of the geomagnetic dynamo remains unknown. Dr. Manuel released a precise hypothesis about the solar heat flux that could be related with or matched with Earth’s dynamics. I cannot go further because it would imply thermodynamics and I agree with Dr. McIntyre that it is a sharp and flaming topic.

  21. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 6:27 PM | Permalink

    RE 22. try this. unthreaded theme song;

  22. Svet
    Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 7:19 PM | Permalink

    How about a thread on Lindzen’s Iris Hypothesis? The recent paper
    Spencer, R.W., Braswell, W.D., Christy, J.R., Hnilo, J., 2007. “Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations” appears to resurrect it.

  23. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 7:54 PM | Permalink

    “Keeping then honest” (Global Warming) on CNN on now.

  24. Mark T
    Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 10:08 PM | Permalink

    BTW, for anyone that doesn’t understand why the term in a feedback loop must be less than 1, which necessarily converges, think about it this way:

    Feedback is an iterative update of the previous output, multiplied by some gain factor. Therefore, if the gain is g, and we consider a simple single feedback path with some delay, then the output at time 1 will have a term with gain g, at time 2 it will be two terms g + g*g, at time 3 it will be g + g*g + g*g*g, etc. Extending this out to time n, you get a summation of powers of g, or a summation of g^n (the highest power would be gain on the very first input, the next highest on the 2nd input, etc). A quick browse though any calculus text will point out that this is a well-known infinite series with a convergence of 1/(1-g) IF g is less than 1. If g is greater than 1, it will diverge exponentially. If it is equal to 1, it is marginally stable with divergence at a zero Hz input (that becomes a standard integrator). Note that it does not matter if the gain is positive or negative, only that its magnitude is less than 1.

    Mark

  25. MattN
    Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 10:55 PM | Permalink

    I’m cleaning out my moms basement today. I run across a stack of old Science News from the 80s. The April 30th 1988 edition coverstory: A Warmer World, page 282.

    The picture in the story is of the computer model projection. It predicts a 2-3C warming by 2010, beyond the warming of the 1980s.

    So. Here we are on the doorstep of 2010. How have we done? Were the models right? Did we warm 2-3C since the late 80s?

    The answer:

    [img]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/_nhshgl.gif[/img]

    Not even close. Maybe .3C.

    From the article:

    [quote]“If temperatures don’t follow the predicted path, it will mean the models are overestimating the greenhouse effect, says Hansen”[/quote]

    I’d say by at LEAST a factor of 10.

    BTW, that Hansen fellow would be James Hansen, head of NASA-GISS.

    And that concludes our lesson today.

  26. Posted Oct 20, 2007 at 11:58 PM | Permalink

    RE 16 reply:

    Well, it _is_ your blog.

    There is so little to grasp in this whole sorry affair that any solid facts have to be grasped. My take, so far, is that the SSTs are where the lifeboats are stowed: they need calibrating to remove the Folland and Parker correction (when the sterling work by Anthony Watts and his team is complete then I hope they turn their attention to that, using sea-influenced, land-based records). My eyeball estimate for global warming is .14 deg/decade since 1910.

    Marvellous though the dendro work is, it still addresses only a side-issue (as would the SST work). The big question remains: what is causing the warming? The smoking gun, the smoking cannon, is the isotope record. We know the CO2 excess is generated by fossil fuel because of the C13 ratio changes. This, to me, is much more convincing* than the ‘we know the carbon budget so this excess must be anthropogenic’ argument, which I find dubious in the extreme. But, it’s a big but, I can’t find the graphs — I’d like to see the twentieth century laid out on a line, the dips and rises. Are the isotopic changes upwards, a steady rise? Are there exceptions, excursions from the rise which would give clues to other mechanisms? Has anyone even considered other mechanisms?

    I’m delighted to see Palle’s work being discussed. Albedo change dwarfs the changed CO2 effect. Eventually we will have to look at the cause of that.

    This stuff really matters. Some of the CO2 storage proposals look downright dangerous to me. Before we embark on them, we’d better be sure we’re right.

    JF
    *’Much more’ is a comparative term.

  27. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 12:51 AM | Permalink

    JM

    I have a problem to put to all of you:

    Temperature of the Earth atmosphere should depend of the heat flux from Earth’s interior. How do we know that this flux is constant?

    We don’t. However, the total heat from the core amounts to 1.4 ZettaJoules/year compared to 3850 ZJ/year from incident solar radiation or less than 0.04%. Even a 10% change in core heat flux, which is highly unlikely, wouldn’t amount to much.

  28. Philip_B
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 1:17 AM | Permalink

    How do we know that this flux is constant?

    Without a large increase in volcanic activity, any changes in heat flux from the Earth’s interior would have to transmit through many kilometers of rock and water and therefore would happen very slowly, almost geological timescales, and hence nothing to worry about in human timescales.

  29. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 1:17 AM | Permalink

    GCMs explained, etc., 2007 papers

    Those interested in the status of modelling philosophy might gain from

    http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/u0106636v6g14764/

    Geoff.

  30. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 1:35 AM | Permalink

    Re #27 DeWitt Payne response

    Earth’s outgoing radiation. There has not been an adequate time span of temperature measurements at sufficient locations to answer this question. The nature and size of the adjustments that past data would need to make them correct, has not been concluded.

    The question can be replaced with “Do we know of reasons why the internally-derived heat output of the globe might change?” I have seen no theory that suggests any change, let alone appreciable change, since the thermal inertia is high and the main continuing source is an almost-stable decay of radioactive minerals, with no likely abrupt change. It is hard to implicate carbon dioxide.

    This leads to the next question, “Are there parts of the globe where this outgoing radiation has a particular effect?” and the answer is a qualitative “yes”, as per volcanos and sea floor spreading. Re the effect on marine temperatures. The global effect has been estimated as quite small as in #27. However, it should not be omitted from models that estimate sea level rise as it could act to raise sea levels and trigger increased awareness.

    Therefore, funds could perhaps be made available to create a comprehensive global model to predict future temperature effects, their socio-economic consequences and their danger to unique biota.

  31. henry
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 2:22 AM | Permalink

    There’s a paper out about droughts (length, frequencies, etc)

    This paper investigates the incidences of long-term droughts lasting ten years or longer throughout the world during the 20th century.

    The researchers discovered 30 such long-term droughts during the century. Seven occurred from 1901 to 1920, seven occurred from 1921 to 1940, eight occurred from 1941 to 1960, five occurred from 1961 to 1980 and only three occurred from 1981 to 2000.

    This data does not support the contention that, because of global warming (anthropogenic or natural), “droughts are becoming longer and more intense.”

    Narisma, G.T., Foley, J.A., Licker, R. and Ramankutty, N. 2007. Abrupt changes in rainfall during the twentieth century. Geophysical Research Letters 34: 10.1029/2006GL028628

  32. henry
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 2:35 AM | Permalink

    Re #25

    Lovely charts.

    Have been bouncing this idea around on Tamino’s blog, nobody there gets it.

    What reference did they use to come up with the zero line on that chart? Is it the average of the whole time record, or did they use a specific time period?

    Maybe a discussion of how the “world anomalies” are figured. Add to the discussion how the zero line can change if a different time period is used. (I agree the TREND wouldn’t change, but in order to make accurate comparisons, the reference must be understood).

    Even if there was a line on the chart that said Zero = 14C, that would allow other people to line up the charts better.

  33. James Erlandson
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 6:05 AM | Permalink

    Today’s Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal
    Global Warming Delusions The popular imagination has been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis.

    Global warming doesn’t matter except to the extent that it will affect life–ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary.

  34. MattN
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 6:18 AM | Permalink

    What reference did they use to come up with the zero line on that chart?

    I don’t know what CRU uses. The maps in the old Science News were based on normal defined from 1951-1980. Not that it matters. Reality is 1/10 of prediction no matter how you look at it.

  35. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 7:27 AM | Permalink

    #25 MattN:

    The picture in the story is of the computer model projection. It predicts a 2-3C warming by 2010, beyond the warming of the 1980s.

    I don’t why the magazine got this so wrong. Hansen’s paper from 1988 is here:
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

    There is a graph of temperatures predicted by the model on page 7.

    A cleaner version is near the bottom of this page and it includes observed temperatures:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

    The first thing to notice is that none of the scenarios predict 2-3 degC warming relative to the reference period. The worst-case model predicts ~1.5C. Perhaps the magazine mixed up Celsius and Fahrenheit.

    The second thing to notice is how well scenario B matches observed temperatures. (Scenario B was called the “most likely” scenario, and the one that closely matches actual emissions).

    The difference between model and prediction is ~10%. What does that say about the model?

  36. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 8:06 AM | Permalink

    #25. MAtt, can you scan the Science News article and post it up somewhere or email it to me so that we can see what it says exactly.

  37. MattN
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 8:17 AM | Permalink

    Steve, I’ll see what I can do. It might take me a day or so.

    John, the maps on page 8 are the ones in the Science News article. Maybe I’m interpreting it wrong, but I see more than a 1.5C projection from the 1980s to the 2010s. I thought it was closer to 2-3C.

    Let’s say the map really is a 1.5C projection. That would make the projection off by a factor of 5 (vs. 10).

    I am an engineer. My first job out of school was as a process engineer for an optical fiber company. If my yield and output projections were off by a factor of 5, I’d be fired.

  38. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 8:36 AM | Permalink

    MattN:
    Without seeing the article, I can’t say anything for sure, but I see two potential problems with your comparison:

    First, temperature plots from NASA are typically relative to 1951-1980 reference period. So the temperature increase would be from that period, not from 1988. The current temperature is ~0.6C above the reference period:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

    Second, you are comparing the worst-case (scenario A) instead of the most likely case (scenario B). The CO2 emissions in scenario A are much higher than reality.

    There is a graph on page 5 of the paper that shows scenario A warming of 2-3C by 2050 excluding aerosols. It is moderated to ~2.2C if aerosols are included (again, by 2050, not 2010).

  39. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 8:49 AM | Permalink

    #1: That’s as good as travel writing gets.

  40. MattN
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 9:08 AM | Permalink

    John, the maps on page eight of Hansen’s paper (the first link you poseted) are scenario B. I am not looking at scenario A. Scenario B is what was used in the Science News article.

    I really will try to get that article scanned and sent to Steve later today.

    As far as the chart in you skepticalscience link I’ll say this: its really much easier to hunt with a shotgun….

  41. Bruce
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 9:30 AM | Permalink

    JohnV

    Referring to the graph in #38,

    the jump in annual mean from 1908 to 1945 was .6C.

    It has only gone up .4C since.

    Why would anyone suggest the smaller jump wasn’t caused by some “unknown climate forcing” such as the huge change in solar energy reaching the earth?

  42. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 9:35 AM | Permalink

    NY times on The Future Is Drying Up. Ten pages dedicated to alarmist models.

  43. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 9:46 AM | Permalink

    Bruce, that’s not even what we’re talking about. Move on.

    SteveMc, your usage of 1934 vs 1998 for USA48 comparisons has led to this kind of ridiculous cherry-picking of single-year comparisons.

    Are we talking about climate (long term changes in weather patterns) or comparing randomly chosen record years?

    Steve: John V, NOAA issued press releases saying that 2006 was the warmest US year ever. Don’t blame me.

  44. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 9:49 AM | Permalink

    #40 MattN:

    its really much easier to hunt with a shotgun….

    If you compare observed temperatures to predicted temperatures using an emissions scenario that closely matches reality, and there is a good match.

    If you compare observed temperatures to emissions that do not match reality, there is a poor match.

    The first point supports the model. The second point shows that the model is sensitive to emissions. How can that be used as an argument against the model?

  45. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 10:26 AM | Permalink

    Models are sensitive to own ideas, not to reality. Some people are doing models that match with their ideas, then they compare their models with the real world; if the real world behaves differently, they fabricate some solutions so their ideas prevail over the real world. That is how models are working today in climate science.

  46. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 10:43 AM | Permalink

    John V, I do not know what you mean with “cherry-picking”, but if you are among the others who thinks that comparing records or analyse events from a precise year is useless or even wrong (for AGW hypotesis maybe?) I think you have no real good reason for that.
    1934 (for the USA only) was slightly warmer than 1998: then, is it a problem to you? Or just an observed record? Maybe also a little demonstration than actual and past warming effects are not so well understood, or something like this?
    It seems the same old speech to deny that since 1998 World is no more warming (neither cooling of course), because for someone choosing 1998 is just “cherry-picking” (since everything has both a start and an end, is it useless to try to find them? or, again, what is the matter that since 1998 no real warming happened?).
    I would be glad if yours was just a general complaint, and not this way of thinking.
    Anyway, I would wait you for a discussion on uncertainty of measures, not very likely scenarios and deliberately exciting media with such scenarios(saying just 20 years after: >).

  47. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 11:27 AM | Permalink

    Filippo Turturici:
    Don’t get me started on the global warming trend since 1998. Search Unthreaded #22 starting at comment #37.
    The year-to-year change in global average temperature has a distribution that looks normal and has a standard deviation of ~0.5C. So, it’s not surprising to see warm years scattered throughout the record. Since we’re talking about climate it’s more appropriate to look at longer term averages. It’s also more appropriate to look at trends (linear fits) instead of differences.

    Nasif Nahle:
    I will concede the point that it’s possible to “fabricate some solutions” to fake a model. (I assume you didn’t mean to imply that anybody is intentionally, ie fraudulently, fabricating anything). Why has nobody been able to create a model that matches reality without including AGW?

  48. Bruce
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 11:35 AM | Permalink

    JohnV

    Maybe you aren’t talking about the .6C rise in the first half of the 20th century. But I find it fascinating.

    Think of it this way. If 1908 was the baseline year, then we would be talking about a 1C rise in the 20th century, 60% of which occurred before 1945.

    Thats 60% would need some explaining.

    The long term change you seem to want to talk about started in the early 20th century. Not in the 1950s.

  49. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 11:46 AM | Permalink

    Bruce, SteveMc does not want us going back into this, and he’s right.
    Here are some links so you can read what I wrote about this previously (hint, in the first half of the century it was the sun):

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2200#comment-150160
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2200#comment-150436

    I will not respond again until there’s a new thread.

  50. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

    Steve McIntyre:

    John V, NOAA issued press releases saying that 2006 was the warmest US year ever. Don’t blame me.

    But you can do better than that. We both know that single year comparisons mean very little. A statement from you to that effect would stop everyone from making the comparisons.

  51. Reference
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 11:57 AM | Permalink

    John Stossel – give me a break – Al Gore expose – 20 October 2007 (YouTube 8:07 mins)

  52. Stephen Richards
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 12:02 PM | Permalink

    Cher John V

    Nasif Nahle:
    I will concede the point that it’s possible to “fabricate some solutions” to fake a model. (I assume you didn’t mean to imply that anybody is intentionally, ie fraudulently, fabricating anything). Why has nobody been able to create a model that matches reality without including AGW?

    Adding in a parameter which just happens to solve a problem doesn’t necessarily mean that the parameter is the reality. It could be, but not absolutely necessarily.
    I just wish everything in this world was simple and honest, that temperature recording could be garanteed accurate, etc but it isn’t and thereby hangs the rub. We know that the models are incomplete and therefore unreliable, its sad but true. I wish it wasn’t so.

  53. Larry
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 12:40 PM | Permalink

    50, are you agreeing that it was wrong for NOAA to make that statement? Are you agreeing that Hansen and RC and all the rest of the alarmists shouldn’t have ever brought up the red herring of 1998 in the first place?

  54. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 1:21 PM | Permalink

    #53 Larry:

    I don’t know who has brought up 1998 in the past, but I do agree that it has very little meaning. (Not wrong as in factually incorrect, but wrong as in not worth talking about). Longer term averages and trends (not differences) are worthwhile.

  55. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 1:24 PM | Permalink

    #52 Stephen Richards:

    Adding in a parameter which just happens to solve a problem doesn’t necessarily mean that the parameter is the reality. It could be, but not absolutely necessarily.

    Nothing is “absolute” in science. Formal proofs are only possible in math. That’s why scientific papers (and the IPCC in particular) uses measures of confidence. What’s your level of confidence in AGW being false?

  56. DocMartyn
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 1:27 PM | Permalink

    I went to the Kellogg Bird Sanctuary this weekend with my son’s Scout Troop. They had a lovely temperature setup on the lawn out front. The Station should have a record going back to 1929.
    Anyone got a link to its record?

  57. Larry
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 1:44 PM | Permalink

    54, the you’ll agree that this is meaningless:

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pfsf/is_199903/ai_1390927783

    1998 WARMEST YEAR OF MILLENNIUM, CLIMATE RESEARCHERS REPORT
    National Science Foundation by Cheryl Dybas

    Researchers at the Universities of Massachusetts and Arizona who study global warming have released a report strongly suggesting that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium, with 1998 the warmest year so far. The scientists have also found that the warming in the 20th century counters a 1,000-year-long cooling trend.

    The study, by Michael Mann and Raymond Bradley of the University of Massachusetts and Malcolm Hughes of the University of Arizona, appears in the March 15 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, published by the American Geophysical Union. The research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF).

    And Mann, Bradley, and Hughes are speaking out of turn, then.

  58. Stephen Richards
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 2:03 PM | Permalink

    Hello again John V

    I am seeking confidence not in the falsity or otherwise of AGW I seek only to understand why the climate has been warming over the past ãpprox 30 years. It’s the reason I support Steve Mc so fervently. Many other sites in this field seem only to want to ‘slag off’ people that ask questions of accuracy, procedure/process, analyses techniques, etc.
    I have studied climate/weather as a hobby for some 45 years (yes I’m very old and stupid) and have always had concerns about the data I see published without explanation. Steve fills tha gap for me and I hope will continue so to do.

    Perhaps the use of absolute was not the best chioce but I hope you will agree that it is tempered by the rest of what I said.

  59. Mark T.
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 2:12 PM | Permalink

    It’s snooooowing here in COS! Winter has begun after a no-show autumn, hehe.

    Mark

  60. Mark T.
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 2:21 PM | Permalink

    Why has nobody been able to create a model that matches reality without including AGW?

    Absence of an alternative theory is not evidence that one does not exist, and in fact, many do, they simply don’t get any press. Your statement here also contains the implicit assumption that models do indeed match reality, which is as yet unproven.

    Mark

  61. Mark T.
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 2:23 PM | Permalink

    I suppose there’s also an implicit assumption that we can model the climate, at least given the parameters we do understand, which has also yet to be proven.

    Mark

  62. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 2:24 PM | Permalink

    #57 Larry:
    Yes I agree that the article title and the statement about 1998 are basically meaningless. The statement about the 1990s is a longer term average and seems reasonable. The rest of the article seems to talk about trends and long term averages.

    Will you agree that longer term averages and trends (not differences) mean much more than single year comparisons?

  63. Robert in Calgary
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 2:31 PM | Permalink

    Here’s what I found online, not quite the same article? But the same date.

    “Has the greenhouse taken effect?”

    Quotes Hansen at the end.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n18_v133/ai_6690279

  64. Bruce
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 2:42 PM | Permalink

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/dimming.html

    Climate researcher James Hansen estimates that “global dimming” is cooling our planet by more than a degree Celsius (1.8°F) and fears that as we cut back on the pollution that contributes to dimming, global warming may escalate to a point of no return.

    However:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5723/847

    Newly available surface observations from 1990 to the present, primarily from the Northern Hemisphere, show that the dimming did not persist into the 1990s. Instead, a widespread brightening has been observed since the late 1980s. This reversal is reconcilable with changes in cloudiness and atmospheric transmission and may substantially affect surface climate, the hydrological cycle, glaciers, and ecosystems.

  65. Larry
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 2:48 PM | Permalink

    62, in theory, yes. But here’s the rub: the further back in history you go, the less reliable and accurate the data becomes. So while a longer term difference will tend to exclude more noise because you’re effectively averaging out the noise over the period, it will also inherently have more noise in it, as the quality of the data degrades. We’re still trying to ascertain the quality of the surface station record and the proxy records here, precisely because those issues were glossed over by the people who get paid to get it right. But in broad strokes, it’s a fair statement that the proxies aren’t as high in quality as the surface stations.

    Which leaves you with the inevitable conclusion that the only reliable numbers that you have are in the 20th century, and even they are somewhat suspect. Given that, Mann et al have no legitimate basis to say that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium, and as it turns out, it wasn’t even the hottest of the century. In other words, the hyperbole is based on nonsense [and believe me, Steve, I'm working hard to not go off on a vent tangent on that point].

  66. Buddenbrook
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 3:21 PM | Permalink

    Bruce, that can’t be true. Surely you are misquoting him. Pielke had many links on his page to studies that showed warming night temperatures associated with dimming in South East Asia. -1C Global dimming seems so wide off the mark, it’s nuts. It doesn’t take rocket science to consider this. We do know that he impact of dimming is a local impact. It’s associated with areas where levels of air pollution are high, such as western world 40-50 years ago before clear air legislature, or Asia today.

    So if there was a 1C GLOBAL dimming, we should have areas where the impact was much above 1C, and areas where it was next to nothing, and we should be able to clearly measure and prove this disparity. It seems just nuts. I don’t know how Hansen plans to justify or substantiate that claim.

    He just seems to go around saying the most alarmist things like 6C long term climate sensitivity. He’s losing it.

  67. H
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 3:51 PM | Permalink

    #55 John V:

    #52 Stephen Richards:

    Adding in a parameter which just happens to solve a problem doesn’t necessarily mean that the parameter is the reality. It could be, but not absolutely necessarily.

    Nothing is “absolute” in science. Formal proofs are only possible in math. That’s why scientific papers (and the IPCC in particular) uses measures of confidence. What’s your level of confidence in AGW being false?

    What’s your level of confidence in AGW being false? :D :D

    I think there are not many persons here who doesn’t accept that humans influence our climate. Deforestation, farming, CO2 etc. all have some effect. But how big is this influence? Is it really catastrofic? I have to say that I have almost zero confidense that the current climate models can predit the global temperature accurately at year 2100.

    From your earlier comments and the linking the three IPCC figures here, I understand that you have quite high confidence for them and the model behind them. Why? Because the last curve seems to match the measured curve? Do you know which model was used? Do you know, how they added AGW? Do you know, how the model parameters were determined? And how they were fitted before each run?

  68. H
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 3:56 PM | Permalink

    Sorry. The quotes were correct in the preview.

  69. John V
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 4:08 PM | Permalink

    Larry:
    I agree that a comparison of the 1990s to temperatures for the last millenium can not be made with much confidence. I should have read the article more carefully. For the record, I’ve never been a big believer in dendroclimatology (or whatever it’s called).

  70. Larry
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 4:30 PM | Permalink

    What’s your level of confidence in AGW being false?

    Logical fallacy. Philosophy 101: you can’t prove a negative. And it’s not even an either-or proposition, it’s a question of apportionment of cause. On top of all of that, the controversy is mostly over consequences; i.e. are Hansen’s “tipping points” going to appear, and cause the feedback to increase? Are the polar bears all going to vanish, and are the oceans going to rise by 82′ (as Hansen claimed), etc.? That is a much more important and germane question than “is AGW false?”.

    Let’s get past the simpleton questions that they pose on RC, ok?

  71. Buddenbrook
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

    I wonder if the obsession on the “trinity” of Hansen, Mann and Gavin could be affecting our perception of alarmist CO2 science. These three are obviously an endless source of bad science and amusement, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that others would be too?

  72. Larry
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 5:18 PM | Permalink

    71, you take those three away, and there’s no three-alarm alarmism. The consensus that all hell is about to break loose is surprisingly thin.

  73. UC
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 5:29 PM | Permalink

    John V: How long term averages would you prefer?

    Steve: Nice little town this is, Ill be back soon, hopefully :)

  74. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 6:05 PM | Permalink

    Robert, #63: That is one amazing link. The date of the article is 1988, not 1998. The information in that article is totally at odds with what we now understand were the warmest years in the past century.

    Suggests the book-cooking started a long time ago and that they had the template for this hottest-decade-of-the-millenium foolishness way back in 1988.

  75. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 6:21 PM | Permalink

    theduke:

    The information in that article is totally at odds with what we now understand were the warmest years in the past century.

    I don’t understand your point. The global temperature has been trending up for the 18 complete years since 1988. (Please don’t talk about cooling since 1998 — we’ve been there and it’s not true for any sort of trend measurement). What is “at odds with what we now understand were the warmest years in the past century”

  76. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 6:24 PM | Permalink

    Whoops. Reading comp problem. The article cited above is describing global temperatures, not US. I still wonder how the claims made have held up, i.e. that in 1988 the five hottest years in the past 100 years were all in the 1980s.

  77. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 6:30 PM | Permalink

    John V.: my mistake. But I still find it interesting that in 1988 the five hottest years globally were in the 1980s, but that in Hansen’s latest reconfiguration of the data for the ten hottest years in the US, that none of the years are from the decade of the 1980s.

  78. chuck c
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 6:40 PM | Permalink

    The link below is from a NYTimes review of a medical book talking about “Cascade Science” in medicine. The short synopsis is that researchers, even if they know what is right, are often swayed to “go-along” with the first publisher or previous research or well-reported research in a medical field, and that those who oppose this tendency are ostracized.

    Not just in medicine anymore…

    Times article

  79. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 6:51 PM | Permalink

    Re #47 John V

    “A model that matches reality”. If we knew reality, we would not have to model.

    Problem 1. I’m having a hard time working out what reality is (in surface temp especially). Which USA temp reconstruction graph is the flavour of the month for Oct 2007? Why?

    Solution 1. Leave CO2 out of the equations, tweak the remaining forcings and assume a growth rate for temp recovery from the LIA.

  80. jae
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 6:54 PM | Permalink

    I don’t understand your point. The global temperature has been trending up for the 18 complete years since 1988. (Please don’t talk about cooling since 1998 — we’ve been there and it’s not true for any sort of trend measurement). What is “at odds with what we now understand were the warmest years in the past century”

    LOL. Maybe 2007 will reverse your prized “trends.”

  81. jae
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 7:07 PM | Permalink

    70:

    On top of all of that, the controversy is mostly over consequences; i.e. are Hansen’s “tipping points” going to appear, and cause the feedback to increase?

    The weirdest thing about all this is that we have ABSOLUTELY NO CLEAR DEMONSTRATION of any net positive feedbacks. To build a theory on mere unproven suppositions is unique to Hansen’ version of climate science (really “climate politics”). I think water vapor exerts a negative feedback, contrary to the Hansens of the world.

  82. Karl
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 7:10 PM | Permalink

    #79

    “Cascade Science”

    A name for this type of phenomenon in many situations is labeled “stampede effect”

  83. tom
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 7:48 PM | Permalink

    Count the “torpedos”

    A compelling presentation by Bob Carter of the facts of climate change to a recent public forum in Australia.

    Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause?

    Pt 1 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&eurl=http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=31660

    Pt 2 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8&eurl=http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=31660

    Pt 3 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY&eurl=http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=31660

    Pt 4 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno&eurl=http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=31660

  84. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 8:04 PM | Permalink

    Perhaps someone could compile a complete list of Hansen’s statements in date order to see if we can find a trend somewhere. I suggest he has already made any adjustments that may have been neccesary!

  85. crosspatch
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 8:22 PM | Permalink

    “The global temperature has been trending up for the 18 complete years since 1988″

    Yes and I believe there is a growing body of evidence that calls that data into question. Particularly data acquired in China, the former Soviet Union and certain stations in the UK using painted metal Stevenson screens. If you look at temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere, there is no such warming signal at all. And looking at year to date temperatures (up to September 30, 2007) according to NOAA’s graphing page the downtrend in North American temperatures since 1998 is real. So we see a down-trend in North America and no trend in the Southern Hemisphere. Basically all the warming on the planet appears to be confined to Eurasia. Not exactly “global”.

    The thing is that if I had temperature from 1000 stations globally that showed flat temperatures and then added in 100 stations that were undergoing nearby urbanization and their records showed a regular increase over time, when I add them to the other 1000 stations, the mean of the “global” network then shows an increase. That does not mean the increase is “global” simply because the “global” average increases. It just means the “global average” increases. It could be completely due to warming in only one region of the planet. I have seen absolutely nothing to date that leads me to believe we are seeing any actual planetary warming on a global scale.

  86. crosspatch
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 8:28 PM | Permalink

    I wish to qualify my above comment number 86 by saying that I *do* believe it is warmer now than it was in 1975 but I do *not* currently have information that convinces me that the warming is continuing today. In fact, I see more of an indication of slight cooling. I do not deny that the global averages show warming but I believe what they show is not a reflection of the reality. I believe these averages are a result of data contaminated by influences in addition to local climate such as nearby urbanization, poor station siting, poor station construction, etc.

  87. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 8:33 PM | Permalink

    #67 H:
    My level of confidence in the IPCC consensus is roughly the same as the IPCC levels of confidence (a little lower in some areas). That would put my confidence at somewhat less than the most fervent supporters. I am involved in analyzing the data to see for myself. As I’ve told SteveMc in the past, my expectations may different than many in this forum but I am still digging for confirmation or refutation.

    Also, although I believe the IPCC consensus, that does not necessarily mean I support the actions or words of anyone involved in the IPCC. I won’t elaborate further for fear of starting another flame war.

    #70 Larry:
    While it’s impossible to prove a negative, it is fully possible and reasonable to express a level of confidence in a negative. For example, I can not provie it but I am extremely confident that reindeer can not fly. I was not asking for a proof.

    I understand you not wanting to answer.

    As for the consequences of AGW, that’s another discussion for another time. By necessity it includes political, economic, and ethical considerations. I’d hate to even try to get into those in this forum.

  88. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 8:39 PM | Permalink

    #73 UC:

    How long term averages would you prefer?

    Five years seems to be the (arbitrary) standard. I’m open to suggestions. I’ve been looking at the frequency content of yearly variations a little bit — we’d probably want an average that smooths over the high-frequency signal.

    #77 theduke:
    The latest GISTEMP global graph shows the 5 hottest years up to 1988 as being in the 1980s. The 5 hottest years up to 2000 are in the 1990s. 5 of the 6 hottest years (1998 is 2nd) currently are in the 2000s.

  89. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 8:44 PM | Permalink

    #80 Geoff Sherrington:

    If we knew reality, we would not have to model.

    Even with a perfect understanding of reality, we would have to model to predict the future.

    assume a growth rate for temp recovery from the LIA

    What is the cause of the growth rate for temp recovery from LIA?

  90. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 8:46 PM | Permalink

    #87 crosspatch:
    There are undoubtedly issues with surface stations. I think the issues are smaller than you do. The satellite temperature data shows a trend very similar to the surface data for the last ~30 years.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png

  91. Bruce
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 8:52 PM | Permalink

    JohnV

    5 of the 6 hottest years (1998 is 2nd) currently are in the 2000s

    In the Southern Hemisphere, only 2002 was warmer than 1998.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt

    The CRU has no subsequent year warmer than 1998 in the Southern Hemisphere.

    1998 0.457
    1999 0.219
    2000 0.192
    2001 0.329
    2002 0.375
    2003 0.371
    2004 0.299
    2005 0.329
    2006 0.288
    2007 0.254

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/s17.htm

    The Northern Hemisphere is receiving record amounts of sunshine.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5723/847

  92. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 8:57 PM | Permalink

    Bruce — enough.
    I was responding to a question from theduke about global temperatures. Even for the SH, 4 of the hottest years in the last century occured in the last 6. At least 8 of the 10 hottest were in the last 10 years (1997-2006).

  93. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 9:52 PM | Permalink

    D’oh! Bruce got under my skin — again.
    Sorry for the little outburst above, particularly since I don’t even like top-10 lists.

  94. Jon
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 10:13 PM | Permalink

    John V: please, it is at least a serious point of inquiry to consider why the SH temperature trend is ~1/2 the of the NH trend over the past century.

    Granted discussing warmest years is not very meaningful. The important point is that explaining the NH/SH asymmetry is an important validation step for any purported explanation of the global trend.

  95. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 10:33 PM | Permalink

    John V.,

    I could not say that the “errors” in the models are intentional or not. However, things go straight and extremely simple: Some AGW supporters are modeling a relation CD-Tropospheric Temperature introducing unreal ciphers to their models. For example, many AGW authors consider the absorptive power of CD is 0.9, when the charts, tables, etc. obtained by observation-experimentation indicate that the absorptivity of CD, at its current concentration in the atmosphere, is 0.0009, that is 0.00002 lesser power than the emissivity of CD. By that reason, CD cannot store exceeding energy for too long periods. Consider that CD is not a blackbody, but a real body and that many “constants” have not a clear origin, suggesting that those ciphers were invented intentionally to fit perfectly in something.

  96. crosspatch
    Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 10:44 PM | Permalink

    Re: 90

    That graph that you pointed me to:

    “This figure compares the global average surface temperature record, as compiled by Jones and Moberg” and I believe we can all pretty much agree that they have an agenda. I can also find articles that claim that satellite measurements have detected “no significant” warming since 1979. I might bring this presentation (PDF) by Christy and Spencer published April 17, 2006 to your attention. Read the whole thing, it isn’t very long. This presentation describes how land use changes including irrigation can change boundary layer temperatures over a wide area without there being any significant changes in overall planetary climate.

    Their conclusion is that satellite records show negligible warming over the past 20 years or so. Certainly not a “crisis” situation as Mr. Gore likes to say.

  97. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 10:45 PM | Permalink

    John V: allow me to make a general observation: You are clearly an expert when it comes to quantifying the data as it has in the recent past been understood and generally accepted. But when it comes to understanding the quality of the data (or lack thereof), which is the raison d’etre of this blog, I think you are at a distinct disadvantage.

    There is enough information in this blog’s archives to cast doubt on the accuracy of much of the data that is being used by AGWers to advocate dramatic and possibly disruptive changes in the way mankind interacts with his earthly and atmospheric environment. I think you need to take the time to go through the archives. I’ve only begun to do so myself. It’s enlightening.

  98. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 10:53 PM | Permalink

    You should read this Science Magazine article, where four AGW supporters assured that

    “…an increase of 750 to 26,000 ppm of atmospheric CO2 would be required to account for an additional 5°C rise in global temperature, which implies an addition of 1500 to 55,000 PgC to the atmosphere alone…”

    , and that the ciphers they introduced in their models were “assumed“, that is, invented.

  99. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 10:58 PM | Permalink

    My # 98 is addressed to John V. Sorry :)

  100. Posted Oct 21, 2007 at 11:00 PM | Permalink

    Reading the second reference at 64, I wandered off to another article:

    quote GEOPHYSICS Jun 2005
    The effect of smoke, dust, and pollution aerosol on shallow cloud development over the Atlantic Ocean
    Yoram J. Lorraine A. Remer , Daniel Rosenfeld , and Yinon Rudich
    Figure 1(2) shows the cloud distribution over the Atlantic with the southern hemisphere bit covered almost completely with stratocu, the NH bit with a mix of stratocu and convective cloud. Stratocu cools. Here’s what it says in the text:

    “Shallow water clouds have a critical role in the climate system; an increase in shallow cloud cover by only 0.04 is enough to offset 2–3 K of greenhouse warming. By reflecting sunlight back to space, stratiform clouds are “the vast climate refrigerator of the tropics and subtropics”. They are difficult to model because they are only a few hundred meters thick, capped by a strong temperature inversion, and controlled by small-scale physical processes. Using state-of-the-art satellite data, we show that the aerosol concentration is linked to the development, microphysics, and coverage of shallow clouds, thereby generating a large radiative forcing of climate.” unquote

    I know albedo is a straight number — do you think that’s what they’re talking about with the .04? Stratocu albedo is about 60 and open water essentially 0, IIRC, so a reduction in stratocu cover of .0007% is enough to more than explain the whole of the AGW for the 20th century. If that’s what the .04 means….

    Looking at Fig 1, you can shrug when someone wonders why the SH is not warming. Well, it’s because it’s in the fridge, innit?

    There’s still a long way to go, but the first signs of light are breaking through. I wonder what the stratocu records for Bermuda show*? It’s nicely placed to get the offshore pollution from the USA.

    While looking for this I tried to find a link to a nice article about the joining of two satellite records (I’ve a vague memory it was Ceres and Modis, but don’t quote me: there’s so much noise on this subject that I get confused — I even found an article bemoaning the effect of climate change on the fashion industry. Fashion industry! Ye gods. But I digress). Using the first set of satellite data, the models worked. Using the second set, much more accurate, the models… after changing the parameters, they worked too. Well, there’s a thing.

    No, not fashion models.

    JF
    *And temperature if it comes to that.

  101. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 12:06 AM | Permalink

    re: #81, Jae:

    I think water vapor exerts a negative feedback, contrary to the Hansens of the world.

    Don’t fall into that trap of saying “water vapor”. You mean “water”. That is. water in all it’s forms, including vapor, liquid and presumably solid as well have a net negativing feedback, (which which I agree.) But clouds don’t consist of water vapor, but small globules of liquid water. A clouds are what produce a net negative feedback. Vapor is indeed a positive feedback albeit one which has been overhyped. The AGW promoters are all careful to state that we skeptics are wrong, and won’t acknowledge that water vapor is a positive feedback. But they equally carefully ignore clouds and say it’s not possible to quantify if clouds are net positive or negative. They could be right but I don’t think they are. And they should be honest enough to admit that if they can’t quantify clouds, they can’t determine the net sign on water feedback. And if they don’t know the sign of water feedback, the whole edifice of AGW collapses.

  102. Jonde
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 12:14 AM | Permalink

    John seems to like to link wiki here a lot. I suggest all of you also to read “discussion” folder so that you can see what kind of debate is on over the wiki-topics. Wiki is one of the worst sites to link in global warming debate. You can see that the same editors repeatedly deny content that is anti-AGW no matter the source.

  103. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 12:47 AM | Permalink

    JohnV, #47, I do agree: global temperature trend present a net warming, in the past 30, 120 and 250 years. But, since 1998 warming trend is below 0.1°C error range, so being meaningless as real warming (other way, you should consider that since 2002, for both HadCRUT and MSU World is even cooling a bit). Being 1998 the hottest year (or 2005) is indeed not very meaningfull, since e.g. we had some very hot global year (for the time) during 1945-1960 global temperature descent.
    The matter would then be: could we identify a change of climate cycles, inside a period? Could temperature records and trends help this search (e.g. many things now suggest we are on a temperature peak like ’40ies one, ready to start a descent in next decade) or are we looking for ghosts?

  104. Agnostic GWarmer
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 12:56 AM | Permalink

    #83 from tom

    Yes Bob Carter does get excited about all this. His observation based on ice core data that changes in current global temperature are not unusual historically in either sign, magnitude or rate of change is quite convincing.

    As AGW appears to rest on the inability of GCMs to explain recent temperature increases without CO2 forcing, this would imply that the ice core temperature record has been modeled accurately enough to remove all non-CO2 forcings. Does such a model exist?

  105. MarkR
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 2:12 AM | Permalink

    #83 tom. Did anyone look at the videos? JohnV and Boris in particular really should. Also nice hat tip to SteveM, and Watts Galleries in Part 4.

  106. MattN
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 4:58 AM | Permalink

    Robert in Clagary #63,

    That’s the exact article from Science News I just scanned and sent to Steve.

    Matt

  107. henry
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 5:20 AM | Permalink

    Since:

    The latest GISTEMP global graph shows the 5 hottest years up to 1988 as being in the 1980s. The 5 hottest years up to 2000 are in the 1990s. 5 of the 6 hottest years (1998 is 2nd) currently are in the 2000s.

    and:

    (from the wiki charts) Following the common practice of the IPCC, the zero on this figure is the mean temperature from 1961-1990.

    then:

    Any anomaly measurements shown in current charts after 1990 will show an abnormal warm bias. Since data is available for years up to 2006, and a 30-year average appears to be standard, then re-zero the charts and show anomalies for 2007 and beyond based on 1976 – 2006. Also, closer to today, assumed that data is more accurate.

  108. MarkW
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 5:49 AM | Permalink

    No models, without or without AGW, “match reality”.

  109. MarkW
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 5:59 AM | Permalink

    A recent study out of China found that particulate emissions on the whole, produced warming, not cooling. That is, the warming caused by carbon black exceeded to cooling caused by sulfates.

  110. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 6:15 AM | Permalink

    John V, you say:

    I don’t understand your point. The global temperature has been trending up for the 18 complete years since 1988. (Please don’t talk about cooling since 1998 — we’ve been there and it’s not true for any sort of trend measurement).

    This statement is meaningless without saying what length trend you are talking about, and specifying which dataset you are using.

    w.

  111. jae
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 6:25 AM | Permalink

    101: Dave D. I stand corrected. I meant to say water, in all its forms. Water vapor does store a lot of heat, but there is a big penalty for forming that vapor, the latent heat of vaporization.

  112. Pat Keating
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 7:29 AM | Permalink

    101.
    I think that water vapor is a positive feedback factor in itself. However, high water-vapor content breeds clouds and precipitation. Clouds are a negative feedback factor in daytime, positive feedback at night. Precipitation is a negative feedback factor.
    I suspect that atmospheric water is a strong positive feedback factor in cold regions/periods but eventually becomes a negative factor in warmer regions/periods by blocking the sun with clouds.

  113. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 8:18 AM | Permalink

    Nobody (especially me) is interested in another many-against-me battle. I will answer the points that were directed at me and then leave this thread for a while. You can all have your rebuttals but please avoid bringing up new points.

    #94 Jon:

    please, it is at least a serious point of inquiry to consider why the SH temperature trend is ~1/2 the of the NH trend over the past century.
    Granted discussing warmest years is not very meaningful. The important point is that explaining the NH/SH asymmetry is an important validation step for any purported explanation of the global trend.

    The discrepancy between NH and SH temperatures is important, and is predicted by the GCMs (climate models). The abundance of water in the SH compared to the NH explains the difference. The ocean absorbs heat from the atmosphere without warming much. Land transfers heat to the atmosphere much more readily.

    #95 Nasif Nahle:
    Those numbers seem incredible — the models are wrong by 10000x? I’d like to read more. Do you have a reference?

    #96 crosspatch:

    “This figure compares the global average surface temperature record, as compiled by Jones and Moberg” and I believe we can all pretty much agree that they have an agenda.

    Compare the Jones and Moberg compilation to GISTEMP or HadCRU. They are *very* similar. The satellite data was compiled by Christy (presumably the same Christy from the presentation you linked). I’m not going to respond to the presentation as it’s another new topic.

    #97 theduke:

    There is enough information in this blog’s archives to cast doubt on the accuracy of much of the data that is being used by AGWers to advocate dramatic and possibly disruptive changes in the way mankind interacts with his earthly and atmospheric environment. I think you need to take the time to go through the archives. I’ve only begun to do so myself. It’s enlightening.

    I have been through much of the archives, and cross-checked them other sources. As I’ve said before, I’m here looking for problems too. Other than the “hockey stick” the biggest error that I know of has been the 0.15C post-2000 USA temperature. It had a global effect of 0.003C (0.006C for NH). I find the evidence of problems with the surface stations to be less than convincing. I’ll leave it at that.

    #98 Nasif Nahle:

    You should read this Science Magazine article…

    It looks like I’d need to subscribe, and I’m not doing that.

    #102 Jonde:

    John seems to like to link wiki here a lot.

    I link to Wikipedia as a convenient source of reference material. I have not linked to Wikipedia as part of an argument (other than possibly a link explaining the greenhouse effect).

    #103 Filippo Turturici:
    Argh. Please don’t go back into the temperature trend since 1998. It’s up, no matter how you cut it. It’s funny to me that you and others can use both a warm 1934 (in the USA48) and a warm 1998 to argue against the world heating up.

    #108 MarkW:

    No models, without or without AGW, “match reality”.

    In broad strokes they actually do. They are not trying to predict the weather. They are looking for long-term trends. Differences between regions. Differences between temperatures in atmospheric layers. In all of these ways the GCMs do match reality quite well.

    #110 Willis Eschenbach:

    This statement is meaningless without saying what length trend you are talking about, and specifying which dataset you are using.

    Choose your trend measurement: line-of-best-fit (any period over ~5 years), multi-year average, etc.
    Choose your data set: GISTEMP, HadCRU, Satellite

  114. MarkW
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 8:32 AM | Permalink

    The models are only accurate in the broadest of broad strokes. That is, if you average the temperature of the entire earth, that number is in the ballpark of what the highly innaccurate ground based temperatures report.

    However, when you try to break it down on a scale smaller than the entire earth, the models fail completely. There regional forecasts of temperature, cloud cover, precipitation, anything else you care to mention, fail completely. Attempting to go finer than regional, and the models get even worse.

  115. crosspatch
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 8:38 AM | Permalink

    “I’m not going to respond to the presentation as it’s another new topic.”

    The part about satellite measurements vs. the surface record isn’t. It also appears that Jones and Moberg performed some kind of “adjustment” on their data according to the math in that presentation. My suspicion is that it was done to make it a closer “fit” with surface data but artificially inflating the value of certain measurements. Their data shows consistently warmer temperatures.

  116. crosspatch
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 9:03 AM | Permalink

    #101

    “But clouds don’t consist of water vapor, but small globules of liquid water. A clouds are what produce a net negative feedback. Vapor is indeed a positive feedback albeit one which has been overhyped.”

    The entire water cycle is basically a refrigeration system. But as overall temperature of the atmosphere increases so will the absolute amount of water it holds at a given relative humidity. If the lower and middle levels of the atmosphere warm but the upper levels remain the same or cool, I would expect to see an increase in cloud cover because this larger absolute value of water held in the atmosphere at the lower levels will condense at higher altitude resulting in a higher relative humidity than previously at that altitude given a constant or reduced temperature.

  117. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 9:09 AM | Permalink

    # 113

    John V.,

    Those numbers seem incredible — the models are wrong by 10000x? I’d like to read more. Do you have a reference?

    Yes, reality looks incredible; models looks credible. Do you like books? References:

    Pitts, Donald and Sissom, Leighton. Heat Transfer. 1998. McGraw-Hill. Pp. 289-325.
    Modest, Michael F. Radiative Heat Transfer. 2003. Elsevier Science. San Diego California.
    Manrique, José Ángel V. Transferencia de Calor. 2002. Oxford University Press. England.
    Bakken, G. S., Gates, D. M., Strunk, Thomas H. and Kleiber, Max. Linearized Heat Transfer Relations in Biology. Science. Vol. 183; pp. 976-978. 8 March 1974.

    Finally, the mother of all analogous continuums:

    Hottel, H. C. Heat Transmission. 1959. McGraw-Hill. New York.

  118. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 9:13 AM | Permalink

    Nasif, thanks for the links but I was actually looking for a reference for the values used in the models.

  119. Bruce
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 9:13 AM | Permalink

    JohnV

    Bruce — enough.
    I was responding to a question from theduke about global temperatures.

    The term “global” is being misuused if the claimed warming trends do not include the USA and the Southern Hemishpere.

    Aren’t you curious as to why AGW is so selective?

  120. henry
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 9:23 AM | Permalink

    Bruce says: October 22nd, 2007 at 9:13 am

    The term “global” is being misuused if the claimed warming trends do not include the USA and the Southern Hemishpere.

    Aren’t you curious as to why AGW is so selective?

    Especially since comments made about the “error” in the Y2K data: that the U.S. error doesn’t have much of an effect on the global temps because the U.S. is only X% of earth’s surface (where x = 2 to 6 percent).

  121. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 9:35 AM | Permalink

    Bruce:

    The term “global” is being misuused if the claimed warming trends do not include the USA and the Southern Hemishpere.

    I’m trying to stay quiet but your errors are too egregious. Since the mid-1970s (the period in which AGW is hypothesized to have become the dominant forcing factor) there has been substantial warming in both the USA and the Southern Hemisphere. Repeating the same falsehoods will not change the facts.

  122. Tom Vonk
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 9:41 AM | Permalink

    John V.

    In broad strokes they actually do. They are not trying to predict the weather. They are looking for long-term trends. Differences between regions. Differences between temperatures in atmospheric layers. In all of these ways the GCMs do match reality quite well.

    You might actually have spent time on some temperature databases but the question if some unphysical parameter like the 10 years average of yearly averages of day-night temperature averages (supposedly) integrated over the whole Earth has moved by whole 0,1°C is both uninteresting and irrelevant .
    Even the sign of this variation is uninteresting and irrelevant .

    However you surely didn’t look much at what the “climate” models actually do .
    As there are 23 and all give different “long-term” trends , which one of the models had you in mind as being able to match reality ?
    And could you elaborate why the other 22 are not ?
    Of course if it is to tell that ice melts in summer and it rarely rains in the deserts , it indeed matches reality but you don’t need billion $ computers for that .

    Concerning regional predictions , like MarkW said , you surely jest .
    There is not a single parameter they (the 23 so called models) agree upon and beside that there is not a single one that gets all the numbers right .
    For cloudiness distribution there is a factor 3 between models and for precipitation a factor 2 .
    Etc .

    A student who’d explain me gravitation with a factor 2 would better go in the show business .
    Not that I have anything against show business but you obviously don’t need any notion about science there .

  123. MarkW
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 10:10 AM | Permalink

    Talking about cherry picking.

    Since the mid-1970s (the period in which AGW is hypothesized to have become the dominant forcing factor)

    And how is it that CO2 magically managed to become the dominant factor during the 70’s, despite the fact that for billions of years prior, CO2 had never managed to play a role, much less a “dominant” role in climate.

  124. jae
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 10:13 AM | Permalink

    113:

    The discrepancy between NH and SH temperatures is important, and is predicted by the GCMs (climate models). The abundance of water in the SH compared to the NH explains the difference. The ocean absorbs heat from the atmosphere without warming much. Land transfers heat to the atmosphere much more readily.

    I agree with this. The abundance of water in the humid southeast USA also explains why temperatures there are lower than in the desert southwest.

  125. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 10:21 AM | Permalink

    MarkW:
    For my own education, I would appreciate a reference showing that for “billions of years prior, CO2 had never managed to play a role, much less a “dominant” role in climate”.

  126. MarkW
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 10:22 AM | Permalink

    According to the models, water vapor is supposed to be a strong positive feedback.
    So wouldn’t areas with lots of water, also mean lots of water vapor, so they should warm the fastest?

  127. jae
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 10:25 AM | Permalink

    Speaking model output, as I recall, NONE of them show a pause in warming like we’ve seen for the past 9 years (I don’t care if this “pause” has an insignificant slight positive trend, either). The models show a pretty steady increase in temperature through time; I don’t think that has been observed in the real world.

  128. jae
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 10:32 AM | Permalink

    According to the models, water vapor is supposed to be a strong positive feedback.
    So wouldn’t areas with lots of water, also mean lots of water vapor, so they should warm the fastest?

    LOL. That is exactly the point I’ve been trying to make for a year. The areas with lots of water vapor do NOT warm the most. The deserts do. It looks to me like the whole GHG radiation theory is a crock.

  129. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 10:35 AM | Permalink

    Water, whatever it does, is the primary driver to all things weather-related. Rivers/lakes/oceans/seas, ice on the ground or in clouds, rain.

    I’ve always found wikipedia to be at least nominally fair, although, pretty much mainstream IPCC-type info, regardless the particular personal thoughts of Shultz, Connolley and Arritt et al are. That said, you have to know the views of the dominent editors and take them into account when you read the pages. I don’t see any huge problems with either the explanations or the graphs, although they are a tad too pro-agw at times. (For example, some things are too vague and/or semi-biased, like the CO2 graph proclaiming “The industrial revolution has caused a dramatic rise in CO2″ or the fact they use the HS graph.) But it’s not all that horrible. You have to remember the verifiabilty and “reliability” when requirements of wikipedia when you read that article tho.

    BTW, I posted this on the possible (non-co2 and non-sun) causes of the current trend, whatever it is and whatever it means, at here. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2201#comment-150474

  130. Bruce
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 10:36 AM | Permalink

    JohnV

    Since the mid-1970s (the period in which AGW is hypothesized to have become the dominant forcing factor) there has been substantial warming in both the USA and the Southern Hemisphere. Repeating the same falsehoods will not change the facts.

    CRU SH

    1973 to 1998 -> UP .367
    1998 to 2007 -> DOWN .203

    1973 to 2007 -> UP .164

    OTOH

    1911 to 1941 -> UP .731
    1941 to 2007 -> UP .199

    I disagree with you claim of “substantial”, especially compared to the 1911 to 1941 period.

    .731 is “substantial”.

    You tend to explain it by claiming more solar energy reached the earth pre-1941 and then claim solar energy dropped in the 1980s onwards. Yet we now know solar energy substantially increased in the 1990s.

    The sunshine data I posted from the UK showing huge increases in sunshine in the 2003-2006 period should have made you think. It was not uncommon for Sunshine in that period to be 1505% of the 1961-1990 mean. July 2006 recieved 6% more sunshine than at any time in the history of England.

  131. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 10:43 AM | Permalink

    Bruce:

    claim solar energy dropped in the 1980s onwards

    I’ve never said that. My information shows that it stopped rising substantially — not that it dropped.

    If you’re going to cherry-pick endpoints, at least fit a linear trend instead of a simple difference. I’m sure you’re having lots of fun subtracting warm years from cold years but it means absolutely nothing. Put a linear trend between any of your pairs of years and let us know the results. Don’t forget the R^2 values so that it’s clear which comparisons are really trends.

  132. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 11:00 AM | Permalink

    But a decrease in the increase in a budget is cutting funding, right?
    :)

  133. Craig Loehle
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 11:04 AM | Permalink

    20/20 John Stossel had a go at Gore’s moveie

    also:Re: models and CO2. It is asserted that CO2 must be included in the GCMs to match the past 40 years of warming. It is asserted that all competing theories don’t explain the warming. However, it is well-known that Lindzen’s infrared iris theory can’t be tested by the models because it involves clouds at a level of detail that the models can’t do. Likewise, Svensmark’s solar cosmic ray connection theory can’t be tested with the models because they don’t do clouds. (and both theories could be operating) Pielke has argued that land use may be affecting regional climates (but without any runaway possibility). Finally, we have the funny business with urban heat islands affecting the weather station data and maybe not being properly accounted for. When competing plausible theories (count them, 4, perhaps all at work at once) are on the table, it is disingenuous to say that they are invalid simply because your computers aren’t fast enough to test them or you don’t know how to model fuzzy things like clouds. Thus we can’t conclude by subtraction that the only factor left is CO2. If my friend is late for an appointment and all the reasons I can think of for him being late are discounted, that doesn’t mean it “must be” alien abduction!

  134. Larry
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 11:08 AM | Permalink

    JohnV, try this experiment: generate 30 random x-y pairs. Do a least squares fit on them. What Rsquare do you get?

  135. MarkW
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 11:09 AM | Permalink

    The charts have been provided here. Try unthreaded 22.

  136. jae
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 11:12 AM | Permalink

    133: A very clear exposition of the issues, IMHO.

  137. MarkW
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 11:16 AM | Permalink

    SteveM has asked us not to get into changes in solar output.

    Let’s just say that the real world is not as simple as the incomplete data JohnV keeps trying to put into the record.

    I won’t go into it any further.

    On the other hand, it does get kind of hard to refute JohnV’s frequent claim that everything else has been discounted claim, if you can’t bring in the data that shows him wrong.

  138. Larry
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 11:24 AM | Permalink

    138, I don’t know how many times I have to point this out, but a weak theory doesn’t win by default. It’s like a few hundred years ago when diseases were presumed to be caused by evil spirits, because there were no better explanations. The fact that there isn’t a better explanation right now doesn’t prove his theory correct. And given where the research money is going in climate science, it’s not likely that we’re going to develop any bullet-proof alternatives to the AGW hodge-podge any time soon. But that in no way makes the theory of anthropogenic greenhouse heating starting in the ’70s correct.

    You still have to prove your theory, regardless of how many or few alternatives are out there. It’s not proven.

  139. jae
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 11:25 AM | Permalink

    Speaking of modeling, I have “modeled” the 30-year average temperatures in July and December for 156 locations, all the way from Barrow, AK to Guam. It appears that temperature is extremely closely related to absolute humidity, when an excess of moisture is available (December). When there is a deficit of moisture (July), temperature is a function of solar insolation, absolute humidity, and the bareness of the land surface (which is related to moisture availability).

    The equation for July temperature is T = ln(y/26.46)/0.0655, where Y is the product of insolation, absolute humidity, and a weighting factor for the bareness of the land. The R2 for the relationship is 0.88, and I am confident that the rest of the variation can be explained by local microclimate effects, especially the amount of irrigated (green) land in the vicinity. The solar insolation variable accounts for cloudiness.

    The equation for December temperature is T = (ln((y+30)/0.443))/0.0678, where Y is simply absolute humidity. The correlation coefficient (R2) for this equation is 0.96.

    I think these data show that almost all of the solar energy is “used up” in evaporating water, when it’s available. Of course, some is “used up” by photosynthesis. And some is used in warming the ground, but it seems to be a minor amount where there is a lot of moisture. That evaporated water stores heat, but dry ground stores even more, especially bare dry ground.

    The other GHGs may affect temperature a little, but not much, IMHO.

  140. jae
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 11:35 AM | Permalink

    Re: 139: I’m talking about land surface temperature here, not ocean surfaces. I suspect there is a lot of difference over the oceans, since the radiation can penetrate the water. More heat is probably stored by the water than by the land.

  141. Bruce
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 11:56 AM | Permalink

    JohnV

    Is a linear trend useful for predicting future temperatures?

    I tend to lean toward this quote:

    Although linear trend models have their uses, they are often inappropriate for business and economic data. Most naturally occurring business time series do not behave as though there are straight lines fixed in space that they are trying to follow: real trends change their slopes and/or their intercepts over time. The linear trend model tries to find the slope and intercept that give the best average fit to all the past data, and unfortunately its deviation from the data is often greatest near the end of the time series, where the forecasting action is!

    If you looked at the Southern Hemisphere data in 1941 and 1998, would your linear trend have predicted the cooling post 1941 and post 1998?

  142. Stephen Richards
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 12:04 PM | Permalink

    jae
    Something that has been known for a long time is that dry sandy soil gives up it’s heat more rapidly than wet heavy soil. How does that fit with what you are saying? I can’t see from your script.

    Thanks
    Stephen

  143. jae
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 12:11 PM | Permalink

    142: Don’t know how that figures into the relationships. The heat capacity of moist heavy soil would be much greater than dry sandy soil. Maybe some sort of lag. The heat in the wet soil will eventually evaporate some of the wetness. That process uses up a lot of heat. That’s the problem with heat storage by water vapor; an awful lot of heat is used up for evaporation (latent heat) and that does not affect temperature.

  144. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 12:13 PM | Permalink

    # 138

    I agree with Larry. That is the way in which pseudoscience has prospered in our days. Pseudoscience asks if you have a “proof” that demonstrates that dragons do not exist. We have to answer “no”, because dragons are not real creatures that one could put into a cage to study them… We cannot encage ideas. The pseudoscience then accommodates to assure that given that we have not proof on the contrary, the dragons exist. That is called an irrefutable hypothesis in philosophy of sciences because there are not elements in the real universe to refute it. How could we demonstrate that AGW was born in the mind of few humans and that it is not real if it is only an idea? There are books describing experiments that show the negligible effect of CD on the Tropospheric temperature and many, many books demonstrating what Craig Loehle, Jae, etc. have said about clouds, models, CD and water. However, if John V. does not wish to accept the scientific knowledge (based on the universe behavior), then he will always be saying that we have not “proofs” that demonstrate the falseness of AGW.

  145. Mhaze
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 12:17 PM | Permalink

    Nasil #95

    many AGW authors consider the absorptive power of CD is 0.9,

    Can you provide some examples of AGW authors who use a number similar to 0.9?

    Thus saving me the trouble of searching a bit for it.

    Thanks.

  146. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 12:19 PM | Permalink

    Stephen Richards, Jae… Do you want to maintain warm a greenhouse at night? Wet the sand in the greenhouse. If we have not sufficient humidity into the greenhouse, the heat will escape rapidly to the atmosphere and from there to the cold space by conduction and radiation. ;)

  147. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 12:43 PM | Permalink

    I am from from another solar system. Since you can’t prove I’m not, I must be. :)

  148. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 1:08 PM | Permalink

    A couple of clarifications:

    1. I have not asked anybody to prove anything. I have simply asked for alternative explanations for the warming of the last 30 years. It’s an honest question. All of the explanations that I have found (solar output increasing, cosmic rays, etc) do not hold up well to even basic examination. Although there may have been correlations in the past (correlation being necessary but not sufficient to demonstrate causality) the correlation seems to have broken down.

    2. I have never suggested extrapolating from a linear fit. I have only said that a linear fit is much more useful than subtracting cherry-picked warm years from cherry-picked cold years (or vice-versa). There is a large amount of year-to-year variation in global temperatures. A simple difference of randomly chosen years can give any result you want.

  149. Bruce
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 1:28 PM | Permalink

    JohnV

    I have only said that a linear fit is much more useful than subtracting cherry-picked warm years from cherry-picked cold years (or vice-versa). There is a large amount of year-to-year variation in global temperatures. A simple difference of randomly chosen years can give any result you want.

    The “result” I’m looking for is an explanation for big jumps in temperature in the 20th century.

    The biggest jump came pre-1940s. Why? If not CO2, what caused it? Could the same mechanism have caused the smaller rise in the 90s?

    Consider the Souther Hemisphere. from 1979 on. The net temperature rise from 1979/1980/1981/1982/1983 to 2007 is no more than .23 or as low as .07C. Yes, it got very warm in 1998, but that was the anomalous year.

    The rise in temps is tiny. The trend from 1998 is down. Flat from 1997. Where is the runaway AGW caused by CO2?

    1979 0.066
    1980 0.083
    1981 0.022
    1982 0.042
    1983 0.184
    1984 0.046
    1985 0.059
    1986 0.053
    1987 0.200
    1988 0.145
    1989 0.072
    1990 0.154
    1991 0.165
    1992 0.088
    1993 0.123
    1994 0.105
    1995 0.154
    1996 0.147
    1997 0.287
    1998 0.457
    1999 0.219
    2000 0.192
    2001 0.329
    2002 0.375
    2003 0.371
    2004 0.299
    2005 0.329
    2006 0.288
    2007 0.254

  150. MarkW
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 1:34 PM | Permalink

    Quite a few, respected and reputable scientists disagree with your opinion, that solar, cosmic, etc., have no descriptive power w/ regards to the temperature record.

  151. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 1:48 PM | Permalink

    MarkW:

    Quite a few, respected and reputable scientists disagree with your opinion, that solar, cosmic, etc., have no descriptive power w/ regards to the temperature record.

    Great. I’d like to read the references. Please provide them. I’ve probably looked at most of them and their rebuttals already, but I may be in for a surprise.

    Also, I’m still waiting for a reference re CO2 never impacting climate. The graph posted previously primarily shows that the world was very warm when there was lots of CO2. The correlation is actually pretty good if the CO2 is plotted on a logarithmic scale (as it should be since its effect on temperature is logarithmic — see junkscience.com or many other references).

  152. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 1:50 PM | Permalink

    For the past week, the NWS prog’ed a “massive offshore wind event” and possible “record high temperatures” for this CWA (SFO) which was to begin upon the passage of a supposedly weak cold front on Friday (which turned out the drench the northern part of the CWA and yield measureable precip quite a bit to the south of the forescast rain line). So here is the scorecard so far. Note, please turn off your televisions, and ignore the overblown media coverage of SoCal fires. For those who don’t know, every year, during Oct and Nov, there are always strong Santa Anas affecting the Southland. I digress.

    So, here is the SFO scorecard.
    Saturday was prog’ed to be full on offshore, with not quite record warmth. Reality: A very chilly morning with a few scattered showers. Winds were NNW all day. Temps only got into the 60s (far short of a record for this part of Oct, in fact, perhaps slightly below normal.
    Yesterday was prog’ed to continue with the offshore event, and there was to be a good chance of records. Reality: Another fairly chilly morning. Winds NNW until well into the evening. They went calm at about 2000 local time. At 2300 local time, an ever so slight NNE wind kicked in and a minor inversion was set up. Highs during afternoon were just shy of 70 in coastal areas and in the 70s elsewhere. Nice typical fall / winter weather between storm systems. But no records.
    Today: Inversion had been wiped out by early morning and it was actually a bit chilly in the areas with poor cold air drainage. Light NNW wind in the early morning. Calm at mid day. Will give readout regarding temps later. NWS still prog’ing set up of triple barrel high and major event later today.

    [Just a reminder of the purpose of this exercise. It seems that weather models tend to hype warm / hot related conditions and play down cool / cold related ones. Meteo model hype may be related to certain issues also seen with GCMs.]

  153. nevket240
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 1:56 PM | Permalink

    Maybe logarithmic to where the bands are saturated then it is just a passnger along for the ride.

    regards.

    look up Lubos site for more on radiance etc.

  154. MarkW
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 1:56 PM | Permalink

    The graph showed that the world was warm when there was lots of CO2. It showed that it was cold when there was lots of CO2. It showed that the world was warm when there was little CO2. It showed that the world was cold when there was little CO2. If you only look for those things that confirm your opinions, and ignore everything else, it’s amazing how rarely your opinions are challenged.

  155. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 1:57 PM | Permalink

    RE: #139 – It is interesting that the “worst case” scenarios for AGW seem to rely on vast expansion of “horse latitudes” type climates. I see little evidence of such expansion. Some people may point to the SE US drought, but I would attribute it to a colder than normal summer in the Canadian Shield.

  156. MarkW
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 1:59 PM | Permalink

    JohnV,

    Do you ever read the responses to the criticism, or do you just read the criticisms and decide based on that limited knowledge. For example, I’ve pointed out that the RC criticisms of the solar hypothesis fails to take into account the entirety of the EM spectrum output by the sun. You’ve never acknowledged that criticsm.

  157. Steve Moore
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 2:06 PM | Permalink

    Has anybody else had a problem accessing ICECAP today?
    It now comes up requiring authorization, which wasn’t the case two days ago.

  158. jae
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 2:10 PM | Permalink

    146: No, if you want to retain heat in your greenhouse, you do like the passive solar designers do, you put a thick insulated concrete pad in there and paint it black. That way you don’t lose the latent heat of vaporization (the greenhouse must “breathe,” to get additional CO2 in there, you know). But then, you would have to install fans on a sunny day to avoid steamed veggies.

  159. PeterS
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 2:16 PM | Permalink

    As a layman, here’s something I wonder about. It seems to me that a rise in CO2 and a rise in temperature are two separate, but coincidental, events and attempts to link them together fail. If CO2 fluctuation is thought about completely separately from temperature fluctuation, would it not be more fruitful? When all ‘objects’ in the first line of enquiry are considered, it appears that we have three – two variables and one fixed. The ‘variables’ are CO2 and used land (by ‘used’ I mean used for the annual cycle of crop growing), and the ‘fixed’ object is the globe. That is, two can (and do) change in size, and one cannot.

    For the interaction between the two variable objects to be successful, it requires a necessary increase in size of available CO2 (as fuel), and that increase would need to be compressed within the fixed space of the globe object. That is, the globe object cannot expand and contract – as if it were a balloon – in order to contain the increased or decreased size of the CO2 object and maintain a constant fixed ratio in its atmospheric space (of say, 3ppm).

    An good analogy might be of a man who needs to take 1 teaspoon of sugar everyday dissolved in a fixed half-pint glass of water as a means of sustaining health. As he grows bigger, his required intake goes up to 2 teaspoons – but he still only has his half-pint glass to dissolve it in. But he knows if he drinks the full contents of the glass he will receive his required amount of sugar. On the other hand, if the globe could expand, the analogy would change to the man increasing the size of his glass so that the ratio of water to sugar always remained fixed.

    I then wonder if this might have any value in explaining an increase in CO2 following an ice age. Wouldn’t the receding ice leave plenty of raw fertile land and a sudden demand for the oceans to release a lot more from its stored CO2 banks to fuel a rapid increase in new, growing vegetation?

  160. Buddenbrook
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 2:16 PM | Permalink

    The Fundamental Equation of alarmist CO2 Science

    Uncertainty x Uncertainty x Uncertainty + AGW = Conviction

    For reference: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/sweatin-the-mediterranean-heat/#more-488

    Try to estimate how many vast uncertainties the Theory of AGW desertification of the Mediterranean witholds. Then compare this to the level of reliability that is being given to this theory. Notice a disparity perhaps?

    It’s like a competition who can come up with the biggest scare mongering story. I must say Professor Mekik puts in a creative effort.

    On a more serious note have CA looked at precipitation anomalies? Any past audit work to take a look at? They seem to be relying on tree rings and computer models for this stuff too.

  161. jae
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 2:19 PM | Permalink

    148: You rely only on Lockwood and Frolich’s paper, which has been criticized by at least three famous Solar Scientists that I know of. I won’t say more because of the scissors.

  162. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 2:31 PM | Permalink

    I would agree with both, the linear trend is upwards and the best way to look at this. I also agree that it’s currently down over the last “few years”. And that there’s a rise in CO2 levels over either period.

    Then there are the questions. Is 5 or 10 or 20 years enough, or do we need 30 or more? Is it up or down from 1986 to 2006 for example, picking it at last 20, and it’s +.19 C per decade. From +.1 to +.5

    But what does it mean? Is there a correlation? If so, what direction, if any is the causation?

    I don’t think any of the possible causes that are not demonstratable by experimentation can be proven ever. We don’t know what it is causing the warming, we’re guessing at it (To fulfill the human need to explain thigs, no doubt) We can measure the system, model it, come up with scenarios, have conjectures, come up with opinions, write papers tending to show something is true or not. But not prove it. What’s wrong with saying “we don’t know”?

  163. jae
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 2:35 PM | Permalink

    152: Same here in So. Oregon. Must be using same NWS data here, too. :)

  164. John A
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 2:53 PM | Permalink

    David Bellamy on “Today’s Forecast: A blast of hot air

  165. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 3:15 PM | Permalink

    MarkW:

    Do you ever read the responses to the criticism, or do you just read the criticisms and decide based on that limited knowledge.

    I try to read both sides. I put more weight on peer-reviewed literature (peer review is far from perfect, but it’s also far better than nothing).

    The graph showed that the world was warm when there was lots of CO2. It showed that it was cold when there was lots of CO2. It showed that the world was warm when there was little CO2. It showed that the world was cold when there was little CO2.

    I said that generally speaking temperatures were higher when there was lots of CO2. I stand by that. I have also never claimed that CO2 is the only thing affecting climate. Over time scales as large as 600 million years there are huge changes in solar output and continental configurations. The sun has been and still is a very important climate forcing. I just don’t see how the sun explains the recent warming.

    For the record, I would love for the IPCC consensus to be wrong. I have nothing to gain from CO2 restrictions. I live in Alberta where hydrocarbons rule. I grew up in the heart of the Athabasca oilsands.

    If you only look for those things that confirm your opinions, and ignore everything else, it’s amazing how rarely your opinions are challenged.

    The funny thing is that I feel exactly the same way about your views. (That’s not meant to be inflammatory — I really am amazed how two people can look at the same data and come to completely different conclusions).

    jae:

    You rely only on Lockwood and Frolich’s paper, which has been criticized by at least three famous Solar Scientists that I know of.

    I’m not sure where the “only” came from, but I am familiar with L&F. I have also read Svensmark and Friis-Christensen’s response to L&F as well as Tamino’s counter-response (his most recent article).

  166. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 3:34 PM | Permalink

    Over at Tamino, the post on sun stuff (something uninteresting afai concerned) he says

    Frankly there’s no doubt that man-made greenhouse gases are the principal cause for modern global warming (from about 1975 to the present).

    Good to see he’s so certain about it.

    Eli over there has a doozy on the one about MWP vs modern when explaining why the tree rings only go to 1980 and why they haven’t been updated:

    given the large amount of effort and expenses to “bring the data base up to date” that is not practical.

    Oh, those guys over there are such jokers, aren’t they?

    Hans was in rare form over at Deltoid on wapo war on gore

    What would happen if greenland would melt? Holland would drown. Wat would happen if pigs could fly? We would eat pigs wings.

    Valid scientific questions, valid scientific answers.

    That got 4 answers, lol

    Oh, in case you’re wondering, the link started here and ended up going along those lines of thought being followed…

  167. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 3:40 PM | Permalink

    I had said:

    John V, you say:

    “I don’t understand your point. The global temperature has been trending up for the 18 complete years since 1988. (Please don’t talk about cooling since 1998 — we’ve been there and it’s not true for any sort of trend measurement).”

    This statement is meaningless without saying what length trend you are talking about, and specifying which dataset you are using.

    John V. replied:

    Choose your trend measurement: line-of-best-fit (any period over ~5 years), multi-year average, etc.
    Choose your data set: GISTEMP, HadCRU, Satellite

    OK, linear trend, ordinary least square error (OLS).

    6 YR. TRENDS:HadCRUT:..GISS.:UAH MSU:RSS MSU
    1988 — 1993 : -0.14 : -0.39 : -0.43 : -0.29
    1989 — 1994 : -0.07 : -0.25 : -0.14 : . . .
    1990 — 1995 : . . . : -0.12 : -0.02 : . . .
    1991 — 1996 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1992 — 1997 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1993 — 1998 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1994 — 1999 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1995 — 2000 : . . . : . . . : . . . : -0.02
    1996 — 2001 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1997 — 2002 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1998 — 2003 : . . . : . . . : -0.06 : -0.04
    1999 — 2004 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    2000 — 2005 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    2001 — 2006 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .

    7 YR. TRENDS:HadCRUT:..GISS.:UAH MSU:RSS MSU
    1988 — 1994 : -0.06 : -0.24 : -0.25 : -0.11
    1989 — 1995 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1990 — 1996 : -0.04 : -0.02 : . . . : . . .
    1991 — 1997 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1992 — 1998 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1993 — 1999 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1994 — 2000 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1995 — 2001 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1996 — 2002 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1997 — 2003 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1998 — 2004 : . . . : . . . : -0.08 : -0.06
    1999 — 2005 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    2000 — 2006 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .

    8 YR. TRENDS:HadCRUT:..GISS.:UAH MSU:RSS MSU
    1988 — 1995 : . . . : -0.04 : -0.04 : . . .
    1989 — 1996 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1990 — 1997 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1991 — 1998 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1992 — 1999 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1993 — 2000 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1994 — 2001 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1995 — 2002 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1996 — 2003 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1997 — 2004 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1998 — 2005 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .
    1999 — 2006 : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . .

    w.

  168. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 3:45 PM | Permalink

    RE: #152 – Realistically, with the lowering sun angle and light breezes, these are likely to be the high temps for the CWA for today:
    ASUS46 KSTO 222105
    RWRCA

    NORTHERN AND CENTRAL CA REGIONAL WEATHER ROUNDUP
    NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SACRAMENTO CA
    200 PM PDT MON OCT 22 2007

    NOTE: FAIR INDICATES FEW OR NO CLOUDS BELOW 12,000 FEET WITH NO
    SIGNIFICANT WEATHER AND/OR OBSTRUCTIONS TO VISIBILITY.

    CAZ001-003-222200-
    NORTHWEST AREA

    CITY SKY/WX TMP DP RH WIND PRES REMARKS
    CRESCENT CITY SUNNY 65 49 56 N8 30.30S

    CAZ005>008-065-075-222200-
    BAY AREA

    CITY SKY/WX TMP DP RH WIND PRES REMARKS
    SANTA ROSA NOT AVBL
    NAPA SUNNY 79 30 16 E14 30.28F
    CONCORD SUNNY 75 36 24 NE8 30.29F
    OAKLAND SUNNY 71 35 26 W6 30.29F
    LIVERMORE SUNNY 78 37 22 E13 30.27F
    HAYWARD SUNNY 74 38 27 W5 30.27F
    MOFFETT ARPT SUNNY 77 32 19 N3 30.27F
    SAN JOSE ARPT MOSUNNY 80 27 14 VRB5 30.26F

    CAZ009-010-034-037-074-222200-
    CENTRAL COAST

    CITY SKY/WX TMP DP RH WIND PRES REMARKS
    WATSONVILLE SUNNY 84 31 14 VRB3 30.25F
    MONTEREY SUNNY 82 20 10 VRB3 30.26F
    SAN LUIS OBISP SUNNY 83 21 10 SW6 30.22F SMOKE

    CAZ015-016-222200-
    NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY

    CITY SKY/WX TMP DP RH WIND PRES REMARKS
    REDDING SUNNY 83 34 17 N14G21 30.29F
    RED BLUFF SUNNY 83 33 16 N9 30.30F
    OROVILLE SUNNY 75 38 26 VRB3 30.32F

    CAZ016>018-222200-
    SOUTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY

    CITY SKY/WX TMP DP RH WIND PRES REMARKS
    MARYSVILLE N/A 73 N/A N/A CALM 30.31F
    MATHER AIRPORT NOT AVBL
    SAC EXEC ARPT SUNNY 74 38 27 CALM 30.30F
    VACAVILLE SUNNY 76 31 19 VRB5 30.30F

    CAZ019>021-222200-
    SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY

    CITY SKY/WX TMP DP RH WIND PRES REMARKS
    MODESTO SUNNY 76 39 26 SE5 30.29F
    MERCED SUNNY 76 30 18 SE12 30.29F
    LEMOORE MOSUNNY 77 31 18 CALM 30.30F
    FRESNO MOSUNNY 77 26 15 VRB3 30.31F
    HANFORD SUNNY 75 30 19 CALM 30.30F
    PORTERVILLE SUNNY 81 19 10 N7 30.30F
    BAKERSFIELD SUNNY 82 23 11 N13 30.26F

    CAZ011-012-071-222200-
    NORTHERN MOUNTAINS

    CITY SKY/WX TMP DP RH WIND PRES REMARKS
    YREKA SUNNY 58 37 45 S5 30.53F
    MOUNT SHASTA SUNNY 63 39 41 VRB6 30.49F
    ALTURAS SUNNY 65 33 30 CALM 30.55F

    CAZ011-012-071-222200-
    SIERRA NEVADA MTNS

    CITY SKY/WX TMP DP RH WIND PRES REMARKS
    BLUE CANYON SUNNY 73 30 20 NE7 30.48F
    TRUCKEE SUNNY N/A N/A N/A N6 30.59
    TAHOE VLY ARPT SUNNY 59 22 24 CALM 30.57F

    To put it in perspective, we sometimes get a “late Indian Summer” in November and “Halcyon Days” in Dec – Feb. I remember one Christmas as a kid (tellingly, I think it must have been ’75, just 6 weeks prior to the mother of all low elevation snow events) walking around in shorts and flip flops, tossing a frisbee out on the street in a Bay Area burb. I’d be quite surprised if any of these turn out to be records.

  169. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 3:50 PM | Permalink

    Willis, you win that one. :)
    Approximately 13% of the year/source combinations show a negative trend.
    Surprisingly, ~2/3 of the negative trends are prior to 1998.

  170. Philip_B
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 4:32 PM | Permalink

    Re #155 SteveSadlov brings up an important point. If climate change means anything, it means an expansion of tropical and sub-tropical climate zones and a corresponding contraction of cool temperate and polar climate zones. Changes in these climate zones appears to be the basis for most alarmist claims/predictions.

    As the discussions here show, temperature data is inherently noisy and affected by many factors. In contrast we have excellent data for air pressure, and differences in air pressure characterize the boundaries between climate zones, in particular the boundary of most concern, to the developed world at least, between the sub-tropical highs of the horse latitudes and the the low pressure systems of the cool temperate zone.

    The data should be available to determine if indeed hot/warm climate zones are increasing and cool/cold zones decreasing. I find it surprising that this kind of analysis is not done (or maybe it has and I am unaware of it), because expansion/contraction in climate zones measured by average air pressure would be the smoking gun for climate change IMO.

  171. Larry
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 4:43 PM | Permalink

    169, how do you define “prior to 1998″? Is that only the periods that end in 1997 or earlier?

  172. Stuart Marvin
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 5:06 PM | Permalink

    Like many people on this thread I’m intersted in establishing just what effect increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide have on the surface temperatures climate. Modelling seems just too complicated and observations of annual mean temperatures are possibly not sensitive enough.

    If I were to attempt to measure it I might try to look at overnight mimimum temperatures. The primary reason would be that during sunlight hours there is IR flux both inbound and outbound which may have a cancelling effect, whereas at night there would only tend to be outbound IR. The effects of absorption by carbon dioxide would be more pronounced, I think. Is anyone aware of an analysis of night time minima?

  173. MarkW
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 5:12 PM | Permalink

    JohnV,

    Generally speaking is not a scientific standard. The fact that CO2 and temperature move high and low, independantly of each other is sufficient to prove that CO2 does not drive climate.

  174. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 5:29 PM | Permalink

    Anyone else seen all the news stories suddenly coming out regarding an increase in the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere and how this is excellerating global warming. Apparently everything is happening 20 years ealier than they thought. Headline news here in NZ and yet I have sourced the story from the UAE to May of this year. Who is pushing this stuff?

  175. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 5:51 PM | Permalink

    Subsequent to the above post it seems the article was in the US Academy of Science and states that CO2 levels are 35% higher than first thought so global warming is happening even faster than first thought. Note to those compiling temperature info: please find a warming to correspond with this latest CO2 research.

  176. aurbo
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 5:51 PM | Permalink

    For jae, et al:

    Glad to see that your #140 clarifies an earlier remark. The oceans store a massive amount of heat without an apparent concomitant rise in temperature. The delta temperature depends on the thermal mass of the energy absorbing body. Air has a very low thermal mass, water a relatively high one. On an ocean surface devoid of wind-driven foam, the ocean presents a low albedo to incoming solar radiation and most of the solar energy is stored in the top layers down to the depth where light can penetrate. As for land areas, dry (desert type) soils have a generally high albedo and significant radiation is reflected back into space. (The clear atmosphere is a lousy absorber of solar radiation). Still, the land is much hotter than the sea surface. This is due to other properties of the land surface. In the oceansd, water, being a fluid can distribute heat by convection and advection or turbulent mixing. Most dry land surfaces are both poor conductors of heat and have relatively low thermal mass. This means that most of the incoming insolation that is not reflected or retransmitted as long-wave radiation is absorbed in a shallow layer near the surface. As a result, the same amount of isolation that reaches the ocean surfaces without much increase in sensible heat can cause the land surface temperature to rise significantly, hot enough to fry an egg on a clear, hot and calm summer day.

    Add water to the land surface and a significant portion of the heat energy is taken up by the water, either directly or by conduction with the soil. The vapor pressure is proportional to the water temperature and the relationship is logarithmic. This means that the rate of evaporation increases with rising water temperature. The resulting water vapor extracts considerable heat capturing this heat from its surroundings which cools the surface. (That’s why nature invented sweat). WV is more buoyant than air (all other physical parameters being equal) and rises until it eventually condenses or sublimes at which point the latent heat is returned to its surroundings. In this regard it behaves as a heat engine employing a Carnot cycle. Without going into the TD, because of its unique capability among the other atmospheric gases to exist in all three states within the normal range of tropospheric temperatures, water becomes the most significant conveyor of thermal energy between the surface and the atmosphere, especially at levels above the surface boundary area. It alone has the capability of altering the radiative balances at various levels in the atmosphere depending up its physical state (gas, liquid or solid). So, until the effects of clouds, whether composed of water droplets or ice crystals, and in the case of liquid water, the droplet sizes, can be parameterized and modeled with reasonable accuracy, the solution to predicting Global temperatures will remain elusive. Water’s impact on the control and variation of atmospheric temperatures would appear to be orders of magnitude greater than…what’s it called…CO2.

    Wake me when they get that problem solved.

  177. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 6:30 PM | Permalink

    aurbo, great post, an excellent summary of the real issue

    >> Is anyone aware of an analysis of night time minima?

    I did read a study on nightly minimums several years ago. I didn’t understand the significance at the time, but they found no AGW signature. I think it involved measurements in the American Southwest.

  178. Larry
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 6:38 PM | Permalink

    176, that sounds very fishy. The levels of CO2 are well known, and have been since 1958. That’s probably the only really good statistic that they have in all of climate science.

    If I had to guess, somebody got very confused, and used the dummied-up CO2 potential figure, which is a pseudo concentration that supposedly takes into account methane and other GHGs. Some people have been running around claiming that the actual CO2 concentration is almost 500 ppm. This is ignorance and/or dishonesty on steroids. The CO2 hasn’t suddenly gone up; the tall tales have.

  179. Jon
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 6:50 PM | Permalink

    John V. writes:

    The discrepancy between NH and SH temperatures is important, and is predicted by the GCMs (climate models). The abundance of water in the SH compared to the NH explains the difference. The ocean absorbs heat from the atmosphere without warming much. Land transfers heat to the atmosphere much more readily.

    Well, that doesn’t explain the pivot in the divergence–the divergence is most pronounced in the past ~20 years.

    Anyways, I stepped into this without the background of the prior conversation. I don’t have the time to often read these free-for-all threads. I’m not ‘against’ John V. I just raised a red flag b.c., the dismissive tone seemed excessive. My point is that a NH/SH divergence discussion is interesting.

    I hope to see more of it.

  180. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 6:52 PM | Permalink

    MarkW:

    The fact that CO2 and temperature move high and low, independantly of each other is sufficient to prove that CO2 does not drive climate.

    Your logic is flawed. It means that CO2 is not the *only* driver of climate. When there are multiple influences on a system, the correlation with any one influence is necessarily less than perfect.

    Example:
    There can be hot days when it’s cloudy, hot days when it’s sunny, cold days when it’s cloudy, and hot days when it’s cloudy. Would you conclude that cloudiness does not influence temperature?

  181. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 7:01 PM | Permalink

    Re: 176
    The person interviewed on NZ radio was Corrine Le Quare from the University of East Anglia in the UK. She claims amount of CO2 being pumped out is 35% greater than first thought and the oceans are not taking up the extra so there must be more in the atmosphere.

  182. jae
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 7:32 PM | Permalink

    177, Aurbo: Thank you. I agree 100%.

  183. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 7:52 PM | Permalink

    #171 Larry:

    how do you define gprior to 1998? Is that only the periods that end in 1997 or earlier?

    Is there any other way to define prior to 1998?

  184. aurbo
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 7:58 PM | Permalink

    Re #182:

    If I read your post correctly, Le Quare says that the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere is 35% greater than originally estmated. She apparently does not say that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased by 35%. I don’t believe the atmospheric concentration is that much in doubt given the stability and reproducibility of the Keeling (Mauna Loa) data among others. If it isn’t in the atmosphere, why are they so sure it isn’t in the oceans? Another possibility is that when it comes to estimating sources, they may not know what they’re talking about.

    Let’s say we stretch our imagination and assume they are right; it is in the atmosphere. Then all of the other measurements are invalidated. It looks like a new HS phenomenon is being constructed.

  185. M. Jeffus
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 8:42 PM | Permalink

    From: http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1687252007 researchers at the University of East Anglia report that “Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen 35 per cent more quickly than expected since 2000…

    From: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 382 ppm in 2006 according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Earth Systems Research Laboratory, a 36 percent increase.

    According to these references the amount of CO2 has increased by 36% since pre-industrial times. And, the rate of increase of CO2 has increased by 35% since 2000.

    See http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ for “Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide – Mauna Loa” and “Annual Mean Growth Rate” from 1959 through 2006.

  186. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 8:46 PM | Permalink

    It seems Mauna Loa measurements showed a rise of 2.5ppm in 2002 and 2003 as opposed to the estimate of 1.5ppm. This latest research by Corrine Le Quare seems to show that an increase of 35% over and above the estimated output of CO2 has occured. Her interview on NZ radio was alarmist and yet nobody thinks to ask why the temperature is not rising to the same degree. It’s almost as if the temperatures are becoming obsolete and the measurement of CO2 in itself is enough. Has not the argument always been that the rise in CO2 levels causes the temperature to rise?

  187. Larry
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 8:56 PM | Permalink

    186, if you look closely at the CO2 data, the rate of change is never consistent from year to year. It always increases (since 1958), but not uniformly. There have been some papers that relate the rate-of-change to solar cycles. So there’s no reason to think that a short-term move from 1.5 to 2.5 ppm is remarkable.

    You could turn that argument around; if CO2 is rising more rapidly than in recent history, why is temperature essentially flat?

  188. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 9:00 PM | Permalink

    From the BBC: “The amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed by the world’s oceans has reduced”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7053903.stm

  189. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 9:07 PM | Permalink

    paul, you say:

    Anyone else seen all the news stories suddenly coming out regarding an increase in the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere and how this is excellerating global warming. Apparently everything is happening 20 years ealier than they thought. Headline news here in NZ and yet I have sourced the story from the UAE to May of this year. Who is pushing this stuff?

    I’ve tracked it to this article, but the linked underlying PNAS study is not yet online. The article says:

    Emissions increased faster in the period 2000-2006 (at 3.3% per year) than they did in the 1990s (1.3% per year) and are now higher than at any other time since continuous monitoring began in 1959. But there’s another devastating twist, according to Global Carbon Project lead author Pep Canadell and colleagues. There’s strong evidence that terrestrial and oceanic carbon sinks aren’t working as efficiently now as they were 50 years ago. A series of droughts on land and changes in ocean currents – both largely down to us – mean that less atmospheric carbon has been taken out of the system. Things are getting worse faster than we thought.

    If this were true, that the emissions have increased and the carbon sinks have decreased, we’d see the evidence in the annual change in atmospheric CO2. More emissions and less sinks would mean more atmospheric CO2 … but there’s no such signal in the record. Since science is based on falsifiable predications, my prediction, without having seen the paper, is that

    1) They will compare the 2000—2007 airborne CO2 increase rate to the 1990’s (which were lower than the 1980’s increase rates)

    2) They will scrupulously ignore error estimates, and

    3) They will not account for autocorrelation in their statistics.

    Time will tell …

    w.

    Whoa, hold the presses, I just found a version of the paper here that lays out their main arguments. Back soon …

    Well, I was right on #2 and #3, wrong on #1. No error estimates, no adjusment for autocorrelation. In addition, they have given a 2006 emission value that is estimated, but they don’t give a source for the estimate.

  190. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 9:21 PM | Permalink

    Larry:

    why is temperature essentially flat?

    Oh no, not again…
    That’s a myth caused by 1998 being so warm.
    Plot the temperatures, remove 1998, and the trend is clearly upward.
    Look at the 5-year trailing average and the trend is clearly upward.

    Cue Bruce with some Southern Hemisphere yearly comparisons…

  191. crosspatch
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 9:26 PM | Permalink

    Is there any place that does a dissolved CO2 in sea water graphic over time like the the Mauna Loa site does for CO2 in air?

    And with regards to comment #186, yes, I have noticed that too. The alarmists are now acting as if CO2 is somehow in and of itself the problem and that has not been shown to be the case. I would expect CO2 to increase if we have a weather pattern that clears the Arctic Ocean of a good bit of ice in summer while at the same time having record ice pack in the Southern ocean. Solar warming of the surface water should cause outgassing of CO2 while the ice in the Southern ocean removes more water from contact with the atmosphere. And I would further expect any warming of arctic permafrost areas to release further CO2. So still I see no evidence that CO2 leads temperature change in this case as it could well be explained as a lagging indicator of temperature change.

  192. Bruce
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 9:29 PM | Permalink

    JohnV

    Tell me the CRU doesnt think the Southern Hemisphere temps arent going down:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/s17.htm

  193. aurbo
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 9:54 PM | Permalink

    Re my 184:

    Thanks to post #185, and after reading the Scotsman article, I have to revise my previous post. Le Quare was talking about the rate of rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the concentration. That rate of increase is consistent with the Mauna Loa data. Now for the reasons. I suspect there has been an increase in CO2 from several sources, not just the oceans or industry. Over the past few years we have seen an inordinate amount of forest fires and that may have some influence although I’m not prepared to gauge the relative orders of magnitude.

    As for the ocean effects, storminess may bring more CO2 to the surface, but that implies a saturation deficit at greater depths and this mismatch should be resolved in short order by turbulent mixing and difusion. When things calm down, the surface is left with a unbalanced equilibrium with an excess of CO2 in the well mixed atmosphere above and CO2 should return to the oceans. The solubility of CO2 in water increases with decreasing water temps. At 20°C thesoulbility of CO2 in water is about 1800ppm; at 0°C CO2 solubility is about 3200ppm. Over the past 12 months, global SSTs have been declining fairly significantly. Also, and ironically, the expanse of open water in the frigid Arctic regions this past Boreal Summer should enhance the dissolution of CO2 in that region. It will be interesting to see which way the rate of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will develop during he next year or two.

  194. JimC
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 10:11 PM | Permalink

    Why are the surface station data so at odds with satellite data? UAH clearly shows from what I’ve seen, that 2007 thus far is no warmer than 20 years ago and a definite flattening of the previous decadal trend since 1999 or so.

    This field is new to me, and climate science is not my domain, but as a lab tech for many years, thus far in my estimation the data collection and reliability appears to be fairly sloppy and would never pass any audit standard. It’s beginning to look like a crap shoot.

    Do one or both (sat and thermometer) have calibration procedures to known standards?

    Thanks.

  195. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 10:11 PM | Permalink

    Larry,
    For completeness, would you mind also showing the Northern Hemisphere and global trends?
    They’re available here:
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/n17.htm
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

  196. MarkR
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 10:21 PM | Permalink

    GEOCARB III: A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER
    PHANEROZOIC TIME-BERNER

    GERHARD-CLIMATE CHANGE

    based on these records if you believe that climate is being driven by CO2 then they probably would have no difficulty in accepting the idea that Winston Churchill was instrumental in the defeat of King Harold by William (the Conqueror) at the Battle of Hastings in 1066.

    The Geologic Record and Climate Change-Dr. Tim Patterson,
    Professor of Geology at Carleton University

    What the evidence shows
    So what we have on the best current evidence is that
    �� global temperatures are currently rising;
    �� the rise is part of a nearly million-year oscillation with the current rise

    beginning some 25,000 years ago;
    �� the “trip” or bifurcation behavior at the temperature extremes is
    attributable to the “opening” and “closing” of the Arctic Ocean;
    �� there is no need to invoke CO2 as the source of the current
    temperature rise;
    �� the dominant source and sink for CO2 are the oceans, accounting for
    about two-thirds of the exchange, with vegetation as the major
    secondary source and sink;
    �� if CO2 were the temperature–oscillation source, no mechanism—
    other than the separately driven temperature (which would then be a
    circular argument)—has been proposed to account independently for
    the CO2 rise and fall over a 400,000-year period;
    �� the CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from combustion is within the
    statistical noise of the major sea and vegetation exchanges, so a
    priori, it cannot be expected to be statistically significant;
    �� water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative
    absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not
    CO2;
    �� determination of the radiation absorption coefficients identifies water
    as the primary absorber in the 5.6–7.6-ìm water band in the 60–80%
    RH range; and
    �� the absorption coefficients for the CO2 bands at a concentration of
    400 ppm are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude too small to be significant
    even if the CO2 concentrations were doubled.

    Robert H. Essenhigh is the E. G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion in
    the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ohio State University

    dirac angestun gesept says:
    September 17th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
    #59: I still haven’t had explained to me how the seasonal variations in CO2 concentration create the seasons.

    Well, first of all you have to forget all that stuff about the spinning Earth being tilted at an angle of twenty-something degrees to the ecliptic, and cooling during its Northern winters, warming during its summers. Forget about the Sun. Or better still, think of the Earth as being flat.

    Think instead about CO2 in the atmosphere. During summer, when plant photosynthesis is maximum, plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, and reduce its levels, and thus reduce global warming, resulting in a subsequent cold winter. During winter, when plant photosynthesis is at a minimum, CO2 levels tend to rise, resulting in global warming – and the subsequent warm summer.

    See. Quite easy to explain.

    You’ll probably want to know about anthropogenic seasonal variation too. That is, how humans manage to create the seasons. And this happens because, during winter, humans tend to light fires to keep warm, and these fires generate CO2, which causes global warming, and results in warm summers. During these warm summers, humans stop burning fires, and the excess CO2 is absorbed by plants, reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and bringing global cooling, and the subsequent winter.

    The result, as I’m sure you’ll see, is that the seasonal cycle of spring-summer-autumn-winter is entirely created by human activity, and if humans would simply stop burning fires in winter, this seasonal variation would vanish, and terrestrial surface temperatures would remain more or less constant.

    Convinced? I’m sure you are. If you want to save the world from the endless cycle of the destruction of the creation, all you have to do is to not turn on your heating system when temperatures fall 10 or 20 degrees C below zero. It would also help if you stayed outside, and didn’t wear any clothes, or ate anything. You know by now that it makes no sense to do stupid things like that, right?

  197. jimDK
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 10:48 PM | Permalink

    Professor bob carter on climate change http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
    great video showing the temperature record and how normal the late 20th century warming really was

  198. Philip_B
    Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 11:03 PM | Permalink

    Re#181

    COO levels are indeed increasing faster than the IPCC predicted.

    The growth rate of carbon dioxide, or CO2, emissions has averaged 3.3 percent a year since 2000, compared with 1.1 percent in the 1990s, according to a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The rate rose 35 percent more than scientists had anticipated based on economic growth, said Corinne Le Quere, one of the authors of the paper.

    Note the 35% rate increase is relative to economic growth. The actual rate increase from a rate of 1.1% to a rate 3.3% would be 200%.

    And of course, no one dares mention that under Kyoto CO2 emissions have accelerated 200% and Kyoto itself is substantial to blame for the economic growth versus COO emission discrepancy, because it drives energy intensive industries like steel out energy efficient countries like Germany and Japan and into energy inefficient countries like China and India.

  199. Posted Oct 22, 2007 at 11:26 PM | Permalink

    # 145

    Mhaze,

    I had not seen your message, I am sorry.

    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=124412. Here the author assumed that the atmosphere is a blackbody with an emissivity of 1.0!

    http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/SCOOL/energy_budget.html Here Trenberth gives the atmosphere an absorptivity of 0.83 and an emissivity of 1.0. The surface would have an absorptivity of 1.0. Pure blackbodies, not real bodies. ;)

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/IPCCTP.II(S).pdf (from 2.3.1 to 2.3.5)

    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/219.htm

    I obtained the value of their CD emissivity by clearing the variable from the formulas that can be applied if my algorithm and their algorithm are the same. For example, from qg(x1) = [epsilon/1-epsilon] [sigma (T^4)1 (x1) - J1(x1)], which is the radiative exchange if conduction and convection occur at the same time. I apply also the formula derived from Fourier and, but including the value of emissivity.

    There are more references where the authors consider the carbon dioxide like a blackbody.

  200. Andrey Levin
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 12:31 AM | Permalink

    Aurbo, Jae, Gunnar:

    Take a look at device called “heat pipe”, which is commercially available and quite popular:

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

    http://www.npowertek.com/product/index_heat_pipe.htm

  201. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 12:54 AM | Permalink

    Philip, you say:

    Re#181

    COO levels are indeed increasing faster than the IPCC predicted.

    “The growth rate of carbon dioxide, or CO2, emissions has averaged 3.3 percent a year since 2000, compared with 1.1 percent in the 1990s, according to a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The rate rose 35 percent more than scientists had anticipated based on economic growth, said Corinne Le Quere, one of the authors of the paper.”

    Note the 35% rate increase is relative to economic growth. The actual rate increase from a rate of 1.1% to a rate 3.3% would be 200%.

    And of course, no one dares mention that under Kyoto CO2 emissions have accelerated 200% and Kyoto itself is substantial to blame for the economic growth versus COO emission discrepancy, because it drives energy intensive industries like steel out energy efficient countries like Germany and Japan and into energy inefficient countries like China and India.

    There’s a couple of problems here.

    First, you are confusing “COO levels” with CO2 emissions.

    Second, their figures for 2005 and 2006 are estimates, not actual data. They say that their data comes from here, which in turn says that the data comes from the CDIAC here

    Third, the recent increase comes from China, where the figures are notoriously unreliable.

    Now, has the recent (2000—2004) CO2 emission level been rising? Yes, but you have to look at everything in context. For that purpose, I always get as long a record as I can. Here’s the emissions data from the CDIAC, but instead of post-1990, this is the data since 1900:

    We’re halfway back up to the 1950—1970 levels … EVERYBODY PANIC!

    w.

  202. Philip_B
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 1:16 AM | Permalink

    Willis Eschenbach said, First, you are confusing “COO levels” with CO2 emissions.

    You are correct. I should have said ‘emissions’. Although, I should point out that levels are increasing in line with emissions.

    You then go on to make the same error in a more significant context.

    We’re halfway back up to the 1950—1970 levels … EVERYBODY PANIC!

    In fact the graph shows the annual rate of increase in CO2 and we are going back to those rates of increase in CO2. Absolute increases in CO2 emissions will be larger than the rates as CO2 levels are higher currently than the 1950s to 1970s.

    The real news here is the Koyto protocol has managed the almost economic impossible feat of stopping the long term trend of increasing energy efficiency and hence reduction in CO2 emissions per unit of GDP.

  203. Philip_B
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 1:52 AM | Permalink

    Edited for clarity:

    In fact the graph shows the annual rate of increase in CO2 emissions and we are going back to those rates of increase in CO2 emissions. Absolute increases in CO2 emissions will be larger than the rates of CO2 emissions as current CO2 levels are substantially higher than the 1950s to 1970s.

  204. MarkW
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 4:49 AM | Permalink

    If it can be hot, while CO2 is low and if it can be cold while CO2 is high, then at best CO2 is only a minor player in the climate game. The fact that once in awhile CO2 corresponds to themperature is at best, coincidence.

  205. Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 8:10 AM | Permalink

    #204 MarkW:
    Where I live (Calgary) it is usually around -15C in the winter. When a chinook blows in, it can go to +15C in less than a day. Does the fact that it can be warm in the winter mean that the correlation between seasons and temperature is “at best, coincidence”?

    On geologic time scales, it is clear that CO2 has not been the primary driver of climate. It does not follow that CO2 can not be the primary driver now.

  206. MarkW
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 8:20 AM | Permalink

    If CO2 has never been a primary driver, despite instances of CO2 concentrations being 10 times as dense as the current worst case scenarios, then what changed to make CO2 a primary driver now.

    Unless you can create a plausible theory regarding what has changed, it is logical to assume that what was true in the past, is still true today.

    The fact that you “can’t think of anything” does not constitute proof.

  207. scp
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 8:24 AM | Permalink

    Question. I’ve poked around NASA’s gistemp web site, but haven’t been able to find something I’d like to see. Is it possible to list the top (say 100, or however many) individual stations in terms of their contribution to the global temperature trend?

  208. Tom Vonk
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 8:46 AM | Permalink

    On geologic time scales, it is clear that CO2 has not been the primary driver of climate. It does not follow that CO2 can not be the primary driver now.

    WOW that is an interesting piece of logics – the 2 statements are in contradiction unless one is able to prove that the laws of nature at “geological scales” are fundamentally different from “now” .
    As a geological scale is constituted of many nows , it won’t be easy …
    Even if you were able to give this proof , the statements would still not be true , they’d only stop being contradictory .
    Impossible to do science with such a weak logics .

    As for alternative climate explanations preferably to AGW – there is one here only a few threads below and bases on chaotic interaction of multidecadal events .
    There are many more in the same vein and look indeed more convincing than the computer assisted AGW delirium

  209. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 9:05 AM | Permalink

    >> That’s a myth caused by 1998 being so warm. Plot the temperatures, remove 1998, and the trend is clearly upward.

    Whoa, you seem to forget that your logic in this regard has been identified as invalid. You cannot remove 1998 in your effort to show that it hasn’t cooled, but then include the whole 98-02 timeframe in support of your claim that the trend is up (which has also been pointed out as insufficient reasoning).

  210. MarkW
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 9:12 AM | Permalink

    Whether or not the trend is upwards, depends entirely on where you choose to set your endpoints.

    Even you have to admit that even if we were to eliminate 1998 as a warm year, that the trend line has changed dramatically since 1998.

  211. Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 9:12 AM | Permalink

    #209 Gunnar:
    I knew the idea of removing 1998 would cause trouble. I only suggested it as a visual indicator. As I’ve said before though, you can leave it in and the linear trends are still up.

    The way the 1998 argument is used, skeptics can claim cooling for any year after a record warm year. Consider what will happen if 2010 sets a new record which is not broken until 2020. By 2015 skeptics will be claiming that warming stopped after 2010.

  212. MarkW
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 9:17 AM | Permalink

    JohnV writes:

    The way the 1998 argument is used, skeptics can claim cooling for any year after a record warm year.

    The same can be said of AGW alarmists. Only they pick unusually cold years as their starting point.

  213. MarkW
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 9:20 AM | Permalink

    What’s so special about 100 years ago as a starting point? It’s easy to show that the earth has been warming up on a regular basis since the end of the little ice age. In fact, I’ve read several studies that show that the rate of warming has been pretty steady for the last 400 years.

    If we are to pick a point, why not prior to the LIA? If we choose the middle of the mideval warming period, I could show that the earth has been cooling for the last 1000 years.

  214. JerryB
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 9:23 AM | Permalink

    Re: 207,

    scp,

    Setting aside SSTs, those would be the stations in the largest grid cells with
    the smallest numbers of stations used for estimating the trend. I’ve not seen
    a list of such stations per se.

  215. jae
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 9:45 AM | Permalink

    MarkW:
    You have made the claim that CO2 has *no* effect on climate. That’s an extraordinary claim that goes against every published bit of science I’ve ever seen. The onus is on you to provide proof. Showing a less-than-perfect correlation when one was never claimed is not proof.

    Every published bit of science? Are you jesting with the jousters here?

  216. Larry
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 9:45 AM | Permalink

    201, Willis, that’s an interesting curve. Since it’s percent change on the y-axis, it’s in effect a semilog plot. If that were the actual change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect from CO2 (which is logarithmic) would roughly follow that curve additively. But it doesn’t. It would be interesting to plot on that same plot the actual Mauna Loa numbers (again in % increase per year). That is what I would actually expect the warming due to CO2 (with or without feedback) to look like. I suspect that that curve isn’t quite so alarming.

  217. Larry
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 9:46 AM | Permalink

    I think you guys need a time-out, before Steve pulls the circuit breaker on the thread again.

  218. Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 10:11 AM | Permalink

    Larry:

    I think you guys need a time-out, before Steve pulls the circuit breaker on the thread again.

    I think you’re right. I’m out for a while.

    —–
    jae:
    Please provide a link to published science showing the CO2 has no effect on climate. I have never found anything but I’d be willing to read your references.

    Regardless of what Bob Carter says, the *global* trend is very much up since 1998. (Bruce, we know the SH trend has been down for a few years). Download the data, fit a linear trend. Here’s a link:
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.dat

    Since Dr. Carter used an 8-year trend, let’s look at those (degC/century):
    Ending in 2007: 1.48
    Ending in 2006: 2.33
    Ending in 2005: 1.16
    Ending in 2004: 1.15
    Ending in 2003: 2.91
    Ending in 2002: 2.62
    Ending in 2001: 2.82
    Ending in 2000: 3.40

    It’s obvious that Dr. Carter did not use a linear fit when showing his 8-year trend. I do not know what he used.

    —–
    MarkW:
    I’ve let you have the last word. Please refrain from any more shots in my direction.

  219. Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 10:26 AM | Permalink

    Microsite effects in Formula 1 ..

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071022/ts_afp/autoprixbrainquiry

    The stewards said that there was a discrepancy between the Formula One Management temperature of 37 degrees and that provided by the FIA and team-contracted meteorologists Meteo France, which was a few degrees cooler.

  220. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 10:31 AM | Permalink

    Andrey, yes, M.Simon introduced me to the idea that the atmosphere acts like a heat pipe.

  221. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 10:32 AM | Permalink

    Again please do not use this thread to engage in hackneyed arguments about CO2 lead-lags. Again an important topic; and again, merely exchanging opinions without canvassing the data and articles is too noisy. If someone wants to collate data and compare to articles, fine – but less venting of opinions please.

  222. Bruce
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 11:03 AM | Permalink

    JohnV

    the *global* trend is very much up since 1998

    The CRU’s current trendline is down.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

  223. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 11:04 AM | Permalink

    To expand on my 355 (and kind of answer 358 using examples) and some thoughts on temperatures and temperature proxies.

    Let me give an analogy about measuring trees as a temperature proxy using an A/D joke. How about a 1 bit A/D converter that adds 1 to a counter when there’s positive voltage, does nothing when there’s no voltage, and subtracts 1 when there’s a negative voltage, running at 100 terahertz sampling a 1 Hz sine wave? :D (For those of you unfamiliar with these things, the output of that would be 0)

    So like coring a tree and interpreting the results, there’s always other factors in play and questions to ask. Like, what are we measuring and how are we measuring it, and how accurate are our results? Another analogy. 6 bits would have a one LSB error of 1/64th of the signal range. Take a 10V p-p sine wave at 60 Hz being sampled at 60 Hz. 1/64th would be .15625 But the samples are only in .1666 volt steps so if I’m remembering correctly and have it correctly, it doesn’t matter (I think if the BER is less than the step, everything’s fine.) Regardless, doesn’t matter — the question is really besides the number of A/D bits, what are you sampling, what’s the range and sampling rate etc… and what are you storing the results in? Same with temperature (or temperature proxies) – what’s our margin of error and what’s our signal?

    Temperatures and average temperatures. Take temperatures of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 you want to average. You get 5.5 The “average temperature” goes to half a degree. Add another set of temperatures like the above but 0-10 and you get 5 for the average. (Both average and median, yay!!) Average 5.5 and 5 together and we’re down to a quarter degree at 5.25 But the temperatures themselves still only have 1 degree of resolution.

    There is also the issue of tmin and tmax. Take 5 days, group 1. 10,20 9,21 8,22 7,23 6,24 They all give you the same mean daily temperature of 15 degrees. No anomaly. Now take 5 days, Group 2 11,20 10,21 9,22 8,23 7,24 They all give you 15.5 degrees. No anomaly. But the anomaly between the two 5 day periods is +.5 degrees! What if you do 10 day temperature means using both group 1 and group 2 to get group 3? You get 8.5 degrees. If you did that 3 times for a month and get the same pattern at 10 day means for group 3, you have no anomaly, but if you do it as six, alternating group 1 and 2, you get +.5 for the month. Or do group 1 group 2 group 3 group 3 and get +.125

    It’s not the numbers, it’s what you do with them.

    I question the meaning of an anomaly of averages, regardless of how many decimal places we have, and therefore question the resulting trend (especially since these are simply air samples supposedly indicative of an area).

    I also question why what a tree did 500 or 1000 years ago is meaningful. So the tree grew better over this 10 years or that 100 years or another. Nice if you want to know how the growing season was over time and not much else.

  224. scp
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 11:05 AM | Permalink

    214 – Jerryb, Thanks for the response. I think maybe you’re talking about the weighting of the stations, which isn’t quite what I had in mind (although now that you mention it, I’m curious about that too). I was thinking of the station’s contribution after the data is filled in though. Asked another way, I’m wondering if there’s a way to list the stations in an order which is sorted by the absolute value of their anomalies over some time interval.

  225. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 11:13 AM | Permalink

    RE: #168 – Scorecard of the Big Bad Triple Barrel (It’s Got To Be Due To AGW) Offshore Wind Event, cont…

    So, after I last posted on this, temps indeed declined. After sundown the breeze turned to NNW. By about 2200 local time there was even some humidity. Sometime during the night, we might have had a minor southsoutheasterly surge, given the apparent fire smoke (from Socal?) in the air at dawn to the SE (range ~ 120 NM). Again, no real inversion during the night and no true offshore winds prior to sun up. Today is make or break day for NWS model hype – by tomorrow we’ll be in onshore push mode unless something highly unusual happens. Latest CWA discussion prog’s warmer temps today than yesterday. In other words, they are betting on increased subsidence versus yesterday. Final obs from me – we had smog this AM, indicative of weak marine layer already toying with the coastal strip. I am shorting the High.

  226. jae
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 11:15 AM | Permalink

    LOL, let’s forget CO2. It appears that in our efforts to lower CO2 emissions via “alternative fuels,” we will produce a greenhouse gas that is 296 times more powerful than CO2. Is the cure worse than the disease?

  227. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 11:24 AM | Permalink

    RE: #201 – A picture is worth 1000 words. You can clearly see the increase in the West and Japan until ecological awareness sets in late 1960s – early 1970s. Then, later, the developing world, where there has never been and likely will never be such awareness, kicks in.

  228. JerryB
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 12:05 PM | Permalink

    Re 223,

    scp,

    I’m not aware of anyone offering such a capability. If you had Steve McI’s
    collection of GISS outputs, you could develop such a capability in terms
    of GISS station estimating methods with your selection of time intervals,
    but I would guess that you are looking for something already available,
    and as I indicated, I cannot point you to such.

  229. henry
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 12:45 PM | Permalink

    Sam Urbinto said (October 23rd, 2007 at 11:04 am)

    “I question the meaning of an anomaly of averages, regardless of how many decimal places we have, and therefore question the resulting trend (especially since these are simply air samples supposedly indicative of an area).”

    I’ve been trying to say this on various blogs for quite a while now, and always get the same response: it’s the trend that matters.

    Another thing: has the SH temp chart and the NH temp chart been offset to account for seasonal changes? Example: comparing 1990 NH to 1990 SH, shouldn’t the charts be shifted by 180 degrees (summer in SH equals winter in NH).

    Now before you laugh, what if in that year, there was an extremely cold SH winter, and at the same time an extremely hot NH summer. Wouldn’t the average be closer to zero?

  230. Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 12:51 PM | Permalink

    #226 jae:
    I agree that biofuels are a bad-to-terrible idea.
    We don’t agree on much so I thought it was worth commenting on this one thing.

  231. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 1:14 PM | Permalink

    henry, I would say “The trend is all that ‘matters’ because this is not ‘short term’ data.”

    That conclusion hinges upon accurate, complete and meaningful data, but if you take that on face value and then use it to say something about the trend, that would be it.

    Then you have to ask what it means. Is it an excessive number. What causes it. What to do about it.

    So “Only the trend matters.” is incomplete and out of context but that’s all you’ll get, because the other issues get into either arguments, fields with unknown answers, or inconvenient subjects.

  232. Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 1:27 PM | Permalink

    MarkR provided a link to a paper about the GEOCARB III model above. This is the model used to generate the graph CO2 concentraions vs temperature that MarkW have been discussing. Here are links to the paper and the graph:
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2200#comment-149629

    There are some interesting points in the paper:

    —–
    First, the CO2 concentrations in the graph are calculated from a model that includes the greenhouse effect with a sensitivity of 4.0C for doubling CO2. To be clear, the CO2 concentrations that MarkW is using to argue the lack of a greenhouse effect are actually predicted from a model that includes a strong greenhouse effect. From the third page of the paper:

    Factors considered that affect temperature are the evolution of the sun, the atmospheric greenhouse effect (relating temperature to CO2), and changes in paleogeography.

    Equations used in the paper:

    Sensitivity analysis to the influence of CO2 concentrations on temperature (3.2C/doubling vs 4.0c/doubling):

    Note that the model is quite sensitive to the effect of CO2 on temperature.

    —–
    Second, the conclusions are interesting. I have reproduced the entire section below (emphasis added):

    Conclusion
    Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the
    Mesozoic, followed by a gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

    As for suggested future carbon cycle modelling work, besides the usual plea for more data from all sources, there is a special need, in both carbon cycle and climate modelling, to consider only those land areas that have sufficient rain and are sufficiently warm to exhibit appreciable chemical weathering. This entails closer interaction between GCM models and carbon cycle models, with an attempt to look at weathering on a paleogeographic, not just global, basis. In addition, because of the importance of plants to weathering, many more experimental studies under natural conditions are needed to determine how much different plants accelerate weathering and how the plants respond to change in atmospheric CO2. If nothing else, it is hoped that papers such as this one will act as a spur to more interaction between geologists, geochemists, geophysicists, biologists, and climatologists. The long term carbon cycle demands a multidisciplinary approach.

    —–
    Third, GEOCARB III compares well with proxy measurements of CO2 concentrations. A graph comparing GEOCARB III (and other models) to proxy CO2 reconstructions is available here:
    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

    Of course, this doesn’t prove anything. It does mean that MarkW’s argument against CO2 affecting climate based on this graph will need to be re-considered.

  233. Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 1:34 PM | Permalink

    There was an error in my description of the graph showing sensitivity to the CO2-vs-temperature relationship. It should have been:
    “Sensitivity analysis to the influence of CO2 concentrations on temperature (3.3C and 4.0C/doubling vs 6.0c/doubling):”

  234. Larry
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 1:34 PM | Permalink

    232, pedantic point perhaps, but the greenhouse effect is what it is. It’s the feedback that’s being assumed to be strong.

  235. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 1:38 PM | Permalink

    Now all we have to do is find a peer-reviewed paper to see what doubling co2 actually does.

    The Literature is all that’s important. Link a paper, put in a paragraph summarizing. If you are the reader of it, then agree or disagree with the main point in the paper. Simple. Like:

    Person 1: Paper X proves temperature lags methane, by 800 trillion years: Link: {link to paper, name of paper} See page 10 particularly.

    Person 2: Paper Y disproves that paper, it shows that methane leads temperature, by 800 trillion years: Link: {link to paper, name of paper} See page 19,102 particularly.

    Person 3: I have read both those papers, each one makes the mistake of underestimating the isotope lapse rate in atmosphere band 5 by 1,000 orders of magnitude, page 88,314 in the first, and page 7 in the second. The first also wrongly concludes that measurements are accurate to 8 million decimal places, and the second uses integer when floating point would have been more appropriate. That was shown here in paper Z page 22 paragraph 3 {blockquote of complicated math formula} and pages 100 to 500 which describes the formula. Instead, page 12 in paper Z proves the link is that temperature and methane both lead and lag each other at the same time, by 10 seconds. Link: {link to paper, name of paper}

  236. Allan Ames
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 1:40 PM | Permalink

    The last CA thread on H2O apparently was some time ago. There are recent developments in the spectroscopy of water and water dimers with impact on both visible and IR.
    One is:
    http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11123/2007/acpd-7-11123-2007-print.pdf?FrameEngine=false

  237. Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 1:58 PM | Permalink

    I just noticed another mistake in my comment #232 above. I was giving CO2 constants in terms of doubling, but the paper actually uses a natural log (2.718…). So, the values of 3.3, 4.0, and 6.0C that I gave should actually be 2.3C, 2.8C, and 4.2C for a doubling of CO2. Sorry about that.

    #234 Larry:
    I believe the values would have to be inclusive of all long-term feedbacks (positive and negative). The way I understand it, the effect of CO2 in isolation is not more than ~1.1C/doubling.

    Again, I’m not saying this paper proves anything. I just don’t think its results can be used as an argument against CO2 influencing climate since they depend on CO2 influencing climate.

  238. jae
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 2:35 PM | Permalink

    236: Interesting paper, and the absorption information is probably reasonable. But then they suddenly jump to this:

    The consequence of these absorptions in the atmosphere will be an increase in calculated
    5 positive water vapor feedback, though another additional effect may be cooler
    surface temperatures and warmer air temperatures. If global warming continues as is
    anticipated, the increased air temperatures will lead to greater levels of water vapor
    in the atmosphere. With greater levels of water vapor the increase in water dimer will
    be nearly quadratic, and increase the direct absorption of sunlight to a greater extent
    10 than would be predicted by empirical models based on water monomer absorption and
    line broadening. This would be offset partially by the shift in equilibrium at higher temperatures
    to favor water monomer, but the net result would likely be to enhance the
    warming effect.

    Which is totally unsubstantiated by the information in the paper. Maybe they included it to help get AGW funding.

  239. M. Jeff
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 2:36 PM | Permalink

    The New York Times, November 7, 2006, “In Ancient Fossils, Seeds of a New Debate on Warming” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/science/earth/07co2.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1 discusses the Phanerozoic record.

    Their Phanerozoic graph at http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/11/06/science/earth/20061107_CO2_GRAPHIC.html has esthetic advantages over the graph linked to by John V., October 23rd, 2007 at 1:27 pm.

  240. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 2:45 PM | Permalink

    John, I also see it being difficult to use those results to argue against it influencing climate, given they are arguing it does. And it has to according to the physics of it. Perhaps the paper was provided as an example of an unreasonable figure of the forcing power? I think you are perhaps simply both discussing the same thing, as to the degree and/or meaning.

    Oh, yes. No henry, I’m not going to laugh. If the top is +2 and the bottom -2 we get 0 My question becomes, if there are so many 1 degree temp min/max pairs that give us the same number for an average, what does averaging them out every 30 days accomplish? Then we divide the total by 28-31, which could be any number at all. If a month with 31 days is 8,20 5,18 3,16 -5,10 0-12… and every other day is 10 as an average, we end up with 312.5 and so 10.08 rounded to 2 places. This is all just an artifcact of division and the number of days picked per averaging period, or am I missing some “correction” here? Anyway, if next year I get 10.09, I’m accurate down to .01 degree on my average, and the month has a .01 anomaly. What does that mean And what happens when a day is -8 to -1; do I have a -3.5 day or do they ABS it? Is Feb turned into 30 days and padded with 0? 31 day months truncated? What are the statistical and computational adjustments doing? I give up.

    But obviously, if we keep averaging numbers with .5 in them with each other we’ll eventually get to numbers like 0.00006103515625 the more we do it.

    More thoughts:

    Trend: A .5 C trend rise is “essentially flat” by my definition.

    Analogies: Comparing weather (clouds, seasons, wind patterns) on a short term basis is not comparable with the correlation/causation of X and Y over 30+ years (or even 1 or 5 years) in climate.

    5 Years: Using the most recent is the worst, because the here and now can’t be used to predict the future very well — pick a particularly warm or cold 5 year period, 2007-2012 could be either. Or flat. Outliers, and the variability in the system, make a 5 or 10 year period a waste of time to argue about.

    Individual years: Why start or stop on outliers or remove outliers? Pick an indicative year to the years around it and go 30.

    IR: The IR absorbing properties of a trace gas is a different thing than how it specifically acts while in a sub-system. (Or how much there is, or what it means, or how its sub-system interacts with other parts of the system and they with each other). Things get easier if you discuss a single thing at once, with references of course.

    Hype: Regardless if it means anything or not, ‘Gone up 35% faster than expected!!’ is hype when discussing something like a rate of increase going from 2% to 2.7% for a year — especially given the variability from year to year.

  241. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 2:56 PM | Permalink

    That should have been “Pick a particularly warm or cold trending a 5 year period in the past; 2007-2012 could be either, or basicially flat at 0 around some leveled off plateau.”

    Here’s a question. Forget we don’t know exactly what effects clouds, oceans, co2/methane/nitrous oxide/ozone concentrations, and so on, have on their own, much less in combination with each other.

    The question is on particulates. There’s two types of particulates, in the air and on the ground. Has anyone seen anything showing if the cooling in the air is greater, less or the same than the warming on the ground due to them? Net warming? Net cooling? At equilibrium?

  242. Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 3:00 PM | Permalink

    Sam Urbinto:

    And it has to according to the physics of it. Perhaps the paper was provided as an example of an unreasonable figure of the forcing power? I think you are perhaps simply both discussing the same thing, as to the degree and/or meaning.

    Perhaps it has been a misunderstanding. As I understood him, MarkW claimed that CO2 plays no role in climate and that the “fact that once in awhile CO2 corresponds to themperature is at best, coincidence”.

    MarkW, did I misunderstand your position? Has this all been a misunderstanding?

  243. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 3:41 PM | Permalink

    RE: #225 – OK, here are likely highs and 1400 local time conditions for today:

  244. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 3:41 PM | Permalink

    RE: #225 – OK, here are likely highs and 1400 local time conditions for today:

    ASUS46 KSTO 232104
    RWRCA

    NORTHERN AND CENTRAL CA REGIONAL WEATHER ROUNDUP
    NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SACRAMENTO CA
    200 PM PDT TUE OCT 23 2007

    NOTE: FAIR INDICATES FEW OR NO CLOUDS BELOW 12,000 FEET WITH NO
    SIGNIFICANT WEATHER AND/OR OBSTRUCTIONS TO VISIBILITY.

    CAZ001-003-232200-
    NORTHWEST AREA

    CITY SKY/WX TMP DP RH WIND PRES REMARKS
    CRESCENT CITY SUNNY 77 51 40 S8 30.19F
    UKIAH SUNNY 79 46 31 CALM 30.18F

    CAZ006-505>513-232200-
    BAY AREA

    CITY SKY/WX TMP DP RH WIND PRES REMARKS
    SANTA ROSA SUNNY 80 46 30 SE3 30.16F
    SAN RAFAEL N/A 75 MM MM MISG
    NAPA SUNNY 83 40 21 E12 30.16F
    CONCORD SUNNY 80 32 17 NE8 30.18F
    OAKLAND CITY N/A 78 MM MM MISG
    OAKLAND SUNNY 73 42 32 W6 30.17F
    SAN FRAN CITY N/A 80 MM MM MISG
    SAN FRAN ARPT SUNNY 74 48 39 N3 30.16F
    LIVERMORE SUNNY 81 38 21 E12 30.17F
    HAYWARD SUNNY 76 44 32 W3 30.15F
    REDWOOD CITY N/A MM MM MM MISG
    MOFFETT ARPT SUNNY 78 41 26 N5 30.16F
    SAN JOSE ARPT SUNNY 82 38 20 CALM 30.15F

    CAZ034-037-514>518-232200-
    CENTRAL COAST

    CITY SKY/WX TMP DP RH WIND PRES REMARKS
    WATSONVILLE SUNNY 92 35 13 CALM 30.12F
    SALINAS SUNNY 93 30 10 SE8 30.11F
    MONTEREY SUNNY 80 39 23 NW7 30.13F
    SAN LUIS OBISP SUNNY 90 35 14 NW15 30.08F
    SANTA MARIA SUNNY 85 27 12 NW8 30.10F

    CAZ015-016-232200-
    NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY

    CITY SKY/WX TMP DP RH WIND PRES REMARKS
    REDDING SUNNY 81 41 24 CALM 30.18F
    RED BLUFF SUNNY 82 40 22 VRB6 30.19F
    OROVILLE SUNNY 80 41 24 W6 30.20F

    CAZ016>018-232200-
    SOUTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY

    CITY SKY/WX TMP DP RH WIND PRES REMARKS
    MARYSVILLE SUNNY 81 40 23 N5 30.18F
    SAC INTL ARPT SUNNY 80 43 26 N6 30.18F
    MATHER AIRPORT NOT AVBL
    DOWNTOWN SAC N/A 80 MM MM MISG
    SAC EXEC ARPT SUNNY 80 41 24 N7 30.18F
    VACAVILLE SUNNY 81 39 22 N6 30.18F

    CAZ019>021-232200-
    SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY

    CITY SKY/WX TMP DP RH WIND PRES REMARKS
    STOCKTON SUNNY 82 43 25 VRB5 30.17F
    MODESTO SUNNY 81 40 23 W5 30.18F
    MERCED SUNNY 80 32 17 CALM 30.17F
    LEMOORE SUNNY 83 30 14 CALM 30.18F
    FRESNO SUNNY 82 30 15 VRB3 30.19F
    HANFORD SUNNY 82 33 17 W5 30.19F
    PORTERVILLE SUNNY 82 21 10 N6 30.18F
    BAKERSFIELD SUNNY 87 21 9 NE3 30.16F

    CAZ011-012-071-232200-
    NORTHERN MOUNTAINS

    CITY SKY/WX TMP DP RH WIND PRES REMARKS
    YREKA SUNNY 64 42 44 S3 30.33F
    MOUNT SHASTA SUNNY 78 34 20 CALM 30.31F
    ALTURAS SUNNY 76 31 19 S13 30.37F

    CAZ011-012-071-232200-
    SIERRA NEVADA MTNS

    CITY SKY/WX TMP DP RH WIND PRES REMARKS
    BLUE CANYON SUNNY 74 33 22 VRB3 30.44F
    TRUCKEE SUNNY 52 19 28 N3 30.49F
    TAHOE VLY ARPT SUNNY 64 30 27 VRB5 30.50F

  245. Mhaze
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 3:46 PM | Permalink

    New (old)subject. From Hansen 1988 presentation to Senate, written submittal I shall quote.

    “The present observed global warming is close to 0.4C relative to ‘climatology’, which is defined as the thirty year (1951-1980) mean. A warming of 0.4C is three times larger than the standard deviation of annual mean temperatures in the 30 year climatology. The standard deviation of 0.13C is a typical amount by which the global temperature fluctuates annually about it’s 30 year mean: the probability of a chance warming of three standard deviations is about 1%. Thus we can state with about 99% confidence that current temperatures represent a real warming trend rather than a chance fluctuation over the 30 year period.”

    Same comment is made in less detail in Hansen et al 1988, along with a forecast of 0.4 future increase within a few years(note the above quote is a hindcast). This is in a sense “Where it all started” and above paragraph appears to be the “scientific proof” of the assertion that global warming existed, as stated by the leading proponent of that theory in 1988.

    Based on what we now know, are these arguments valid? Were they ever valid? My immediate guess is no, since we have Tung, others indicating solar variation over an 11 year period in the neighborhood of 0.2C, further Tsonis indicates longer term cycle with implied temperature changes.

    Based on current temperature data from various sources and adjusting the standard deviation of annual mean temperatures as may be required based on better information, how would Hansen’s original method of looking at or claiming a 3 standard deviation from the norm hold up?

  246. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 3:55 PM | Permalink

    I don’t know what he meant, but I would state it something like this:

    By its physical properties, CO2 reacts to IR, and it does so fairly strongly. This causes it to have an impact upon the weather, and thus the climate, to some degree, even though it is not present in the atmosphere in great quantities. The type or amount of IR varies depending on atmosphere, and it is simply a part of an enormous and chaotic system. Therefore, its total net effect upon the climate is modified (in either temperature direction) by its interaction with the other parts of the Earth’s weather system. There is no physical doubt it absorbs in the infrared, the question is to what extent, exactly, and what other factors do the amount of net forcing it causes.

    Here’s something interesting:

    Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide levels

    And then this stuff:

    Guy Stewart Callendar (Feb 1898 – Oct 1964) was an English steam engineer and inventor. His main contribution to knowledge was propounding the theory that linked rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to global temperature. This became known as the Callendar Effect. Callendar thought this warming would be beneficial, delaying a “return of the deadly glaciers.” [1] He published 10 major scientific articles, and 25 shorter ones, between 1938 and 1964 on global warming, infra-red radiation and anthropogenic carbon dioxide.
    He was the son of Hugh Longbourne Callendar.

    The Callendar effect is a name for the effect of combustion-produced carbon dioxide on the global climate. It is therefore a special case of the greenhouse effect. The size of the Callendar effect in global warming is controversial.
    The Callendar effect is named after Guy Stewart Callendar (1898-1964), who proposed the effect in 1938 based on earlier work by John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius. He was the son of Hugh Longbourne Callendar (1863-1930), an English physicist. Among HL Callendar’s inventions was a rolling-chart thermometer that allowed long-duration collection of climatic temperature data.

    In the field of climatology, atmospheric infrared radiation is monitored to detect trends in the energy exchange between the earth and the atmosphere. These trends provide information on long term changes in the earth’s climate. It is one of the primary parameters studied in research into global warming together with solar radiation.
    A pyrgeometer is utilized in this field of research to perform continuous outdoor measurements. This is a broadband infrared radiometer with sensitivity for infrared radiation between approximately 4.5 µm and 50 µm.

    This is all from wikipedia of course. Funny, they use the phrase “majority scientific opinion” Isn’t that “economic-political organizational opinion” (at least it’s phrased that it’s an opinion) and I’d change things like “thought to enhance” and throw on a qualifier that there are other things that de-enhance or re-enhance. This is fair, they used “global warming observed” (which is true, it’s observed) Anyway, I don’t like the writing style, it’s too sure of itself in some places, and too mealy-mouthed in others, but you get what you pay for.

    Increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere enhance the greenhouse effect. It is currently the majority scientific opinion that carbon dioxide emissions are the main cause of global warming observed since the latter half of the 20th century. The effect of combustion-produced carbon dioxide on climate is occasionally called the Callendar effect, after engineer and inventor Guy Stewart Callendar who was one of the first to propose this association.

    So there you have it. Oh. carbon dioxide

    The only thing interesting about CO2 to me is that it’s not liquid at any pressure under 5 atmospheres, so it’s an interesting little gas that goes directly from solid (or the other way, heh) at around -80 C.

  247. jae
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 4:11 PM | Permalink

    O.K., I added a graph to my first spreadsheet (Fig. 8) that combines all July and December data, giving 312 data points for locations between Barrow, AK and Guam. As I expected, the data for the two months fit together perfectly, with a correlation (R2) of 0.95. It is very clear to me that, on land, the temperature is a function of solar insolation (probably representing cloudiness), humidity, and the amount of bare soil that is exposed (representing dryness). If adequate water vapor is present, temperatures are constrained by water evaporation. If there is insufficient water for evaporation, the temperature goes higher than it would if water were available.

  248. jae
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 4:13 PM | Permalink

    How did Figure 8 get transposed to a Wallmart smiley face with sunglasses?

  249. jae
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 4:37 PM | Permalink

    If I’m right on this temperature/moisture relationships, then drought situations create a double whammy. The low moisture causes higher temperatures, which cause lower moisture, which…Talk about feedback!

  250. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 4:48 PM | Permalink

    cuz it’s 8 )

  251. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 5:14 PM | Permalink

    That should have been ‘the atmospheric altitude and portion of the atmosphere’, and other factors do to the net amount’.

    Now from another angle. First you take a leap of faith and grant some importance to the randomly sited sampling of air 5 feet over the ground over a 5×5 degree grid of a varying number of locations, take it for granted the numbers are accurate, and think averages of averages of average anomalies is a meaningful bit of data. Then you do the same with satellites sampling the water surface of the planet in 2×2 degree grids. After you trust the blending of the two also being meaningful, you come up with an anomaly for the “temperature of the planet”. It is indeed trending up over time, in any case.

    But then you have to assume the above mentioned anomaly is the same measurement over the period and not just improvements in the measuring devices et al, other various causes that by-and-large can’t really be illustrated at this time with any degree of certainty (and are therefore not ‘scientific’), natural variation/part of a cycle we can’t see at these short time intervals, or mostly margin of error. Or aliens. Whatever.

    Now even if all that is true (which seems rather unlikely) we then have to come up with a scientific (or even socio-political-pseudo-scientific, call it what you want, not the subject) explanation for it. So we take two things that have no direct demonstratable cause/effect relationship over time in the short term (compare temp/co2 on the same scale of 100 since 1850) and the long-term proxy evidence of trees and ice suggests there is not one either (at least over millions of years). While there is certainly more co2 now where its measured as its measured how its measured, that only went on during the last half of the 20th century. However, that does match the proxies going back to about 50 years after the industrial revolution started at least when the two overlap.

    So there is no doubt that CO2 and temperatures have gone up, at least according to how we have determined to define that and implement it. If this determination/implementation is valid or not is not the subject of the debate. As you can see, we have taken many things for granted.

    What is boils down to is if 100 or so ppmv of CO2 has directly caused an around .5 C upwards trend. If the question is phrased like that, there are two answers: We don’t know and it doesn’t matter.

    Has this extra CO2, which we’ve created, caused the warming? Maybe. Has the pollution we’ve created that’s ended up on the ground caused the ice to melt? Maybe. Has what’s ended up in the air moderated the warming so it wasn’t 2.5C? Maybe. Have the cities we’ve built absorbed far more sunlight and created the warming? Maybe.

    Taking CO2 in a vaccuum is meaningless, it’s not the only factor. Is it impacting the weather? Most certainly. Does the weather tracked over time become climate? Of course. Are there a lot of other poorly understood factors and mechanisms? Without doubt.

    We can’t talk about weather here. We have to talk climate. Models are not scientific evidence. Scenarios are not scientific evidence. What it boils down for me is – can somebody prove mathematically that X CO2 = Y Temperature? Nobody here has found anything. Has there been a clear rise in CO2 every year with a clear rise in temperature every year? No.

    So if you want to make the argument from either direction, all there is? Opinion. Why? Do people have opinions of what happens if you slam a car into a wall at 60 MPH? Do people have opinions of what happens if you douse 100 pounds of paper with gasoline and throw in a match?

    The simple fact is that on one hand you have a clear every year upward increase in “directly measured” CO2 and on the other hand you have over a 1 C variation in the calcaulated sampled averages (depending on if it’s land/water, water, land, and if just water or land, where). The CO2 is in one place. The temp is in hundreds of places. What that says to me is that you can not use the comparison of the two at all, much less to anywhere near prove a direct causal relationship between the two, even if all the issues I listed at the beginning were not issues. The question is invalid.

    But there’s a deeper issue here. Think about it. Why discuss any one factor? Why?

    Does the motherboard power on a computer? Yes.
    Does the power supply power on a computer? Yes.
    Does the power button power on a computer? Yes.
    Does the RAM power on a computer? No, but it allows it to be powered on.
    Does a sound card power on a computer? No, and it doesn’t need to be there to power on a computer. Nothing will happen but a lack of sound. (And even so, no speakers, no sound)
    Does a mouse and keyboard power on a computer? No, but you can’t use the computer (usually) if you don’t have them. The computer will be on but unusable.
    Does a mouse or keyboard power on a computer? No, but it won’t boot if it’s set to halt on keyboard errors, the computer will be on but not fully.

    This last sequence of questions frames the issue that many truths need qualifications, clarification, or both.

  252. Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 5:23 PM | Permalink

    Mhaze,

    is that presentation online somewhere?

    The standard deviation of 0.13C is a typical amount by which the global temperature fluctuates annually about it’s 30 year mean

    That’s seems to be OK number, the 1987 value is about 0.07 C warmer than the average of surrounding 30 years, for example.

    A warming of 0.4C is three times larger than the standard deviation of annual mean temperatures in the 30 year climatology.

    But this is different comparison, year 1987 (?) compared to 1951-1980 average.

  253. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 5:29 PM | Permalink

    Doh, “other factors due to”…

    That “over 1 C” is if you look at the highest to lowest average for the yearly average since 1880 btw (Although I still contend it has no meaning, that’s the number we have, it’s a fact)

    And I forgot this: Why is the trend important for temp when the years vary and the trend important for CO2 but the years don’t vary? (A distillation about them being different, I suppose.)

    Now all that said, I invite everyone interested to go over to the GW wiki pages and read, not the article, but the article’s history and the talk page. It will probably entertain you. I would imagine it’s a great place to discuss this in detail (the talk page) because by and large that’s not censored at all on the scientific and wording issues and covered topics, from the looks of the conversation before I gave up on it after a few minutes. Go talk with William and Stephen and Raymond, I’m sure they’d be happy to help.

    You know, it is the encyclopedia anyone can edit after all.

    Then there’s always Motls, RC, Open Mind, and Rabett Run.

  254. JimC
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 5:46 PM | Permalink

    If U.S. temps are not representative of global, the SH is cooling while the NH is warming, why is there such a disconnect between global data and direct Arctic measurements during the same period? According to Polyakov 2003, the current Arctic warming is less than the 1930’s, including the trend.

    Thanks.

  255. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 6:04 PM | Permalink

    These might help all in one place in this post:

    co2 going back millions of years

    temp changes during ice ages up to 450K years This has a delta T of -8 to +6 C

    co2 levels in the same time period as above This goes from 200 to 300 ppm in the same period it looks like.

    So does 100 ppmv cause +14 temp? :D Too bad they don’t have one showing both temp/co2, and on a shorter time scale…. (100k 10k 1k)

    And one I don’t particularly like:

    Mixing 450K year chart with 1000 year insert The industrial era started in 1750 not 1940, didn’t it?

    The Phanerozoic chart shows 6-7 thousand ppmv around 450 million years ago. What was the temperature then? (I’m just asking, I don’t think you can compare anything to now) But take a look at the chart, where are, on the left side.

    Anyway, here’s more:

    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Temperature_Gallery

    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Carbon_Dioxide_Gallery

  256. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 6:07 PM | Permalink

    Oops, sorry the -8 to +6 was me eyeballing 120K years ago. That would be better not only with both on there, but just zooming in on the time period low to high.

    What leads, what lags?

    Who cares?
    :)

  257. Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 7:50 PM | Permalink

    Sam Urbinto, the things are quite clear. Temperatures could change from -3 °C to 3 °C in our Era, what’s the problem? There is no problem at all. Deviations from an “ideal” zero are not abnormal because “zero” cannot be sustained by nature forever. GW and AGW are just ideas.

  258. MarkR
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 8:06 PM | Permalink

    #232 JohnV.

    This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

    They make that statement in the conclusions, but I don’t see any support for it in the body of the paper.

  259. henry
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 8:42 PM | Permalink

    Mhaze says:(October 23rd, 2007)

    “New (old)subject. From Hansen 1988 presentation to Senate, written submittal I shall quote.

    “The present observed global warming is close to 0.4C relative to ‘climatology’, which is defined as the thirty year (1951-1980) mean. A warming of 0.4C is three times larger than the standard deviation of annual mean temperatures in the 30 year climatology. The standard deviation of 0.13C is a typical amount by which the global temperature fluctuates annually about it’s 30 year mean: the probability of a chance warming of three standard deviations is about 1%. Thus we can state with about 99% confidence that current temperatures represent a real warming trend rather than a chance fluctuation over the 30 year period.”

    In 1988, they used a 30-year period that ended 8 years before.

    Here in 2007, they’re using a 30-year period that ended 18 years before (61-90).

    Why can’t ANYONE produce a chart that compares 2007 anomalies to a 30-year period that ended in 2006? The data IS available, and probably more accurate (less missing data, more stations, newer equipment, etc.)

    My guess is that the anomolies will not show as large a positive swing with “hotter” average data…

  260. Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 9:32 PM | Permalink

    Perhaps this link could help to understand the role of OCO in paleoclimate.

  261. Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 9:34 PM | Permalink

    #258 MarkR:
    The key point is that the graph showing poor correlation between CO2 and temperature on over 600 million years, and supposedly thereby proving that CO2 does not drive temperature, was created with a model that explicitly uses a response to CO2 doubling of 2.3C to 2.8C. Without the CO2 influence the model does not match reality.

  262. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 9:40 PM | Permalink

    RE: #244 – So, I’ll end the scorecarding now, since tomorrow we’ll see a change to onshore winds and temperatures will start to cool. In fact, a number of stations are cooling notably at this hour. Essentially, the NWS won their hype bet for the southern fringes of this CWA. Overall, however, most of the CWA experienced a significantly less impressive offshore / warm event than what the NWS had been hyping for the week prior. But of course, they are already moving on …. downplaying the next cold thing …. in fact, a cold low prog’d to slide down from the north later this week. Final note – this is in no way meant to downplay the bad situation in the next two CWAs to the south. But I will leave you all with this. October and November are notorious for these sorts of scenarios. Sadly, I think that investigations will likely show, as they often do, that other than a few acts of randomness and borderline negligance, most of the fires will probably be determined to be arsons.

  263. MarkR
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 10:17 PM | Permalink

    #261 JohnV. See fig 8 of the Geocarb III Paper. Actual 13C Data is compared to the model data and shows good correlation with the model. The actual 13C data for CO2 does not correlate with temperature, and it does not say that anywhere in the paper. The model is built on assumptions, it is not of itself “data”.

    What the modellers are doing here is the same as the Hansen type temperature modellers. They are tweaking the assumptions to match reality and saying that is proof. It is no such thing, it remains a tweaked model.

  264. Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 10:26 PM | Permalink

    #24 MarkT:

    BTW, for anyone that doesn’t understand why the term in a feedback loop must be less than 1, which necessarily converges, think about it this way:

    You’re applying linear control theory to a system with logarithmic feedback. It doesn’t work that way.

    Let’s look at the equations for a very simplified system:

    First, the CO2 dependence on temperature (assumed linear): C = C0 + a*(T – T0)
    Second, the temperature dependence on temperature (linear case): T = T0 + q*(C – C0)/C0
    Third, the temperature dependence on temperature (logarithmic case): T = T0 + q*log2(C/C0)

    where,
    C is the CO2 concentration,
    C0 is the initial CO2 concentration
    T is the temperature (degrees Kelvin)
    T0 is the initial temperature
    a is the increase in CO2 from 1 degree temperature increase
    q is the increase in temp for doubling CO2
    (for the linear case, q is the increase for the first doubling only)

    Rather than solving the equations (it’s late and I’m tired) I did a spreadsheet to numerically integrate them:
    http://www.opentemp.org/_results/misc/LogarithmicFeedback.xls

    I used the following values:
    T0 = 285K (~12C)
    R0 = 200ppm
    q = 2.5K / doubling
    a = 90ppm / degK

    I applied an initial perturbation of 0.001K (one thousandth of one degree Kelvin). The linear system is of course unstable. The logarithmic system stabilizes at T=288.3K and C=493ppm. The amazing thing is that the logarithmic system is *always* stable, regardless of q and a; they only affect the stabilization temperature. The logarithmic system also has a faster initial response.

    Here’s a graph (logarithmic in blue, linear in red):

    This is a very simplified model. I’m not implying that it demonstrates anything more than the stability of a system with logarithmic feedback.

  265. Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 10:32 PM | Permalink

    #263 MarkR:
    I’m not saying the paper proves anything. All I’m saying is that it’s results can’t be used as an argument against CO2 influencing temperature (as MarkW has done). Here is my final sentence from my original post about the paper:

    “Of course, this doesn’t prove anything. It does mean that MarkW’s argument against CO2 affecting climate based on this graph will need to be re-considered.”

    You are dismissing the paper now but it was you that posted the link to it last night (with other links supposedly showing that CO2 does not influence temperature). See #196 above. Was it a good paper last night?

  266. MarkR
    Posted Oct 23, 2007 at 10:37 PM | Permalink

    #265 JohnV. I didn’t say the paper was good or bad, I only posted the link because the chart of prehistoric CO2 v Temp was partly derived from it, and you asked for a link. The usefulness of the paper is as a source of real measured CO2 data, not the modelling part.

    As far as I can see the CO2 v temp chart I posted remains valid, and demonstrates no correlation between temp and CO2.

  267. MarkR
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 3:23 AM | Permalink

    Phanerozoic Temperature Chart

    Phanerozoic CO2 Chart

    No correlation

  268. MarkW
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 5:01 AM | Permalink

    JohnV,

    While I may have been inartfull in some of my declarations, I have always tried to be consistent in my position that CO2 is a minor factor in climate. Not, that it played no role whatsoever. I see nothing in the historical record to contradict such a position.

  269. MarkW
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 5:06 AM | Permalink

    One problem with drawing a trend line from the 70’s is that time corresponds to the last time the PDO shifted from cold phase to warm phase.

    In a world in which we have recently discovered climatic cycles that last decades, 30 years is too short a time period to draw any meaningfull trends form.

  270. henry
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 6:03 AM | Permalink

    Latest from Tamino (on the Stossel report):

    “The truth is that CO2 and temperature are both cause and both effect. Temperature increase reduces the solubility of CO2 in ocean water, leading to more atmospheric CO2, while CO2 increase traps infrared radiation, causing temperature increase. This leads to a rather nasty “feedback” effect, where increased CO2 will increase temperature, which will further increase CO2, which will further increase temperature, etc. Only simpletons are unable to comprehend this.”

    Absent from this “explanation” is: Increased temps create increased water vapor and heavier cloud cover. The Earth’s albido increases, and temperature drops back down. What did I miss?

  271. MarkR
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 6:19 AM | Permalink

    Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years–Daniel H. Rothman

    The resulting CO2 signal exhibits no systematic
    correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations at
    tectonic time scales.

  272. MarkR
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 6:31 AM | Permalink

    Whatever happened to the project for analysing the NASA GISS code for adjusing temperature?

  273. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 7:32 AM | Permalink

    Three letters in The Times (London) re David Bellamy’s recent article. One claims that the Hockey Stick isn’t broken!

  274. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 7:33 AM | Permalink

    John

    The amazing thing is that the logarithmic system is *always* stable, regardless of q and a; they only affect the stabilization temperature.

    Hmmm, what if you start with negative perturbation ?

  275. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 7:35 AM | Permalink

    MarkR:
    My point was not that there is correlation between CO2 and temperature over 600 million years. (I concede that there isn’t; the R^2 is about 0.33).

    My point is that the lack of correlation alone can *not* being used as an argument against the influence of CO2. Why? Because of other factors over that time scale such as continental drift and even a large increase in solar output. The graph that has been used to argue against CO2’s influence actually *depends* on CO2’s influence.

  276. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 7:43 AM | Permalink

    MarkR:

    The usefulness of the paper is as a source of real measured CO2 data, not the modelling part.

    I did not see measured CO2 data in the paper.
    Figure 8 (which you referenced above) shows the model sensitivity to smoothed and raw temperatures determined from Carbon13. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Carbon13 is a temperature proxy (not a CO2 measurement).

  277. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 7:45 AM | Permalink

    henry:

    Hmmm, what if you start with negative perturbation ?

    Still stable.
    I’ll try to get more details later.
    In the meantime, download my spreadsheet and try different things.

  278. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 7:51 AM | Permalink

    Still stable.

    Ok, something wrong with my Matlab implementation then. I find this quite interesting exercise.

  279. MarkR
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 7:55 AM | Permalink

    #277 JohnV. The graph is of CO2 v temp. They don’t correlate. End of.

    Please, why look for the devious, when the obvious is staring one in the face? Why not use your undoubted skills to look statistically for a real causation for temperature change? PS Now it’s night time for me.

  280. MarkR
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 7:58 AM | Permalink

    #277 JohnV.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but Carbon13 is a temperature proxy

    What else do we have after 500 million years?????

  281. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 8:05 AM | Permalink

    #281 MarkR:
    You stated the paper was a source of CO2 measurements. Your comments re Figure 8 made it appear that you thought it was showing CO2 measurements. Since it doesn’t, kindly direct me to the part of the paper that does.

  282. welikerocks
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 8:46 AM | Permalink

    JohnV and MarkR,
    here’s a graph for you. It’s a scan of a page in a paper my husband cited in his own thesis that was published a couple of times (in geology related publications). I’ve shared before: scan is here
    C02 concentrations then and now, spanning millions of years are mapped. All these climate models lack!

  283. Allan Ames
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 8:47 AM | Permalink

    [snip - photons?? gimme a break]

  284. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 9:12 AM | Permalink

    #280 MarkR:

    The graph is of CO2 v temp. They don’t correlate. End of.

    Please, why look for the devious, when the obvious is staring one in the face? Why not use your undoubted skills to look statistically for a real causation for temperature change?

    My whole point is that no single factor is dominant over 600 *million* years. Over that time frame, according to the GEOCARB III paper, the linear trend on solar output alone is responsible for a *cooling* of 7.4C. Continental drift is very important. I don’t know what your theory for temperature change over 600 million years is, but try fitting it to the temperature data for that period. The correlation will be poor.

  285. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 9:28 AM | Permalink

    I predict this thread will be prematurely closed.

  286. MarkR
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 9:40 AM | Permalink

    Thanks and Howdy welikerocks.

  287. Larry
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 9:41 AM | Permalink

    271, interesting that Tamino has such a nuanced understanding of the physics when it comes to Stossel’s cartoon, but Gore’s cartoon which is demonstrably a lot less accurate is close enough.

  288. Hoi Polloi
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 9:48 AM | Permalink

    The Black Death decimated world population in the 14th, 15th and 16th century by 30-40%. Isn’t it funny that the little ice age just happens after that? This correlation is certainly worth researching AGC (anthropogenic global cooling).

  289. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 9:50 AM | Permalink

    Back to the Phanerozoic CO2 and Temperature Plot:

    The original plot showed poor correlation between temperatures and the CO2 concentration:
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2200#comment-149629

    I digitized it so I could investigate further. Here’s my digitized version:

    The correlation is indeed very poor: R^2 = 0.185

    —–
    The greenhouse effect theory postulates that temperature and the logarithm of CO2 should be

    related. With that in mind, I converted the CO2 concentrations to CO2 doublings (log2 of the ratio

    of CO2 to current CO2):

    The correlation is still not very good: R^2 = 0.338

    —–
    Digging a little deeper into the GEOCARB III model that was used to generate the CO2 profile, I

    realized that there is a linear trend of 7.4C over 570 million years due to increasing solar

    output. That is, the sun alone has been responsible for 7.4C of heating.

    Since we’re looking at the correlation of CO2 to temperature, I removed the solar contribution and

    got the results below:

    The correlation is now quite good: R^2 = 0.588

    —–
    So, it appears that even over 600 million years CO2 and temperature correlate quite well.

    Here’s my spreadsheet if anyone wants to check my work:
    http://www.opentemp.org/_results/_20071024_Phanerozoic/PhanerozoicCO2andTemp.xls

  290. welikerocks
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 10:10 AM | Permalink

    JohnV, but you can’t zoom in and map the temp of the planet in 50 yr or 100 yr or even 1000 yrs going back that far and say what C02 did do or not do to the temps with our concentration levels so small now -nor even say the temp was “normal” then or not or say “now” is different or now is the same, yadda yadda It could have looked like a sawtooth.
    SteveSadlov is right. Lips zipped and shut.

    Howdy back at you MarkR.

  291. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 10:18 AM | Permalink

    welikerocks:

    JohnV, but you can’t zoom in and map the temp of the planet in 50 yr or 100 yr or even 1000 yrs going back that far and say what C02 did do or not do to the temps with our concentration levels so small now

    I’m not claiming that you can. MarkR and MarkW have been proclaiming the poor correlation of CO2 to temperature in geological time scales as proof that CO2 can not influence climate. There are two problems with the argument:

    First, poor correlation only shows that CO2 does not dominate over that time scale. No single factor dominates on that time scale so the argument is flawed.

    Second, the correlation on that time scale is actually quite good.

    I’m not claiming this as proof of anything. I’m only showing the problems with the supposed proofs of MarkW and MarkR.

  292. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 10:32 AM | Permalink

    I extended my simple model of CO2 vs temperature with logarithmic feedback. It now includes a sinusoidal temperature influence from solar activity (eg Milankovitch cycles).

    With the sinusoidal solar forcing, the temperatures will become unstable if the solar forcing is too large. I believe this is due to the fixed-size timestep I’m using to integrate.

    The plot below shows the result of solar forcing of +-0.25C with a period of 30 time steps. I used q=2.5 and a=50 (see previous post for more on these constants):

    The total temperature change is shown in blue, with the solar and CO2 influences in red and green respectively.

    There are a few things to note about this plot:

    1. The CO2 influence is larger than the solar influence (the ratio depends on the q and a constants)
    2. The CO2 influence lags the solar influence (as does the CO2 concentration since they are dependent)
    3. The system is stable

    Again, this does not prove anything about the 400 thousand years of glacial cycles. It does however demonstrate the possibility of a stable CO2 feedback mechanism. Any argument that such a stable feedback is impossible is therefore wrong.

    Here’s my spreadsheet:
    http://www.opentemp.org/_results/misc/LogarithmicFeedback.xls
    (same link as before, updated version)

  293. MarkW
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 10:40 AM | Permalink

    What I’m saying is that if CO2 changes 10 times larger than what we are experiencing today did not affect climate, back then, then you need extra-ordinary proof if you are claiming that the small changes in CO2 we are experiencing today are going to dominate the climate.

  294. harold
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 10:42 AM | Permalink

    Just for fun:

    Climate Science is settled vs Climate Science is not settled,
    via Google Fight.

    http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Climate+Science+is+settled&word2=Climate+Science+is+not+settled

  295. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 10:42 AM | Permalink

    UC:

    Ok, something wrong with my Matlab implementation then. I find this quite interesting exercise.

    I apologize. My system is also unstable for a negative perturbation. CO2 goes negative and the log blows up.

  296. Hasse@Norway
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 10:43 AM | Permalink

    re 290

    There wouldn’t be a 400-800 year lag in co2 there would it?

  297. welikerocks
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 10:52 AM | Permalink

    JohnV, fair enough but I disagree with a good correlation as well. Making a nice graph like this distorts HUGE amounts of time Co2 lags there , nor does it illustrate to others that Co2 does nothing to stop ice ages, nor does it represent ice ages well, even with Co2 in huge amounts compared to now, or show that the lack of it doesn’t stop the Earth from warming anyway. How did the temp go up at -300? Or down at -250 MY? Co2 is present yes but may have nothing to do with any temp change according to this graph. Its just there and the temp may influence its concentration; not visa versa. And enough said and done from me here. :) I don’t want to be snipped.

  298. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 10:52 AM | Permalink

    #297 Hasse@Norway:
    It’s a *very* simple model with no attempt to accurately model time scales (that’s why I left time off the horizontal axis). It’s not meant to quantify what really happened. At this point it only shows that a stable CO2 feedback mechanism is possible, simple to create, and qualitatively similar to CO2 and temperature measurements.

  299. See - owe to Rich
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 11:06 AM | Permalink

    1. I have been getting a bit bored by the back and forth between JohnV and MarkW on global temperature trends. Not so bored though, that I can refrain from the following comment to JohnV. If you are supporting the use of 8-year averages, as per your #218, are you not being a little short sighted? Wind forward to January 2009 when the 2008 results are in. HadCRUT3 is currently on 0.443 for 2007, and is looking pretty static. Suppose we end up with 0.443 for 2007, and the same for 2008 too (and personally, if I had to bet, I would place both these below that value). Then the linear trend for 2001-2008 is going to be 0.0001+/-0.0041 C/y, or +/- 0.4C per century.

    Of course, this current flatness may not continue (Hadley expects an upturn again early next decade and Archibald expects a downturn), but we should at least be trying to understand what the data is telling us.

    2. Nasif: I should like to thank you for explaining where my calculation of CO2 sensitivity went wrong. But I can’t, because I didn’t understand your posting :-(. I wonder if you could try again, with a few more words between the equations? Is the problem that the radiation flux at the surface is hard to measure, or that convection makes the black body calculation totally inappropriate? Or something else?

    3. Solar cycle 24 is getting later by the day. So, incidentally, are the HadCRUT3 temperatures for September. The August ones were posted on September 17th, but it is now a week later in this month without any new figures. Could they be finding them difficult to believe ;-) ?

    4. I notice that very few people are heeding Steve’s request for subjects for proper threads. Anyway, here’s another one: the weather. I find a lot of Sadlov’s (and others) observations interesting, but I would prefer it if they were kept together in a place one can choose to look at or not.

    Rich.

  300. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 11:13 AM | Permalink

    Phanerozoic Climate Change A better page, has image and explaination, which in part reads

    This figure shows the long-term evolution of oxygen isotope ratios during the Phanerozoic eon as measured in fossils, reported by Veizer et al. (1999), and updated online in 2004 [1]. Such ratios reflect both the local temperature at the site of deposition and global changes associated with the extent of permanent continental glaciation. As such, relative changes in oxygen isotope ratios can be interpreted as rough changes in climate. Quantitative conversion between this data and direct temperature changes is a complicated process subject to many systematic uncertainties, however it is estimated that each 1 part per thousand change in ä18O represents roughly a 1.5-2 °C change in tropical sea surface temperatures (Veizer et al. 2000).

    So, we have proxies and models, not CO2 and temperature (given the time periods, of course all we can do is proxy and model). So why argue about it? Apples and oranges. Tree cores, ice cores, fossils. Computer simulations. We’re plugging in some rough estimates, what we think the numbers are, and get an answer. Is it correct? I guess so.

    I think that’s also true of now, apples and oranges, as I said: Direct measured air levels of CO2 at one place and many sampled combined corrected adjusted air temps combined with surface sampled combined water temps. All we can get is an idea of “maybe”.

    John V, I would agree that it’s certainly possible there’s a stable CO2 feeback mechanism and that arging it’s impossible is wrong. (I don’t think for the most part for any real subject, anything is “impossible”).

    The trouble with your third graph; I don’t think you can remove the sun from this if we’re talking CO2 and Temp because the sun influences both and they influence each other depending both on their properties and what the sun is doing. So I think your R^2 of .338 is more accurate (even if it is a model and long periods of time we’re talking about) — assuming our data sources are sensitive enough to give us rough estimate of a number to plug into the model. Even a rather large .59 isn’t that much of a smoking gun, anyway.

    So I would say that CO2 and temperature don’t “correlate quite well”, but they “correlate quite well in the model in the absense of the sun and using CO2 doublings, worse only using CO2 doublings, and quite poorly with neither”.

    I also agree that we need better and more information (as MarkW mentioned, something like “extra-ordinary proof”) that we can validate and verify to say that CO2 “dominates” climate.

    Doesn’t it seem as if you’re just disagreeing upon the effects and amount rather than anything else? Perhaps we need to use more exact terminology.

    Regardless of the number, on the subject of paleoclimate, I think we’re making a bit of an assumption that there’s some sort of correlation between the proxies that we can actually see, that we know the lead/lag of it all, and/or that the signal is strong enough to overcome the noise (or that we’re correctly identifying everything).

    Looking at everything, it seems for co2/temp, sometimes one follows the other and other times it switches. Leaving me to believe the sun is the primary driver, everything else is the car.

    Oh and to answer henry’s earlier question about Tamino; people in the feedback loop are always forgetting higher humidity, increased clouds, and higher reflectivity (and rain for that matter) for some reason. Maybe they’re dizzy.

    Various surface’s albedo percentages

  301. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 11:49 AM | Permalink

    Actually, thinking about that chart on reflectivity percentage. What absorbs the most insol? Water, wet dark soil, forests, meadows, crops, wet sand, dry soil and desert. (I bet metal concrete and asphalt are low on the reflectivity list as well)

    No wonder air temps seem to be increasing. A lot of that stuff is man-made and prevelent. (Maybe there’s Waldo?)

    AGW! AGW!

    So to move on, is everyone pretty much willing to accept a statement like “The correlation between CO2 and Temperature has had an historical R^2 of .338 after adjusting for the greenhouse effect theory that postulates that temperature and the logarithm of CO2 should be related. This is based upon GEOCARB III and other models used by R.A. Berner and C.R. Scotese.”

    For those intersted, link is here at Plant Fossils of West Virginia: Climate and the Carboniferous Period

    CO2, R.A. Berner, 2001 via GEOCARB III model http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf
    Temp, C.R. Scotese, unknown. I think it’s ESH-GIS 2.0 (???) as part of the Paleomap project. Might have been 1994 in ____ Carboniferous paleocontinental reconstructions, in Cecil, C. Blaine, Edgar, N. Terence, Predictive stratigraphic analysis; concept and application, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, United-States. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin., p. 3-6., Reston VA.
    http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

    Anyway, so, back to the question.

    Has anyone seen anything showing if the cooling in the air is greater, less or the same than the warming on the ground due to them? Net warming? Net cooling? At equilibrium?

  302. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 11:59 AM | Permalink

    #300:
    I used an 8 year average to match Dr. Carter’s presentation. Your claim that I’m being shortsighted assumes that I’m trying to work the numbers in my favour. I’m not. I’m just looking at them as they are.

    #301 Sam Urbinto:
    I did not remove the solar influence to imply that it is not important. I have been saying all along that there are many influences. To isolate the influence of one, you need to remove the influence of all others. The R^2 of the linear solar trend is probably ~0.3 (guessing), the R^2 of the log of CO2 is ~0.3, the remainder is due to paleogeography (continental drift) and other factors. No one factor dominates on that time scale.

    Over most of history CO2 has not been dominant. There is evidence that it has been substantial (not dominant) for the last 400 thousand years. In my mind it has become very important (if not dominant) in the last 30 years. Why? Because of the rapid rise in CO2 concentration (~30% in

  303. welikerocks
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 12:17 PM | Permalink

    Over most of history CO2 has not been dominant. There is evidence that it has been substantial (not dominant) for the last 400 thousand years. In my mind it has become very important (if not dominant) in the last 30 years. Why? Because of the rapid rise in CO2 concentration (~30% in…

    Yet keep in mind on your graph there “substantial and important” is plotted at “0”. :)

  304. JP
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 12:28 PM | Permalink

    #300

    “I notice that very few people are heeding Steve’s request for subjects for proper threads. Anyway, here’s another one: the weather. I find a lot of Sadlov’s (and others) observations interesting, but I would prefer it if they were kept together in a place one can choose to look at or not.”

    Actually, I find these one post blurbs a nice break in the action -especially if the thread has evolved into 2 person debate over those subjects which Steve M warned us to avoid. If the moderator thinks the blurb is too off topic, and will generate too much noise,he can always delete it.

  305. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 12:38 PM | Permalink

    MarkR:
    A couple of the links you provided above showed a very close correlation between solar cycle length and temperature. I was intrigued and looked into it.

    Page 51 of http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Gerhard_Climate_Change.pdf

    Although it is unsourced, the plot presumably comes from Lassen 1991 (no reference) which correlated Northern Hemisphere land temperature to solar cycle length. The paper had some issues, but nothing overly important:

    http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf

    More importantly, Lassen updated his results for the latest solar cycle in 1999:

    http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/sr99-9.pdf

    He now finds that:

    “We conclude that since around 1990 the type of Solar forcing that is described by the solar cycle length model no longer dominates the long-term variation of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature.”

    That is, the excellent correlation of NH land temps with solar cycle lengths stopped after 1990. It shouldn’t be difficult to update the analysis for the latest solar cycle (which just ended). Perhaps someone could volunteer?

  306. Anna Lang
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 1:09 PM | Permalink

    An article in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 23 Oct 2007 by Peter J. Mayhew, Gareth B. Jenkins, and Timothy G. Benton, “A long-term association between global temperature and biodiversity, origination and
    extinction in the fossil record,” is being reported under various headlines.

    “Past mass extinctions coincide with hotter temperatures”
    http://www.canadaeast.com/progress/article/107301

    “Worst mass extinctions occur when temperatures are the warmest”
    http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1024-extinction.html

    “Global warming to cause mass extinction”
    http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/25/2069588.htm?section=justin

  307. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 1:14 PM | Permalink

    RE: #290 – These charts are very disturbing to us creatures who depend on oxygen that gets produced by organisms which depend on CO2. The long term trend is not very comforting. I want to find a new planet to live on.

  308. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 1:17 PM | Permalink

    Anyone care to guess what happened after the last big dip in CO2?

  309. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 1:22 PM | Permalink

    For 250M years we’ve (warm blooded animals) have been living off of the oygen derived from the CO2 liberated by the great exitinction (and subsequent fungal action).

  310. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 1:28 PM | Permalink

    A man who knows the deal:

    http://www.santafe.edu/profiles/?pid=68

    What I learned was, I really hope I am a “hopeful monster.”

  311. Paul O
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 1:37 PM | Permalink

    John V.

    Lassens paper uses MBH 98 for temperature data. That likely explains the divergence, and the hockey stick shape of his charts

  312. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 1:48 PM | Permalink

    John V: Oh, I realize it’s not that you didn’t think it’s important. But sunlight reacting with GHG’s is a big system with lots of moving parts, as you say, and removing how the sun affects the system removes the most important variable; the primary actual cause of temperature itself.

    Everything else hinges on it, so I don’t see how data just showing CO2 and temperature has any meaning. It’s trying to derive some sort of static cause/effect relationship between 1 aspect of weather over time to the end result of a dynamic highly-variable chaotic system.
    The surface and water absorb energy. All the GHG absorb energy. The sun provides it. Everything reacts together with the energy absorbers, and then they themselves with each other. The result is temperature.

    But what is temperature? Energy release and transport. And CO2 doesn’t even react at every part of the process. And even though it’s strong in its effect, there isn’t much of it and it’s not everywhere.

    For example, looking at how the atmosphere transmits radiation is just one aspect of how the atmosphere functions itself, and CO2 is just one part of it. The sun is the primary driver of temperature; there are many parts to the system, and the end result is temperature from them processing the sun.

    In my opinion, you can’t just yank out the cause, all the other components of the system and get anything out of the relationship of a single variable to the effect. It’s like removing everything in between the fuel tank and the tires except the body of the car and expecting it to take you to the store. (I can’t think of a better analogy, sorry.)

    Why not say that this is causing the temperature to increase? Why not one of these? How about this?

    You can’t selectivly remove things, you get different figures depending on what you do.

    Reportedly, ModelE (if you take that as the best thing we have for this purpose) shows that if you look at components that absorb (including clouds and water vapor) and what percent of the GE is affected:
    H20 by itself absorbs 66% but removing it only causes a reduction of 36%
    CO2 by itself absorbs 26% but removing it only causes a reduction of 9%
    “Other GHG” absorb 8% but if you remove them it’s only 2%

    And so on. (BTW, if you remove everything but 1 component 1 at a time, (H2O+clouds, CO2, O3, other GHG) adding them together adds up to 126% which is another reason you can’t separate them.) (Chart is over at RC at p=142 I distilled some of it here ‘cuz it’s a bit confusing, mostly the numbers they have are from the IPCC or RC posts.)

    One interesting thing is that alone, H2O has a -56 W/m2 in the troposphere, CO2 has -23. (-79) But if you put them together, it’s -89 Wild, isn’t it. :)

  313. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 1:49 PM | Permalink

    HELP PLEASE !

    David Bellamy had a good blast at AGW in The Times (of London, Comment section, p19, Oct.22.)

    There are several responses in today’s Times, Oct.24, one of which, from the Exec. Director of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research states as a matter of fact that there is no record over the last 55 million years of a simultaneous ice age in both hemispheres.

    I know this to be incorrect – somewhere in this Swiss cheese I call my memory are a couple of papers containing indisputable data showing extensive ice caps in both hemispheres at the same time, quite recently in this context (i.e., within the last 500,000yrs) – but I can’t find the references. Can anyone help? I often get letters published in The Times and would love to spike his one, but if I can’t get the reference quickly the thread will grow cold.

    Thanks in advance.

  314. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 1:53 PM | Permalink

    As far as worrying about it now, it could be an issue. And ~35% is a fairly big rise (I just usually use the numbers 300 and 400, which is about 100 years). I’d put it right now (based on ModelE results) as removing 10% of the greenhouse effect, if it wasn’t there. So 300 to 400 so far to get us to 10% means 100 is 2.5% of the GE at 400. So doubling it to 800 would get us 5% more GE. What does 5% more GE equate to in temperature? That’s the question that has to be answered, what does ModelE say 5% more GE would do? Then we could say “ModelE + XYZ show…”

    Have you charted out the CO2 rise at Law Dome/Mauna Loa since 1832 on a scale of 260 to 380 on the Y-axis and global temperature anomaly on the same chart on the other Y-axis? (Make sure you’re careful with where you chart the 0 C line, becuase you won’t be able to see the temp if you chart it where it ends up on top of a graph line)

    I hesitate to use lag to explain the tiny variation in temp, given the large rise from ~1880-1940 and again from ~1940-2000 in CO2. Doesn’t matter.

    The point is, at the end of the day, even if a 100 ppmv rise in CO2 caused a .5 c increase in temperature over about a 100 year period, and seems to be accelerating, is it anything to worry about?

    (The fact that I doubt the premise is true has nothing to do with accepting that it is true for the purposes of debate. And it is the scientific consensus, after all… Nor does it have anything to do with me wondering what to do if it is something to worry about.)

    So far, it doesn’t seem all too reliable, but as I’ve said before, I don’t care what the truth is, I just want to see it. And find out if the information we’re being given is valid and trustworthy. I’m rather disappointed so far.

  315. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 1:58 PM | Permalink

    Sam Urbinto:

    You can’t selectivly remove things, you get different figures depending on what you do.

    That can be true — you have to be careful.
    It would be better to use ANOVA if I remember my stats correctly. I don’t want to dig any deeper on the Phanerozoic though.

    Paul O:

    Lassens paper uses MBH 98 for temperature data. That likely explains the divergence, and the hockey stick shape of his charts

    The agreement with the older MBH98 data is actually very good. The divergence is in the last 20-30 years. There is now a new data point avaialble with the solar cycle that just ended. Any volunteers to plot temperature against solar cycle length up to 2007? It’d be a new result — never before seen. (I’m away from my work computer or I’d love to do it).

  316. Jane Says
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 2:12 PM | Permalink

    Andrew Revkin a reporter has a new blog. He lists Climate Audit in his blogroll under “FREE-MARKET ADVOCATES, SKEPTICS, INDUSTRY VIEWS”.

    Real Climate is listed under “EARTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING”

    See for yerselfs:

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/

  317. Anna Lang
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 2:42 PM | Permalink

    In response to Steve McIntyre’s request, I suggest a “Five Star Anthology” thread providing links and annotations to articles that represent the best of the best in climate research. These would be articles with the potential to become classics in the field. How to choose? That might require a thread of its own!

  318. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 3:20 PM | Permalink

    A thread on Ramanathan, V. and A. Inamdar, 2006: “The Radiative Forcing due to Clouds and Water Vapor” in Frontiers of Climate Modeling, J. T. Kiehl and V. Ramanthan, Editors, (Cambridge University Press 2006), pp. 119-151. might be interesting.

  319. Mark T.
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 4:27 PM | Permalink

    You’re applying linear control theory to a system with logarithmic feedback. It doesn’t work that way.

    This statement misses the point I was getting at (I understand the logarithmic feedback), but…

    I applied an initial perturbation of 0.001K (one thousandth of one degree Kelvin). The linear system is of course unstable. The logarithmic system stabilizes at T=288.3K and C=493ppm. The amazing thing is that the logarithmic system is *always* stable, regardless of q and a; they only affect the stabilization temperature. The logarithmic system also has a faster initial response.

    This was my point. The feedback is actually a logarithmic term which decreases with increasing CO2. It is stable, of course, because the aggregate gain continually decreases, a point I have made in several posts. As you note, the quickie simplified version is always stable, and likewise, the concept of a “tipping point” is nonsense.

    BTW, I have no particular gripe with the 2.5K per doubling other than the simple fact that it has never been proven for our atmosphere, it is merely assumed. If there is one, I’d love to see it as would Steve M. (given that he has an open request for just such a thing).

    Mark

  320. Bruce
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 4:37 PM | Permalink

    JohnV

    More importantly, Lassen updated his results for the latest solar cycle in 1999

    Isn’t he quoting Friis-Christensen and Lassen?

    And isn’t Friis-Christensen the co-author of a paper recently that concludes:

    Contrary to the argument of Lockwood and Frohlich, the Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change.

    http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf

  321. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 5:02 PM | Permalink

    #321 Bruce:
    Yes, the latest non-peer-reviewd Svensmark & Friis-Chrstensen critique of L&F comes to that conclusion. Tamino has an interesting (also non-peer-reviewed) counter-critique:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/10/21/how-to-fool-yourself/

    Given the very strong correlation between solar cycle length and NH land temperature in the past, I’m still curious about the last cycle. Any takers?

  322. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 5:07 PM | Permalink

    MarkT:
    Sorry for misunderstanding your point.

    I believe the talk of “tipping points” refers to temperatures where the CO2 concentration jumps up because a new CO2 (or other GHG) source is opened up. For example, there is a worry that massive amounts of methane could be released from melting permafrost.

    The “tipping point” will not lead to unstable temperatures but it will lead to a jump in CO2 concentrations and therefore to faster temperature increases (to an eventual stable point).

  323. Mark T.
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 5:30 PM | Permalink

    No need to apologize since the actual comment chain was spread out over multiple posts as well as multiple threads. The “tipping point” concept that I refer to, btw, is actually even deeper than that and it gets into a lead/lag discussion that is often mis-interpreted by many, and delving into what I mean gets too close to the “snipping point”… :)

    Mark

  324. Spence_UK
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 5:45 PM | Permalink

    Re #290

    Don’t let a statistician see what you’re doing there. They might call you up on a few issues.

    For a start, you are reading too much into just “what’s the R^2″ without asking “what’s a good R^2 mean?”. For example, although you have a lot of data points, the data are highly autocorrelated which could lead to a high R^2 with low significance.

    Furthermore, your trend “removal” is actually imposing a trend on the data, potentially reducing the degrees of freedom – possibly improving R^2 without actually improving significance, and making your test highly susceptible to spurious correlation. To illustrate this, if I add arbitrary slopes by modifying your spreadsheet I can still get apparently great hikes in R^2 – using a slope of -1000 instead of +7.4, R^2 still increases from 0.338 to 0.459, yet the -1000 is clearly absurd. Changing from 7.4 to 15 I get an even better R^2 of 0.636. Going to an unphysical +1000 still gives me an R^2 improvement from 0.338 to 0.472. Do any of these “improvements” actually relate to improving the correlation, or are we just creating spurious R^2 correlations with little or no significance?

    This is, of course, a favoured team trick. Rather than imposing a trend as John has done, statisticians often remove all trends to improve the ability to detect relationships, reduce the likelihood of spurious relationships, and improve statistical significance. The team – much like John – go to great lengths to ensure their data go into the stats mix with trends, to encourage large apparent correlations, then apply dubious significance tests (or don’t apply significance tests at all).

  325. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 6:10 PM | Permalink

    Spence_UK:
    I am not a statistician. You seem very capable in stats. Please do a proper analysis on the data (to your standards), rather than just poke holes in my analysis.

    I resent the implication in your post that I have employed statistical tricks to support my case. Remember why I was looking at the data in the first place: MarkR and MarkW were using it as a “proof” that CO2 could not influence temperatures. With your stats knowledge you must have realized the “proof” was invalid. Why are you so quick to jump on my supposed errors but willing to allows theirs to stand?

    For the record, the trend that I “added” was actually removing the solar trend added by the GEOCARB III model.

    You tell me:
    Is there a statistically significant correlation between CO2 and temp in this data? (Hint: There must be since the CO2 was calculated using an explicit temperature term).

  326. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 7:14 PM | Permalink

    A war of graphs and stats is not a suitable scientific way to clarify issues on GW. Heat transfer science is the adequate way. Unfortunately, we cannot talk on that in this unthreaded because it was conceived for other means.

    If you want some graphs that demystify AGW, I invite you to read my articles. If you want to know the reasons by which the CD cannot be the driver of climate on Earth, read my article on Heat Stored. I suggest you to revise the bibliography at the articles. Count down: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1… Snipped!

  327. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 7:32 PM | Permalink

    # 303

    John V.,

    The total increase of CO2 since 1800 has been 101 ppmv. It would be true if we assume that the “standard” concentration of CO2 is 280 ppmv. The IPCC said on its original paper that the contribution of human activities to the total increase of atmospheric CO2 was 33.98%. 33.98% from 101 ppmv is 34.32 ppmv. That’s correct. If you are right, then the contribution of humans to the increase of CO2 would be 9.09 ppmv. However, if you’re assuming that the increase has been 381 ppmv, then the contribution of humans to the CO2 atmospheric concentration would be only 34.29 ppmv.

  328. jaeae
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 8:08 PM | Permalink

    #321 Bruce:
    Yes, the latest non-peer-reviewd Svensmark & Friis-Chrstensen critique of L&F comes to that conclusion. Tamino has an interesting (also non-peer-reviewed) counter-critique:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/10/21/how-to-fool-yourself/

    Given the very strong correlation between solar cycle length and NH land temperature in the past, I’m still curious about the last cycle. Any takers?

    Just how on earth can someone who seems to be so enamored by peer -reviewed science compare these eminent solar scientists to Tamino?

  329. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 8:11 PM | Permalink

    An Antarctic ozone hole update is here . You’ll have to click on the images and then click refresh to get the latest data.

    The black dots are the latest data. The 2007 ozone hole looks quite normal compared to the 1990-2001 baseline.

  330. Bruce
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 8:16 PM | Permalink

    JohnV

    Who is Tamino? Has he/she authored any papers? I mean … you’ve linked to papers that rely on papers authored by Friis-Chrstensen. Are the papers you’ve linked to now considered “tainted”?

    What has this Tamino done?

    Don’t be such a poor loser.

    As for other papers:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5723/847

    “Newly available surface observations from 1990 to the present, primarily from the Northern Hemisphere, show that the dimming did not persist into the 1990s. Instead, a widespread brightening has been observed since the late 1980s. This reversal is reconcilable with changes in cloudiness and atmospheric transmission and may substantially affect surface climate, the hydrological cycle, glaciers, and ecosystems.”

  331. Jonde
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 8:24 PM | Permalink

    Ah, this whole CO2 and temp argument start to get really boring, REALLY boring. You do not get anywhere, you sit around the computer all the day and counter attack you arguments constantly. You have been doing this for how many Unthreaded already? To find some interesting topics between your spam starts to get really tiresome. Please, please, please, stop it.

    My tiny rant is over.

  332. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 10:04 PM | Permalink

    Bruce:

    What has this Tamino done?
    Don’t be such a poor loser.

    Whoa. Calm down.
    This response over a link to Tamino?
    What exactly did I lose?
    You’re venturing into an argument from authority. Read the L&F paper. Read the S&FC response. Read Tamino’s article (or not). Comment on their contents.

    Thanks for the article link (finally). Unfortunately, I’d have to subscribe to read it. From the abstract it appears that the paper discusses changes not in solar output but in surface irradiance. Don’t take this question the wrong way; surface irradiance is obviously also important. I just want to be clear on the proposed influence so I can look into it.

  333. Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 10:16 PM | Permalink

    Jonde!!! You’re pretty right!!! ;)

  334. aurbo
    Posted Oct 24, 2007 at 11:45 PM | Permalink

    Re :330:
    I find this frequently updated ozone hole depiction to be a little easier on the eyes.

    Re some earleir posts…The current solar cycle (#23) has not yet ended. Current predictions are that it will end around March of 2008 making it an unsually long cycle which has some ramifications in studies of cycle length and climate. In any event, the end of a cycle is generally not accepted until the new cycle begins with sunspots at higher than equatorial latitudes.

    All kinds of goodies on sunspots and solar cycles can be found here.

  335. Mario
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 1:05 AM | Permalink

    A part any statistical question, in these (interesting) historical temperature & CO2 graphs one should not forget to mind well the X-axis scale:
    even if a variation in CO2 levels would bring a corresponding variation 10 MILLIONS YEARS LATER
    perhaps these days we shouldn’t be too tremendously worried,…

  336. Spence_UK
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 3:35 AM | Permalink

    Re #326

    John, don’t get me wrong here, you are playing with numbers in a blog, not publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. The former is fine (as is robust criticism of it, of course) but the latter is borderline scandalous. Whilst it might have come across as a pop at you, it was much more a pop at the “team”, using your example as an illustration.

    As for statistical skill, people like Jean S, UC and Steve Mc run rings around me, although I have sufficient awareness of statistical issues to cause trouble ;) And I’m sorry for not taking task to every single comment here, but I have relatively little time to post here these days so I take my pick. I have in the past posted disagreements with sceptical arguments which I feel are weak, but when the noise level is high, I’m more likely to home in on pro-AGW claims.

    You ask if there is a statistically significant correlation, but to determine this we need to lay down some ground rules: we need a hypothesis. If one would expect some kind of correlation due to the manner in which the data are generated, it teaches us nothing to detect that aspect of the correlation, so you would set up a hypothesis that states, given the way in which the data are formed, is there a correlation greater than that which would be expected by pure chance? That way, the test would automatically exclude the correlation associated with the data processing.

    We would also need a model to represent the statistical structure of the signal and noise. To be honest, looking at the temperature profile (which may well be true to some extent), it looks ridden with difficult noise processes (there appears to be some quantisation issues going on there, which are hard to deal with statistically short of Monte Carlo type methods).

    What is of far more interest to me with that plot is that the magnitude of the temperature swings at different scales are commensurate with long-term persistence and complex statistical structure across scales. This is a common trait for complex, natural, non-linear systems (in particular chaotic systems with phase space transitions). Such systems tend to throw up oddball results if you apply conventional linear analyses, and you need to tread very carefully. I can’t speak for these other people, but from what they have written, I think my views are much more closely aligned with those of posters here like Tom Vonk and TAC.

  337. Tom Vonk
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 4:39 AM | Permalink

    Spence UK

    “What is of far more interest to me with that plot is that the magnitude of the temperature swings at different scales are commensurate with long-term persistence and complex statistical structure across scales. This is a common trait for complex, natural, non-linear systems (in particular chaotic systems with phase space transitions). Such systems tend to throw up oddball results if you apply conventional linear analyses, and you need to tread very carefully.”

    Yes .
    I always like to mention the question (well known in some circles and virtually ignored in many others) :
    “What is the average diameter of all branches of a given tree ?”
    What does “average” and “standard deviation” mean in this case and can one compare trees using such numbers ?
    What can one infer from those numbers , if anything ?

    Now the weather behaves like tress in that respect and people using statistics in climate should be sure that they can properly answer the questions above .

    As you say , one has indeed to thread VERY carefully :)

  338. henry
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 6:57 AM | Permalink

    With all the statistics and math people posting here, please check out the following statement:

    A change to a later temperature averaging time period actually shows a decrease in 2006 temp anomalies.

    I took the HadCRU data for NH, and plotted it using the IPPC standard of 1961-1990, which showed an anomaly for 2006 to be .556 degrees above “average”.

    I took the same data and used a 30 year period going from 1977 to 2006 to set zero (average). This new chart showed that while the trends didn’t change, the anomaly for 2006 is now at .331 degrees above “average”.

    If the new “average” time period is re-adjusted each year, the anomalies will decrease (while preserving the trend).

    This actually keeps some AGW ideas intact, such as:

    1. A 30 year period is long enough to observe trends. And as I’ve seen, trends won’t change. Both my charts showed a .755 degree rise since 1985.

    2. The warmest period has been in the last 30 years. Still shows, but the old chart had 5 of the last 30 years below the average, while the new period has 16 of the last 30 years below the average. Anomalies don’t stay above average until after 1997 (new chart).

    I did this using Excel. Use whatever program you use, with whatever data you want (HadCRU or GISSTEMP), and run your own charts. Look at last 30 years (since 1977).

    Which also opens up a whole new question: why DOES the IPPC use a period from 1961-1990?

    Comments, please…

  339. Bruce
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 8:54 AM | Permalink

    JohnV

    What exactly did I lose?

    Credibility.

    I’ve only been participating on this site for a short time. When I first came here you kept pushing AGW. You kept claiming it couldn’t be the sun because solar energy was lower in the 90s. That turned out to be false. Now you are trying to push the idea that the Sun has no significant impact on warming in the 90s. That also turned out to be false.

  340. Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 9:49 AM | Permalink

    Spence_UK:
    Thank you for the detailed response. I did not take offense to your critique of my statistical errors, but rather to your repeated juxtaposition of my name and “the team”. I have to repeat again that I am not claiming that the Phanerozoic CO2 vs Temp chart proves anything. I was only demonstrating that the argument that it proves CO2 does *not* affect temperature is invalid.

    —–
    henry:
    I don’t think many people are concerned about how recent temperatures compare to “average”. It’s how they compare to the past that matters. The 1961-1990 reference period is a convention that has stuck around. If the reference period continually changes, then it becomes difficult to reconcile old results with new results.

    —–
    Bruce:
    I am asking questions and looking for alternative explanations for the recent warming. I have not yet found any satisfactory explanations. Apparently you have.

    BTW, the L&F paper discussed above investigates the correlation between Northern Hemisphere land temperature and solar cycle length. It finds that there was strong correlation in the past, but it has broken down since the 1970s. The trend in the divergence has been roughly linear. The S&CF rebuttal does not even discuss land temperature — they discuss the troposphere and sea surface temperatures. They then proceed to remove the linear trend since the 1970s and find that there is still a good correlation. I accept their conclusion that the solar cycle influences tropospheric and sea surface temperatures. I accept that there is good correlation with the linear trend removed.

    However, my whole question is about the linear trend. This is all they say about it:

    “As for the upward linear trend removed from Fig. 2
    (lower), it is customary to attribute to greenhouse gases
    any increase in global temperatures not due to solar
    changes. While that is reasonable, one cannot distinguish
    between the e®ects of anthropogenic gases such as car-
    bon dioxide and of natural greenhouse gases.”

    I realized late last night that I could access the Science papers you linked. The papers on the turn-around from dimming to brightening are interesting and I believe they are not disputed. I suspect the dimming played a part in the cooling trend from ~1950 to ~1975 and that the brightening is playing a part in warming trend we are seeing now.

  341. Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 9:52 AM | Permalink

    Bruce:

    You kept claiming it couldn’t be the sun because solar energy was lower in the 90s.

    Again, I never said that. I said that solar energy stoppped rising, not that it fell. You have now brought up dimming and brightening from aerosols and I have acknowledged that fact. (Dimming and brightening are different than solar energy as they are related to aerosols).

  342. Bruce
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 10:16 AM | Permalink

    JohnV

    (Dimming and brightening are different than solar energy as they are related to aerosols).

    No.

    Solar dimming and solar brightening are changes in the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth.

    Aerosols is one explanation.

    Cosmic rays changing cloud cover are another. http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/3163g817166673g7/fulltext.pdf

    Since there is evidence of warming on other planets in the solar system, it would be wrong to only suggest aerosols are the cause.

  343. See - owe to Rich
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 11:23 AM | Permalink

    Re #335 “The current solar cycle (#23) has not yet ended. Current predictions are that it will end around March of 2008 making it an unsually long cycle which has some ramifications in studies of cycle length and climate.”

    Usually the important point is the minimum between the 2 cycles. According to Archibald (who quotes others), the minimum activity generally occurs between 12 and 20 months after the the new polarity spots. These have not been seen yet, and since the transition between 23 and 24 is looking unusually slow, I doubt that minimum will occur before 2009, over 12 years after the previous minimum.

    Incidentally, I have seen two figures for the date of the last minimum: 1996.5 by Archibald and 1996.8 from a text file on Lassen’s website. Is the latter generally believed to be the more reliable?

    The 0.3 year difference will be important when considering how far back into the 19th or 18th centuries we have to go to find such a long cycle as 23 will turn out to be.

    Rich.

  344. Patrick M.
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 11:29 AM | Permalink

    I was reading this article at RealClimate.org. The following passage in particular gave me an idea:
    “But do we know that this recent prolonged positive phase in the NAO index is not simply a part of its natural decadal variability? And is this recent positive phase actually related to global warming?
    These are tough questions to answer definitively, but it is likely that AGW will continue to keep the NAO index positive because both atmospheric CO2 rise and stratospheric ozone depletion cause a strong polar night vortex. The North Pole is dark and very cold in the winter. This creates a large temperature difference between high latitudes and subtropics. The resulting large pressure contrast forces east-west winds into a stratospheric spiral. And this stratospheric vortex likely causes the NAO to prefer a positive phase. This was first shown by Shindell and colleagues in 1999, and seems to still hold true in the IPCC AR4 runs – although the average signal is smaller. And if it stays that way, southern Europe and the Middle East are likely to continue to get drier.”

    My thought is if the North Pole is getting warmer, (due to AGW), wouldn’t that reduce the temperature difference and make it more likely that the NAO would flip negative? Possibly this works like a self correcting system?

    Just my uneducated $0.02,
    Patrick

  345. JamesG
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 11:33 AM | Permalink

    “There are several responses in today’s Times, Oct.24, one of which, from the Exec. Director of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research states as a matter of fact that there is no record over the last 55 million years of a simultaneous ice age in both hemispheres.”

    That seems to make a lot of sense to me. If the Milankovitch cycles don’t introduce much energy (which is generally acknowledged) then by thermodynamics, any ice age in the North must be balanced by a warming in the South and vice versa. Probably each hemisphere’s ice age was caused by convection changes eg a shift of oceanic current from North to South or South to North. In heat transfer the secondary convective changes are often more important than the initial radiation change.

  346. henry
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 12:00 PM | Permalink

    John V. says: (October 25th, 2007)

    “henry:
    I don’t think many people are concerned about how recent temperatures compare to “average”. It’s how they compare to the past that matters. The 1961-1990 reference period is a convention that has stuck around. If the reference period continually changes, then it becomes difficult to reconcile old results with new results.”

    Wouldn’t be too hard, as long as there’s a statement to the effect “zero = X”. Then you could add or subtract the appropriate amount, and equal the zeros.

  347. Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 12:08 PM | Permalink

    John V.,

    I was only demonstrating that the argument that it proves CO2 does *not* affect temperature is invalid.

    Does this assertion denote that CD is a source of energy? In which way the CD “affect” temperature? Isn’t it normal and negligible?

  348. Pat Keating
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 12:27 PM | Permalink

    346

    by thermodynamics, any ice age in the North must be balanced by a warming in the South and vice versa.

    What thermodynamics is that? The Earth is not a closed system, it receives solar radiation and radiates energy.
    However, your comment does raise some interesting thoughts……

  349. Bruce
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 12:30 PM | Permalink

    Simultaneous ice ages:

    “The results are significant because they indicate that the whole Earth experiences major ice age cold periods at the same time, and thus, some climate forcing mechanism must homogenize the Earth’s climate system during ice ages and, by inference, other periods,” says Michael R. Kaplan, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Edinburgh who conducted the work in a postdoctoral position at UW-Madison.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040319071426.htm

  350. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 12:46 PM | Permalink

    While wasting my time visting Tamino’s comments on sun cycles, I clicked on a link to a more recent article – Tamino has jumped on-board to the link between global warming and the wildfires in CA.

    I guess people have to find something to pin AGW on, since they are so disappointed with a second running pathetic hurricane season.

  351. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 12:58 PM | Permalink

    If you think that’s bad over there on the wildfires, you should go check out media matters and their take on agw.

    Anywayz.

    Since we’re having fun with graphs, here’s a few. This is all GHCN-ERSST.

    This is 1880-2005 temps on a +/- 5 C scale, with both linear and log trends. I thought if we’re going to log co2, why not see what temp does with a log vs trend line?

    Why not look at the linear 125 year trend on a .25 degree scale? Look! The warming starts in 1910! :)

    Checking 20 year moving averages are always fun. Here’s OCO(left Y, its scale, 0-400) and temp (right Y, its scale, +/-.6) on the same graph.

    Trend for 98-05 with both linear and log.

    Whoa, that does look pretty scary! 2000-2005

    This shows that for the period of overlap of ice core and air, there is a definite relationship in the trend, although it does diverge slightly. This rather proves that ice cores do show short term what the air is doing in a different location.

    And the final graph of 1832-2004 OCO with the global anomaly plotted on the same Y scale. I think you’ll find this one particularly entertaining.


  352. David Archibald
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 2:24 PM | Permalink

    Re 344, the low was a smoothed sunspot number of 8 in May 1996. If you smooth the smoothed sunspot numbers with a six month moving average, the low was 8.3 in July 1996. To find a cycle as long as 23 is going to be, we go back to solar cycle 4 which was 13.6 years long. As Hathaway pointed out, the longer a cycle, the weaker the following cycle. My estimate of month of solar minimum is July 2009. Another thing to keep a track of is the aa Index. This is down to the lows of 1996 but we are still 20 months off solar minimum.

  353. vercingetorix
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 2:45 PM | Permalink

    I recently created a prediction market at Inkling Markets to predict the smoothed sunspot number at solar max of cycle 24:

    Sunspot Prediction Market

    So far, there’s not enough volume to get anything out of it, but it’s free to sign up and trade, so we can change that if there’s enough interest. This might be a fun method to track the storm count predictions as well.

  354. Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 2:53 PM | Permalink

    John V

    I apologize. My system is also unstable for a negative perturbation. CO2 goes negative and the log blows up.

    Apology accepted. Logarithmic system is thus not stable regardless of q and a. Reparametrization in #293 seems to work with both signs. These non-linear systems are tricky, specially when statistical analysis is involved, Gaussians wont get through..

    #326

    Please do a proper analysis on the data (to your standards), rather than just poke holes in my analysis.

    Posts here are systematically subjected to the most rigorous attempts at falsification possible, you got a problem with that ? ;) Careful, next you’ll request alternate ’sceptic’ paleoclimate NH/SH/globe temperature reconstructions..

  355. Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 3:09 PM | Permalink

    #356 UC:
    I think the instability arises from the linearization of the CO2 response to temperature (the a constant).

    I would like to improve the equations by using a more realistic model for CO2 absorption and release from ocean water. (I’m thinking of modelling the planet as a big ocean with a uniform temperature — obviously not correct but fun to play with). Any ideas where I could find the CO2 in ocean water info?

  356. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 3:13 PM | Permalink

    So what do you think of that last graph up there?

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2220#comment-152409
    :D

  357. Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 3:26 PM | Permalink

    You could make the temerature trend even flatter by plotting CO2 parts-per-billion.
    But then I’d probably plot it in parts-per-thousand. That’d make you worry. :)

  358. Mark T
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

    You’re funny, UC. BTW, I should note that the term q in the simplified feedback model is NOT the actual gain, only the gain scale (of sorts). Due to the function of the logarithm, the feedback gain is actually a monotonically decreasing value. Linear system theory does indeed apply, even with the non-linearity (which can be modeled like a VCO or similar), it’s just that the gain eventually crosses below the stability point (gain = 1) as a result of the decrease, even if it begins life creating a pole in the right half of the plane.

    For anyone that’s interested, the instantaneous gain in a purely simplified model would be:

    y = g * log(x), and gain = y/x

    therefore

    y/x = gain = g*log(x)/x

    As soon as log(x)/x 0 as x increases, a logarithm function like this will ultimately converge regardless of the magnitude of g (obviously negative x would be a problem, but x in our example cannot be negative as it is a measurement of a quantity). This would hold for any non-linearity in which the function decreases to a point below 1/g (and stays there).

    Mark

  359. Mark T
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 3:39 PM | Permalink

    Oh crap, that last bit used an lt. symbol rather than “less than”… it should read:

    As soon as log(x)/x is less than 1/g, the system stabilizes. Since the limit of log(x)/x approaches 0 as x increases,

    Mark

  360. nevket240
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 3:48 PM | Permalink

    #307
    Anna. get real. is the warmer temp of the Tropics the reason why there are no living things running around there????? Good heavens.
    Remember, MOST of the warming predicted by the models, (Elle Mcpherson, Cindy Crawford et al) is to happen in the Northern lattitudes. That would not lead to extinctions but rather a greater survival rate, surely???
    regards.

  361. Spence_UK
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 4:20 PM | Permalink

    Re #338

    Agreed Tom, good to hear from you!

    One person who could do with understanding your question would be Figen Mekik who, just a few days back, posted his worry about “Sweatin’ the Mediterranean Heat” over at RealClimate. And guess how he reviews the historical rainfall in the region? Why yes, the team’s love affair with tree ring proxies continues, with a splendid historical reconstruction from precipitation-sensitive trees.

    Hmm, strange though, looking at the graph, I can’t see any of the complex statistical structure that one would expect in such a series. It is almost as if Harold Hurst had never existed…

  362. aurbo
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 4:31 PM | Permalink

    Re #244 & 354:

    In my #335 I wasn’t making a prediction, but simply repeating the conventional wisdom of the the SM forecasters. In fact, I happen to agree with both of you that we’re about to see a very long tail to cycle #23 and that this has implications on climate. One can visualize the zero level for sunspots as not being the bottom, but an horizon below which the mechanisms for generating sunspots can penetrate. In such a case one has no metric to determine what the real minimum is, but can attempt to deduce that from the time interval between when the sunspots reach zero and when this period of zero sunspots ends. This coming year will likely be the first year with monthly zeros for sunspots in some time. It may represent a roughly 100 year cycle in which the minima of 1810-11 and 1912-13 may be replicated shortly before 2010. Both of the prior periods were coincident with abnormally cool global temperatures. That doesn’t necessarily mean cause and effect, but one can make the implication. The entire monthly listing of sunspot numbers from 1740 to the present can be found here.

    The last zero month for the EISN was in 1913. As of today, we are at zero now in October, but the month began with a few spots so that the monthly average will probably be between 0.2-0.4.

    Re #341:

    The 1961-1990 reference period is a convention that has stuck around. If the reference period continually changes, then it becomes difficult to reconcile old results with new results.

    The convention you mentioned has been standard practice at NCDC for over half a century. The practice is that when the previous 3 decades have been compiled and edited, the 30-year monthly normals shift to include those three decades. The current standard normals are for the period 1971-2000. Apparently the AGW crowd hasn’t caught up with that yet.

  363. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 4:45 PM | Permalink

    LOL, right, ppmt :)

    Well, the point was not to flatten the line or “fool people by adjusting the scale” or whatever of course (I’m not saying you’re saying that, just I’m saying it). I did put up +/-5, +/-.25, 0 line at value begin, and both readings with their own Y-axis after all…. Partly to show that there are different ways to look at (or think about) the data. Partly because I have issues with the way some of the stuff is presented. I’ve seen some very AGW-centric folks complain about massaging the charts or what have you, who have no problem skewing graphs to accentuate the HUGE WARMING TREND (Or don’t think they are skewing them when they are, because of their preconceptions). Me, I try and be fair… :)

    I think it’s also a bit of playing with the numbers to show both lines on their own scale, considering that one is 100s (of ppmv, yes, but we are talking about atmospheric concentrations) and comparing it to one in 1/10s. As in inserts of CO2 at one scale of temperature on another is. Now what I would consider interesting would be to graph CO2 not in ppmv, but by its relative greenhouse effect potential (as shown by ModelE) along with the potential of clouds, ozone, water vapor, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, nitrous oxide and “others” on the same graph. But of course, the clouds and water vapor would totally dominate the graph, so I don’t expect any of the mainstream folks to do so. (or they’d leave off the clouds and water vapor because “they aren’t forcings” when of course if you’re looking at the GE, it doesn’t matter what they are, forcing or feedback) But I fear that type of graph is a bit beyond my abilites.

    This isn’t tho:

    Here’s two, a chart using 14 C as the mean global average as a number and plotting the anomaly against that as the “zero line”. The first is on a 1.2 C scale and the second is (to me) a more realistic scale; the annual temperature range in a notional place where every year, the low is 0 C and the high is 40 C If that town had a stable low/high of that, and they experienced the warming, what would that look like to them?



    But that pales in comparison to this:


    As far as the rest, as I said, start here and work your way backwards…..
    :)

  364. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 5:12 PM | Permalink

    nevket240: I’m fairly sure that Anna posted those links so we could see how things are being reported…

    aurbo: AFAIK some are using 61-90 and others 71-00 I did an experiment (I don’t know if it was correctly done) and regardless of which I used as a base, I got the same answers. (Which seemed odd, but I forget what I did and when I did it.)

    If you go poke around the sites for these agencies, they don’t really highlight what period they use (and/or don’t even update the site hardly, or at all)

  365. Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 6:02 PM | Permalink

    I agree with Sam Urbinto. I don’t see that Anna had said that she was supporting any viewpoints from the articles.

    I think this article is worth to read, although I do concur with some assertions there, I don’t agree with other notions:

    Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?

  366. Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 6:08 PM | Permalink

    Thus for G ¡Ö 3 (corresponding to delta T ¡Ö 3.6¡ãC), uncertainties in feedbacks are magnified by almost an order of magnitude in their effect on the uncertainties in the gain.

  367. Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 6:36 PM | Permalink

    Sam Urbinto:
    I think a fair scale for temperature would be the limits of ice ages in the last 400K years or so. That gives a scale for what a few degrees can do. I’d say the same for CO2 but that’ll get me in trouble. ;)

  368. Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 7:26 PM | Permalink

    John V.,

    The problem is, could CO2 cause that minimal change of T? The answer is, nope, physically it couldn’t. ;)

  369. Anna Lang
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 9:44 PM | Permalink

    RE #361 Nevket240

    In #307, I posted the reference to a new article published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. This article and its authors are receiving attention in the news media, including my morning newspaper. In an attempt to find out more about this article, I encountered various headlines, each presenting a spin on the paper’s findings. Since I saw no posts about it, I brought it to the attention of readers here. Apparently it caught your attention and you have formulated an opinion. I have yet to do enough research on the matter to formulate mine.

    RE #365 and #366

    Sam U. and Nasif N., thank you for correctly interpreting my intentions.

  370. Jaye
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 10:34 PM | Permalink

    The real news here is the Koyto protocol has managed the almost economic impossible feat of stopping the long term trend of increasing energy efficiency and hence reduction in CO2 emissions per unit of GDP.

    Stop it you’re killing me. I mean that is funny. Maybe you should try stand up as a profession?

  371. Jaye
    Posted Oct 25, 2007 at 10:36 PM | Permalink

    I guess you been watching too many shows like “Planet in Peril” which I think should be renamed “Age of Enlightenment in Peril” because of all the dross the warmers are feeding to the public.

  372. JamesG
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 4:06 AM | Permalink

    “What thermodynamics is that? The Earth is not a closed system, it receives solar radiation and radiates energy.”
    It receives and radiates pretty constant amounts of energy. It’s long been known that the direct solar effect of Milankovitch cycles is near zilch, hence the search for an amplifying mechanism. It doesn’t really make much sense that you’d get ice ages North and South at the same time unless a big energy hole appears in the atmosphere and then closes up again. Ok maybe that does happen but it’s perhaps more likely that the axis tilt alone caused the climatic events – maybe related to an altered gravity pull from the moon (I’m guessing of course). However it seems to me that secondary convective flow changes probably govern our climate, not minor radiative mismatches and so if it gets hot in one place then it must get cold somewhere else. Isn’t that what is happening now? ie Arctic warming, Antarctic cooling?

  373. Hoi Polloi
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 7:38 AM | Permalink

    Interesting debate on Climate Change here: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=296504

    Maybe some of you want to throw your expertise in?

  374. Mike B
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 8:21 AM | Permalink

    John V. #368

    I think a fair scale for temperature would be the limits of ice ages in the last 400K years or so. That gives a scale for what a few degrees can do. I’d say the same for CO2 but that’ll get me in trouble.

    The limits of the most recent glaciation is more like 10-12 degrees C than “a few.”

  375. Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 8:30 AM | Permalink

    Mike B:
    I never said otherwise. The “few degrees” referred to what’s happening right now.

  376. Pat Keating
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 8:40 AM | Permalink

    373
    See post #350

  377. henry
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 9:36 AM | Permalink

    aurbo says (October 25th, 2007 at 4:31 pm

    “Re #341:

    The 1961-1990 reference period is a convention that has stuck around. If the reference period continually changes, then it becomes difficult to reconcile old results with new results.

    The convention you mentioned has been standard practice at NCDC for over half a century. The practice is that when the previous 3 decades have been compiled and edited, the 30-year monthly normals shift to include those three decades. The current standard normals are for the period 1971-2000. Apparently the AGW crowd hasn’t caught up with that yet.”

    Neither, then, has the NCDC or the IPPC. New temp charts still have old average. Has ANYONE seen “updated” charts containing the new references?

    You probably won’t, because of the APPEARANCES these new charts would give. To compare data between charts, and have any “hot” year suddenly “lose” two-tenths of a degree (making the “cold” years seem colder) is something they don’t want to have to battle.

    But updated charts would show, during the past 30 years, that half of the years fall under the “zero” line (i.e, the most “warming”, or sustained positive anomalies in the past 30 years would occur AFTER 1994). Currently, the sustained positive anomalies begin in about 1985.

  378. JamesG
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 9:49 AM | Permalink

    Pat
    Thanks I had read 350 already. I particularly like this bit: “thus, some climate forcing mechanism must homogenize the Earth’s climate system during ice ages and, by inference, other periods”. So the search for that mysterious “some climate forcing” continues! This forcing and/or amplifier seems to coincide with quite small changes in external energy and it drives both heating and cooling periods, unlike Greenhouse gases. A challenge indeed.

  379. JZ Smith
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 10:02 AM | Permalink

    133:

    20/20 John Stossel had a go at Gore’s moveie

    Thanks for the link. I had DVR’ed it and even showed it to my wife, who doesn’t really follow GW except as reported in the MSM. (We are in the San Diego area and were otherwise occupied during the original broadcast!)

    Is it true what JS reported that co2 increase follows increase in temp?

    Sorry for dumbing-down your discussion!

  380. Mark T.
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 10:10 AM | Permalink

    Is it true what JS reported that co2 increase follows increase in temp?

    In the long-term record, yes, but that’s over thousands of years. Short term is very difficult to assess lead/lag relationships due to the noise in the measurements.

    Mark

  381. Craig Loehle
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 10:11 AM | Permalink

    re: 380 Yes, over ice ages, temperature changes direction up or down about 800 to 1000 years before temperature, repeatedly. This does not disprove AGW, just that CO2 did not force the ice ages.

  382. Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 10:27 AM | Permalink

    JZ Smith:

    Is it true what JS reported that co2 increase follows increase in temp?

    That is true, but it is also expected for a CO2 feedback mechanism (see post #293).
    It doesn’t prove a CO2 feedback, but it is consistent with a CO2 feedback. The feedback mechanism is believed to be the reduced solubility of CO2 in ocean water as it warms.

    ie. Warming ocean –> CO2 release –> Warming ocean –> etc

  383. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 10:43 AM | Permalink

    RE: #334 – I’d much rather discuss vulnerability to another late Phanerazoic Boundary-like extinction. I have some ideas. Perhaps: Low CO2 + extraterrestrial object impact = massive phytoplankton die off. We are now at a level of CO2 not far above what existed during the Permian.

  384. jae
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 10:48 AM | Permalink

    I’m surprised I have not received more feedback on my analysis which waters down the AGW hypothesis (pun intended). I think I’ve shown in a clear and convincing way, with a lot of empirical data, that water in all it’s forms exerts an overall slight negative feedback to radiation forcing from the sun (which then also has to be true for forcing from CO2, etc.). Increased radiation causes an increase in temperatures, but there is more of an increase in dryer areas than wetter areas (at the same latitude). If one deletes the posited positive water feedback from the AGW hypothesis, then doubling CO2 does not have much effect, even if the 3.7 W/m2 calculation is true, especially when one considers the negative feedback by water.

  385. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 11:00 AM | Permalink

    Re#380, the other posters are right. However, Stossel was directly addressing Gore's PowerPoint slide, which would suggest the distant past rises in CO2 and temps have historically been simultaneous.

  386. Mhaze
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 11:45 AM | Permalink

    John V

    ie. Warming ocean –> CO2 release –> Warming ocean –> etc

    Isn’t this a feedback that would be considerably modified by the much higher precipitation (triple what the models said as I recall) indicated in Wentz 2007 “How much more rain will global warming bring?”. General comment: I’d think one could not consider the effect of water on climate (here the Henry’s law effect, something like 1C increase releases 12ppm or so) without the whole hydrologic cycle effect of that 1C. It is water, after all.

  387. Mike B
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 12:34 PM | Permalink

    John V. #376

    Mike B:
    I never said otherwise. The “few degrees” referred to what’s happening right now.

    You most certainly did. I quoted you. And what’s happening now is “a few tenths of a degree”, not a few degrees.

  388. Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 1:31 PM | Permalink

    Mike B:
    Here’s what I said:

    I think a fair scale for temperature would be the limits of ice ages in the last 400K years or so. That gives a scale for what a few degrees can do. I’d say the same for CO2 but that’ll get me in trouble.

    In other words, plotting the few degrees predicted for the next century against the 10 to 12 degrees of an ice age gives a scale for what a few degrees can do. (The IPCC range of predictions for different emissions scenarios ranges from 1.4 to 6.4C). My phrasing wasn’t entirely clear so I tried to clarify. Hopefully you understand this time.

  389. henry
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 1:43 PM | Permalink

    Ray Pierrehumbert is writing a book on the physics of climate. Chapters and a computer based workbook is available.

  390. Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 2:06 PM | Permalink

    There is a point that has not been touched here: according with the Newton’s law of cooling the higher the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the lower change of temperature it will cause (it would be a negative feedback). The absolute amount absorbed by the CD is directly proportional to the magnitude of the incident energy and the distance the electromagnetic wave travels through the gas volume. However, conduction and convection are considered negligible in the atmosphere, so we have to consider the radiation heat transfer like the dominant mechanism of heat transfer in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, the capabilities of CD to interfere with the EME beams are quite negligible because the partial pressure of CD is extremely low and the absorptivity-emissivity depends directly of partial pressure (hence, we have to apply the rules of negative emission). ƒº

    At first sight, one could think that it is contradicting the climate science information, but the values for the effect were obtained empirically and they are related with specific heat, which also increases with temperature. The higher the mass and temperature, the lower change of temperature the carbon dioxide causes. The carbon dioxide does not warm a thing, but it is warmed up by the energy emitted from the surface. CD conveys the energy that it absorbs.

    On the other hand, the schemes of regional energy budgets defines an uneven distribution of GHG chunks, thus we cannot globalize warming. We only find isothermal lumps of atmosphere that are not isothermal in a global scale. A patch here and another different patch there, and another one there. In consequence, we cannot generalize the application of the equation of transfer and we cannot talk about a ¡§global¡¨ warming.

  391. John F. Pittman
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 2:08 PM | Permalink

    #385 Cloud cover is far from similar when comparing dry South West to soggy South East US. A factor like you used for cover for land should be added to the SE as a heat blocking factor for sunlight by clouds, especially in summer time. The humidity and cloud cover in summer tend to negate each other as in they moderate the temperatures. In the SE after the rainstorm, it is apparently hotter to humans. The clouds are gone and relative humidity is high. The sun then increases both the temperature and the humidity, such that one regrets the rain (sometimes).

  392. Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 2:20 PM | Permalink

    # 391

    Thus the cause of warming on Earth could be that eluded factor proposed by Ray Pierrehumbert and on which Jae has insisted on almost all of his posts. ;)

  393. Buddenbrook
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 2:30 PM | Permalink

    In their latest posting RC are asserting that we can rule out low climate sensitivities, and that for 450ppm (not doubling, 450ppm) +4.5C warming is much more likely, than below +2.0C.

    What their arguments for this are, who knows. Where the certainty comes from, who knows.

  394. jae
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 3:45 PM | Permalink

    392: The solar insolation factor in my analysis is a surrogate for cloudiness. You will note a much higher solar insolation in the Southwest than in the Southeast at the same latitude. Thus, I accounted for “cloudiness” by including the insolation as a factor. Clouds are only one reason for the discrepancy in temperatures; the other is the huge amount of energy that goes into the latent heat of vaporization and which does not contribute to temperature. And I am talking about temperature here, not “comfort levels.” I agree that high humidity presents a big comfort factor.

  395. Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 3:47 PM | Permalink

    Following the logics of RC writers, 290 million years ago the temperature on Earth was 27.33 °C above the median temperature. That would be a temperature of 60 °C… Poor dinosaurs. That implies that the temperature along the Eocene was 53 °C… Heh, heh, heh… :)

  396. aurbo
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 3:56 PM | Permalink

    The US Monthly Climate Normals are available free-online from NCDC for the 1971-2000 30-year period. They can be accessed starting here and clicking through the various links.

    Re #383:

    That is true, but it is also expected for a CO2 feedback mechanism (see post #293).
    It doesn’t prove a CO2 feedback, but it is consistent with a CO2 feedback. The feedback mechanism is believed to be the reduced solubility of CO2 in ocean water as it warms.

    ie. Warming ocean –> CO2 release –> Warming ocean –> etc

    There is no doubt that the solubility of CO2 in water decreases with rising water temperature and that this relationship is both logorithimic and reversible. The question is whether there is a significant feedback mechanism in place that is driven by increased atmospheric CO2. The above quote proposes that this could be the case in which case a logorithimic upward spiral in water temps would be underway unless such a temperature rises induces a negative feedback, perhaps through cloudiness, precipitation, etc, that acts to stabilize the ocean/atmosphere system. This would depend on the dominance of the various feedback mechanisms. Without such negative feedbacks, a single SST/CO2 forcing relationshp would result in a logorithimic rise in SSTs which I don’t beleive has been shown to have occurred in the historical record.

    If atmospheric CO2 has an insignificant effect on causing SST rises, then the positive (or negative) feedback would not exist. The fact that there appears to be cyclical, or at least secular changes in global SSTs over time suggests that any existing forcing by CO2 is weak or overwhelmed by countervailing forcing mechanisms. All that the record shows so far is that when SSTs rise, sometime later atmospheric CO2 rises and vice versa.

  397. Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 4:01 PM | Permalink

    # 395

    Jae, I think that high humidity is a large uncomfortable factor for humans. Remember thermal sensation.

  398. Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 4:12 PM | Permalink

    Bye, bye freedom… Read here.

  399. jae
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 4:16 PM | Permalink

    Jae, I think that high humidity is a large uncomfortable factor for humans. Remember thermal sensation.

    Nasif, it’s not just thermal sensation, it is the fact that the perspiration cooling system can’t work well when humidity is high (which again demonstrates the huge amount of energy that goes into vaporization). Thermal sensation is purely a function of temperature.

  400. Pat Keating
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 7:06 PM | Permalink

    379
    It doesn’t have to be a climate forcing mechanism, but the same mechanism that homogenizes CO2 levels around the planet, just everyday wind-shear mixing, fueled by the substantial energy provided by the sun. It doesn’t take much mixing to do it — there’s plenty of time, over a period of tens of thousands of years.

    But the point pf 350 is: the two hemispheres apparently go through ice ages together.

  401. Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 8:14 PM | Permalink

    Nasif Nahle:

    Following the logics of RC writers, 290 million years ago the temperature on Earth was 27.33 °C above the median temperature.

    The peak CO2 concentration that I have found is about 7000ppm, or roughly 26x pre-industrial levels, 520 million years ago.

    26x is ~4.7 doublings (that is, log2(26) = 4.7).

    The temperature was about 22.5C but the sun was dimmer, accounting for 7C, so the equivalent temperature was 29.5C.

    The current average temperatures is ~12C, giving a difference of 17.5C.

    Dividing 17.5C by 4.7 doublings gives 3.7C/doubling. That’s pretty consistent with other numbers I’ve seen published. No problems there.

  402. DR
    Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 8:56 PM | Permalink

    What role does ocean heat content have in this discussion?

    If the oceans do not continue to warm each year, how can the rest of the planet regardless of what’s in the atmosphere?

  403. Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 9:27 PM | Permalink

    John V.,

    Why do not make the calculations straightly? Alpha = {4.5 K / [Ln (CO2 x2/CO2 st)]} / 4 (sigma) (Tb^3). That gives a value for alpha of 24.46 W/m^2. This is the RC calculation. Now clear the value delta T and introduce the magnitude that you’re referring to, that is 7000 ppmv. The result is 21.4 K above the median.

    BTW, the iron stains from 290 million years BD (Permian Period) were the result of intense heating of rocks by the Sun, thus the Sun does not seem to have dimmed. Dinosaurs and aquatic animals did not start dying of cold, but from starvation.

  404. Posted Oct 26, 2007 at 10:15 PM | Permalink

    Recommended reading:

    NAS-Climate in Earth History: Studies on Geophysics.

  405. nevket240
    Posted Oct 27, 2007 at 3:15 AM | Permalink

    Anna:
    apologies. I misunderstood your position.

    Being an Australian my English isn’t all that good.

    regards.

  406. JamesG
    Posted Oct 27, 2007 at 3:53 AM | Permalink

    Pat
    I know that’s the point but it’s a bit of an extrapolation. You measure a site in the North and a site in the South and you say there were ice ages in the North and the South at the same time. Please! The whole idea of convection currents is that they give heat where it may otherwise have been cold and vice versa. Mountainous areas have climates unto themselves anyway. The real point should be that the poles themselves were not apparently in synch.

  407. Pat Keating
    Posted Oct 27, 2007 at 10:29 AM | Permalink

    407
    Who said anything about convection currents and what is your point there?

    The real point should be that the poles themselves were not apparently in synch.

    Where is your evidence for that statement?

  408. Pat Keating
    Posted Oct 27, 2007 at 10:42 AM | Permalink

    John V 383
    As you said, your graph in 293 doesn’t disprove or prove anything, although the calculation is too CO2-centric and ignores the much larger effect of water vapor entirely.
    However, this is my key question: What do you believe is driving the rise in T for the 1000 years before CO2 kicks in?

  409. Richard Sharpe
    Posted Oct 27, 2007 at 2:46 PM | Permalink

    Follow the money.

    THE GOLDEN CHAD: Ceci n’est pas un Prix, c’est un morceaux non decoupe’ doree

  410. Mark T
    Posted Oct 27, 2007 at 4:04 PM | Permalink

    The peak CO2 concentration that I have found is about 7000ppm

    If I’m not mistaken there is evidence of some ice ages in which the totals were several thousand ppm, too.

    Mark

  411. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 27, 2007 at 4:09 PM | Permalink

    Climate sensitivity paper

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/the-certainty-of-uncertainty/

  412. jae
    Posted Oct 27, 2007 at 5:56 PM | Permalink

    412: Umm, what if the sensitivities are LESS than expected. What if negative feedbacks (like water and clouds) prevail? Could we have LESS than 2.5 C? Why don’t these papers address these possibilities? I think I know why.

  413. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 27, 2007 at 7:23 PM | Permalink

    RE 413.

    I wasted 10 bucks on the article. what they dont relaize is that they just describe a system
    that can only be controlled by a totalitarian regime.

    That is, a system that is very sensivite ( long tail on the high sensitivity side) and LONG
    time constants.. like 30 years..

    If, for example, you plan for a high sensitivity ( 6C per doubling)and apply controls
    accordingly you have to wait 30 years or so to see if you got the control right.
    In the meantime, inthe intervening years, your going to get noisy jumpy feedback signals
    from the land temp record that could cause you to abandone your control setting or feed in more.

    Imagine if you would that Al Gore put on huge carbon controls. Theory says
    the warming signal really only shows in long term trends. Now imagine in the few years
    after Gore slams on the carbon brakes that you get a couple years of anomalous cooling.
    The historical record is chock full of sadlovian fault scarps where the temps cool by 1C
    on a year to year basis. That would be a political nightmare. Impose harsh controls and
    BAM it cools. Then youre poor and cold.
    Or imagine the opposite you put in harsh controls and you get a 1C spike the next year.
    More harsh controls?

    One thing for sure, the control setting will be wrong. No goldilocks here.

  414. Posted Oct 27, 2007 at 8:02 PM | Permalink

    # 414

    Steven Mosher,

    You didn’t have to spend ten dollars for the article. The next time drop me a message mentioning the link I had posted and I’ll see if I can send you the PDF of that article for free (only for NAS proceedings).

  415. Anna Lang
    Posted Oct 27, 2007 at 8:04 PM | Permalink

    RE: #406

    G’day, Nevket240:

    There’s no problem at all. Australian English is such a colorful language, please don’t give it up!! Sorry for not replying sooner, but I’ve had difficulty accessing the website and then getting this thread to load completely. Maybe it’s a hint I need to head over to the tip jar . . .

    Best to you,
    Anna

  416. bender
    Posted Oct 27, 2007 at 8:16 PM | Permalink

    CA poll:
    In your experience, what percentage of AGW alarmists understand the scientific basis for AGW “attribution” – which is the sensitivity of global mean temperature to CO2 forcing as inferred from GCMs?

    [In my experience it is zero, or very close to it, depending wheteher Gavin Schmidt actually understands the questionable statistics of GCM tuning.]

  417. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 27, 2007 at 8:35 PM | Permalink

    re 404. Dont forget hansen says the Long term sensivity is 6C per doubling

  418. jae
    Posted Oct 27, 2007 at 8:56 PM | Permalink

    [In my experience it is zero, or very close to it, depending wheteher Gavin Schmidt actually understands the questionable statistics of GCM tuning.]

    How are probability and STATISTICS involved there? I thought “tuning” amounted to just trial and error and SWAGs.

  419. bender
    Posted Oct 27, 2007 at 9:21 PM | Permalink

    How are probability and STATISTICS involved there? I thought “tuning” amounted to just trial and error and SWAGs.

    You seem to think “trial and error” is not a statistical process. The reality is that each “trial” is an experiment that costs you one degree of freedom. Trouble is many don’t want to pay that cost. The result is an overfit model of questionable validity.

    You are aware that GCMs are tuned to a sample of “actual” climate scenarios? How are these sample instances chosen? Are they “representative”? What do they represent? The entire ensemble of circulatory possibilities, or just some select subset? Which circulatory features are considered structurally stable enough that they merit being a target of tuning? What is the proof that these features are structurally stable? Or is this an assumption?

    The atmospheric circulation is a stochastic process. The models are stochastic. Fitting stochastic models to stochastic data is fundamentally a statistical exercise – even if the climatologists don’t see it that way.

    Ask Wegman. [Ask him at the ASA workshop on statistics in climatology.]

  420. jae
    Posted Oct 27, 2007 at 11:23 PM | Permalink

    Bender: OK, OK, you are either WAY over my head on this matter. I simply don’t understand “tuning,” I guess.

  421. jae
    Posted Oct 27, 2007 at 11:35 PM | Permalink

    In my mind, “tuning” suggests an ad hoc selection of constants and variables that make the model perform the way you want it to (e.g., “let’s cut this value in half and see what happens”). If that is true, I just don’t see how you can assign some kind of probability function to the selected values. How do you assign a probability to a SWAG? Don’t waste your time responding if I am really that ignorant on this issue.

  422. Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 12:35 AM | Permalink

    # 418

    Steven Mosher,

    What makes his prophecies run more “wicked” Algore-itms… ;)

    Jae and Bender,

    Models must be based on observed phenomena, not on ideas. Statistics provide us a scheme or a formal representation on what’s happening over there. Statistics help us to understand reality, but they never create reality. So the same is for models. For example, today I received the report of the temperature taken with a thermometer placed in downtown, at two kilometers from my laboratory. It was 89.60 °F. I thought it was wrong because the air was cold at my location. I revised the temperature taken with three thermometers, placed 328.08 ft one from another, forming a triangle in a field which area is107639.10 ft², which is close to the lab at the outer edge of the city. The readings were, 81.86 °F, 75.74 °F and 71.60 °F. Then we had four different readings. If I plot the four temperatures against time I could think that the temperatures had decreased as I was walking from one placement to another. Perhaps it was a wrong conclusion. If I plot the four temperatures against location or class of soil, perhaps my conclusion will be more accurate. Uh! I didn’t think on wind, humidity, calibration of thermometers, etc. How may I run a coherent model if those factors, which affect intensely our appreciation of the air temperature, are stochastic and ergodic and I am not able to understand their ergodicity? You know, air particles affect the direction and the energy of the photons that hit on the bulb of the thermomethers. I compare the modeling of climate with the modeling of biological evolution. Both are unreal. Hah!

  423. Philip_B
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 1:57 AM | Permalink

    Australian research shows land clearing causes drought and warming.

    He said eastern Australia was between 0.4 and two degrees warmer, and southwest WA was between 0.4 and 0.8 degrees warmer.

    Perhaps we should be talking about ALW – Anthropogenic Local Warming, as well as Rural Heat Oceans.

  424. Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 5:08 AM | Permalink

    Latest updates on Anthony, Steve, and etc.

    http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/10/trees-are-wise-they-speak-to-us.html#links

  425. bender
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 6:53 AM | Permalink

    How may I run a coherent model if those factors, which affect intensely our appreciation of the air temperature, are stochastic and ergodic and I am not able to understand their ergodicity?

    Exactly.

    Now go over to RC and mention ergodicity in the context of atmospheric circulation and listen to the crickets. They don’t get it. Maybe they don’t WANT to get it. Maybe it’s too damning. But how is one to judge when the expert answers are so evasive?

  426. bender
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 7:10 AM | Permalink

    “tuning” suggests an ad hoc selection of constants and variables that make the model perform the way you want it to

    Yes. And after you’re done with the ad-hocery and you’ve got your overfit model, then what statistical procedures are used to guard against an invalid model being taken as true? Some sort of cross-validation? The larger the set of parameters involved in the tuning, the more likely the outcome is bogus.

    But go ask these questions at RC. You may stir a half-response. Then crickets.

    Statistics is the science of protecting yourself from incorrect inferences by considering the probability that your parameter estimates are off by some amount. i.e. To answer your question, the parameters are probabilistic, just as the scenarios themselves are probabilistic.

    If climate modelers don’t want that protection, that’s their choice. But it’s not my choice.

  427. Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 8:11 AM | Permalink

    #420

    Degrees of freedom seems to be a difficult topic in reconstructions as well. For example, you can run white noise through MBH98 algorithm, and it will tell that AD1820 step results are much more accurate than AD1400 results (that’s what calibration residuals tell..). Somewhat related to the loss of R2 in verification..

    Explanation of the term 1/(n-p) in LS error variance estimation would be a good way to start for Team, as terms like (n-p-1)/(n-q-1) in the multivariate calibration case would probably be too difficult to understand.

  428. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 8:25 AM | Permalink

    RE 427 Thanks Bender,

    That was a nice explanation of the pitfalls of model tuning. As an ex modler I can
    say that without exception the modlers in our group had no idea that tuning was
    a statistical process. We just wanted a couple of analog knobs on the model that we
    could twist and turn until we ht the magic numbers that made the model fit the data.
    Then you vary the magic numbers a bit to the left and bit to the right and presto
    you have a sample of output you can do statistics on. It’s easy as pie.

    One day a new kid comes in : but what does that knob MEAN, what does it represent?

    New guy. silly questions.

  429. bender
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 9:07 AM | Permalink

    That knob represents a degree of freedom that was spent but never earned. That’s why they don’t want to listen to the new kid.
    He’s telling them what they ought to know, or used to know, but have tried since to forget.

  430. jae
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 9:26 AM | Permalink

    424: My tuned model predicts this, if clearing results in less moisture or the exposure of more bare soil.

  431. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 9:28 AM | Permalink

    On a previous occasion, I quoted Ellingson et al 1991, who studied GCMs of the day, noting that some models contained massively incorrect parameterizations of something as “simple” as CO2 radiation code, with the errors being up to 80 wm-2. Curiously the errors didn’t “matter” when it came to the impact of CO2. Ellingson observed archly:

    The 30-80 wm-2 range of variation in longwave radiative flux computations discovered during this study are a significant fraction of normally observed latent and sensible energy fluxes. In the end it is these energy fluxes that control the climate. The reason that such large discrepancies in radiative fluxes have not seriously distorted model predictions of current climate is simply that most climate models are heavily tuned to give the “right answer” for current climate conditions.

    Boris’ response was more or less – that was then; we’ve “moved on”. I’m sure that the problem areas are different – in the sense that gross errors in CO2 code have probably been ironed out since then, but I’d be surprised if tuning was completely absent from present day models.

  432. Paul Linsay
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 9:47 AM | Permalink

    A friend of mine was a director of the EPA for a long time. He doesn’t believe in the climate models precisely because of the tuning parameters. “We’d get these models all the time and they could get any answer you wanted by turning the knobs.”

  433. jae
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 9:55 AM | Permalink

    Ruckelshaus?

  434. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 10:00 AM | Permalink

    433.

    TRue confessions. During model design reviews guys used to literally ask for “more knobs”
    “can I get a knob on that” “more knobs, we need more knobs”

    And then during training the new guy: “don’t touch that knob! it’s set perfectly; play with that one”
    “oh that knob, it’s useless watch” “. “if you turn that knob right, you better turn this one
    left” ” and here is the most special knob of all, the knob of knobs, when it works it finds the
    knob settings for you, it’s kinda a gradient thingy, but that’s cheating”

  435. bender
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 10:19 AM | Permalink

    Knobs provide an illusion of control. Paradoxically, more knobs can mean less control – if you don’t know what each and every one of them does.

    But getting the model tuned is one thing. The real question is whether this tuning reflects the actual behavior of the whole global circulation, or just some special subset.

    Analogy. Try building a neural net (overfit) model of stock market behavior and then use that to guide your trades. See how long you last before you go broke. That’s the difference between actual stock market behavior and patterns observed in some subset sample of time and space and circumstance. Is stock market behavior ergodic? That’s a good question. Is atmospheric circulation ergodic? Yes? In what sense?

  436. Craig Loehle
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 11:34 AM | Permalink

    Re: last dozen posts on GCMs. The models have literally dozens of knobs to tweak. They differ from one another in number of layers in the atmosphere, grid box parameterizations/averaging schemes, how clouds are handled, etc etc. Many of these are tuned off line (out of sight) when their use causes crazy results and they are “fixed” by the modelers before public release. Then, there is basicly one degree of freedom for testing and one model to test—does CO2 improve the fit in the late 20th century? When asked about the models “using” station data, many will remember Gavins rambling answer that no they don’t they…..combine station data, average it, only for comparison blah blah and it is not used “in” the models. Clearly showing that it is unclear to many that the models are in fact tuned to match more or less the historical data. When there are dozens of knobs and only 1 historical period for testing, the model is easily overdetermined. This means that many different parameter combinations can produce the same output. This has been shown in ecological models (my field) repeatedly. How about comparing to way in the past data? Such studies have been done for a few periods, but the “test data” are noisy and incomplete and the test results are not exactly awe inspiring. Total of such tests that I am aware of is maybe 20 to 40 publications. Very few people have read these papers. Not mentioned by AGW supporters because they aren’t that supportive of model “skill”.

  437. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 11:46 AM | Permalink

    re 438.

    Yes, exactly.

  438. bender
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 11:56 AM | Permalink

    #437
    Thanks for introducing the related concept of “overdetermination”. It is important. If multiple tunings can yield the same gross fit, then there is no objective way (other than external experimentation/falsification) to determine which one tuning is correct. (They can’t all be correct!)

    It is in this sense, jae, that the model parameters are ‘probabilistic’. People sometimes like to pretend they are not probabilisitic because they want desperately to leap to their predetermined conclusion. So they don’t subtract a degree of freedom with each iteration of the tuning process. The final fit is achieved unfairly, at no cost. Stock modelers doing this will, in the long-run, cause their clients to go broke.

    Total of such tests that I am aware of is maybe 20 to 40 publications.

    Would you care to list these publications? Thanks in advance.

  439. Jaye
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 12:50 PM | Permalink

    I’m a modeler of sorts, well I develop code that the engineers use in their models. Our stuff comes from a priori decisions about the physics involved. We determine the required fidelity of things like earth models, atmospheric models (scattering, path transmittance, meteorological conditions, etc.), material/radiation interaction, airframe equations of motion, sensor processing of the radiative environment we have constructed and a bunch of other things. What we end up with is a sim that can be very accurately predict the flight path of a guided airframe. When we “tweak” something its usually a decision to go with more fidelity based on the best available physics based models…use lowtran instead of an extinction coefficient to compute path transmittance to get a more realistic signal to the sensor model. I suppose where I’m going with all of this is that I’m amazed that models that don’t have this sort of pedigree are relied upon so heavily by anybody in the technical community. We also go through extensive IV&V by outside agencies…something that I don’t see happening in climate science. Maybe if there were a forcing function that related grant money and salary to actual performance (the standard my colleagues and I are held to) then we would might get better results.

  440. Pat Keating
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 2:49 PM | Permalink

    I started running a GCM (based on Hansen Model II). I tried running it with the a standard set of parameters except no CO2. Darn it if the thing didn’t go unstable part-way through the run (1958 t0 2056, IITC).
    A good model should be better-behaved than that, I think.

  441. bender
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 3:03 PM | Permalink

    Re #441
    Interesting. So go ask at RC what these instabilities mean in terms of the models’ credibility. Is the actual climate system that unstable? If not, why not? I bet you will be demonized within hours – the RC demonization-time being directly proportional to your level of persistence in questioning the high priests of climate science*.

    *Call this ‘bender’s conjecture’.

  442. H
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 3:42 PM | Permalink

    “I tried running it with the a standard set of parameters except no CO2.”

    no CO2 = 0 ppm? Try 1 ppm.

  443. Pat Keating
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 4:00 PM | Permalink

    443
    I’ll try that next time, but I doubt it will make much difference, since it didn’t blow up until it had gone on for several computer years.

  444. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 4:31 PM | Permalink

    RE 440. Jaye.

    Sounds familiar. The models you use have to be “signed off” by the customer. Typically
    they are standard models ( like lowtran) that you have to use to “prove” your design.
    To prove that the design meets the spec. In this case the Airforce agrees to the model,
    you work together to set parameters ( standard day for example ) the goal isnt TRUTH per se,
    the goal is meeting the spec. ” the sensor shall detect a target in this spectrum emiitting
    this much energy, transmitted through a standard day atmosphere, at this range, with this
    cumulative probability of detection as determined by lowtran version 7″
    So, you run the model to prove, improve, the design
    and establish that on paper you meet the spec. After you build it, you then figure out what
    the hell went wrong. design models are a bit different, because the physics is agreed to be right.

    I’ll tell you a funny example. Do you know why the F117 has faceted surfaces and the B2 Gaussian curves?

  445. H
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 4:51 PM | Permalink

    #432

    “but I’d be surprised if tuning was completely absent from present day models.”

    In the article

    PNAS | September 25, 2007 | vol. 104 | no. 39 | 15248-15253

    Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content

    B. D. Santer & al.

    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/39/15248

    The authors claim humbly:

    “Detection and attribution studies have now moved beyond “temperature-only” analyses and show physical consistency between observed and simulated temperature, moisture, and circulation changes. This internal consistency underscores the reality of human effects on climate.”

    There is not really substance for such a claim, but the interesting part was the results in figure 5 of two GCMs. Models give different precipitable water changes for the last century with GHG only, but aerosols balance the results. Clear result of tuning.

    only GHG only aerosol both
    PCM 1.5 -0.5 1.4
    MICRO3.2 2.2 -1.3 1.4
    Ratio 1.5 2.6 1.0

  446. Paul Linsay
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 6:12 PM | Permalink

    I have a general question about the models. In the physical world there is only weather and climate is an arbitrarily defined average of the weather over a certain period, usually 30 years. The GCM crowd claims they are modeling climate, not weather. How do they derive equations that avoid the intermediate step of modeling weather and taking averages?

  447. bender
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 6:34 PM | Permalink

    Re #446:
    1. Santer et al. (2007) also concede that:

    The credibility of these conclusions depends on the reliability of model-based noise estimates.

    They go on to try to half-argue that these noise estimates, so critical to their attribution test, are reliable. I’m not convinced. Not by anything I’ve read at RC, anyways.

    2. It’s not surprising that 20 “different” models would appear to converge on a common result. They have evolved under a fairly strict regimen of groupthink.

    3. Temperature goes up, and so does water vapor over the oceans. Is anyone surprised? How does the water vapor response increase the likelihood of human attribution over and above a presumed temperature response? It doesn’t; they’re non-independent. The Bayesian priors don’t change a bit.

  448. jae
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 8:57 PM | Permalink

    3. Temperature goes up, and so does water vapor over the oceans. Is anyone surprised? How does the water vapor response increase the likelihood of human attribution over and above a presumed temperature response? It doesn’t; they’re non-independent. The Bayesian priors don’t change a bit.

    LOL.

  449. Jaye
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 9:24 PM | Permalink

    mosher,

    Yea you are close. Except that we have gotten to the point where one of the main reasons for flight test is to validate the models. In the area I work in they are that good. Lots cheaper to develop a test matrix where only 10% of the tests actually involve sending an “asset” down range.

    But we aren’t the only industry doing this kind of thing. Back, oh about, 10 years ago when F1 racing had lots of driver aides they ran sims for each track varying anything you can imagine. They used the results tune the shift profiles, engine parameters, etc. Of course, now the big emphasis is on aero in F1 given the budgets for the top tier teams I wouldn’t be surprised to see that some major advances in CFD are locked in the safes at Ferrari and McLaren.

    My point was that if you really have to make something work and simulation/modeling is one of your main tools you don’t muck around with “tuning” unless you have a solid causally based rationale for doing so.

  450. Jaye
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 9:27 PM | Permalink

    Do you know why the F117 has faceted surfaces and the B2 Gaussian curves?

    Cause the math was easier to work out?

  451. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 9:53 PM | Permalink

    451. YUP.

    At the time the F117 was designed the RCS prediction codes could only predict returns from
    flat surfaces ( and some curves like cylinders) So, to meet the spec you had to prove by modelling
    that the design met the spec. Then prove it again on the pole with scale models, then prove it
    full sacle in the feild. Eventually, the codes were written to model the return from curved surfaces
    and then you got curves. At least that’s the story the B2 guys told.

  452. Jaye
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 10:04 PM | Permalink

    Also bet the code had problems (singularities?) transitioning from facet to facet. Radar is just too weird anyway. I occasionally have to interact with SAR specialists and their range/doppler images. I have to hold my head just right to get what I see on the image.

  453. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 10:56 PM | Permalink

    re 453.

    I could not say. I sat through the briefing where some guy put up equations marked TS/SAR
    That was funny. classified equations. very few people were allowed to see the actual code.
    It was almost as bad as GISS.

  454. B Culver
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 11:11 PM | Permalink

    CBC 5th estate claims tonight that the tobacco lobby is the same as oil and coal funding denialist groups today.
    Wow.

  455. B Culver
    Posted Oct 28, 2007 at 11:31 PM | Permalink

    who is this Dr. Singer? Dr. Bell is a puppet. Harper is a patsy. Gore is a hero.

  456. MrPete
    Posted Oct 29, 2007 at 6:04 AM | Permalink

    jae #449 and bender,

    Did I just see what I thought I saw? A model, based on physical theory of insolation, water vapor and absorption, that accurately links all of the above to temperature over a large portion of the earth’s surface? (I know, I’m not staying up to date on everything at CA… real life occasionally intrudes ;) )

    If one were to calculate absoption from standard landsat imagery (perhaps from here or here?), could this model be further refined, and applied historically (at least over the period of landsat availability)?

    Of course, I’m sure this is all a waste of time, since this is obvious and has all been done before. We’re confident the GCM’s subtract out these factors from their calculations. Maybe we can ask nicely about this on RC.

  457. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Oct 29, 2007 at 7:14 AM | Permalink

    #444 Pat Keating

    What happened in the years prior to the blow-up? Without CO2 the climate must surely have been waaaay out of sample.

  458. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 29, 2007 at 8:59 AM | Permalink

    RE 450,

    Yes, my old stomping grounds

    http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1989/PV1989_3314.pdf

    http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1988/PV1988_4601.pdf

  459. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 29, 2007 at 12:17 PM | Permalink

    “The “few degrees” referred to what’s happening right now.”

    Well, in acutality, we’re looking at bottom to top (or trend) of not even a degree as we all know. So of course the “few degrees” is what’s expected from an estimation and based upon current trends. We don’t know with any certainty what causes the trend (we think CO2) that the trend isn’t normal (we think it’s not) that the trend is a problem (we think it is) and that the trend will continue (we think it will). But we don’t know any of that, really, do we?

    As I’ve said, I tend to think even the idea there is such a thing as a “global temperature” is false in the first place, and none of that matters. But even if it is meaningful, we have all these assumptions about the rest of it. We can’t just take one component out and say “aha”. Reading jae’s post on the water tells me how interdependent everything is, and how reality is sometimes counter-logical and sometimes not.

  460. bender
    Posted Oct 29, 2007 at 12:59 PM | Permalink

    Re #457
    You are suggesting to use the GCMs to test whether global-scale changes in land-use (and therefore absorption) might result in local warming effects replicated around the globe?

  461. MrPete
    Posted Oct 29, 2007 at 1:17 PM | Permalink

    Actually, was thinking of more a simple test of the GCM’s — Question C below. Since I have no idea whether this all is incorporated into GCM’s, I cannot suggest that GCM’s would be useful for your proposal… but perhaps this model is useful, apart from GCM’s. My amateur opinion:

    jae apparently has a model that approximates Tland=f(insolation,humidity,land use)

    Assuming he didn’t treat [land use] as a tuning knob, that’s not bad for not even using real absorption / land use data.

    If the model is extended using real land use data, and still holds, then that’s a very interesting thing. A simple model, with physical basis, that relates important aspects of climate.

    My “test” questions:

    a) What proportion of this model is measuring anthropogenic aspects, what proportion is “natural”?

    b) Yes, does this model speak to AGW vs Land Use in any useful way?

    c) I would hope, that the GCM’s already incorporate this as a baseline. Anyone know?

  462. jae
    Posted Oct 29, 2007 at 1:31 PM | Permalink

    c) I would hope, that the GCM’s already incorporate this as a baseline. Anyone know?

    I don’t think so, because the GCM’s posit a positive water feedback, when in fact, it is slightly negative, as shown by my model. Incidently, I did “tune” the thing for land characteristics, but I was consistent in my tuning. Also, the model is relatively insensitive to the tuning, especially if you leave out the real hot spots in the desert southwest. The tuning was added to try to get a handle on these spots, and I think it all makes very good sense. The “land characterists” tuning is probably really related more to dryness than to actual surface conditions; but they are closely related. IOW, if it is EXTREMELY dry, then there will be very little vegetation in July. And that results in extreme heat. I’ll bet the Sahara shows the same thing.

  463. jae
    Posted Oct 29, 2007 at 1:35 PM | Permalink

    BTW, I think this model also explains the high temperatures during the dust bowl days in the 30’s. The dryer it gets, the hotter it gets. That’s the REAL feedback loop.

  464. bender
    Posted Oct 29, 2007 at 1:36 PM | Permalink

    I would hope that the GCM’s already incorporate this as a baseline. Anyone know?

    According to Santer et al. (2007) SI Table II:
    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/data/0702872104/DC1/10

    6 out of the 12 GCM runs used attempt to include a LU (land use) forcing.

  465. Pat Keating
    Posted Oct 29, 2007 at 1:50 PM | Permalink

    458
    That’s a good question — so good I don’t have an answer. I do runs overnight, and tonight I will run it up to a date just before the instability error message (12/98), and let you know.

  466. Stephen Richards
    Posted Oct 29, 2007 at 3:33 PM | Permalink

    The learned Prof has all your answers here http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

    Everything that Steve and you discuss are merely mythical. Told you not to dabble in the occult.

  467. mccall
    Posted Oct 29, 2007 at 6:16 PM | Permalink

    Mr McIntyre-

    Looks like we’re getting farther from a defined climate sensitivity in “Inevitable Uncertainty” at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol318/issue5850/twis.dtl

    This points to a ScienceMag climate sensitivity perspective titled “ATMOSPHERE” Call Off the Quest,” by Myles R. Allen and David J. Frame at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/318/5850/582

    Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable? is the recent ScienceMag abstract referring to Roe and Baker paper on sensitivity.

    Layers upon layers of …

  468. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Oct 29, 2007 at 6:21 PM | Permalink

    Stephen Richards/467

    Interesting link! First time I have seen a GCM admission that the warming in interglacials has been caused by increased solar heating due to orbital changes – as Milankovitch proposed 1920-1941.

    Up to now this has been vigorously denied. At least this latest Hadley statement conforms better to known physics. But having at last admitted that natural CO2 did not cause interglacial warming, they now have a difficult job to explain why man-made CO2 should do so.

    Or am I missing something?

  469. bender
    Posted Oct 29, 2007 at 6:28 PM | Permalink

    link in #467:

    Myth 5 – Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change
    There have been major advances in the development and use of models over the last 20 years. The models are based mainly on the laws of physics. There are also empirical techniques which use, for example, studies of detailed processes involved in cloud formation. The most advanced computer models also include detailed coupling of the circulations of atmosphere and oceans, along with detailed descriptions of the feedbacks between all components of the climate system including the cryosphere and biosphere. Climate models have been used to reproduce the main features of the current climate, the temperature changes over the last hundred years and the main features of the Holocene (6,000 years ago) and Last Glacial Maximum (21,000) years ago.

    The bottom line is that current models enable us to attribute the causes of past climate change and predict the main features of the future climate with a high degree of confidence. We now need to provide more regional detail and more complete analysis of extreme events.

  470. Pat Keating
    Posted Oct 29, 2007 at 6:36 PM | Permalink

    469
    It does indeed seem to say that, but I’m not at all sure that other AGWists would agree. If variations in the sun’s effect could drive a 10-12C change, then it could easily cause the 0.8C that excites the AGWists so much. Their usual line is that the sun merely started the process, and then it was all CO2 after that.

  471. bender
    Posted Oct 29, 2007 at 6:58 PM | Permalink

    What the writers of myth 5 in #470 fail to appreciate is that the distance bewteen skeptics and alarmists, measured in practical terms of the CO2 sensitivity coefficient, is not all that large (a search of CA will indicate results of a poll conducted last year on that subject: A in AGW =20% vs 60%, skeptics vs alarmists). Indeed, I would argue that the difference is smaller than the net uncertainty computed from the the GCMs. Which is precisely why they won’t calculate that uncertainty: they know the answer. As good as the GCMs are, they are (probably) not good enough.

    This is the kind of garbage obfuscation that you get from RC. What are these “main features” of the current climate? What is “current” climate anyways? We don’t know what the circulation looked like even 150 years ago, so how can the GCMs correctly duplicate that which is not known? Does the past circulation not matter? “Correctly” simulating temperature change 6000 and 21000 years ago is hardly impressive, considering that these models are supposed to simulate the atmospheric circulation. And what does it mean if they do not? That the tuned parameters are off!

    They say these models are based “mainly” on the “laws of physics”. (a) What does “mainly” mean? That twelve out of a thousand parameters are freely available for tuning? That’s still quite a bit of room for overfitting! (b) “Laws of physics” are one thing, physical, measurements quite another. Don’t tell me these physical parameters have no standard error associated with them. They do. And in using those paraemters to make an inference about a free parameter, those errors will propagate multiplicatively. So much for strong inference. “Laws of physics” are what the emperor cites to keep the ignorant plebes away. Hooey.

  472. Posted Oct 29, 2007 at 8:23 PM | Permalink

    Jae, Bender, etc.,

    Suppose we have a huge rock at the bottom of a mountain slope. We want to know how that big rock came rolling down to the valley. We could formulate some hypotheses to give a plausible explanation on the matter. We make our measurements and analyze the rocks at the top of the hill and at the base of the hill. We model the trajectory of the rock and we conclude that the rock is formed of the same materials than the rocks at the top of the mountain and it rolled down thanks to gravity. We roughly could guess how many times the rock bounded and where each bound occurred along the trajectory. However, we could never know with certainty what originated the first movement of the rock, so we could chose the hypothesis on the prehistoric donkey which brayed so stridently that it affected the “stability” of the rock that “saw” its “sensitivity” to donkeys’ brays increased and it came rolling down finding some “feedbacks” from other rocks, and thus, it stopped its crazy race at the foot of the mountain. That’s the conclusion applying the physics laws of RC, but instead a donkey put a man.

  473. Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 1:08 AM | Permalink

    467

    Myth 2:

    Over much of the last 1,000 years most of the variability can probably be explained by cooling due to major volcanic eruptions and changes in solar heating.

    As MBH98 Fig7 tells us.

    The final piece of the jigsaw is that as well as producing CO2, burning fossil fuels also produces small particles called aerosols which cool the climate by reflecting sunlight back into space. These have increased steadily in concentration over the 20th century, which has probably offset some of the warming we have seen. Only when all of these factors are included do we get a satisfactory explanation of the magnitude and patterns of climate change over the last century.

    What is satisfactory explanation? Add input variables until residuals look white?

    BTW, got interesting result when I replaced Temperature PCs with solar in MBH98 algorithm. Similar RE values as in the original, and R2 goes down in the verification. I’d try this with 1980-present data, but the proxies are not yet updated.

    http://signals.auditblogs.com/files/2007/10/solar1.png

  474. MrPete
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 5:11 AM | Permalink

    UC, that is VERY interesting…

  475. MrPete
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 5:13 AM | Permalink

    I wonder what other data series could be plugged in to good effect? We could create a nice “quilt” of hockey stick graphs. A great way to demonstrate the extreme confirmative value of today’s influential real climate science.

  476. EW
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 6:59 AM | Permalink

    #468
    Have looked at the whole article in Sciencemag – not that I understand the equations, but there was no mention of 2.5 C for doubling of CO2, although the article deals with estimations of temperature effects of doubling. The overall impression is that we can’t say for sure:

    On the basis of the values of f and {sigma}f compiled from our analysis of a large number of published results, it is evident that the climate system is operating in a regime in which small uncertainties in feedbacks are highly amplified in the resulting climate sensitivity. We are constrained by the inevitable: the more likely a large warming is for a given forcing (i.e., the greater the positive feedbacks), the greater the uncertainty will be in the magnitude of that warming.

  477. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 11:49 AM | Permalink

    Thought exercise. What happens to temperatures (only) if:

    CO2 drops to 0
    CO2 drops back to 300
    CO2 continues to climb about 1 ppmv a year average
    CO2 jumps to 7000
    CO2 is our entire atmosphere

    If you have mathematical formulas showing proof of your opinions on this, please show them. Otherwise just think about it. :D

  478. Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 11:58 AM | Permalink

    # 477

    The clue is on the next paragraph from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/318/5850/582:

    But S is uncertain; thus, even if we stabilize at 450 ppm, we cannot rule out much more than 2°C of eventual warming, as shown by the shaded plume.

    450 ppmV is almost doubling (560) and the “stable” change would be 2 °C, consequently, if doubling 2CK 560 ppmV would cause a “stable” change of 2.5 °C. However, that assumption implies a value of alpha equal to 24.46 W/m^2 instead the 5.35 W/m^2 guessed by Arrhenius. :)

  479. Hasse@Norway
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 12:11 PM | Permalink

    Tim Patterson Lecture:

  480. Hasse@Norway
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 12:11 PM | Permalink

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8668666223073644839&hl=en

  481. Gary
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 1:00 PM | Permalink

    #479

    I suspect something has got lost in translation. When using modtran (I am a chemical engineer but amateur climatologist) I get a change in radiative forcing of about 2.8 w/m2 when CO2 is doubled from 380 to 760 ppm. Is this coincidence that it is close to the 2.5 C quoted. By my calcs this is equivalent to only about 0.7 C rise.

  482. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 1:16 PM | Permalink

    There will NEVER be a paper DERIVING the 2.5C from doubling. NEVER.

    Essentailly, the 2.5C rise in temp. from c02 Doubling is a COMBINATION of gains.

    Assuming no feedbacks, you can use physsics to derive a Gain in temp from a C02 Forcing.

    Any you could verifiy this GAIN by experiement. Theoretically.

    This would give you the gain without additional feedbacks.

    But there are other feedbacks. Lots of them. The final figure of 2.5C represents the
    sum of all these feedbacks ( each a gain itself)

    The method they use to determine this Composite gain is to run a model. When the model
    Hindcasts well, they assume the gain is set right. In a way the composite gain is the
    OUTPUT of a GCM.

    It’s not derived, never will be derived. As a gain its a magic number that allows the
    GCM to hindcast with “skill”

    Its a constant, the sum of constants, constants that are determined by running GCM.

    That’s it.

  483. Boris
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 1:34 PM | Permalink

    When the model
    Hindcasts well,

    Well, that’s a gross simplification. The model must hindcast well, sure, but it must also conform to physical laws and observations. Yes, bender and et al will tell you that there are some free parameters and those parameters plus measurement error equal infinite uncertainty. But try to get a climate model to give a CS less than 2C. Go ahead, try.

    482:
    MODTRAN does not include feedbacks, as mosher rightly implies.

  484. bender
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 1:41 PM | Permalink

    And after that, try getting milk from a bull. Go ahead, try.

  485. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 1:50 PM | Permalink

    RE 484.

    Yes Boris. I was not indicting that the laws of physics were not being followed.

    Essentially it is akin to “finding” the proper gains for a flight control system

    these gains are not “derived” a model of the physics of flight and the effect of
    control surfaces is employed. The Flight control engineer then experiments with the
    model trying different control systems and tries different gains on those forcings
    to create an airframe that is manuverable and stable.

    In the end he has a set of magic numbers that represent the gains applyed to the controls.

    The raw physics of C02 would give you a “gain” that was derivable and verifiable.

    Other feedbacks and their cross couplings complicate the problem immeasurable I suppose
    and a close form solution is probably not possible ( speculation) so they use
    GCM to estimate the “total gain” of C02, which is the gain plus the gain due to feedback.

  486. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 1:56 PM | Permalink

    RE 482

    Gary Lowtran, Modtran, and Hitran are just transmission models. They will give you
    a figure for C02 sensitivity without Feedbacks.

    Example, You run Modtran with a standard atmosphere. You get the transmission/absorbion.

    Lets say you are simulating the transmission of an IR signal from a hot source.

    Modtran doesnt consider HOW that hot source changes the standard day atmosphere. No feedbacks.

    In a GCM you would feedback the effects of a warmer earth… The gain from this fed back gets added
    into the gain from C02 with no feedback.

  487. Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 1:58 PM | Permalink

    MrPete,

    I wonder what other data series could be plugged in to good effect?

    Jean S suggested Number of Nations, based on this page. Here you go:

    http://signals.auditblogs.com/files/2007/10/non1.png

    Needless to say, good REs again, R2 drops, etc.. ;)

  488. Pat Keating
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 2:51 PM | Permalink

    Re 483:
    It appears to me that the CO2 forcing, as used by the models, should really be the product of a clean physically-derivable factor and a factor which is due to the feedbacks. These latter are almost certainly a strong function of water-vapor and will vary with month and location. Of course, that would provide even more ‘tuning knobs’, and there already seem to be too many….

  489. JZ Smith
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 3:10 PM | Permalink

    I posted the following in a San Diego area forum.

    The response was this:

    I wish one or more of your “smart guys” would go over there and straighten these guys out. I, unfortunately, am not smart enough about this stuff. (Though I read this site hoping to get smarter!)

  490. Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 3:12 PM | Permalink

    Steven Mosher,

    A GCM is based on past data, not on physics laws. Physics laws then are adapted to those data to run the GCM. There are some hindcast problems, similar to the rolling rock riddle at my # 473. Was it the bray of a donkey or the bray of current donkey’s brays? What interference the variables found in the trajectory of the process has on the behavior of the rock in its pathway? Are the same variables for all cases, including the current variables? Yes, I’m talking about climate, so, is climate so reducible as to conclude that it can be homogenized in models? Does rocks give milk?

  491. Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 3:17 PM | Permalink

    Does a rock give milk? Sorry for my grammar…. ;)

  492. JZ Smith
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 3:23 PM | Permalink

    Here are the links for 490 (sorry!):

    http://forum.signonsandiego.com/upload/showpost.php?p=2843617&postcount=47
    http://forum.signonsandiego.com/upload/showpost.php?p=2845256&postcount=49

  493. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 3:23 PM | Permalink

    Nasif,

    I am trying explain why there is no paper. The sensitivity constant is a gain, actualy a complation
    of gains Ganin due to C02 physics ( even though you disgree with them) and then gains due to
    other feedbacks.

    This composite gain is not a derived quantity. It is a quantity observed when GCM are excercised

    Charney, for example took the gain from one model ( 2) and the gain from another model (4) and
    Averaged them to get 3C. from 1969 to 2000 this stood. I am analogizing it to “finding” the proper
    gains for another dynamic system. You don’t solve an equation to find the gain for the pitch control.
    You excercise a model and try various gains and fiddle with that number so you get a stable plane
    that pitches quickly, doesnt overshoot and hit a stall regime, and has good handling qualities.
    You have other feedbacks ( pitch due to roll, picth due to yaw) that complicate this. It’s an
    educated trial and error. Inthe end you have a pitch gain that accounts for other feedbacks as well.

    So in Climate you would have this: Warming due to C02 absorbtion; warming due to albedo, warming due to
    ice sheet melting, etc etc etc. All of these other feedbacks are loaded into the C02 gain.

    Why? because C02 is the parameter they believe they can control.

    Boris, I trust I the argument about right, yea or ney.

  494. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 4:43 PM | Permalink

    So anyone have the figures for even the single +/- variable of the amount of feedback/forcing/whatever for particles on the ground and their effects versus particles in the air and their effects?

    I bet you’ll find them in that bull’s milk. Keep me updated.

    :D

  495. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 5:31 PM | Permalink

    RE 492: No, Iraq gives oil. sorry for the pun

  496. bender
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 6:19 PM | Permalink

    milk from bulls
    water from stones
    milk from stones …
    … water from bulls?

  497. Buddenbrook
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 6:44 PM | Permalink

    This has probably been suggested in the past, I hope, but it’s something that would be beneficial for the scientific debate of CO2 alarmism.

    TGGWS has reached tens of millions of viewers around the world. There is one problem with that documentary, it doesn’t touch the crucial points, it is highly speculative, highly populistic in a wrong way, hardly scientific and on more than one occasion twists the truth like Al Gore. There is a possibility it has done more harm than good. A RC stereotype of the skeptics, something they love shooting down to avoid the real issues.

    But enough with that. It is a reflection nothing more. Someone should get together the real skeptics from Pielke, Watts and others to our host here and make a similar documentary, but this time make it strictly scientific. Pictures of the surface stations, graphs (people love graphs, ask Al Gore), the models and their reliability, the Y2k error, the hockey stick silliness and the dishonesty involved, the IPCC bias in selecting peer reviewed studies, Gore’s mistakes etc. but above all the real scientific questions

    People love controversy, so it is bound to reach millions of viewers, including politicians. That’s when the climate scientists have to come out of their shells and debate the issues they have been dodging and avoiding for many years. (And you could make some money too!)

    Such a documentary would be of crucial importance in time for the next round of Kyoto, debate of which is bound to start in 2008 or 2009. The alarmist goal is to achieve a global, legally binding mega treaty by 2012, one that could cover anything between 8-18 years, and cost trillions of dollars to world economy. That would make the political fight horribly difficult. A lost battle?

    It’s admirable you do this important work, but for it to have a wider effect, you need to popularize this stuff.

  498. Jan Pompe
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 7:29 PM | Permalink

    #476 UC

    BTW, got interesting result when I replaced Temperature PCs with solar in MBH98 algorithm. Similar RE values as in the original, and R2 goes down in the verification. I’d try this with 1980-present data, but the proxies are not yet updated.

    I can hardly wait I was hopping someone less statistically challenged than I would attempt this.

  499. Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 8:02 PM | Permalink

    # 494

    Steven Mosher,

    I agree with you, Steven; it is clear that the IPCC experts will never release a paper containing an algorithm to damage the numbers. Nevertheless, you should agree with me that we can find out how they made the miracle works on. Solve this puzzle: we have the measurement of the albedo at a given area that was determined ten years ago. I measured albedo again on the same area but I realized that albedo has decreased and the ground is absorbing more radiation than it was doing it ten years ago. I reviewed again the composition of the soil and find that chemically it is the same composition than it was ten years ago; but something has changed and I don’t know what it is. Something changed in only ten years and it could be the most tiny and undetectable factor on ground. What could it be? I don’t know, so I’ll make a conjecture on the reason. It was bull’s milk. Is my guessing on the gain? No, it couldn’t be, even in a milky Iraq.

    CO2 does not offer the thermal capabilities enough as to cause a change of temperature of the magnitude proposed by the IPCC, so the panel made-up an irrefutable hypothesis. If the change occurs and the models run right, then they would say the CO2 was culprit; if the change doesn’t occur and the models don’t match with reality, they would say the feedbacks masked the warming effect of the CO2. Can you gain a gain with this kind of sortilege?

    On the other hand, I did mention that the value of alpha, which it is supposed to be a constant of 5.35 W/m^2, has been “tuned” to 24.46 W/m^2; thus, it appears that the final gain has been the CO2 GH effect. They have adjusted the physics laws to make the models agree with reality; however, is it not supposed that the physics laws are the verifiable and unbreakable? Well, here is an example on the way the IPCC changes the rules of the Universe.

  500. Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 8:03 PM | Permalink

    Buddenbrook, it sounds interesting. :)

  501. bender
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 8:05 PM | Permalink

    Re #500
    Soil moisture near the surface?

  502. Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 8:18 PM | Permalink

    Bender, You got it!

  503. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 8:36 PM | Permalink

    RE 500.

    To be clear, I’m not defending the practices. I’m am merely trying to give an exposition of
    how they come up with the final gain. Tamino has a nice rudimentary explanation. It also clued
    me in that there will most likely never be a derivation. From my standpoint it is important to
    understand their process. If the final gain is “read off” the GCM, then some of benders comments
    about turning knobs become doubly critical or exponentially critical.

  504. jae
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 9:02 PM | Permalink

    I suspect something has got lost in translation. When using modtran (I am a chemical engineer but amateur climatologist) I get a change in radiative forcing of about 2.8 w/m2 when CO2 is doubled from 380 to 760 ppm. Is this coincidence that it is close to the 2.5 C quoted. By my calcs this is equivalent to only about 0.7 C rise.

    The 2.8 w/m2 looks somewhat close to the “official” 3.7 w/m2. However, as I recall, the “official” temperature rise from this is about 1.2 C. Whatever. To get to the 2.5 C, you have to get yourself a computer model that demonstrates a “positive feedback” to increased radiation. Most, if not all of this feedback, is supposed to come from water, but I cannot find a clear exposition of how this type of feedback occurs. And I don’t think you will find such an exposition, since I am pretty certain that I have demonstrated empirically that this type of feedback does not occur in the real world, since water imposes a negative feedback.

  505. Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 10:00 PM | Permalink

    # 504

    You’re enough clear, Steven. BTW, tuning knobs is exponentially critical, especially if the final objective has been unspecified for a long time, let’s say for almost a century. The complexity of the set of tuned knobs increases with the progress of the tale. Each explanation comes with another free tuned knob inside, but with a half of the knob in a black box. That’s the way the hypotheses none based on the reality end, like a spaghetti of tuned knobs that have neither head nor tail. I cannot say that a prediction made from a ModTran introducing a value of 0 ppmV of CO2, 1.7 ppmV of Methane, 30 ppbV of O3, etc, will unavoidably produce an output of energy radiated from the surface of 249 W/m^2, for example. Why? Because we have many variables in the surface, which are not subject to GHG effect, that affect the load of energy transferred to the atmosphere. Even the smallest change in the behavior, the succession, or the permanence of biological communities inhabiting some area of surface can become a strong factor on altering the output of energy…

  506. bender
    Posted Oct 30, 2007 at 10:30 PM | Permalink

    bye, y’all [lurk=on].

  507. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 4:17 AM | Permalink

    #504 Steve Mosher (and other previous posts)

    Yes, your exposition concurs with mine.

    And currently a significant proportion of climate scientists are in search of the best value of sensitivity which includes all those tricky positive and negative feedbacks. Using models is one method. Using recent observations another. Looking at palaeoclimate a third. Examining individual contributions of particular feedbacks (eg CO2 feedbacks from plant changes) a fourth.

    Of course you can bang on forever about the uncertainties of models. But being on the inside of a model being constructed for post-AR5 (and therefore arguably with a vested interest) I don’t personally see any agenda to create models with a high sensitivity. The scientists involved in the construction of the model never mention CO2, global warming, sensitivity, catastrophe etc. (maybe they do all this in secret meetings to which I’m not invited :) )

    I went to a presentation by Myles Allen recently. From what I could understand, the likely (“consensus” if you like) figure is around 2.5-3C. It is possible that it could be higher (much higher) it is less possible that it could be lower. But I’d need a course in Bayesian statistics to understand anything else unfortunately.

    His view seemed to be that we ain’t going to get any closer to a certain value any time soon. He suggested a pragmatic approach of setting a target of, say 2C, and adapt policies to meet it (ie. set CO2 targets, and if in 20 years we look likely to undershoot, the targets can be relaxed).

  508. Richard Hanson
    Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 7:11 AM | Permalink

    Here’s another Tucson weather/climate measurement story
    from this morning’s Arizona Daily Star.

    Balloon changes may hurt forecasting
    New location, sensor could reduce accuracy

    http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/209106

  509. Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 7:41 AM | Permalink

    # 508

    Steve Milesworthy,

    Those climate scientists that you mention on your message are changing the physics laws, then. I’ve not seen either they mention CO2, anthropogenic global warming, etc., but their models show that they had a preconceived idea and introduced exaggerated constants in their models. How is it that alpha CO2 in almost all the models is 24.46 W/m^2? How is it possible that some scientists tune the “constant” alpha so it fit in a preconceived idea? Perhaps they don’t mention it, but it is evident have that they were influenced by the preconceived idea and introduced the concept on the feedbacks so the results always give frightening outputs.

  510. welikerocks
    Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 7:59 AM | Permalink

    Here’s an an observation (which bugged us last winter in So. Cal when our plants froze into black mush) : The current temp on our thermometer on the back porch is 48°F. Yet the information on our home page for our zip code is – Fair 56° F for the day is: H74°/L55° That’s a huge difference to plants and on these graphs.

  511. pochas
    Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 9:09 AM | Permalink

    Steve Milesworthy #508:

    Will this “post-AR5″ code be open-source? Since our mostly free-market economy will now be subject to innumerable regulations regarding carbon emissions, surely the code should be published in the Federal Register?

  512. Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 9:21 AM | Permalink

    Oh boy, it’s getting deeper and deeper. It’s going to be the TS/hurricane thing all over again. Except made very more complex by the many ways that anthropogenic factors are truly significant aspects; maybe the very most important. And these will very likely get buried in the noise as all fingers point to the Great Global Warming Totem. The Totem with the most mojo ever on the entire planet in its entire recorded history.

  513. Larry
    Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 9:24 AM | Permalink

    504, keep in mind that if there’s an feedback gain G, the effect after feeding back on itself again and again is F = 1/(1-G), so that if G is 0.5, F is 2, G is 0.67, F is 3, G is 0.8, F is 5, etc. When you get G near 1, F goes to infinity. So if they’re doing some sort of a loosy-goosy eyeballing of G, they can have a huge influence on the value of F, just by being a little high on G. This is how Hansen can come up with a number like 6C, with a straight face. All it means is that the pre-feedback number is, say, 1, and then F is 6, so G is 0.83.

  514. jae
    Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 9:27 AM | Permalink

    Steve Milesworthy,

    I went to a presentation by Myles Allen recently. From what I could understand, the likely (”consensus” if you like) figure is around 2.5-3C. It is possible that it could be higher (much higher) it is less possible that it could be lower. But I’d need a course in Bayesian statistics to understand anything else unfortunately.

    His view seemed to be that we ain’t going to get any closer to a certain value any time soon. He suggested a pragmatic approach of setting a target of, say 2C, and adapt policies to meet it (ie. set CO2 targets, and if in 20 years we look likely to undershoot, the targets can be relaxed).

    Did Dr. Allen address the fact that the models have missed the mark for the past 9 years?

  515. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 9:53 AM | Permalink

    #512 pochas
    Some of it is under an LGPL-type license. Some of it is available under a research license. The code will be easy to get hold of, but will be hard to run at appropriate resolution without a supercomputer, though I expect low-res versions will be developed.

  516. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 10:12 AM | Permalink

    RE 514. It has been suggested that the Pdf on f be clipped to less than 1, since
    value of 1 and greater lead to an unphysical situation ( the plane dont fly)
    After this clipping the pdf of f ( I like the sound of that) would be renormalized.

  517. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 10:40 AM | Permalink

    RE 508.
    Thanks. I need the debate needs to progress beyond the “point” that there is no derivation.
    My sense ( by analogy) is that there can be no derivation The composite gain is an empirical
    constant determined by observation of the past record or by perturbing physical models.

    “And currently a significant proportion of climate scientists are in search of the best value of sensitivity
    which includes all those tricky positive and negative feedbacks. Using models is one method.
    Using recent observations another. Looking at palaeoclimate a third. Examining individual contributions
    of particular feedbacks (eg CO2 feedbacks from plant changes) a fourth.”

    Yes, each of these establishes a varying set of boundary conditions. Outside of those
    conditions the system is either unstable or not skillful in hindcasting.

    “Of course you can bang on forever about the uncertainties of models.
    But being on the inside of a model being constructed for post-AR5
    (and therefore arguably with a vested interest) I don’t personally
    see any agenda to create models with a high sensitivity.
    The scientists involved in the construction of the model never mention CO2,
    global warming, sensitivity, catastrophe etc.
    (maybe they do all this in secret meetings to which I’m not invited )”

    Yes, I’m not concerned about your vested interest. You’ve always been logical
    and civil. I just wanted to get clarity about why there was no derivation.
    When I read Tamino it became clear to me why a derivation would not be forthcoming
    and why asking for one was a bit of a misunderstanding of sorts. I’d suggest
    getting over the misunderstanding and actually moving on to the process of gain
    setting.

    “I went to a presentation by Myles Allen recently. From what I could understand,
    the likely (”consensus” if you like) figure is around 2.5-3C.
    It is possible that it could be higher (much higher) it is less possible that it could be lower.
    But I’d need a course in Bayesian statistics to understand anything else unfortunately. ”

    Well Roe and Baker explain quite well I think the reason for the asymmetry. It’s fundamentally
    mathmatical. However, hitherto undiscovered negative feedback loops might alter the result. If there
    is a bias in climate modelling, I would say it is most likely to be a bias against finding or
    proposing negative feedbacks. Speculation of course. In my previous line of work we would assign
    a team whose job it was to find or propose negative feedbacks.

    “His view seemed to be that we ain’t going to get any closer to a certain value any time soon.
    He suggested a pragmatic approach of setting a target of, say 2C, and adapt policies to meet it
    (ie. set CO2 targets, and if in 20 years we look likely to undershoot, the targets can be relaxed).”

    Well, I would humbly suggest that he doesnt understand control systems, feedback loops, or politics.

    Whatever the initial controls are set at, they will be wrong. AND The feedback signal is noisy and capricious.
    people won’t wait for 20 years to see if the controls are “working.”

    If they were smart they would tie controls to signals like SST or Sea level increases. In other words,
    when you set a control to see if it works you check the predicted response with the actual
    reponse and close the loop on the error. If Land surface temp is the response then you have an extremely
    noisy response that it takes 20 years to filter. So, I’d pick a different response to measure, like SST
    or sea level rise. Just a thought.

  518. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 11:47 AM | Permalink

    RE: #518 – controlling to partial pressure of CO2 could be truly suicidal.

  519. Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 2:09 PM | Permalink

    Attention Ian Castles & David Henderson
    New Articles on Economics of Climate Change
    Joseph Stigler ed.

    Publisher: The Berkeley Electronic Press
    Editor: Joseph Stiglitz, Columbia University
    Co-Editors: Bradford DeLong, UC Berkeley; Aaron Edlin, UC Berkeley http://works.bepress.com/aaron_edlin/

    The Economists’ Voice announces the following special issue. (Summaries and general information follow the titles — to view full-text, click the links.)

    We encourage you to forward this email to interested friends, colleagues or students.

    Special Issue: Global Climate Change

    Special Editor: Lawrence H. Goulder, Stanford University

    COLUMNS

    Joseph Stiglitz “A New Agenda for Global Warming”.
    http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol3/iss7/art3

    Sheila M. Olmstead and Robert N. Stavins “A Meaningful Second Commitment Period for the Kyoto Protocol”.
    http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol4/iss3/art1

    Kenneth J. Arrow “Global Climate Change: A Challenge to Policy”.
    http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol4/iss3/art2

    Thomas C. Schelling “Climate Change: The Uncertainties, the Certainties and What They Imply About Action”.
    http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol4/iss3/art3

    Lawrence H. Goulder “California’s Bold New Climate Policy”.
    http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol4/iss3/art5

    Scott Barrett “Proposal for a New Climate Change Treaty System”.
    http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol4/iss3/art6

    Joshua S. Gans “Do Voluntary Carbon Offsets Work?”.
    http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol4/iss4/art7

    LETTER

    Rognvaldur Hannesson “Letter: The Other Problems with the Stern Report”.
    http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol4/iss3/art4

    *NEWS* The Economists’ Voice was shortlisted for the 2007 Best New Journal Award by the Association of Learned and Scholarly Publishers (ALPSP).

    _______________________
    CITATIONS & SUMMARIES OF PUBLISHED ARTICLES

    Joseph Stiglitz (2006) “A New Agenda for Global Warming”, The Economists’ Voice: Vol. 3: No. 7, Article 3.
    http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol3/iss7/art3

    SUMMARY:
    Joseph E. Stiglitz presents his plan for getting the United States and the Developing World to address global warming, and argues that by failing to address this problem, the United States is implicitly subsidizing energy usage and engaging in unfair trade practices.

    Sheila M. Olmstead and Robert N. Stavins (2007) “A Meaningful Second Commitment Period for the Kyoto Protocol”, The Economists’ Voice: Vol. 4: No. 3, Article 1.
    http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol4/iss3/art1

    SUMMARY:
    Robert Stavins and Sheila Olmstead propose ways to modify the Kyoto Protocol for its second commitment period (2012-2016) so that it will provide a way forward that is scientifically sound, economically rational, and politically pragmatic.

    Kenneth J. Arrow (2007) “Global Climate Change: A Challenge to Policy”, The Economists’ Voice: Vol. 4: No. 3, Article 2.
    http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol4/iss3/art2

    SUMMARY:
    Kenneth J. Arrow explains why something must be done to limit global warming even if the Stern Report inadequately discounted future costs.

    Thomas C. Schelling (2007) “Climate Change: The Uncertainties, the Certainties and What They Imply About Action”, The Economists’ Voice: Vol. 4: No. 3, Article 3.
    http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol4/iss3/art3

    SUMMARY:
    Thomas Schelling argues although the uncertainties regarding climate change are many, the certainties create certain urgencies and inaction is an extreme position; he emphasizes technological advance and governmental sponsorship.

    Lawrence H. Goulder (2007) “California’s Bold New Climate Policy”, The Economists’ Voice: Vol. 4: No. 3, Article 5.
    http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol4/iss3/art5

    SUMMARY:
    Lawrence Goulder describes California’s recent commitments addressing Global Climate Change and recommends that a cap-and-trade program play a key role in achieving the state’s climate policy goals.

    Scott Barrett (2007) “Proposal for a New Climate Change Treaty System”, The Economists’ Voice: Vol. 4: No. 3, Article 6.
    http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol4/iss3/art6

    SUMMARY:
    The existing international agreements on climate change are inadequate, according to Scott Barrett, and a new approach is needed.

    Joshua S. Gans (2007) “Do Voluntary Carbon Offsets Work?”, The Economists’ Voice: Vol. 4: No. 4, Article 7.
    http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol4/iss4/art7

    SUMMARY:
    Voluntary purchases of offsets for carbon emissions have been criticized as potentially increasing emissions. However, Joshua S. Gans argues that even if offsets do increase the consumption of carbon intensive goods, net emissions will always fall because these goods will become less carbon intensive.

    Rognvaldur Hannesson (2007) “Letter: The Other Problems with the Stern Report”, The Economists’ Voice: Vol. 4: No. 3, Article 4.
    http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol4/iss3/art4

    SUMMARY:
    The Stern Report seems optimistic about the cost of emissions reductions, and does not seriously face the fact that stabilizing the climate could require keeping much of the world in poverty, according to Rognvaldur Hannesson.

  520. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 2:20 PM | Permalink

    RE 519.

    These guys have no concept that controlling a non linear dynamic system is a excerise
    in being WRONG. admmitting your error. and closing the loop on that error signal.

    They have specified a signal that has a high sensitivity, a long time constant, and
    a noisy feedback channel. Turn this into policy and you have a soviet style disaster.

    I need to get off the grid and unplug from this matrix

  521. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 2:58 PM | Permalink

    #521 steven mosher
    I didn’t realise I was hitting a hot button as I’ve not been to realclimate for a few days!

    I think the suggestion of setting a particular temperature rise was just a simple way of presenting the idea.

    I thought soviet-style disasters usually involved massive diversion of resources toward some industrial aim without thought to the environmental consequences :)

  522. Ron Cram
    Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 3:56 PM | Permalink

    Steve, I would like to suggest a thread on internal climate variability related to oceanic oscillations.

    This most important of these is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). It was in a warm phase from 1905 to 1945 and global temps went up. It was in a cool phase from 1946 to 1975 and temps went down. It was in a warm phase from 1976 to 2006 and temps went up. (The PDO just changed to the cool phase so I expect cooler temperatures in the years ahead.) Other oceanic oscillations include the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The greatest impact happens when all three are in a warm phase at the same time, as in 1998 and 2006.

    I am specifically interested in looking at other years when all three oscillations were in the warm phase to see if they are among the global leader board of warmest years on record. Also, I would like someone here with better math skills than myself to look at this statistically to see if the correlation could be attributed to coincidence or not. I am convinced that climate scientists do not have a full understanding of internal climate variability and I think this could effort could add some insight.

    Semi-relevant literature on the subject

    * “A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts” by Anastasios A. Tsonis and co-authors Abstract and Full text

    * “Tropical Pacific Decadal Variability and ENSO amplitude modulation in a CGCM” by Bratcher and Giese Full text

    Links

    * Pacific Decadal Oscillation on Wikipedia
    * North Atlantic Oscillation on Wikipedia
    * ENSO on Wikipedia

  523. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 4:06 PM | Permalink

    RE 522.

    By soviet style I’m refering to the lack of adequate feedback for the system to self correct.
    A command style economy with no consequences for getting it wrong and all the incentives to
    cover up your error. I think closing the loop on land surface temp would be a gross error
    ( Not that that would be your final suggestion, sorry for popping off) Closing the loop on
    C02 emmissions doesnt work either, since the question at hand is the effect of doubling the
    control input. I have no doubt that a stable system could be specified ( feeding back a
    signal such as SST or sea level rise ) But I doubt whether it is politically viable.
    FWIW.

  524. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 4:29 PM | Permalink

    How about this for your consideration. (If you answer this post, no long drawn out discussion; a similar argument from the side opposite of what you believe (or an incomplete one stated in absolutes from your own viewpoint) in 9 sentences or less, please.) (Or a nine sentence rebutttal of 1 point)

    1. Industrial production began in the mid to late 1800’s.
    2. At about that time, human activity started putting more CO2 into the atmosphere.
    2. At about the same time, the mean averaged global temperature anomaly began to increase.
    3. CO2 is known to be fairly greatly affected by IR.
    4. CO2 is known to have a fairly long atmospheric lifetime (at least compared to many other gasses involved in the “Greenhouse Effect”).
    5. The ice is melting.
    6. The glaciers are melting.
    7. The satelittes show both air and sea warming, and the ground stations show the ground warming.
    8. My line of thought ends here, it is the most likely explanation, and everything I’ve seen discounts the other possible explanations.
    9. Man-made CO2 causes global warming and AGW is a bad thing – dead polar bears, dying vegetation, sea level rise, loss of coral reefs, and the like are at risk and it’s only going to get worse if we don’t do something about it now.

  525. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 5:06 PM | Permalink

    Oh, and I forgot:

    You are wasting your time bothering to look into it further.
    You are wasting your time bothering to take tree cores.
    You are wasting your time bothering to visit and take pictures of surface weather stations.
    You must have an ultior motive.
    You must be a conservative.
    You must be trying to disprove the simple truth because you are a wacko.
    It is so obvious AGW is causing disasterous warming, if you can’t see it you are obviously of below average substandard intelligence.

    Sincerly yours,

    Dano Tamino Rabett III

  526. John M
    Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 6:15 PM | Permalink

    #522, Steve Milesworthy

    I thought soviet-style disasters usually involved massive diversion of resources toward some industrial aim without thought to the environmental consequences

    Actually, they involved a highly centralized bureaucratic group of elites who sought to place strict limits on individual freedoms for the benefit of the “common good.”

    They were often heard to shout “the debate is over!”

    John M (without a period)

  527. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 6:47 PM | Permalink

    Sea level is projected to rise about .5 meters in the next hundred years.

    How do you prepare for this: Cut C02 and impact everybody. Or design a policy to
    make those who get the benefit of sea side living pay?

    Second quesion: what is the total cost of protecting the US coastline against a 1 meter
    rise in sea level.

    Guesses anyone?

  528. jae
    Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 7:50 PM | Permalink

    Hah! I figured out how to quantify the negative feedback from water. So far it looks like every 1 g/m3 increase in absolute humidity “costs” about 0.7 degree C. Stay tuned for the proof.

  529. DR
    Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 8:05 PM | Permalink

    The Lyman ocean heat content correction has been officially released for those interested. Notice something strikingly different in the Introduction in this version compared to the original from 2006?
    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/hc_bias_jtech_v1.pdf

    There is an accompanying paper as well:
    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/hc_integrals_v1.pdf

  530. Posted Oct 31, 2007 at 9:03 PM | Permalink

    How do you prepare for this: Cut C02 and impact everybody. Or design a policy to
    make those who get the benefit of sea side living pay?

    I’ve been told it goes up about a foot every 100 years anyway so I guess the real question is do you cut CO2 to stop a 6″ increase and if you stand in the water would you notice?

    Second quesion: what is the total cost of protecting the US coastline against a 1 meter
    rise in sea level.

    Would give you something to do with the landfill. If they can build new orleans 2-3 M below sea level a 1m rise should be a big easy.

  531. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Nov 1, 2007 at 8:48 AM | Permalink

    #528 steven mosher
    The 0.5m prediction excludes changes due to ice sheet dynamics.

    #531 dinosaur
    Only as long as you can afford to build and maintain the levees.

  532. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 1, 2007 at 9:01 AM | Permalink

    529. jae
    I think your approach is confounded, and your conclusions may be false.
    You are not just comparing dry with wet, but also comparing two different climate types: Continental with Maritime. The former has very little moderation of climate by oceans, whereas the latter has a lot. For example, in the summer, the eastern cities are cooled by the lower ocean temperatures, while the western desert cities are not.
    The climate at a given point is much more global than your local analysis is able to model.

  533. jae
    Posted Nov 1, 2007 at 9:10 AM | Permalink

    533: I think I can show you are wrong, except for coastal locations. I’ll try to get some more results posted today.

  534. Larry
    Posted Nov 1, 2007 at 9:23 AM | Permalink

    532,

    The 0.5m prediction excludes changes due to ice sheet dynamics.

    Elaborate, please?

    Only as long as you can afford to build and maintain the levees.

    Which you’ll have to do anyway.

  535. MarkW
    Posted Nov 1, 2007 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

    The claim that meltwater will cause glaciers to slide into the oceans has been pretty well disproven.
    What other dynamic were you thinking of?

  536. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 1, 2007 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

    RE 532. Thanks, I’m well aware of that and should have indicated as much.

    The EPA estimate for protecting against a 1M rise in sea level for the US is 250B over the
    next century, or 2.5B per year in present dollars. I think it wise to protect against this.
    and the most cost effective way would include the following.

    1. No more building on land that a 2M rise in sea level would inundate. ( adjusted as we know more)
    2. Mandated disclosure during real estate transactions that invlove land that would be
    inundated by AGW, say 10M rise.
    3. A surtax on land that could be inundated by a 1M rise, funds to be used for abating this
    risk.

    Basically, put the cost where it belongs. You want to live in Malibu at the margins of high tide?
    Dont ask me to pay for it

  537. Posted Nov 1, 2007 at 9:33 AM | Permalink

    OT:

    Have you seen this?

    http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/11/when_skepticism.html

    John Christy turns down his share of Nobel

  538. Larry
    Posted Nov 1, 2007 at 9:51 AM | Permalink

    537, that’s not how it’s going to work in real life, though. Heard of a place called New Orleans? We’re going to pay, and pay, and pay, so they can live where they want to live, and not have to buy insurance.

  539. Boris
    Posted Nov 1, 2007 at 10:04 AM | Permalink

    If they can build new orleans 2-3 M below sea level a 1m rise should be a big easy.

    It would probably turn out as well too.

  540. Bill
    Posted Nov 1, 2007 at 10:33 AM | Permalink

    Re: 2, above:

    Your link did not work. Christy’s original article in the Wall Street Journal was worth reading. In it he explains why he returned his “0.0001 Nobel Laureate”. An excerpt:

    There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why.

  541. Posted Nov 1, 2007 at 10:59 AM | Permalink

    Steve: I should have known better. To save you the trouble:

    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32

    Vincent Gray has begun a second career as a climate-change activist. His motivation springs from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body that combats global warming by advocating the reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Dr. Gray has worked relentlessly for the IPCC as an expert reviewer since the early 1990s.

    But Dr. Gray isn’t an activist in the cause of enforcing the Kyoto Protocol and realizing the other goals of the worldwide IPCC process. To the contrary, Dr. Gray’s mission, in his new role as cofounder of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, is to stop the IPCC from spreading climate-change propaganda that undermines the integrity of science.

    “The whole process is a swindle,” he states, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming.

  542. Posted Nov 1, 2007 at 11:00 AM | Permalink

    WSJ link:

    http://mobile2.wsj.com/beta2/htmlsite/html_article.php?id=1&CALL_URL=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

  543. Posted Nov 1, 2007 at 11:35 AM | Permalink

    Doctor Christy is a very intelligent scientist that knows that models are plagued with uncertainties.

  544. JP
    Posted Nov 1, 2007 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

    #523
    Ron,
    I think you should add the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). While it may not have a global reach, it sure affects the climate in North America and Europe. The AMO has been in a warm phase for almost a decade. If you compare the elevated MEI numbers of ENSO with that of the AMO, you can a good idea of why much of the NH has been so warm.

    If the PDO has in fact gone negative, the Pacific should remain cool for 3 decades or so, and the global climate will be less ENSO driven.

    I remember reading a while back of a NASA scientist blaming the Dust Bowl Drought on a cooling Pacific/warm Atlantic.

    Should be an interesting couple of years.

  545. Mark T.
    Posted Nov 1, 2007 at 1:30 PM | Permalink

    2. Mandated disclosure during real estate transactions that invlove land that would be
    inundated by AGW, say 10M rise.

    Both homes I’ve purchased in my life included a flood-plain description/rider of some sort. The first, in Florida, had an obvious (though actually unlikely) potential for problems, but the second, in Colorado, is in an area that we lovingly refer to as “the plains of West Kansas,” with no hope of ever being affected by rising water of any kind.

    Mark

  546. Follow the Money
    Posted Nov 1, 2007 at 3:04 PM | Permalink

    For the historical record…”European Warm Period”, 78 Google hits on Nov 1, 2007

  547. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 1, 2007 at 4:36 PM | Permalink

    RE 539.

    Yes, I know rebuilding NOLA is the worst kind of folly. So, I know my proposal is a pipe dream.
    However, on principle I believe in putting costs where the risks are.

  548. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Nov 2, 2007 at 3:37 AM | Permalink

    #535 Larry

    Put simply, various processes can accelerate the speed at which glaciers slide into the ocean. But it’s hard to model and the evidence is insufficient so these “dynamical” changes are excluded from the headline IPCC figures for sea-level rise. I think the only “consensus” is that this century it won’t be zero.

    See page 817 of:

    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch10.pdf

  549. M. Jeff
    Posted Nov 2, 2007 at 8:33 AM | Permalink

    Today’s Wall Street Journal, “When Predicting Sea Levels, Ice Sheets Are a Wild Card”, gives a brief overview of information from MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW — NOVEMBER-DECEMBER.

    Excerpt from WSJ: … The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change earlier this year predicted that seas would rise between about seven and 24 inches this century. But the panel conceded that the estimate might be unreliable. That’s because knowledge of how ice sheets are disintegrating is so limited that scientists didn’t take their role into account. Instead, the estimate was based on better-understood factors like melting glaciers and heat-related expansion of water volume.

    Along with more sophisticated mathematical models, scientists hope an archaeological expedition will give them a clearer picture of how the ice sheets react to rising temperatures. Next summer, a team of scientists plan to drill into an ice sheet in Greenland to study a block of ice formed 115,000 to 130,000 years ago, when Greenland was about 12 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it is today.

  550. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 2, 2007 at 8:46 AM | Permalink

    RE 550. I understand that Rabbett has agreed to descend into the the drill shaft to see for itself

  551. MarkW
    Posted Nov 2, 2007 at 10:02 AM | Permalink

    Greenland was 12 degrees warmer than today, yet there were still ice sheets there????

    That kind of puts the kabosh on the theory that a 1 or 2 degree warming in the next century is going to cause those same ice sheets to collapse.

  552. Posted Nov 2, 2007 at 10:09 AM | Permalink

    Steve M, the CA “auditblog” feature seems to be malfunctioning.

  553. jae
    Posted Nov 2, 2007 at 10:27 AM | Permalink

    The front page of the local newspaper says that the glaciers on Mt. Shasta are expanding in size. But they also say that global warming will soon overcome them.

  554. Andrey Levin
    Posted Nov 2, 2007 at 10:54 AM | Permalink

    Re#552, MarkW:

    Greenland ice shield is sitting on the bedrock in form of the bowl:

    http://membrane.com/sidd/greenland.html

    It can not disintegrate, slip into the ocean, or melt anyhow significantly. And this fact was well known many-many years ago.

  555. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Nov 2, 2007 at 11:04 AM | Permalink

    Re#548, there are places that are limiting development along the shoreline, based on distance from shore and also elevation. I’ve seen it in FL. Insurance rates change dramatically when you get away from the coast.

    NOLA just seems to be “rebuild, because we didn’t learn our lessons the first time.” Reminds me of “the Holy Grail,” and the guy who built his castle in a swamp (sunk twice, still standing the 3rd time).

  556. Larry
    Posted Nov 2, 2007 at 11:06 AM | Permalink

    555, but they badly, badly want a disaster scenario. They’ll keep busy until the get one.

  557. tom
    Posted Nov 2, 2007 at 11:52 AM | Permalink

    The Greenland-Antarctica Melting Problem Does Not Exist

    http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/the_greenland_antarctica_melting_problem_does_not_exist/#When:13:06:00Z

  558. Reference
    Posted Nov 2, 2007 at 11:53 AM | Permalink

    John Cristy wrote in his recent WSJ piece that global temperatures vary by more than 0.05 F each day, given the thermal inertia of the climate system how is this possible?

  559. James Goneaux
    Posted Nov 2, 2007 at 1:37 PM | Permalink

    http://www.livescience.com/environment/071030-tree-stumps.html

    via

    http://arewelumberjacks.blogspot.com/2007/11/trees-found-implication-ignored.html

    Nice quote: “They’ve found trees under the ice, and somehow missed the point:

    Obviously, the ice hasn’t retreated to an historic minimum. The trees grew there. The article doesn’t find it noteworthy that there were no glaciers there at one time…

  560. jae
    Posted Nov 2, 2007 at 3:03 PM | Permalink

    The link in 558 is a “must read” for those interested in glaciers and ice caps. [snip]Gore should read it.

  561. Buddenbrook
    Posted Nov 2, 2007 at 4:02 PM | Permalink

    Re: #560 That is a priceless quote

    Melting glaciers in Western Canada are revealing tree stumps up to 7,000 years old where the region’s rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum, a geologist said

  562. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 2, 2007 at 5:30 PM | Permalink

    RE 562. To them historic means what happened in band camp one summer

  563. Posted Nov 2, 2007 at 6:12 PM | Permalink

    More tornado research:

    Enquiring minds want to know…

  564. Larry
    Posted Nov 2, 2007 at 7:15 PM | Permalink

    563, the issue in 562 is a little more subtle than that. Read it again.

  565. Posted Nov 2, 2007 at 7:29 PM | Permalink

    # 565

    Evidently, there were not glaciers there 7000 years ago, instead there were forests… Interesting…

  566. Andrey Levin
    Posted Nov 2, 2007 at 8:56 PM | Permalink

    Re#558:

    Thanks, Tom, awesome article.

    I just see this article as a screenwrite for a documentary…

  567. Buddenbrook
    Posted Nov 2, 2007 at 10:07 PM | Permalink

    Ice retreats to “historic minimum” revealing forests used to grow there 7000 years ago. You just can’t invent this stuff. It reads like a script from Life of Brian.

    Historic minimum(or maximum) has become a phrase that is freely repeated and thrown around, with no concern for whether it’s use is accurate or not.

    Historic droughts and heat waves (not true), historic amount of hurricanes (not true), historically high temperatures (not true either), historic sea ice loss (since 1978 anyway).

    I know it grabs headlines but climate hyperbole can’t sustain itself for ever, eventually it will start turning into ‘boy cried wolf’ and that’s sad because one day there might be genuine reason for concern.

  568. Mhaze
    Posted Nov 3, 2007 at 6:36 AM | Permalink

    Buddenbrook says:
    October 30th, 2007 at 6:44 pm

    This has probably been suggested in the past, I hope, but it’s something that would be beneficial for the scientific debate of CO2 alarmism.

    TGGWS has reached tens of millions of viewers around the world. There is one problem with that documentary, it doesn’t touch the crucial points, it is highly speculative, highly populistic in a wrong way, hardly scientific and on more than one occasion twists the truth like Al Gore. There is a possibility it has done more harm than good. A RC stereotype of the skeptics, something they love shooting down to avoid the real issues.

    But enough with that. It is a reflection nothing more. Someone should get together the real skeptics from Pielke, Watts and others to our host here and make a similar documentary, but this time make it strictly scientific. Pictures of the surface stations, graphs (people love graphs, ask Al Gore), the models and their reliability, the Y2k error, the hockey stick silliness and the dishonesty involved, the IPCC bias in selecting peer reviewed studies, Gore’s mistakes etc. but above all the real scientific questions

    People love controversy, so it is bound to reach millions of viewers, including politicians. That’s when the climate scientists have to come out of their shells and debate the issues they have been dodging and avoiding for many years. (And you could make some money too!)

    Such a documentary would be of crucial importance in time for the next round of Kyoto, debate of which is bound to start in 2008 or 2009.

    Excellent idea.

  569. Ken Coffman
    Posted Nov 3, 2007 at 7:43 AM | Permalink

    When I got up yesterday, it was very cold, surprisingly cold. The sky was clear and the stars were bright, almost blinding. Obviously, the regional CO2 was at a minimum. I’m not sure what the current mix is, are we somewhere around 360 PPM? If so, then my guess is the CO2 was significantly lower, perhaps as low as 340 or 350 PPM. We definitely could have used more of that powerful warming agent. Yes, it was that cold up here in the Pacific Northwest.
    Is there a cheap and easy way to measure the wild fluctuations of local CO2?

  570. M. Jeff
    Posted Nov 3, 2007 at 8:21 AM | Permalink

    Excerpt from, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307858,00.html
    … Associated Press, Saturday, November 03, 2007.

    AMSTERDAM, Netherlands — Climate change could be one of the greatest national security challenges ever faced by U.S. policy makers, according to a new joint study by two U.S. think tanks.

    The report, to be released Monday, raises the threat of dramatic population migrations, wars over water and resources, and a realignment of power among nations.

    During the last two decades, climate scientists have underestimated how quickly the Earth is changing — perhaps to avoid being branded as “alarmists,” the study said. …

  571. Posted Nov 3, 2007 at 9:47 AM | Permalink

    Tabasco Mexico is under water, and here we have heard phrases like “non-precedent flood”, “the global warming has caused this first-time tragedy”, “It’s time to take radical procedures against climate change”. What we have not heard is that the rain is not so atypical on the region and that Villahermosa Tabasco Mexico was built three meters under the level of the two rivers that encircle the city. On the other hand, Tabasco suffers from inundations almost every ten years, thus it is not a first-time tragedy. The deforestation in that Mexican county has been unprecedented, not the rainfalls.

  572. Posted Nov 3, 2007 at 11:11 AM | Permalink

    Here are the October temperature ranks from NCEP reanalysis data. This source is the first look at a recent month, usually released a couple of days after the month ends. It is subject to later revision:

    70N to 90N: 1’st (warmest since the start of data in 1948)
    20N to 70N: 4’th warmest
    20N to 20S: 17’th
    20S to 70S: 6’th
    70S to 90S: 10’th
    Global: 4’th

    La Nina cranked up several months ago. Usually there’s a lag of a few months before it impacts extratropical regions temperature-wise. We’ll see.

  573. Posted Nov 3, 2007 at 11:31 AM | Permalink

    David Smith says:
    November 3rd, 2007 at 11:11 am

    David,
    I’m not surprised by the North Pole being so warm due to all that ice free ocean over there, but the surface implied is a very small part of the whole Earth. How is it possible, with those numbers, thta the rank for the globe is 4th?

  574. M. Jeff
    Posted Nov 3, 2007 at 11:46 AM | Permalink

    Addition to M. Jeff, November 3rd, 2007 at 8:21 am, #571.

    It is difficult to imagine that any study hoping to have any credibility would claim, “During the last two decades, climate scientists have underestimated how quickly the Earth is changing — perhaps to avoid being branded as “alarmists,” the study said.” Perhaps the study has been misinterpreted by those who received an advance copy?

  575. Craig Loehle
    Posted Nov 3, 2007 at 12:31 PM | Permalink

    Yesterday I gave a talk at a small college geography dept on my research on historical climate reconstruction. I got the usual questions one would get at a college seminar about my methods and results. Generally the audience understood and agreed with the issues about using treerings, but one oceanography prof was visibly angry the entire time, tried to defend the hockey stick and asserted that 20 feet of sea level rise was likely in the next 100 years. He made a seriously ad hominem attack with his final comment (calling me incompetent), which visibly embarrassed the group. At another college I gave a similar talk last year, and got 2 like that. My current ratio of fanatics based on this small sample is 3/60 or 5%. Quite a positive result, really, but boy do these people get upset.

  576. David Smith
    Posted Nov 3, 2007 at 1:34 PM | Permalink

    Re #574 Paolo it’s probably because the Arctic anomaly was large (almost 2C gap between 2007 and the next closest October), which helped pull the global anomaly upwards.

  577. Posted Nov 3, 2007 at 2:00 PM | Permalink

    # 576

    Craig Loehle,

    It’s normal. There is always a fanatic without scientific arguments whose resources are based on attacks Ad Hominem. I’m sure your exposition is unbeatable, and this is the reason. I think that those people are obtaining profits from their antiscientific posture.

  578. Posted Nov 3, 2007 at 7:28 PM | Permalink

    Jae would be happy on reading the book of Physics of Climate by Jose Peixoto. Peixoto’s book on Physics of Climate is worth of reading; for example, he says that our sun is the driver of the Earth’s climate. He introduces the significance of water vapor as the main factor that determines the tropospheric temperature. He also affirms that the climate has always varied. He also doubts about a correlation between CO2 and present GW, and introduces the possibility that the responses to climate forcing in land are different to the oceanic feedbacks. I’ve compared Peixoto’s concepts with Modest’s Radiative Heat Transfer and both coincide on the main scientific concepts.

  579. Larry
    Posted Nov 4, 2007 at 9:11 AM | Permalink

    Referring back to comment 19 (sometimes it takes a while to spot the obvious), it seems that we have realclimate on record as saying that the MWP wasn’t limited to Europe. To reiterate, they said that during the MWP, there was drought in the SW US. So they’re saying that we had warming in Europe, but not in North America, but by some sort of coincidence, it was very dry in North America? Furthermore, the implication was made that the two were connected (i.e. a new drought would be a consequense of presant GW).

    Wouldn’t the drought affect the treemometers? Possibly even making the treemometers read low on temperature due to insufficient moisture?

    This would be an interesting question to pose over there, but the question would never survive moderation. And I don’t think the (“European warm period”) bunny would want to take it on, either.

  580. Mark T
    Posted Nov 4, 2007 at 10:31 AM | Permalink

    Yes, and we’re the ones that don’t understand teleconnection? :)

    Mark

  581. Larry
    Posted Nov 4, 2007 at 10:44 AM | Permalink

    Obviously, they want to have it both ways. But next time Rabett or some other Team cheerleader tries to deny the global reach of the MWP, just point them to that RC post.

    Tripping on their own undies, they be.

  582. Mark T
    Posted Nov 4, 2007 at 10:58 AM | Permalink

    Bait and switch indeed…

    Mark

  583. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Nov 4, 2007 at 10:58 AM | Permalink

    Strong evidence for very rapid breakdown of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets is not there, and the IPCC report doesn’t back it. But that’s entirely different to stating that the contribution from ice sheet dynamics is not included in the headline prediction of sea-level rise, and that it may be significant this century.

  584. Larry
    Posted Nov 4, 2007 at 11:11 AM | Permalink

    585, that’s a pretty vague statement. We’re either going to have water added to the oceans due to melting alone, or there’s going to be solid ice somehow moving at a rate significantly higher than it’s currently moving. “Dynamics” is kind of a mumblemouthed way of saying some vague and undefined thing is going to happen. Since air temperatures can only affect the top of a glacier (which doesn’t affect the rate of ice flow), or the sides (which marginally affects ice flow), what exactly are these “dynamics” going to be?

  585. Mark T
    Posted Nov 4, 2007 at 11:34 AM | Permalink

    Magic.

    Mark

  586. L Nettles
    Posted Nov 4, 2007 at 4:14 PM | Permalink

    Christopher Booker has a nice summary of his book Scared to Death in today’s Telegraph. Steve and Ross get a mention.
    Scared to Death

  587. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 4, 2007 at 4:44 PM | Permalink

    The interesting aspect to the tree stumps revealed by retreating glacier is that mature trees were overwhelmed by the ice too quickly for decay to occur, which is evidence that abrupt cooling is a feature of our planet’s climate.

  588. PeterS
    Posted Nov 4, 2007 at 5:05 PM | Permalink

    The fashionable-madness continues at the Guardian…
    Climate wars threaten billions

  589. Hans Erren
    Posted Nov 5, 2007 at 8:43 AM | Permalink

    I have a feeling that Tamino doesn’t know what “R” is.
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/analyze-this

    cody // Nov 5th 2007 at 9:52 am Thanks, very nice, very clear, very well explained. Have you ever considered R, though? Spoken as one wearily wondering whether its worth the effort, but also tired of waiting for a spreadsheet to get through it all.

    [Response: R squared gives the fraction of total variance which is explained by whatever model we fit. This has its uses, but it doesn’t really tell us the statistical significance; that also depends on the (effective) number of data points and on then number of degrees of freedom in the model we choose. So R alone doesn’t enable you to compute statistical significance. For me, it’s usually not worth the wait (but there are cases in which it’s useful information).]

  590. Posted Nov 5, 2007 at 9:23 AM | Permalink

    I have an idea, on which I have not yet been able to follow through, relative to the post by tamino mentioned by Hans in #590.

    Has anyone seen an analysis much like that given by tamino in which he used actual temperature data, applied to the output of any GCM. It seems to me that such an examination of comparing calculated numbers with the known properties and characteristics of the temperature of the near-surface atmosphere should be one of the zeroth-order checks on the validity of the calculations. Almost all, or maybe everything tamino calculated and more, should be present in any realistic simulation of Earth’s near-surface temperature. The characteristics of the daily, seasonal, and yearly variations are known as functions of locations in the Northern and Southern hemispheres. And the effects of specific characteristics of different locations (latitude, altitude, coastline, etc.) are also known.

    The objective would not be to determine if the GCM calculations reproduce the measured near-surface temperature, although at some time in the far future this might be possible. Instead, the objective would be to see if the calculations reproduce the known general characteristics of the near-surface temperature and its variations over a day, the seasons, in the NH and the SH, at high and low altitudes and latitudes, and under the influence of special local effects such as near the coast of the oceans.

    Importantly, the noise introduced by the mathematical models and numerical solutions methods in the GCMs could also be analyzed.

    It would be of interest to check these characteristics at several different time periods, both in the past and in the future.

    I think the place to start would be at the PCMDI/CMIP3. I have not yet followed through for several reasons. I am not set up to handle the massive data files that will be required to carry out the analyses and I don’t know stats maths and especially I’m not set up to do stats maths on enormous data sets. I would assist anyone who has an interest in trying to this out.

    Maybe all of this has already been carried out. Pointers to reports and papers will be appreciated.

  591. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 5, 2007 at 9:54 AM | Permalink

    RE 591. The first problem you come up against with comparing GCM to the instrument record is this:

    GCM calculate daily average in a different way than the instrument record. GCM take a “true average”
    integrating temps based on the time step specified in the model. Instrument records are (min+max)/2

    I make no conclusion about the advisability of this.

  592. Stan Palmer
    Posted Nov 5, 2007 at 11:42 AM | Permalink

    re 587

    The Telegraph piece contains this in relation to the debunking of the hockey stick

    But then a growing number of academics began to raise doubts about Mann and his graph. This culminated in 2003 with a devastating study by two Canadians

    Why ‘two Canadians’? I know Mann tried to discredit M&M by referring to them as ‘Canadians’ but why? Rutherford created his atomic model at McGill in Montreal. Donald Hebb of Hebb’s Rule in neuroscience was Canadian. Wilder Penfied was Canadian. etc etc. So why is the appellation Canadian so surprising for people who do world class scientific work.

  593. Larry
    Posted Nov 5, 2007 at 11:46 AM | Permalink

    593, these are Brits. In their minds, all of us on the west side of the Atlantic are colonials.

  594. Iain
    Posted Nov 5, 2007 at 12:09 PM | Permalink

    593,594, Speaking as a Scot and therefore also a ‘Brit’ the apellation ‘Canadian’ isn’t regarded as being a derogatory and we are long past thinking of our cousins across the globe as being ‘colonial’ :)

  595. Posted Nov 5, 2007 at 1:06 PM | Permalink

    Steve, Since you seem to be on a roll with James Hansen’s stuff, you might want to consider this GISS Surface Temperature Analysis http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/ Please notice the base year for the temperature anomilies 1951 to 1980. So Hansen has picked the coolest period to make temperature comparisons to current ones. You think people might get the wrong impression using such a cool time period?

    Steve: the choice of base period for this type of analysis doesn’t bother me. It just moves things up and down. Note that this doesn’t apply for principal components analysis – where taking means over short subperiods can affect the result.

  596. John A
    Posted Nov 5, 2007 at 4:34 PM | Permalink

    In the “I blame global warming” section: This

  597. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 5, 2007 at 6:24 PM | Permalink

    Anyone calculated the anomalies using a base period of 1976-2005 or 1900-1929 or 1941-1970?

  598. jae
    Posted Nov 5, 2007 at 6:50 PM | Permalink

    For anyone interested in an analysis of water feedbacks, please see here. You have to open the Word file, called feedbacks.doc, since the text is too long to post. I think I have demonstrated clearly that there are significant negative feedbacks from both water vapor and clouds, but I am definitely open to suggestions and criticism.

  599. John F. Pittman
    Posted Nov 5, 2007 at 6:58 PM | Permalink

    I used 1930 to 1960 baseline and for 1900 to 2007, no oceans. It appears that Waldo is on the edge of Antartica.

  600. Posted Nov 5, 2007 at 7:13 PM | Permalink

    The RSS lower troposphere temperature anomaly, updated through October, is here .

    The October value was +0.09C, which is not much compared to recent years. And, as La Nina effect kicks in over the next several months, it may well drift lower.

  601. Posted Nov 5, 2007 at 8:11 PM | Permalink

    I had lunch with several environmental consultants today. Their view is that carbon controls will be law in the US within several years, probably a cap-and-trade system for industry and power companies, among others.

    I asked what a cap-and-trade would do that $90 oil is not already doing, meaning that the incentive for conservation is already strong. They said that it would encourage efficient companies to invest in energy conservation in less-efficient businesses (in exchange for their carbon credits) but that’s about it. They see no breakthrough technology to reduce or substitute for fossil fuel use.

    They see vast amounts of money flowing in many directions in a few years and signs of early maneuvering by the smart-money folks.

    I said that meaningful reductions would only some through reduced consumption, and that would flop politically unless people believed we are in a clear crisis. They agreed.

    All in all a rather sad state of affairs.

  602. gerard bono
    Posted Nov 5, 2007 at 8:47 PM | Permalink

    This is interesting from the U of Alabama concerning the disappearance of Cirrus clouds.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071102152636.htm

  603. Posted Nov 5, 2007 at 10:18 PM | Permalink

    # 601

    David… Do you have a link to October 2007 records? I need it to update some of my graphs. Thank you!

  604. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Nov 5, 2007 at 11:11 PM | Permalink

    Re#603, sounds more like Lindzen’s Iris theory – long laughed at by the AGW crowd – has some more legs.

    It would help if it didn’t come from Spencer and Christy, though.

  605. Bob Weber
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 2:16 AM | Permalink

    If the climate is random and chaotic while computer programs are deterministic then if would seem to me that the computer models are doomed to failure. Where have I gone wrong?

    Bob

  606. KevinUK
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 4:52 AM | Permalink

    #605 MJ

    So would it help if this was coming from Brian Soden or Isaac Held?

    KevinUK

  607. KevinUK
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 5:07 AM | Permalink

    So what does everyone think (particularly jae) of the chances that this newly discovered negative feedback effect by Spencer and Christy will be incorporated into the GCMs in time for the next IPCC (fifth) assessment report in 2012?

    Time perhaps Steve M for another poll?

    Alternatively, if the research done by S & C had shown the opposite effect i.e. that cirrus clouds in the tropics are a positive feedback, how much coverage, does everyone think, this would now be getting in the MSM?

    KevinUK

  608. Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 5:34 AM | Permalink

    Re #604 Nasif the RSS lower troposphere is here while UAH is here .

  609. JP
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 6:42 AM | Permalink

    #602
    A few snowy, subzero winters in North America and Europe may change the political climate a bit. Six hundred dollar heating bills in Nov-Feb have a way putting things in perspective. Politicians do like thier jobs, and despite the warm fuzzy feelings they get enacting carbon laws, most politicians will react to the heat put forth by distressed voters.

    Congress does have a knack for coming up with solutions where no problems exist. I am reminded of the recent ethanol bill. This bill hasn’t done anything to clean up emissions. But it has created hyper inflation in the food market. Now, the price of corn based foods are tied with that of oil. Everything from milk to meat has seen double digit inflation.

  610. John F. Pittman
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 7:08 AM | Permalink

    #596 had a link for GISS. I know that changing the calibration period should have little effect. However, when I ran the calibration from 1930 to 1960 and wanted to look at temperature anomalies for the world (1900-2007), an interesting thing happened. Except for some hot spots on the land edges of Antartica, global warming disappeared. The bulk of the land masses were nuetral or +.2 or -.2 such that it looked like little to no global warming. This was true except Antartica. However, I believe that it has been posted several rimes that Antartica has some of the worst coverage spatially and historically. Is there some way to get the data to plot a 1900 to 2007 temperature anomaly plot using the 1930 to 1960 as the calibration temperature, while leaving out the edges of Antartica?

  611. Stephen Richards
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 7:35 AM | Permalink

    JP

    Oh for a $600 oil bill. Here, in France, I have just bought my fuel for the winter (1000 litres) $900. That was in august 2007. Well over a $1000 now.

  612. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 9:19 AM | Permalink

    Re: #590

    Hans Erren, in your Tamino excerpt below, I tried but could not help but note that the Tamino answer was, everything considered, an Excel-lent one.

    cody // Nov 5th 2007 at 9:52 am Thanks, very nice, very clear, very well explained. Have you ever considered R, though? Spoken as one wearily wondering whether its worth the effort, but also tired of waiting for a spreadsheet to get through it all.

    [Response: R squared gives the fraction of total variance which is explained by whatever model we fit. This has its uses, but it doesn’t really tell us the statistical significance; that also depends on the (effective) number of data points and on then number of degrees of freedom in the model we choose. So R alone doesn’t enable you to compute statistical significance. For me, it’s usually not worth the wait (but there are cases in which it’s useful information).]

  613. KevinUK
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 9:33 AM | Permalink

    Don’t know if anyone has mentione dthi sso far on Unthreaded but courtesy of iainb on the Numberwatch forum we have the following links

    “FORCES International report US Surgeon General to the Office for Research Integrity in Washington.

    Quote: “A denunciation of the fraudulent report of the Surgeon General on the effects of passive smoking on health has been deposited with the Office for Research Integrity in Washington, DC. Several organizations have co-signed the official complaint”

    Full story here.

    FORCES International Reports SG to ORI

    Detail of the Complaint here.

    Link to the Complaint

    Can’t help but think how long it is going to be now before a similar report is produced in regard to the hockey stick?

    KevinUK

  614. Joe B
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 10:23 AM | Permalink

    I would be interested in thoughts on this, which I saw at Accuweather:

    “In about two weeks, the UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change will publish its final assessment of the impact of global warming, and according to an article from the Telegraph, the report will have some surprise conclusions.

    According to the Telegraph article, the final IPCC assessment continues to say that the Arctic will be devastated by rising temperatures, but that the Antarctic will be spared the worst of global warming, as Antarctica’s ice sheets will remain too cold for widespread melting before the end of the century and may even grow as more snow accumulates.

    For the Arctic, the IPCC believes that the region will continue to see widespread loss of sea ice, similar to this year. Greenland’s ice sheet is predicted to be almost gone by the end of the century and Arctic tundra will be replaced by forests, the final report will say.:

    Accuweather

  615. Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 10:25 AM | Permalink

    # 610

    Thank you so much, David! I had UAH records, but the record for October 2007 has not been released yet.

  616. Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 10:39 AM | Permalink

    # 616,

    The IPCC final report could contain those apocalyptic projections for the Antarctic if they are based on Hansen’s article published in 1981, where Hansen says that the melting of the ice cap on the continental Antarctic might become the main footprint of Carbon Dioxide. However, it seems that things are running on its head. Hansen assured in his paper that the melting of the Antarctic ice cap would raise the level of the oceans five meters above their current level.

  617. mccall
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 11:01 AM | Permalink

    From link on 10: “An early, surprisingly high positive correlation of increased cloud formation with enhanced cosmic-ray flux stimulated interest in this possibility, but further work with a more extensive database has negated it. This was not surprising, given a large number of other problems with this hypothesis too technical to review here.

    Such conclusive statement and dismissal should have been footnoted in both the 1st and 2nd sentences — am presuming is Svensmark et.al. ’97 & ’99 in the 1st, Lockwood et.al. ’07 in the 2nd? No discussion of Svensmark et.al. ’07 reply to Lockwood or the many rebuttals cited in discussions at CA, Motl, Icecap and others. Referring to CA & other linked discussions of 14, see http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1827

  618. Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 11:29 AM | Permalink

    Have you voted for Climate Audit?

  619. jae
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 12:04 PM | Permalink

    620: Yes :)

  620. Hasse@Norway
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 12:34 PM | Permalink

    Re 17 (Gunnar)
    Maybe you should get your blog up and running before adding cool functions ;)

  621. mccall
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 12:46 PM | Permalink

    #619 mccall says: November 6th, 2007 at 11:01 am — refers to linked paper found in post 10 of the “Anti-Antiscience and Statistical Parlor Tricks” thread. That NGO paper is

    GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE TRIGGERED BY GLOBAL WARMING

    A POSITION PAPER FROM THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY
    OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY

    AUTHOR: STUART D. JORDAN, Ph. D.

  622. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 12:52 PM | Permalink

    #22, Hasse, well, I do have a basic version of my blog software now working, which I’m using for a completely different topic. I have not yet activated my AGW blog, since for that, I want a real “Discussion Blog”. And since this software development is my real purpose, there is no reason to put the cart before the horse. Hver ting til sin tid.

  623. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 2:34 PM | Permalink

    “It would help if it didn’t come from Spencer and Christy, though.” Who else is doing such work? Did you expect MBH would be doing anything along those lines? Hansen? Why bother, it’s not the sun or clouds, we all know it’s carbon dioxide….

    Maybe they could give it to somebody else to publish, although they’d just be branded nut job wackos too anyway, and laughed at and ignored by the cult, so what’s the point?

  624. Anna Lang
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 4:34 PM | Permalink

    RE: #596 dscott and Steve McIntyre

    Your comments about the choice of base years and anomalies on graphs prompts a few thoughts about map representations of temperature anomalies used in textbooks.

    The 4th (2004) and 5th (2007) editions of Robert W. Christopherson’s, Elemental Geosystems have figures (6.25 and 7.26, respectively) entitled Global Temperature Trends, which consist of surface temperature graphs and anomaly maps derived from GISS/NASA and NCDC/NOAA data. The 4th edition anomaly map is for 1998 and the 5th edition depicts 2003; both use the base period 1951-1980. However, the temperature intervals and palettes used for these maps differ (see below). So, despite the data, the 2003 map with its brighter, contrasting colors gives a more striking impression of warming than the muted 1998 map. Comparing these maps provides some interesting lessons for students.

    For 1998 in degrees C & colors: -2 to -1 medium blue, -1 to -.5 light blue, -.5 to -.2 pale green, -.2 to .2 white, .2 to .5 light yellow, .5 to 1 pale orange, 1 to 2 light orange, 2 to 4 medium orange, 4 to 8 dark orange.

    For 2003: -2.5 to -2 purple, -2 to -1.5 dark blue, -1.5 to -1 medium blue, -1 to -.5 light blue, -.5 to-.2 yellow/green, -.2 to .2 white, .2 to .5 bright yellow, .5 to 1 light orange, 1 to 1.5 medium orange, 1.5 to 2 red, 2 to 3 brown.

    Maps are an important means of conveying information about climate related issues to students. A recent and inexpensive example is the atlas by Kirstin Dow and Thomas E. Downing (The Atlas of Climate Change: Mapping the World’s Greatest Challenge, University of California Press, 2006). Steve, there might be a potential thread lurking amongst maps designed for students and the public.

    Steve:
    Anna, nice point. Can you ping this again in a few weeks if I’ve not posted something on it.

  625. trevor
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 4:47 PM | Permalink

    Nice piece on climate scepticism in Europe here:

    http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110107A

  626. jae
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 7:45 PM | Permalink

    533, Pat Keating: Please look at my latest analysis and tell me if you still think I’m off base. I just may have gutted the feedback part of the AGW hypothesis.

  627. Follow the Money
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 8:43 PM | Permalink

    I think this Canadian news story will interest m,any here:

    Whither the revered scientist

    “”After two days of provocative 1ideas and spirited exchanges at an international gathering recently in Toronto, British museum curator Robert Bud neatly summed up the collective wisdom.

    “The scientists are terrified.”

    This widespread angst among scientists has been sparked by evidence that the traditional social compact between science and the public has been irrevocably sundered. Put bluntly, much of the public no longer implicitly trusts either scientists or their pronouncements about everything from climate change to the safety of children’s vaccines…”

  628. Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 9:08 PM | Permalink

    # 629

    I’ve told you, It’s an antiscience/pro-pseudoscience campaign. I know this post is anticodes at climate audit, thus I assume it’ll be erased.

  629. Andrey Levin
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 2:13 AM | Permalink

    In assessing the forthcoming changes in climate, Russian scientist Oleg Sorokhtin from the Shirshov Institute of Oceanology RAS promises us that in the foreseeable future we will witness only a cooling, and a really significant cooling at that. This forecast is based on analysis of changes in the Earth’s precession angle, meaning the angle of the inclination of the Earth’s axis on which the Earth rotates around the Sun, and on the dependence of the average temperature of the Earth upon this angle: the lesser the precession angle, the colder the climate.

    http://www.istc.ru/istc/sc.nsf/news/20060621-3

One Trackback

  1. [...] all the details here [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,143 other followers

%d bloggers like this: