For the past decade or so, each January has produced a news headline about whether or not this year has been the hottest ever. It seems to be agreed that 2016 was the hottest ever, but with a statistically insignificant increase over 2015, and only a tiny bit above 1998. In 2015, 2016 and 1998 the spike was due to an el Nino, which subsided quickly. As I have argued before, there is no human being who has ever experienced a global average temperature, unless coincidentally, and for a moment or two. What we want to know is what our own environment has been like, if such weather details are of interest at all.
I have recommended before a most useful weather-data website, climate4you, conducted by a Norwegian scientist, Professor Ole Humlum. What he does is to assemble all the data from all the major climate dataset compilers, and provide a month-by-month summary. Since the focus at this time of the year is always on temperature, I thought it would be useful to look at what his data sources say. Humlum grades the datasets by reliability, and puts the two satellite datasets, UAH-MSU and RSS into his top category. They show December 2016 as much the same as the average up to the beginning of the 2015/2016 el Nino spike (UAH), and about where average temperature was in 1997 (RSS). Humlum uses the 1979-present period as his base, arguing that (i) 1979 was the beginning of the last strong warming period, and (ii) it is also the year when proper global data from satellites appear. He doesn’t like the older datasets because their controllers make too many ‘administrative changes’. What he has in mind is shown in the next graph.
The size of the changes, 0.7 degrees C over ten years is considerable, as are the actual number of changes, most of them slight. Fiddling with the past is all too reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984. Maybe there are good reasons, and maybe if I did a lot of work I would find them. Humlum’s point is that every time a datum is changed, the trend lines from the past are altered too. What is one to think? He argues that these changes do not seem to appear in the satellite data. though there is a new version of UAH-MSU which is eventually to supplant the original one. The changes there seem small to me. Incidentally he notes that since 2003 the average global surface air temperature has steadily drifted away in a positive direction from the average satellite temperature. He doesn’t know why, but for the moment puts the shift down to those ‘administrative changes’.
Anyway, the whole website is most interesting, and is supplemented by discussion. Just about everything you might want to find is there, with contributions, where they exist, from every dataset. It is my go-to source for weather data.
One aspect of global weather which I find particularly valuable on his website is the mapping. What exactly happened to Australia in terms of temperature over 1916? Well. you can find out by looking at Australia on his global map each month. The data come from the Goddard Institute for Space Science (GISS). Below is the world in October 2016. The colours have numerical referents in the bar on the right-hand side. We need to remember that large areas of Australia and much of the rest of the world, especially the ocean expanse, have no thermometers, so the colours in part represent extrapolations from real instruments elsewhere.
What is arresting about this image is the variation across the globe. In October, on average, Central Asia was having a most unpleasant cold spell and Australia was cooler than the ten-year average. So was Canada, but below the border most of the USA was warmer. Yes, of course you can determine an average for the whole world, but surely the spatial variation here is what we really want to know about. How has it been for us? You can go to such a map for each month, and here is my verbal summary for Australia.
January: a little cooler than the ten-year average
February: a little warmer in the northeast; a little cooler in the southwest
March: a little warmer
April: a little warmer
May: a little cooler in the southwest; in the far north, warmer; the rest, a little warmer
June: a little cooler in the southwest; a little warmer in the north; the rest, same as the ten-year average
July: cooler in the southwest, warmer in the northwest and east
August: cooler everywhere
September: cooler everywhere
October: cooler everywhere
November: cooler everywhere
December: a little cooler in the west, a little warmer in the east
On the face of it, there can’t have been much change from 2015 to 2106, and while we await the 2016 summary in climate4you, our BoM has suggested that Australia had its fourth warmest year since 1910, the year with which the BoM starts its own records. Maybe so. None of this should get anyone’s knickers in a twist, since the change is small, and much of it due to the el Nino. As it happens, no la Nina has started yet, but it would be somewhat unlikely if a further el Nino arrived before the next la Nina episode. (For those for whom these are new terms, el Nino and la Nina are weather episodes produced by shifts in water in the Pacific, the former bringing hot and relatively dry weather to eastern Australia, the latter cooler and wetter weather. They are aspects of the El Nino Southern Oscillation.)
One aspect of climate that is missing from the Humlum website is sea level. But there is a fine new website that seems like to fill the gap and, like Professor Humlum, the originator has assembled all the data from the official sources. The website is SeaLevel.info, and it is great fun too. I am only at the beginning of learning how to operate it. The originator, Dave Burton, was an expert reviewer for AR5 WG1, and he credits the well-known site WoodForTrees as the inspiration for his own work. Here is a summary of his views on the whole sea-level brouhaha.
The worst effect of anthropogenic climate change is supposed to be accelerated sea-level rise. But that fear is the product of superstition, not science. The measurements show that anthropogenic GHG emissions have had no detectable effect on the rate of sea-level rise. At some coastal locations, sea-level is rising, and at other locations it is falling, because of vertical land motion. The global average is slightly rising, but only about 1.5 mm/year (six inches per century), and the globally averaged rate of sea-level rise is no greater now, with CO2 over 400 ppmv, than it was 85 years ago, with CO2 under 310 ppmv.
This is a 111 year record of sea-level measurements at one particular location in the Pacific, but it is perfectly typical. The blue trace is sea-level, the green trace is CO2. If you know how to read graphs, then it will be obvious that CO2 is not affecting sea-level:
My own comment is that the trend here is remarkably similar to Fort Denison in Sydney over a similarly lengthy period.
As time goes on we are likely to see more and more of these datasets that are not presented by government. That is a good thing. I will return to these issues when Professor Humlum, to whom we owe a great debt, has issued his 2016 summary map, and on sea levels, when I have mastered the website!
Postscript: The great virtues of homogenisation have been praised again, so I thought I might just cross-post something I saw this morning. No further comment is needed, from me at any rate.
‘The raw data that is fed to NASA in order to develop the global temperature series is subjected to “homogenization” to ensure that it does not suffer from such things as the changes in the method of measuring the mean temperature, or changes in readings because of changes in location. However, while the process is supposed to be supported by metadata – i.e. the homogenizers are supposed to provide the basis for any modification of the raw data.
For example, the raw data for my home city, Cape Town, goes back to 1880:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_141688160000_0_0/station.txt
The warmest years were in the 1930’s, as they were in many other parts of the globe. There was then a fairly steep decline into the 1970’s before the temperature recovered to today’s levels, close to the hottest years of the 1930’s.
In NASA’s hands, the data pre-1909 was discarded; the 1910 to 1939 data was adjusted downwards by 1.1deg C; the 1940 to 1959 data was adjusted downwards by about 0.8 deg C on average; the 1969 to 1995 data was adjusted upwards by about 0.2 deg C, with the end result that GISS Ver 2 was:-
Being curious, I asked for the metadata. Eventually I got a single line, most of which was obvious, latitude, longitude, height above mean sea level, followed by four or five alphanumerics. This was no basis for the “adjustments” to the raw data.
Which should I believe? The raw data showed a marked drop from the 1940’s to the 1970’s, which echoed similar drops elsewhere… The raw data is probably accurate. The homogenized data is certainly not. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that “homogenization” means “revise the story line” and “anthropogenic global warming” really means “humans changed the figures”.
Prof Philip Lloyd, Energy Institute, CPUT, SARETEC, Sacks Circle, Bellville
Second postscript: In response to Nga, others have noticed that the link does’t work, but it didn’t take long for me to find a better version, shown below. And if anyone wants to check this one (from the GISS website), they can do what I did. Go the the WUWT version, read the comments and follow the links.
— snip — You read a climate revisionist site, get excited about some geezer who has prepared a batch of snake oil and then uncritically, as a matter of faith, accept what he is saying without demonstrating that you understand it or that you have even the faintest familiarity with the counter evidence. In this case you’ve decided to put Professor Ole Humlum up on your pedestal. If you had bothered to do any research you would know that Humlum’s humdrum antics are not especially praiseworthy, in fact he has been caught with his pants down quite frequently and quite rightfully he isn’t taken seriously outside revisionist circles.
But unfortunately you insist in picking your champions from the bottom of the bin. This is how you picked Nils-Axel Mörner, a crank who publishes in Lyndon LaRouche’s conspiracy journal, 21st Century Science; illegally interfered with a architectural site in pursuit of an oddball theory; dishonestly claims that he can find underground water by prancing about with a couple of sticks; dishonestly claimed some Australian scientists removed a tree to destroy evidence of previous sea levels; and doctored photographic evidence to try to provide evidence for the claim.
Here you make an embarrassing claim about data adjustment, something that was relatively uncontroversial (1) until the climate revisionists repackaged it as a menacing act of conspiracy:
” Fiddling with the past is all too reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984. Maybe there are good reasons, and maybe if I did a lot of work I would find them. ”
But Don, you will never do the work because work is not something that you are used to. Instead you recycle stuff that you should never have taken out of the bin in the first place.
(1) seasonally adjusted economic statistics are one example.
Nice Post!
Indeed!. Ouch!
Nga, in what you have written there is nothing about the content of the essay — nothing about the argument, nothing about the graphs or the map. In fact, you don’t seem to realise that all the data are from the official sources. Can’t you find another website to pester?
Don, I have addressed your — snip — statement about data adjustments having something to do with George Orwell and 1984. But more importantly, Don, I’ve commented on your appalling modus operandi, which is far more important than the trivia of what you write.
We already know that you do not have the faintest idea as to what you are talking about, in spite of your bravado, which is why you chose to cut and run when a real scientist, Dr John Hunter, a real scientist, turned up and tried to engage you in a real science conversation.
This is what you wrote prior to scuttling under a rock and waiting until Dr John Hunter had gone back to doing real work:
“I am embarrassed and grateful in equal measure that you wrote such a long post. I have not gone into the field in anything like such detail, and I will now have to do so! Parker/Boretti and Watson are not authors whose work interests me, but I came across Moerner years ago, and assumed that his field work was sound.”
So let’s sum up what you have admitted to when confronted by someone who has the experience and training to spot junk:
(a) you don’t know what you are talking about,
(b) you don’t properly research your articles, and
(c) you simply assume that someone who says something that buttresses your prejudices knows what they are talking about.
Please find someone else to insult.
Good rebuttal, Don.
I think you prove Don’s point. A post which abuses sources without disputing data is a post which says there is no argument against the data. Appreciate you letting me know that this post by Don should be taken very seriously. 🙂
“Fiddling with the past (temperatures) is all too reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984…..”
But you don’t believe in conspiracy?
Nga, I remember someone once telling me that before they read a particular magazine, they go through and rip all the ad pages out. I thought it bizarre at the time, but they assured me it led to a much more enjoyable reading experience. I practise my own version of that when reading Don’s essays and find it helpful. If I mentally remove all the political bias I find what’s left is quite benign. For example, when Don writes:
“Fiddling with the past is all too reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984. Maybe there are good reasons, and maybe if I did a lot of work I would find them.”
I simply read:
“There are no doubt good reasons for this, but I don’t have the time to delve deeper”.
Don, if you do ever want to delve deeper, you could start with this paper: http://www.clim-past.net/8/89/2012/
Jimbo, as so often, you offer a link that has nothing whatever to do with the point at issue. That was, if you remember, how did those developing SST decide that a particular grid-cell, say, in the southern ocean between New Zealand and South America, should have a particular temperature reading for its 300,000 square kilometres, when they had no data to work on? Did they extrapolate? From where? Why? What did they think the error was? And so on.
Your link is about statistics, but it bears not at all on the question.
Jimbo is too busy ripping out the last remaining commonsense pages in his confused mind.
Jimb, ya shoulda ripped this out of that abstract while you were at it:
“These homogenized datasets were assessed by a number of performance metrics including (i) the centered root mean square error relative to the true homogeneous value at various averaging scales, (ii) the error in linear trend estimates and (iii) traditional contingency skill scores.”
But I suppose when something as contrived as that is used to fiddle the dancing angels on the proverbial pinhead and doesn’t set any alarm bells ringing about rational, sceptical balance then science and commonsense just doesn’t get a look in.
I would have thought that when even the fiddled global warming does not exceed Nat Var all you bed wetters could relax and get back to us when you have managed to conjure up a more convincing problem.
But maybe these days with Trump in charge it’s only the screams and bed wetting that can replace alarmist “science”.
Spangles! Trump upset over CIA leaks. “Are we living in Nazi Germany?!?”
Purile or what? (snicker)
Don, I get to choose which bits of your essay I comment on and which I let through to the keeper. I highlighted the bit I was commenting on by quoting it. You were bemoaning the frequency and significance of changes to the GISS dataset, and revealing that you were too busy or too lazy to work out why they happen. I was merely trying to help. Even if you don’t consider my statistics reference relevant, the folk doing the changes to the GISS data do: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q208
As for the bits of your essay I choose not to comment on, you can assume that either I agree with you, or I’ve learnt from previous experience that it’s futile discussing them with you.
Jimbo, I cannot assist you in your thought processes, alas.
I forgot to add that you missed the point (again). I was not bemoaning the frequency of changes to the GISS dataset. I simply showed what had happened, courtesy Humlum.
What I was bemoaning was the lack of information about how people went about estimating an average temperature for a five degree by five degree grid cell where they had no data. I’m surprised you missed that. Look, there it is in the comment you responded to:
…’point at issue. That was, if you remember, how did those developing SST decide that a particular grid-cell, say, in the southern ocean between New Zealand and South America, should have a particular temperature reading for its 300,000 square kilometres, when they had no data to work on? Did they extrapolate? From where? Why? What did they think the error was? And so on.’
But you didn’t remember, did you, but changed the subject to something I had not done or said. You like doing that, it seems. You don’t discuss at all.
You, David and Nga make a great trio. Time-wasters, all of you. No more responses from me, until I can see a valid point that is worth a response.
JimboR, my interpretation:
“There are no doubt good reasons for this, but I’m an entitled rich old white male who was born to rule, so I won’t dirty my soft manicured hands by delving deeper”.
Nga, you just get sillier every time you try to impress us with your silly nonsense. But by all means tell us how to mitigate your so called CAGW. I’ll just add a Hans Rosling comment I made at the last post.
The fact is that fossil fuels changed a dangerous world into the safe world we have today. Just look at the evidence and data since 1800.
In this video Hans Rosling looks at the Bangladesh miracle that has occurred over the last 30 years or within just one generation. Why is it that a majority of the globe’s population are unaware of this miracle and the wider world health miracle since 1950?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPTwE0qIuNA
While Goklany, Lomborg, Ridley, Rosling and others have worked hard to counter our ignorance we still find that most so called EDUCATED people haven’t a clue. But why is this the case? I’ve had SFA education yet I can easily answer these questions and believe me I’m not super intelligent. But I do read a lot and I hate BS and BS artists.
Here’s Rosling’s 2014 TED talk to a huge crowd. Even if you just watch the first 5 minutes it is worth it. It must be very difficult for these people trying to cut through the BS and nonsense to deliver the real facts and data. They certainly get little help from the MSM.
Don for a man who says he does not embraces conspiracy theories I see that you have written 6 or 7 essays on climate change that reference George Orwell.
You should read his essays as well as his novels, David. You might learn something.
True but not about climate science.
How about double speak: snowstorms and record low temperatures are just weather while bushfires, heatwaves, and drought are climate-change.
And: All climate data sets are legitimate but surface measured sets are more legitimate.
Renewables good, coal bad.
Natural gas good but renewables better.
dlb I hadn’t picked you for a flat Earther.
Don I almost wonder if we’re both reading the same essay. Here’s what you wrote in your essay above:
“He doesn’t like the older datasets because their controllers make too many ‘administrative changes’. What he has in mind is shown in the next graph. (graph showing GISS adjustments goes here). The size of the changes, 0.7 degrees C over ten years is considerable, as are the actual number of changes, most of them slight. Fiddling with the past is all too reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984. Maybe there are good reasons, and maybe if I did a lot of work I would find them. ”
I then tried to help by showing you how/why they make adjustments to the GISS data and you tell me I’ve missed the point altogether and try to drag me into some discussion on SSTs and 300,000 square kms grids, a topic that doesn’t even get mentioned in your essay! Somehow I’m now the one trying to change the subject?
“I then tried to help by showing you how/why they make adjustments to the GISS data”
Jimbo, when do you think they will ever be finished adjusting the past?
And why do you suppose it only goes in one direction?
We all know why they do it but you might like to give your own thoughts on why it is so essential.
Jimbo, you are right, The fault lies with me. I mixed up what you were saying with the discussion on Truthiness and Factiness about how SST numbers are derived. I can only put it down to my age and the heat today. My apologies.
Having said that, your link to GISS is not a great help. The best I could get from it about administrative changes seemed to put the responsibility on to other agencies. But I did take away this message: ‘The GISS results are really estimates based on the available data.’
“But I did take away this message: ‘The GISS results are really estimates based on the available data.’”
Of course, all measurements of physical quantities are estimates. That paper referenced above shows that the homogenization algorithms that you find Orwellian makes them better estimates of reality. I know David has mentioned it before, but I think you really do need to get over your allergy to this stuff, study it, and you too will embrace it. Use the power of all that information hidden in those time series.
It seems like only the other day we last had this conversation, but it’s almost a year ago:
http://donaitkin.com/are-human-beings-causing-the-warming-my-perspective-on-climate-change-5/#comment-7586
Don you keep telling us you understand the maths, and I’m resolved to take that at face value, but then you keep making statements like:
“What are these guys trying to achieve…. why are they trying to achieve it…. I just shake my head”
and
“Fiddling with the past is all too reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984. Maybe there are good reasons, and maybe if I did a lot of work I would find them”
I struggle to reconcile that dichotomy. David’s repeated conclusion is that you don’t understand the maths. Regardless of whether or not he’s correct, surely you can at least see why he might be inclined to that view? If one accepts that you do understand the maths, like I’m resolved to do, then the conclusions become even more sinister. Why would someone who understands the maths not use the maths to show the errors in the homogenization algorithms, but instead turn to prose like above? Presumably to appeal to a wider less-educated audience. That would be an entirely admirable approach, if it were backed up with the maths to satisfy those of us who do understand it. Without that, it just looks like more of the populist FUD common in this post-fact world.
“I struggle to reconcile that dichotomy. “
I think it is about psychology rather than science. I think there is cheap thrill to be had by being a contrarian. It is — snip —.
Don the trouble is you are too fair to these fools who just want to destroy any chance of a considered argument. These are the same group thinkers and know nothings who howl down anyone they don’t agree with on Uni campuses.
Evidence and data mean nothing to these people and we’ve seen them here just treating your blog as a place to poke fun and be as rude as they see fit. I don’t know why you tolerate them after their nasty stupid comments directed at you. But that’s your business and it’s your blog.
Neville
Given the amount of erroneous material you have posted – you should be very careful tagging others as fools or group thinkers.
The face at the bottom of the well is your own.
Don
You have one rule for censoring Nga and another for Neville and SD.
Yes, I explained it here.
Don quotes with approval, Dave Burton, who writes:
“The global average [sea level rise] is slightly rising, but only about 1.5 mm/year (six inches per century), and the globally averaged rate of sea-level rise is no greater now, with CO2 over 400 ppmv, than it was 85 years ago, with CO2 under 310 ppmv.
It takes one second to go to the NASA website and get the current rate of sea level rise, which is 3.4 mm per year. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Let’s get this straight, Burton is a crank. Anyone who doubts that should read this article by Tamino. Here is a quote from Tamino:
“I informed him [Burton] that I intended to do a post about his claims on sea level rise. I even promised, at his request, that I would not censor his replies to that post. He starting commenting prolifically on the sea-ice post, with no fewer than 15 comments in the space of about 48 hours. He seemed exceptionally eager to engage — I got the impression he could hardly wait to argue with us about our silly ideas that the next century would bring much greater sea level rise than the last, an ominous threat to the future.
When the sea-level post appeared four days ago, he suddenly went silent. We’ve heard not a peep from Dave Burton since. I guess the cat got his tongue. “
Tamino’s sea level rise article that turned a previously chatty Burton into a mute is here: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/unnatural-hazards/
Notice how it is nearly always the same with the cranks, when a real scientist who knows what they are talking about shines a spotlight on them, they retreat into the darkness or hide under a rock.
“It takes one second to go to the NASA website and get the current rate of sea level rise, which is 3.4 mm per year.”
Ah ha! Yes, of course – tide gauges were the best we had, but now we have satellites! And looky – SLR has increased by > 50%! We’re all gonna drown!
Don’t mention that the sat data shows a downward trend. Nor orbital decay. And don’t, whatever you do, use anything to adjust sat or gauge data so they are truly comparable data sets. That sort of thing is appropriate for temperature data of course – we can’t use Rutherglen or Alice Springs raw data, it has completely the wrong trend and is obviously wrong.
OK back on topic – look the graph Don showed re GISS temps. Odd, don’t you think, that even after 100+ years, we still haven’t got 1910 temp right? I mean, we’re talking about 0.7C or very roughly half the total change. From adjustments that are made based on the stats of the very same data – not a parallel measurement in the same place and time. So an honest broker would tag that as +- 0.7, yet GISS says +- 0.1!
Arrgh! What’s the point?
Don
If “What we want to know is what our own environment has been like, if such weather details are of interest at all.” then you should include the BOM’s view which indicates substantial warming since 1950’s.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/images/trend-graph.png
Nothing I have found in your various Alternative Facts websites, explains why temperatures sincer 1950 have increased so much. The greenhouse gas explanation, since 1950, seems to fit in with the observed trend better than any other.
Chris, the other websites discussed in this essay use official data. Are you criticising the official data? If so, from what position?
Yes, the greenhouse gas hypothesis works quite well since 1950, though it does not deal well with the sudden reduction of warming after 1998. And alternative explanations that include cyclical patterns or simply the recovery from a prolonged cool period in the 17th and 18th centuries work no less well. In truth there is no decisive reason to prefer the greenhouse gas explanation over the others.. Agreed, the latter do not come with a satisfactory theory based on known natural variability factors, but then the GGE explanation doesn’t pass obvious tests, as I have suggested.
Re cyclical patterns, the real rise in temperature does not seem to be from 1950, but from the late 1970s. There was a long stasis from the 1940s to the 1970s — even a cooling, according to some datasets.
> “Chris, the other websites discussed in this essay use official data. Are you criticising the official data? If so, from what proposition?
Don, —snip — [ I don’t agree]. Burton’s MO is to misuse data, as Tamino demonstrates in an article that runs to over 1,500 words and numerous graphs, detailed explanations and references to the scientific literature notes here: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/unnatural-hazards/
Note that prior to Tamino writing the above article, Burton bombarded Tamino’s website with 15 comments in 48 hours. After the article, not a peep was heard from Burton, even though had expressed a strong interest in ongoing discussion. Some three and half later, Burton still will not show his face. He cannot and will not show his face because Tamino understands the science and the statistics and, unlike Burton, actually gets published in the peer reviewed literature.
You also say:
> Yes, the greenhouse gas hypothesis works quite well since 1950, though it does not deal well with the sudden reduction of warming after 1998.
This is a typical climate revisionist talking point. Once you adjust the data for El Nino, volcanic activity etc the revisionist point melts away. From Tamino:
“Removing the el Niño influence eradicates any hint of a “pause.”
We do note, however, that after removing the el Niño influence, 2016 is no longer the hottest year in the HadCRU data set. But it is in the NASA data, which — after removing el Niño — looks like this:
[graph omitted]
The main reason for the difference is that HadCRU data omit the Arctic, which soared to astounding temperature in 2016. If you leave out the fastest-warming region on Earth, you’re liable to underestimate the global average.
I actually prefer to remove the estimated influence of other things also, like volcanic eruptions and solar variations. Since the last time I did that, I’ve acquired updated data from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. Without further ado, here are annual averages for four major global temperature estimates, after compensating for those natural factors:
[graph omitted]
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/01/19/the-pause-that-never-happened/#more-9258
test
Fail
Chris, I don’t think I’ll bother responding to your personal jibe. But the UAH V 6 satellite data shows that OZ has been cooling for about 18 years and has paused for 21 years 5 months. The S ex tropics have paused for 21 years and SH 19 years. Of course the SP region has been cooling since DEC 1978.
And co2 levels are now over 400ppm at all these locations.
So the planet now has a global warming trend of just 0.32 c/ century since Mar 1998 according to the UAH V 6 data and RSS V 3.3 TLT shows a global trend of 0.6 c/ century since 1998. And all this after a very strong NATURAL el nino.
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2017/01/05/the-pause-update-december-2016/
Neville, the post you link to is junk. Unlike the Tamino post linked to above by my good self, it does not even make the obvious adjustments for ENSO, solar variation or differential volcanic activity. It tells us nothing about AGW. I also note that the author of the article describes himself as a “retired school principal”, so it hardly surprising that he is clueless This is just another case of the blind leading the blind leading the blind. Pathetic really.
Stupid reply so I won’t respond again.
Thank you, god. Or in this case Nga.
Tamino (aka Grant Foster) takes pains to remove ‘known’ influences on climate and (surprise) finds a warming trend. However, he then concludes, based on no evidence whatsoever, that the warming is anthropogenic.
If you look around, you will find he is frequently, and deservedly, subject to quite harsh scientific criticism.
Neville
How many times have you ben told – you cannot cherrypick temperature trends by selecting a start at 1998 – a dramatic El Nino year.
How many times have you ben told that the impact of CO2 is mostly in the northern hemisphere – not necessarily southern nations such as Australia.
If you used UAH ver6 data from Roy Spencer you will see that the warming trend is around 2.5 degrees C per century. Just check out the red line here for Australia’s point:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAHNCDC_trends_v6-vs-v5.6-thru-Mar-2015.gif
From now on please restrict yourself to the full, non-cherry picked, data.
Common Chris, fair suck of the sav. 1998 is just so convenient
Yes we know how the warmies can only cope with an el Nino on the hot end of the graph.
A bit like the Hokey Schtick, hey?
But Mike the Mann could even get a HS out of random noise with his beaut algorithm.
Jimbo’s into Algorithms. He needs to check that one out.
Jimb, you can even use upside down lake sediment, discredited bristlecones, temperature proxies that turn out to be rainfall, it just doesn’t matter with the right algorithm.
It still comes up with a hot blade at the end.
Now that’s what I call an algorithm.
BTW, chrissie, I can only get 1.2c per century out of UAH6:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2017/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2017
But nothing worth mentioning in the last 18 years (with a blade each end to make it fair and balanced) which shows things must be looking up.
Chris it is not a highpoint cherry pack. Look up the York uni RSS V 3.3 TLT with data tool and select 1998.25 or Mar 1998 as used by Ken Stewart. Then look at the graph. But you must think that the IPCC and all the others were cherry picking up to the AR5 publication in 2013?
And your graph for OZ just compares UAH V 5.6 to V 6.
But V 6 definitely shows cooling since 1998. Perhaps more about this later, I’m very busy.
Chris, here is the RSS trend map for 1979 to 2016. You’ll note that nearly all of OZ shows the lightest yellow colour and that is 0 to 1 range per century. I can’t check for the IPCC’s pause period on that map, but I’m sure it shows cooling for OZ.
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html?type=trend&channel=2
Chris,
My standard UAH reference is this one, where Spencer discusses the differences between version 5.6 and 6.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
According to the graph there, the warming per century (1979-2079) would be 1.4 degrees C for version 5.6, and 1.14 degrees C for version 6. I accept that it’s a year or so old, and that the current levels will be a bit higher because of the el Nino, but why would you assume that what we have seen for 36 years will continue for the next 64? What if Neville were right, and the sudden warming from 1979 to 1998 was just the latest of quick warming periods like the apparent one in the first half of the 20th century? As I’ve said elsewhere, 36 years is not a great base for long -term extrapolation.
Don notes the SLR trend by Dave Burton for the globe is about 6 inches per century or 1.5mm year. NOAA SLR is a bit higher at 7.2 inches per century. See the estimate of 1.7mm to 1.8mm year at top of page summary here from NOAA. I’ve used the higher trend of 1.8mm/ century.
But once again we have to ask where is the impact from increased co2 levels after 1950? This is the same trend that occurred over the previous 100 years. So what’s their problem?
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/globalregional.htm
Sigh. The trend is 3.4 mm per year (error margin: ±0.4) according to the satellite data. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Also look at Tamino’s defenestration of the hapless Dave Burton which I link to above.
See my link to NOAA showing about 7.2 inches per century and that’s at the tide gauges where it matters. So Burton is about 1 inch per century different than NOAA, BIG DEAL. And sat data has a big adjustment to get to about 12 inches per century, Please wake up.
The NOAA puts the current rate of sea level rise at 3.2 mm per year. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
The problem, dear lady, is that the things that should have sunk by now, have not.
Bryan do you practice at being pompous, or is it your only known talent?
Grrr, 4th line should read 1.8mm/ year, NOT century.
Rather than answer each apparent objection individually, I thought I might try to make clear what I am trying to do.
(1) In this essay are presented graphs and maps of official data about weather, or climate, if you prefer the term. I prefer weather. If commenters don’t like the official data, or see other possibilities there, they should say so. Telling me that someone else doesn’t like them, or that one of the sources was criticised by someone else again five years ago, cuts no ice with me. I would respond to criticisms about the data themselves.
(2) Tide gauges show a slow increase in sea levels and no recent acceleration. If commenters disagree they should show why. Telling readers that NASA shows a much higher increase drawn from satellite data is just sloppy, unless one argues that the satellite data are better, and makes a decent case. What then are we to make of tide gauge data?
(3) I used GISS data for Australia (drawn from BoM measurements) because I wanted to show Australia in a global context. I have written before about the BoM’s tendency to write the annual state of climate report in scary terms, when there is no need to do so. I trust the ABS, but the BoM not so much. I’ve written about that before too.
(4) CO2 is said to be a well-mixed gas. And by and large that seems to be true. If so, and increases in the amount of CO2 are the principal cause of warming, then warming should be much the same in both hemispheres. This is not the case. If the effect is greater in the northern hemisphere, how is that to be explained?
(5) I seem to need to say this for the umpteenth time: It doesn’t matter how good your statistical techniques are, if the data they are manipulating are no good then the outcome is no good either. I was taught that sternly in the USA fifty years ago. In my view, the SST data for any period prior to say 1950 (and I’m not happy with them really until 1979) are based on such scanty data, and such poor knowledge of oceans, ocean currents and actual measurements, that they are close to fantasy. There are no statistical or mathematical techniques that can turn such ‘estimates’ into real knowledge. It is pointless telling me that this or that technique is worth a look. If commenters take the resulting SST data seriously then that is their privilege. Mine is to regard global data (70 per cent of which are about the oceans) as quite unreliable until the satellite period.
(6) We have 37 years worth of decent data since 1979, an amount much too small to talk about trends. The climate models that do so, to the extent they are based on global data prior to 1979, are fanciful.In any case, they plainly read much too high in terms of warming.
— snip — I will highlight this comment as yet more proof that you are out of your depth:
” CO2 is said to be a well-mixed gas. And by and large that seems to be true. If so, and increases in the amount of CO2 are the principal cause of warming, then warming should be much the same in both hemispheres. This is not the case. If the effect is greater in the northern hemisphere, how is that to be explained?”
Even a schoolboy knows that most of Earth’s land is north of the equator and that land and ocean have different warming properties, currents move water at different temperatures around the hemispheres and man-made aerosol emissions are not evenly mixed . It is just plain embarrassing to think that warming will be uniform. Your comment shows that you have not actually learnt a thing. I really did cringe on your behalf when I read this — snip —.
I guess there has to be a first one. Nga, if you can’t post a comment without personal abuse, I will ban you from the website. I shouldn’t have to snip.
Inasmuch as there is substance in the unsnipped reminder of your comment, you might offer readers links, not to your hyperbole about schoolboys, but to a decent source that might persuade others (i) that the difference between southern and northern hemisphere temperatures is ocean currents, (ii) that aerosols are not well-mixed, (iii) why we would not expect warming to be uniform, given that CO2 is a well-mixed gas, and it is said to be the primary source of global warming, and (iv) that you actually know something about these matters and the issues discussed in the literature.
Donald, if I fished out the “decent sources” (your choice of words) for you, it would give you yet another excuse to spend hours hanging around — snip — WUWT so as to avoid engaging with the real science being conducted by real scientists who work in the relevant field.
In any event, as we have seen before, your definition of a “decent source” is something written by an amateur that confirms your prejudices. This is why, in the OP, you push the amateur dabbler Dave Burton as a man who knows what he is talking about even though if you did your due diligence it would have become apparent that — snip — Anything I select as a “decent source” will be summarily rejected by you based on what you’ve been told on WUWT etc..
My final point, which applies to all amateur commentators here including myself and Don, is that we lack the knowledge, skills and training to judge what is a “decent source” unless we suppress our egos and accept the experience, authority and expertise of our betters. This is just plain conservative wisdom, not to mention common sense, and it explains why 99% of folk see the oncologist about their cancer treatment rather than Marjorie the florist and part-time mixer of herbal potions, who lives across the road from your Aunt Betty, who swears Marjorie cured her gout and bunions.
— snip —
— snip —
“the real science being conducted by real scientists who work in the relevant field.”
Then why quote Tamino? He is (may be) a statistician. Statisticians work with numbers. He is no more credible as a climate scientist than you are, even though he claims to have published in the field. A paper juggling numbers that contains no science whatsoever.
I know nothing, but that is funny Nga.
Marjorie and Aunt Betty analogy…
Nice post
Don merely digests ‘Alternative facts’. Then regurgitates them.
“(5) I seem to need to say this for the umpteenth time: It doesn’t matter how good your statistical techniques are, if the data they are manipulating are no good then the outcome is no good either.”
OK. Well I think the reason you have to keep repeating that is because you keep questioning the algorithms. The algorithms are fine and many of us are very reliant on them in our day jobs unrelated to weather/climate, so we feel the need to defend them. If instead of:
“Fiddling with the past is all too reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984. Maybe there are good reasons, and maybe if I did a lot of work I would find them. ”
you wrote:
“I don’t accept the dataset’s validity, before or after homogenization”
you might find you get much less of a reaction. Pretending to accept the data, and then having a crack at the algorithms used to improve the data gets you into all sorts of tangles.
Jimbo, I used GISS data, and it was about the recent period. I would be interested in why the GISS people did what they did, and no doubt others will find out in due course. I put the graph there because I thought it interesting.
The data I don’t accept are SST for the first half of the 20th century. If you see good reason for believing them, and you plainly do, you might tell us why, rather than telling us how you depend on homogenisation algorithms in your daily work, which I take to mean about today, not seventy years ago.
Still don’t get it, hey jimb?
For algorithms to work they have to be based on factual data.
GIGO !!!
Don,
I enjoy your essays.
Homogenisation of temperature records rests on an assumption that you can turn bad data into good data. I can think of instances where this may work – where a systematic error is identified and appropriate corrections can be applied. This is not the case for temperature records. Consequently, homogenisation in this instance is horribly susceptible to confirmation bias.
With the satellite data we are finally assembling a record on which judgements can be made, particularly about the usefulness of existing climate models.
Keep up you musings.
If the treatment of the Melbourne temperature adjustments by BOM is an
example of the quality of their other homogenized measurements then
there is a need to redefine ACORN analysis.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Tom-Quirk.pdf
Neville
1998 fetishism gets you nowhere.
The full dataset, broken up by regions, demonstrates the facts as best we can know them.
As per Roy Spencer at: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAHNCDC_trends_v6-vs-v5 .6-thru-Mar-2015.gif
Link is:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAHNCDC_trends_v6-vs-v5.6-thru-Mar-2015.gif
Chris where did you get your graph from, I need a link from the site .
Give me a link to the site Chris so I can find the graph.
Neville
The link starts with http:// and ends with -2015.gif
It has been posted three times.
1) January 23, 2017 at 10:45 pm
2) January 24, 2017 at 1:07 pm but this had a typo.
3) January 24, 2017 at 1:08 pm to fix typo.
And you ask for the link !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don we seem to be stuck in a a loop of illogic. It goes like this:
1. you fret over your latest discovery of someone running homogenisation algorithms on some dataset somewhere
2. a bunch of us reply: relax it’s a normal thing to do with time series data
3. you counter with: fine, but for the umpteenth time the SST data is shockingly bad
Not “we” jimb, just you and the rest of the warmies.
We found out about GIGO a long time ago.
How come you don’t get it?
Jimbo, it’s even simpler than you think.
(1) I’ve done good deal of work on SST, and for good reason I think that much of the historic SST is made up, or if you prefer, estimated from elsewhere, some of that ‘elsewhere’ also estimated from elsewhere, even from land.
(2) You neither dispute this nor show that I am wrong to think so.
(3) You seem to believe that there are statistical techniques that will turn estimates of estimates of a spot on 300000 square kilometres of ocean into real, reliable temperatures.
(4) I think you are wrong.
(5) You think I need to learn more about these techniques, none of which so far bear on the question at issue.
(6) There’s no illogic there, just points of view very far apart. I leave you with yours, and will stick to mine unless you or someone else can show me something I haven’t seen yet that would give me some sort of confidence in the reliability and validity of historic SST (and thus in the whole average global temperature endeavour).
Donald says:
“I’ve done good deal of work on SST, and for good reason I think that much of the historic SST is made up, or if you prefer, estimated from elsewhere, some of that ‘elsewhere’ also estimated from elsewhere, even from land.”
This is pure Dunning-Kruger. — snip —
Puerile twit.
Don, see my comment here: http://donaitkin.com/in-terms-of-temperature-what-sort-of-a-year-did-we-have-in-australia/#comment-15615
If it’s the data you’re rejecting then do so, and do so early. You seem to want to have a bet each way in that you’ll allow the bad data, but the instant anyone tries to do anything with it, you’ll complain about the algorithms they use. The algorithms are fine, and I agree with your general assertion that if you feed them white noise, they’re not going to output Beethoven’s 9th.
A simple statement of “I don’t accept the dataset’s validity, before or after homogenization” would have avoided all of this.
The Dunning-Kruger set try to tie you up in minutiae. If you try to discuss evolution with a creationist, he/she will try to tie you up for days in a time wasting discussion about the how the eye is too complex to have evolved or how no-one has ever seen life created from inert material or the lack of intermediates in the fossil record or you name it. If they have a conspiratorial bent — snip — they might wax lyrical about Piltdown Man and the suspicious nature of Homo floresiensis, interspersed with ominous references to George Orwell and 1984. Dunning-Kruger is a stilted and repetitive dance that goes on forever but you can do it also anywhere. Such is life.
Jimbo, I don’t ‘allow the bad data’, I just accept that the mainstream debate assumes the bad data are good data. I have said many times that I don’t accept, for what seem good reasons to me, that SST before about 1950, are worth taking seriously at all. But others do. I try to stay out of statements that involve my using bad data as though they were good. I have said all this many time before.
Interesting how pure-as-the-driven-snow warmies get all het up over a little debate on the facts:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/16/ad-attacks-trumps-epa-pick-for-encouraging-scientific-debate/
They have the hubris to criticise sceptics for wanting to discuss the problem. What do they have to hide in that swamp of theirs?
Nga, I keep snipping your stuff in the hope that if I get rid of the abuse and name-calling I’ll find something sensible. The rewards are small.
I’ve taught a few hundred undergraduates in my time, but never anyone as rude as you. You most resemble a five year-old who has suddenly discovered that there is no Santa Claus, and puts on a terrible tanty.
You ask why I don’t snip SD. Occasionally I feel that I might, but there is a light-heartedness about him entirely lacking in your comments. I don’t know why you haunt this site, since you are apparently uninterested in what I write, other than to rant about something else, indulge in intemperate abuse, and hijack discussion to your ends.
But have you noticed that the snipping actually improves the quality of what you have written?
Define light hearted. SD and a couple of other regulars go out of their way to be sexist for their own entertainment. You don’t complain.
No. I don’t regard much of what SD says as sexist, not do I regard ‘sexism’ as an easily measured attribute.
Bitch!
Another senior moment, Don? I asked why you don’t snip Neville. Anyway, the same applies to SD etc…
” I don’t know why you haunt this site, since you are apparently uninterested in what I write … ”
Why do I visit this site? I told you, but you chose to snip the answer. I see no point in repeating myself.
I find what you write uninteresting because you have not said anything that I haven’t seen on 101 other “revisionist” blogs. Revisionism is, after all, an echo chamber. But I am interested in your motives. Why do you do it? How did you convince yourself of your own wisdom and genius?
As to what you say, it is abundantly clear that debating the itty bitty details of climate science with amateur dabblers is by its very nature absurd. I again recall your interaction with Dr John Hunter, which clearly falsified the notion (how’s that for a nice Popper reference?) that a part-time amateur dabbler can constructively debate the particulars of climate science at a sophisticated level. It isn’t personal, it is just plain common sense and it is readily observable. If Marjorie the florist turned up here and claimed she had the cure for cancer, would you taker her seriously?
‘I find what you write uninteresting because you have not said anything that I haven’t seen on 101 other “revisionist” blogs.’
OK, then leave the rest of us alone and go to the other revisionist blogs, whatever they are. You are a serial pest.
Actually, I am the only commenter here who regularly says something sensible, apart from David, Ross, JimboR and one or two others. One day you will thank me.
Your modesty is simply amazing.
Don this statement
“It seems to be agreed that 2016 was the hottest ever, but with a statistically insignificant increase over 2015, …”
Highlights your misunderstanding of what statistical significance actually means. It’s totally meaningless to make a statement about statistical significance without reference to a data set from which the estimates were obtained.
Rubbish. The increase was less than the error. Go and look at the data.
Well said Don. However, with very large data sets differences that are smaller than the error can sometimes be statistically significant. But such conclusions are spurious as the test usually applied is not designed for this circumstances.
You mean things like using OLS regressions without even testing for, let alone correcting for, autocorrelation?
NASA, NOAA, and HadCRUT4 all say 2016 is the warmest year. Waving away the increase as not statistically significant while ignoring the statistical implication of all three major global temperature data sets saying the same thing demonstrates a profoundly shallow grasp of statistics and impoverished reasoning.
But in any event, what matters more by several orders of magnitude is the trend over a suitably long period. Annual figures bounce around significantly because of variables like ENSO, variable solar input, man made aerosols and volcanic activity. What is the long term trend?
There is absolutely no “statistical significance” in three data sets showing very small differences that are significantly less than the variance in averages being compared. Such a statement displays a profound lack of understanding of statistical methods.
It is certainly true that the long term trend is of interest. The overall evidence that the climate is warming, albeit very slowly, is not really a point of serious debate, except by the ignorant.
What is of more interest is that the warming is occurring at a significantly lower rate than predicted by climate models . This raises some very interesting questions that also need to be addressed. While the debate is constantly framed in adversatorial terms, resolution of these issues becomes increasingly difficult.
I doubt whether IPCC predicted any more warming than this outcome once you remove the distortion due to El Nino.
It would be too much to expect anyone to predict into the future and including the impacts of unknown future El Nino events.
Link to real trend corrected for El Nino is here:
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/nasa_nonino.jpg
“…all three major global temperature data sets saying the same thing…”
Hardly surprising that they would be similar – they all use the same input data sets. That there are differences between them that are the same order as the affect they “show” would seem to indicate that trivial and equally defensible assumptions can have a significant impact on the “result”. In such circumstances, prudence indicates we should not place much faith in any of them.
You don’t compare the difference between two data points with the error. Go ask your brother!
Got a link to support your argument?
Don
For Australia, the recent year was much warmer than the previous year. According to UAH data from Roy Spencer [ http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt ] the average anomoly for last 12 months of record, for Australia, was
0.43
For the previous 12 months the average figure was just:
0.05
There is a big difference between the two.
Also the SOI was deeper in the 1997-98 event compared to the 2015-16 event.
The data is at: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/soi
For 1998 the SOI was negative for 14 months but for 2016 it was negative for only 12 months.
The peak depth of the 1998 event “STAND TAHITI – STAND DARWIN) SEA LEVEL PRESS ANOMALY” was 4.4.
The peak depth of the 2016 event was just, 3.6.
There is a big difference between the two.
In fact, given the weaker recent SOI event, it may be that should 2016 have recorded identical temperatures to 1998, this would still indicate significantly greater warming.
If you remove the impact of El Nino’s you get a clearer picture at the global level:
See here; https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/nasa_nonino.jpg
This represents substantial, significant warming.
Chris, as you observed, I used GISS data because that was what the climate4you website used, and I wanted to show Australia in context. What happens here is not what happens elsewhere — the world has many weathers. If you want to do the same job using Roy Spencer’s data, go for it.
Errata
For 1998 the SOI was negative for 14 months but for 2016 it was negative for only 12 months.
Is not quite right.
This does not make sense because the post it relate to is stuck in so-called “moderation”
Don, “I don’t ‘allow the bad data’, ……I try to stay out of statements that involve my using bad data as though they were good.”
As an example from this essay (but I can find many others if you insist)….
1. Don: “The size of the changes, 0.7 degrees C over ten years is considerable, as are the actual number of changes, most of them slight. Fiddling with the past is all too reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984. Maybe there are good reasons, and maybe if I did a lot of work I would find them.”
2. JimboR: “That paper referenced above shows that the homogenization algorithms that you find Orwellian makes them better estimates of reality. ”
3. Don: “I seem to need to say this for the umpteenth time: It doesn’t matter how good your statistical techniques are, if the data they are manipulating are no good then the outcome is no good either.”
I’ve numbered them so they match the three steps in my loop of illogic above. Why go into all that detail at step 1 when no matter what comes back you’re going to end up at step 3? You do dabble in the ‘bad data’ (you do realise your demonstration of GISS adjustments above spans from 1910 to 2000?) although not particularly convincingly, every time you discuss the legitimacy of the adjustments. When that gets challenged, you invariably fall back to step 3. If you’re always going to end up at “this dataset is invalid”, why not just start there and save us all some time and effort?
Bad data in this context — historic SST. My interest is in why these changes in GISS were made, not the algorithm. There are many bad examples of homogenisation. Are you sure that there are not such cases in GISS?
Don, instead of bleating about the bad data year in year out, how about you actually take us through a data set, show us the bad stuff, explain why it is bad and then calibrate it to your own satisfaction. For a man with your vast understanding of the science and statistics, this should be a doddle. Don’t forget to include all of your calculations so we can check them.
Simply shouting that the data is bad, copying and pasting slabs of text from an amateur blog that confirms your prejudices and invoking George Orwell’s 1984 does not cut it. Some might call it bad data.
“There are many bad examples of homogenisation. Are you sure that there are not such cases in GISS?”
No, I’m not sure, but my starting point is that NASA know something about data processing. Your starting point seems to be some non-conspiracy theory that NASA are trying to protect their jobs by fudging the data to give their masters (ex-masters now) the answer they want, and where better to hide those fudges than in the homogenisation algorithms.
Now if you were to present some evidence of _that_ (*) then I’d sit up and take notice, but in the meantime all we get is FUD in the form of: “The size of the changes, 0.7 degrees C over ten years is considerable, as are the actual number of changes, most of them slight. Fiddling with the past is all too reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984. Maybe there are good reasons, and maybe if I did a lot of work I would find them.”
(*) I emphasise _that_ to indicate that I mean dishonest homogenisation, or biased homogenisation or whatever it is your FUD is meant to insinuate. Instead all we get is evidence that NASA run homogenisation algorithms, a very unsurprising observation to anyone who’s dealt with time series data.
It’s usually about now that you retreat to “I seem to need to say this for the umpteenth time: It doesn’t matter how good your statistical techniques are, if the data they are manipulating are no good then the outcome is no good either.” and we all wonder why we bothered engaging. It always ends in “this dataset is invalid”.
“Now if you were to present some evidence of _that_ …”
It’s circumstantial evidence, but…
Why would an agency tasked with jobs such as putting a man on the moon and sending a robot to Mars, disregard satellite data from their own satellites and instead invest millions in ways to “correct” surface data that they themselves do not collect, and why would such corrections as they do make continually push this surface record further from their own sat data, even where the sat data has been verified by reference to actual temperature measurements (balloon data)?
Why would such an agency distribute a press release under their own banner proclaiming a new record, and then kick questions regarding the accuracy and precision of the data to one of its sister agencies?
Why would I trust the pronouncements of an agency that doesn’t even rebuke an employee who has made public statements that can easily be shown to be known by the author to be at best misleading and at worst an outright lie?
Now none of the above is definitive evidence of bad faith (although the last is right on the line), however even pointing these things out is liable to have one denigrated as some sort of conspiracy theorist and the questions left unaddressed. This fact, together with the above questions (there are more, but this is a start) certainly creates an “interesting” situation. If there were only scientific curiosity at stake, not many would care. However there is quite literally trillions of dollars (globally) resting on actions taken based on this “data” – public money, for the most part. A little due diligence doesn’t seem like too much to ask in such cases – we certainly appear to spend more time and money investigating other “reports” that have significantly less financial impact.
Jimb, try a little reality for a change. For instance, what does it take to get that sampling SSTs through a ship’s intake where, with a beam sea roll, almost unavoidable in ships of that era, it could be sampling any SSTs in the top 10 metres or so of the ocean but in smooth conditions it would be sampling at whatever depth the intake was. Which would vary from ship to ship.
Have you ever checked what temp variation there is in the top 10 m in any given part of the ocean?
In deep water it is common to have a temperature variation in that top 10m that is far greater than the total measured warming.
Even the new Argo data has problems with quality but the earlier stuff makes the Cloncurry record temp of 57c look like clinical precision in comparison.
And you know what the gatekeepers did with the old Cloncurry record.
Crap data, jimb !
JimboR I am confident Earth will start to cool under Trump’s presidency just as it warmed under Obama 2nd presidency; shortly after he was converted to being a believer of the AGW religion.
If you haven’t got something factual and rational to say, please don’t stuff this blog up for the rest of us. I enjoy Don’s efforts, but see no reason why he should put up with insults and ignorance and I have no wish to scan though heaps of dross to get to the occasional useful comment. So please, stick to the facts and try to add something useful that we can all benefit from.
Happy Australia Day All
My irritation with these recent “hottest year on record” assessments is twofold. For the past three years they have been presented to us before the year has ended and therefore before a complete dataset is in place. In 2014 this was in mid-December. In 2015 it was in mid-November. And in 2016 The Guardian newspaper told us 2016 was shaping up to be the “hottest” in August, a prediction affirmed by our ABC in mid-November. Each of these years, coincidentally, had important Climate conferences scheduled, at Lima, Paris and Geneva respectively.
My second irritation is that our news service never quite tell us what they mean by “since records began”. One assumes they mean since instrumentation was standardised in 1909. This certainly saves them from taking a look at western NSW temperatures in the decade and a half previous to 1909 that dwarf recordings since.
These are world wide records !!! I hardly think some temperatures that you claim are missing for Western NSW pre 1909 are going to affect a 100 year global trend.
” As I have argued before, there is no human being who has ever experienced a global average temperature, unless coincidentally, and for a moment or two. What we want to know is what our own environment has been like, if such weather details are of interest at all.”
I’m sorry Don, I struggle to absorb the import of the first sentence and then the second sentence seems to cancel any importance of whatever … ? Why don’t we all just pull a sheet over our heads then?
I may be dumb.
(No Bryan, Spangled and dlb that’s not an invitation).
Your not dumb, Margaret. Don’s statement was pure gobbledegook. Which can be fun.
Global average temperature has little impact on whether I need sunscreen or a raincoat.
Showing changes in the specific areas where most readers live provides them with a better understanding of the historical significance of recent weather.
Deep analysis.
Do my best, Margaret, and maybe I could have worked on it longer. But, take it slowly.
(1) At any given time, according to the climate datasets, there will be a global average temperature. For the sake of an example, I plump for 15 degrees Celsius.
(2) Where I live at the moment, that temperature probably didn’t occur over the past two days , and I was away somewhere else where it certainly didn’t occur.
(3) In the UK, it may have occurred briefly somewhere in the south when clouds cleared. We can find somewhere else where 15 degrees C was the score for part of a day.
(4) None of us lives with the global average temperature. It is the average of everywhere. It will remain around the average for the whole year. Your weather and mine will change with the seasons. But the average is the average of the seasons.
(5) On a previous thread, Margaret, I think you said you didn’t care much about this whole global warming issue. And most people are like you.
(6) So the second sentence says that, unless you are really interested in this global warming stuff, you won’t be interested in the argument.
(7) If you need further help, I’ll do my best!
Just briefly, before I tackle the explanation – you’ve misconstrued whatever I said that led you to believe I don’t care about AGW Don. I do care very much. I didn’t like to feel catastrophised about it, but I’m not a ‘sceptic’ and believe that the effects of AGW have negative consequences for humankind that will impact on us all long past the cranking up of your air conditioner in the Canberra summer.
Thanks for the patient explanation broken down into manageable chunks of 7 parts.
1) Uh huh I get it
2) Yes, I see
3) 15 degrees Celsius when clouds cleared in the south of the UK …
4) Ok that’s logical but as you say in point 5) a pretty uninteresting fact for anyone not in the field of the study of weather.
5) I’ve addressed that and said that I care.
6) Who, apart from a scientist, IS actually interested in this stuff, lay people on a level of asperger syndrome? Neville?
We ‘most people’ are leaving it to the scientists who work in the field of climate science.
7) Thanks but no thanks.
Revision.
4) Should read, “as you intimate in point (5 … “
And for some light humour, if all else fails Margaret, you can go with this survey:
http://www.theonion.com/article/cockroaches-feeling-very-optimistic-about-future-p-55154
Thank you, Don, for a most interesting essay. My Gaad! The warmists are rude. I haven’t read all of their comments – a waste of time.
Don, I think you should leave this topic alone. There is no debate any more. The so-called “Science” of human induced climate change has been debunked at almost every level. Even the “luke warmists” are retreating. The question now is the political will to build new coal fired power stations as the Japanese, Chinese and even the Germans are doing in significant numbers, to remove the RET and stop subsidising renewable energy sources like wind and solar. These steps will have the additional benefit of lowering the cost of energy to ordinary Australians and rescuing our poorest citizens from the disaster of energy poverty. You’d think the ALP would be interested in this but they stopped being a party of the people a long time ago. The Greens are now three quarters of the way to becoming a new Communist Party, committed as their Left faction says, to the destruction of capitalism and thereby poverty for all. Pauline Hanson anyone?
Anyone unwise enough to take seriously the antics of the amateur climate revisionists (I refuse to call them skeptics) who bleat about bad data should read very carefully this classic Anthony Watts thread. Wise folk may like to read it also, as it neatly illustrates how Dunning-Kruger operates. Those who are unable to stomach the antics of Watts’ fans might prefer Eli Rabbett’s abridged version of Watts’ unceremonious defenestration.
My synopsis: Watts uses a postcard (sic!) to make a point about poor placement of weather stations in Antarctica, not knowing that the weather station in the postcard is a local one, only used by pilots and the irregular visitors to the adjacent temporary camp. An Australian Antarctic Division employee who has stayed at the camp adjacent the station explains to Watts that not all weather stations are adjacent to human habitation and they no longer need to be visited because they are automated through ARGOS. Watts, apparently unaware of the ARGOS system, sarcastically tries to correct the AAD employee … by confusing ARGOS with ARGO! Watts also resolutely refuses to believe ARGOS has automated weather reporting since 1984, even after the AAD employee gives him a reference that is easily confirmed.
Watts hand waves away his mixing up of ARGOS and ARGO by saying he thought the AAD employee had pluralised ARGO, yet this would make no sense at all because ARGO is a robotic ocean buoy system! It has absolutely nothing to do with land based weather stations.
But what I found most interesting (since Watts’ readily observable incompetence is too obvious to be genuinely interesting) is the unshakable faith of Watts’ followers, with one breathlessly declaring:
” Anthony, your credibility remains unchanged with me.”
Religion, anyone?
How could anyone take seriously a chemistry lecturer who thinks himself a bunny pretending to be a climate expert. Dunning – Kruger indeed.
Yet here you are, with pleated skirt and poms poms, cheerleading for someone with even less reason to claim expertise.
“But what I found most interesting (since Watts’ readily observable incompetence is too obvious to be genuinely interesting) is the unshakable faith of Watts’ followers…”
Heh. Suggest you read this and note how well Gavin is still regarded by the CliSci community:
https://climateaudit.org/2009/02/04/gavins-mystery-man-revealed/
Since alarmists are want to evade CA, the precis is: Gavin Schmidt og NASA GISS deliberately and with knowledge afore, obfuscated his own roll in this sorry affair, willfully soliciting credit for a discovery he did not make and suppressing the identity of those whom he knew beforehand actually deserved the credit.
So it’s not al one sided, this blind faith…
I wonder how Gavin is going to fare under Trump? being an activist blogger and employed by NASA.
Maybe he has the guts to go with Spencer in the same room.Gavin is a pompous twit- in the mould of Mann. Out into the sewer with these climate alarmists and their fellow travellers.
David, NGA, Ross, Margaret Jimbo R et all
Happy New Year – I have yet another warmist joke for you to kick off 2017.
On 1 August 2008 The Guardian reported “In just 100 month’s time, if we are lucky, and based on a quite conservative estimate, we could reach a tipping point for the beginnings of a runaway climate change:.”
Well, well the 100 months ended 1 January 2017 and during that time CO2 emissions rate has increased.
So what happened to the “tipping point? Answer-Gone with the plethora of other nonsense climate doomster predictions.
Let’s have a good laugh. HA ha ha!
“If we are lucky” ” we could reach a tipping point”?
Just shows they are not really concerned about the future of the earth. It’s all about their ideology being right.
Agreed, JMO, and well done!. One should not confuse newspaper columnists, or retired gentlemen with too much spare time and a barrow to push for that matter, with experts on science matters such as evolution, the efficacy of vaccinations and climate change. Most of us intuitively know this to be true from a young age, others such as yourself, don’t. Anyway, congratulations on your first baby step in the direction of reality. Best wishes!
“experts on science matters such as evolution, the efficacy of vaccinations and climate change”
Mechanics too…. they’re in the pockets of big-automotive and the NTSB:
http://robertmoorejr.tumblr.com/post/110101466091/im-an-anti-braker
Thanks NGA for the Antarctic weather station pointer from the Anthony Watts archives. You’ve demonstrated at least twice now that all these blogs rely heavily on experts in the field not turning up. On the rare occasions they do, it all comes off the rails very quickly. But somehow you’ve got to admire Watts’ crash-through or crash approach even though it was excruciating to watch… slow motion train wreck stuff. Never take a step backwards seems to be the approach.
Thanks, JimboR. Brandolini’s Law applies, that is to say, the energy required to refute b?llshit is an order of magnitude greater than that necessary to create it. Just how much effort is necessary for a pretender like Watts to manufacture a story, such as the one we’ve discussed that is based on a postcard(sic!), and feed it to the worshipful mob? I reckon 10 minutes max. It probably took Ian and Glen three or four times as long to deconstruct Watts’ OP nonsense and the nonsense that came after it, such as his conflation of ARGOS and ARGO.
ps. Do you know if any bona fide climate scientists apart from Dr John Hunter have turned up here? If so, did Don treat them the same way he treated Dr Hunter?
I thought John Hunter was an ecologist like other ” climate experts” such as Flannery (palaeontology) and Lesley Hughes (ecology).
dlb says:
> I thought John Hunter was an ecologist like other … [etc etc etc]
The Dr John Hunter who turned up and wasted his breath in a non-conversation with Don is an oceanographer. https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-hunter-17114
As to Flannery, I have know idea what he thinks about climate change nor do I care. But I have books he has written that pertain to his expertise including, The Future Eaters, and his book on New Guinea mammals. Both were ground breakers. I don’t know who “Hughes” is so I can’t comment on him.
Dlb, old boy, my outlook is strictly conservative and elitist and it goes like this: if you want advice on:
(a) treating your cancer, you consult Phil the respected and experienced oncologist not Mavis the nail technician and part time spiritual healing aromatherapy fish-slapper.
(b) climate matters, you consult a well published and experienced scientist with the requisite skills, who is in the prime of his productive life, and not Cecil the elderly retired blogger who is searching for meaning and significance in his otherwise inglorious Golden Years.
I guess I’m just an old fashioned gal …
NGA – I know all 3 matters you mentioned above are correct. I am not a creationist, neither a vaccination nor climate change denier. DO NOT say I don’t know these to be true.Climates change past present and future and CO2 is a contributor. It is the climate doomsters and their rude, arrogant belligerent behaviour (as you, David and JimboR continually, consistently and clearly demonstrate) that I despise.
There is a plethora of failed climate predictions out there and yet I have yet to hear any of them admit they got were wrong – inverably they come out with another one. Did you hear the former Chief Scientist said we have 5 years to save the planet…8 years ago! Have we heard any announcement from that person admitting they were wrong. NO!
By the way, I know an climate doomster who is both a Holocaust and vaccination denier.
Three consecutive years 2014, 2015, and 2016 broke global temperature recrords. The Guardian was correct.
Happy New Year to you to JMO
I have to clear up a few points about the UAH V 6 OZ temp trend. The latest Dec update for UAH V6 from Roy Spencer clearly shows the full trend ( Dec 1978 to Dec 2016) to be 1.6 c/ century, not 2.4 c/ century. Here is the link.
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
And Bob Tisdale shows a flat trend from August 1995 to 2016, neither cooling or warming.
Bob Tisdale says:
January 26, 2017 at 5:08 am
“ngard2016, for the period of the December 1978 to Dec 2016, the UAH TLT v6.0 for Australia is 0.16 Deg C/decade:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
For the period you requested (Aug 1995 to Dec 2016), the trend is 0.00 deg C/decade, no warming, no cooling}”. That’s no OZ warming for over 21 years.
Cherry picking
You have no idea – especially about picking cherries. Oh, it’s all about cherries you vacuous unit.
No use getting cross Glen. Dividing up the dataset into segments to suit ones argument is called cherry picking.
Neville
Tisdale is a nuisance who has been debunked here:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/11/bob-tisdales-illusion-and-conspiracy.html
His statement, which you have copied that
That’s no OZ warming for over 21 years.
is FALSE. BOM data shows there has been clear warming over the last 21 years.
Chris you are comparing apples with oranges again. Your data is BOM surface data and I’m quoting UAH V 6 TLT. According to AGW theory the TLT should warm faster than the surface data, but this has not been the case since 1978.
In fact the full global data shows UAH V 6 just 1.2 c/ century and RSS V 3.3 is 1.35 c/ century.
And OZ from the full data for UAH V 6 has warmed 1.6 c/ century and has paused since Aug 1995. Here is the info from your BOM link. Note ground based, homogenised temp records and only since 1910.
ACORN-SAT station data and network
“The ACORN-SAT dataset includes data from 112 locations across Australia which provide homogenised, ground-based temperature records. The locations are chosen to maximise the length of record and network coverage across the country. Combined, these stations hold over 100 years of records”.
This is not really my sword-fight. But it would be much fairer to say that Su at HotWhopper ‘disputes’ Tisdale’s arguments. My quick reading of her attack brought up lots of assertions and lots of abuse, but not much argument. Tisdale is a data guy, and can look after himself. He uses official data. You can argue with him about why he chooses this or that official dataset, but that’s what he uses.
And I not one of those who believes that BoM is entirely disinterested in what it reports and argues. Jennifer Marohasy and others have shown real discrepancies in the temperature data used, homogenised and selected by the Bureau.
Don:
> “And I not one of those who believes that BoM is entirely disinterested in what it reports and argues. “
Are you suggesting that the BoM management and/or employees are colluding to nudge the data in a certain direction with a particular outcome in mind, Don? If not, then what are you are suggesting? Do you have any actual evidence to support your feeling other than the uncorroborated and unsubstantiated accusations of Jennifer Marohasy? Have you independently checked each of Marohasy’s claims? Have you sought comment from the BoM in respect of her accusations? Have you obtained all of the skills necessary to make your own independent analyses of each and every detail so that understand everything as well as the foremost expert?
Of course my questions are rhetorical. Almost no-one ever checks anything that thoroughly nor would it be reasonable to expect anyone to do so. Ultimately we are left to make a decision with fragmentary and impaired knowledge, so who do we go with, Barry the Oncologist (BoM) or Cyril the aromatherapy fish-slapper (Jen Marohasy)? My policy is to always go with Barry.
BTW, Bob Tisdale is an elderly amateur blogger with no credentials or established body of work who has been caught on numerous occasions cooking the books and making elementary errors by a well credentialed and respected researcher with a significant body of work, that being Grant Foster [eg Foster and Rahmstorf (2011)] . It’s quite embarrassing actually: https://tamino.wordpress.com/?s=bob+tisdale
So once against we must choose between Barry the Oncologist (mainstream science) and Cyril the aromatherapy fish-slapper (Bob Tisdale). Gee whiz, this is gonna be a tough one …
Nga
You will find Don has an intellectual bond with people like Morasy, that can best be described as “in the closset”
“Are you suggesting that the BoM management and/or employees are colluding to nudge the data in a certain direction with a particular outcome in mind, Don?”
I’m pretty sure Don is on the record as having said that, or at least strongly insinuating it. Apparently their first priority is to provide the government of the day with the answers they want to hear, reporting what their instruments and research reveal is a lower priority. I suspect that reflects more on Don’s professionalism in the social sciences than it does on anyone at the BoM. If political and social “scientists” behave like that, surely it’s reasonable to assume real scientists do too.
Jimbo, you do seem to have a case of short-term memory loss.
I’ve already pointed out above that agencies and departments need to toe the Government policy line. Most try to do better, spinning whatever they have so that it looks supportive of the Minister’s position. What NOAA and NASA have done in the past was not surprising, anymore than BoM’s finding a warming trend by choosing the sites that report it, and homogenising past data likewise. I expect a change under the Trump administration, and in Australia both sides say blandly that they accept the science (whatever they mean by that).
So just to be perfectly clear….. you think the BoM’s homogenisation algorithms are designed to bias the answer towards the result the government wants to hear (currently warming)? And if One Nation were to be swept to victory, and Senator Malcolm Roberts end up the relevant minister, they would bias them to show cooling?
I see confirmation not so much because I think your statement lacks clarity, but because I’m gobsmacked that you could believe that, and don’t want to mis-quote you elsewhere.
seek confirmation
Don, what you are suggesting is the very definition of a conspiracy theory.. You are a conspiracy theorist.
Jimbo, my words were plain enough. I have no objection to your quoting them anywhere. They might do some good.
Don
You flip flop. Earlier you said the BoM was worse than the ABS and now when pressed on this claim you retreat to “all agencies”.
I suggest you proof read your stuff before you hit send.
Another fave term from the scaremongers:debunked. Useless moronic stuff from the usual brainwashed. Pity them.
Anyone can check Nevilles statement that:
That’s no OZ warming for over 21 years.
Data is downloadable from here:
http://tinyurl.com/jb7mdon
The last 21 years Annual Mean Temperature measurements are [Anomaly]:
0.52
0.2
0.85
0.2
-0.15
-0.06
0.6
0.6
0.43
1.03
0.39
0.63
0.34
0.81
0.2
-0.13
0.12
1.2
0.91
0.83
0.87
Obviously this is an increase.
Chris, this temperature increase using BOM surface data is not statistically significant.
The P value calculates out as 0.1329 over the 21 years. You need to have a P value of less than 0.05 to be significant.
Graph out those Temperature values against years , it just looks like noise.
What was your nul hypothesis?
We know that weather data fluctuates year by year – but over time a rising tendency is there.
If you graph the data, the linear trend can be seen – 2.8C per century. This is rather high because the impact of El Nino has not been extracted..
If it was just noise – the noise would cancel out.
If you cancel out 1997-98 and 2015-2016 (El Nino effect), the rising tendency is greater in the remaining data..
My null hypothesis is that the relationship between Australian mean temperature and time (years) is a positive factor. This does not hold out over the last 21 years as there is too much inter-annual variability (noise) to statistically validate any trend.
However over the last 39 years there is a significant trend of around 0.15c per decade. Take it back to 1910 and the trend reduces to 0.1c per decade. Interestingly the surface data for Australia seems to ramp up around 1960 showing no pause, while the satellite data instead shows a big step change at the 1998 El Nino with subsequent temps generally higher but with a slightly negative, insignificant trend. This step change at the El Nino has been noted at other places around the globe.
With such a difference between the satellite and surface recordings it makes you wonder whether the surface temps are influenced by factors such as urbanisation and vegetation clearing.
Hi Don. I see the new government in America has decided that any findings or data coming out of the Eviromental Protection Agency must now be vetted by a political appointee before being released publicly.
Did you say Orwellian, Don? Vetting scientific data? This isn’t funny.
As far as I am aware.much of this is standard for a new administration, especially one that has strong views about this area. James Hansen, it has to be said, seemed to lead a charmed life.
Donald Trump also apparently wants to restore torture as an instrument of state policy. Any thoughts on that, Don? From News Corp, which I gather you take seriously:
“DONALD Trump has hinted at a massive shake-up of how the United States conducts its war on terror.
The new President has openly declared he believes torture works, saying he’d be willing to wage war against terrorists using techniques so brutal they were outlawed by the previous administration.
Meanwhile, an unconfirmed draft executive order has been leaked that, if issued, could see the CIA bring brutal torture techniques back into secret prisons under the Trump administration.
The Senate overwhelmingly voted to ban torture across the US government in 2015, and already Mr Trump is facing a backlash from senior members of his own party over his brash remarks.” http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/donald-trump-may-be-seeking-to-reinstate-torture-methods-for-detained-terrorist-suspects/news-story/7d265cf92958ef86c9258391c60e6116
I know it isn’t really on topic but you do appear to have an overwhelming obsession with things Orwellian (you have raised the spectre of the Orwellian on this thread and numerous others) and I seem to recall Winston Smith having a rough time of it at the hands of the state sanctioned torturers in 1984.
Chris, here is the RSS V 3.3 TLT trend map from 1979 to 2016. You’ll note that nearly all of OZ shows the lightest yellow colour and that is 0 to 1 range per century.
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html?type=trend&channel=2
This contradicts:
“That’s no OZ warming for over 21 years.”
QED
Chrissy, if it says virtually no OZ warming over 38 years why is it NOT saying: “That’s no OZ warming for over 21 years.”???
The fact that you warmies embrace BoM data when you know what they have done to the data [but pretend you don’t] and how they resist auditing is enough to make any rational person somewhat wary of you lot.
BTW, do you know of any gatekeepers who are not of the warmy persuasion other than the satellite gatekeepers?
Drongo dribble
Data dodger chrissie rationality.
Neville
The full set of UAH data from 1979 for Australia shows around 1.54C per century.
Little segments over shorter time frames may well average out at close to zero, but this is overwhelmed by the full dataset.
OZ Annual anomaly UAH since 1979 are [39 annual averages]:
-0.26
0.25
-0.15
-0.40
-0.23
-0.47
-0.36
-0.35
-0.29
0.24
-0.34
0.06
0.15
-0.51
-0.20
-0.26
0.09
0.17
-0.15
0.69
0.02
0.06
0.01
0.47
0.22
0.26
0.50
0.23
0.29
-0.12
0.35
0.03
-0.04
-0.07
0.44
0.30
0.04
0.45
If you graph these and add a linear trendline you will see a general underlying warming trend of over 1.5C century for Australia.
Saying “That’s no OZ warming for over 21 years.” is very different to saying there is negligible warming in the lower troposphere over Australia for 21 years”.
Your statement was wrong – the second is plausible but ignores the context.
In any case, the BOM data indicates the real facts wrt OZ warming.
Likewise the UAH tropospheric data over Australia for the last 21 years is statistically insignificant with a whooping P value of (0.88). The trend over the full 39 years is however significant and as you say 0.15C per decade. Much of this is due to the warming during the Eighties, whatever the cause?
Well, well, GISS is the only stat sig warming. Why am I not surprised?
“On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 0 and 23 years . Cl stands for the confidence limits at the 95% level.
The details for several sets are below.
For UAH6.0: Since November 1993: Cl from -0.009 to 1.784
This is 23 years and 2 months.
For RSS: Since July 1994: Cl from -0.005 to 1.768 This is 22 years and 6 months.
For Hadcrut4.5: The warming is statistically significant for all periods above four years.
For Hadsst3: Since March 1997: Cl from -0.003 to 2.102 This is 19 years and 9 months.
For GISS: The warming is statistically significant for all periods above three years.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/26/warmest-ten-years-on-record-now-includes-all-december-data/
DLB you have developed a fetish about the significance of statistical significance.
These data are yearly global averages. To obtain a stastically significant trend one can simply increase the sample size by using daily data for every capital city etc.
Reducing the evidence for AGW to 20 or so data points and then claiming a lack of statistical significance is pretty transparent.
Lift your game.
David, I have done two units of stats at uni, as they say a little knowledge is dangerous. But it is also fun!
And how many units have you studied?
If you happen to have read this thread, it is not about global averages it is about lower tropospheric satellite measurements over Australia. Lift your game!
I was only using 21 data points as Chris and Neville were arguing about the last 21 years in Australia having no warming.
If you have done the 2 units of stats, as you claim, then you will recall that estimates of standard deviation etc are influenced by sample size.
The fact that the 21 data points were provided to you by someone else is not an excuse to bastardize the science of statistical inference.
David I ask again how many units of stats have you studied?, or are you one of NGA’s Dunning Krugerites?
Of course 21 data points in this case are insufficient, which is why Neville and Chris don’t have any legitimacy in saying the Australian troposphere warmed or cooled over this period. However some counties may have less year to year variability and in this case a sample size of 21 years would be sufficient to see a trend if present.
dlb you write
” … of course 21 data points in this case are insufficient, which is why Neville and Chris don’t have any legitimacy in saying the Australian troposphere warmed or cooled over this period.”
Dlb if you go to the link CW provided and download the time series as monthly data then re-run the regression for the 21 years using these monthly data, you will find the warming trend does become statistically significant. (p-value = 0.003). So yes the warming trend is statistically significant.
But this issue is no longer central to the AGW debate. But the more important questions are
1. Has this temperature increase been important for the climate?
2. Will temperature continue to rise.?
Chris show us your link for your row of numbers. Bob Tisdale has been doing this for a long time and I’ll trust his claim that UAH V 6 data shows a pause for OZ for over 21 years.
Neville
You provided the link. Just click on:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Okay, that’s funny!
I’ve been away from base for two days, and that has meant a few comments stayed in moderation. I do my best to follow what is happening on the website, but on this occasion I was not able o check what was going on. There are places where there is no coverage…
I’ll let Carl Sagan have the last word:
“In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. ”
Climate ‘research’ is politics or religion, or possibly both. It is not science.
Max Planck:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
Old men almost never learn, instead they try to drown out the truth with old man shouting. But we can take comfort in the fact of their impending death and with it the green shoots of revival.
Since we are letting Carl Sagan have the last word on global warming this link may be of interest
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/climatecrocks.com/2011/09/05/carl-sagan-on-global-warming/amp/
Don says:
“I’ve already pointed out above that agencies and departments need to toe the Government policy line. Most try to do better, spinning whatever they have so that it looks supportive of the Minister’s position. What NOAA and NASA have done in the past was not surprising, anymore than BoM’s finding a warming trend by choosing the sites that report it, and homogenising past data likewise. I expect a change under the Trump administration.”
It is easy to falsify Don’s conspiratorial view of science by looking at real world examples. Consider genetically modified food. In Europe most major political parties, the public and the noisy green activists are dead set against it. The politicians in Europe would be much happier if the science behind genetically modified food was to vanish and never reappear. Unsurprisingly, after the Chief Scientific Adviser to the President of the European Commission, Anne Glover, delivered her verdict in support of the safety and efficacy of GM food, her position was abolished! But in spite of the incredibly hostile political and social environment, the dearth of funding and the banning of most genetically engineered foods in nearly all European countries, the European Food Safety, the major science academies, and nearly scientific panels convened by governments have supported genetically modified food.
Don may have pretentiously placed a quote by Karl Popper in the masthead of his blog, but he clearly has not read or understood Popper’s work, including the need to bin a theory once has been tested and falsified. Amen.
My last comment for this thread. I have cross-posted, at the end of my essay, a short article I read this morning. It deals with a particular case of homogenisation, this one in Capetown, where the author was born. There are several similar examples in Australia, none of which make good sense when you explore them, as Jennifer Marohasy and others have done.
This is rather embarrassing, Don. You say:
“I have cross-posted, at the end of my essay, a short article I read this morning. It deals with a particular case of homogenisation, this one in Capetown, where the author was born.”
All you have done is cut and paste a huge slab of text from the WUWT climate revisionist (fake skeptic) website. You and I have no idea how accurate the data in the article is and we have not seen an explanation of the homogenisation or the formulas used, assuming the data is accurate. You treat WUWT as a source of infallible information, even though I and many others have provided ample evidence of Watts’ sheer incompetence. It would seem that, in your mind, Anthony Watts has something akin to papal infallibility and the text on his blog is a sacred thing that is impervious to error. Religion, anyone?
Of course, you have also chosen to ignore my well-argued and well-evidenced refutation of your conspiratorial view of science.
Yes, Don, shame on you for exposing the “adjusters” to a little scrutiny.
You should be quite prepared to embrace Church, White, Hunter et al whose superior scientific knowledge of how to measure a pear-shaped Geoid with a circular orbital satellite always produces exact results.
Plus all those other gatekeepers who we know from insights into their emails are so scrupulous.
You’re obviously supporting the wrong religion altogether.
You must realise that this is the same Philip Lloyd who had the hubris to suggest in a peer reviewed paper that because the climate natural variability during the recent Holocene was around twice our current warming that we shouldn’t be too concerned.
This wonderful science theory of man made global warming that our models just keep reassuring us about must simply not be allowed to fail.
Nga, you really are a one. Do you know what cross-posting means? You may not know how accurate the data are, but since the author gives the references, you could have looked it up. Oh, you didn’t. Oh, but you know there’s something dodgy about it all. Oh. How clever you must be.
The passage I quoted is self-sufficient, since it contains all the sources one needs to verify its truth. Given that, I took it at face value. If you read WUWT carefully, Nga, you would realise that it contains an immense amount of data-based argument, of which this piece is an excellent example. But no, you opt for the ad hominem position, if it is available.
And your imagined ‘well-argued and well-referenced refutation of [my] conspiratorial view of science’ takes us to GM foods, which is not part of the current thread (but wotthehell, Archie), contains no references, and is an assertion, not an argument. Once again, your modesty is compelling.
Don:
“The passage I quoted is self-sufficient, since it contains all the sources one needs to verify its truth.”
Actually it contains just the one link, which to GISS that does not work: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_141688160000_0_0/station.txt
Clearly you did not bother checking the link because if you did you would no it doesn’t work.
The article also says: “Being curious, I asked for the metadata. Eventually I got a single line, most of which was obvious, latitude, longitude, height above mean sea level, followed by four or five alphanumerics. This was no basis for the “adjustments” to the raw data.”
Contra what you say, the article does not contain or link to a document containing this metadata so we cannot possibl;y verify its existence let alone its truth!
The article also does not contain (a) the homogenisation formulas or (b) a comment from those responsible for the homogenisation and the decision to exclude some data, that explains why these choices were made.
Accordingly, the article provides no basis whatsoever for judging the quality of the temperature record GISS use for Cape Town. We do, however, have a good basis for judging the quality of the author, namely his ridiculous inclusion of a fake Time magazine cover which he thought was real!
grrr… should be: Clearly you did not bother checking the link because if you did you would know it doesn’t work.
Nga,
As I said, I took it at face value, and you’re right the link doesn’t work. But it’s not hard to find a good one. The graph from the GISS website has been posted above, at the end of the other ones.
Hot off the presses, and a must read for anyone who takes Anthony Watts and Don Aitkin seriously. The WUWT article Don links to in the postscript to his essay contains a supposed Time magazine cover with the heading “How to Survive the Coming Ice Age”. The Time magazine cover is in fact a well known fake that routinely turns up on fake skeptic websites. If I remember correctly, this isn’t even the first time it has appeared on WUWT. Time magazine tells the story here: http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/
Do you see that tiny thing flying out the window, Don? That was your last shred of credibility.
But why don’t you tell us about the ones they wrote inside?:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/Time-Ice-Age-06-24-1974-Sm.jpg
“this one in Capetown, where the author was born. There are several similar examples in Australia, none of which make good sense when you explore them”
Perhaps it depends how well you explore them. Where you see conspiracy I see the homogenisation algorithm working as intended. Take away that guy’s 5 year average filter and you’ll see it actually drops like a brick at one point in the early 60s. Dig a little further and you’ll see that corresponds with a station move at exactly that time. An earlier station move in about 1950 pushed it up a smidge so the effect was even worse. Check the timing of the red diamonds in the second graph here:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/158976
Don I suspect your entire outlook on this stuff would completely change if you just used more reputable sources.
So what are your bases for the adjustments, jimbo?
You simply don’t know!
Jimbo, I use data. Always. What we are at odds about is whether or not the data have been homogenised, and if so, according to which rules. And whether or not inquirers are told anything.
Jimbo, repeat after me: ‘Don does not see conspiracies!’ Where you see me seeing conspiracy, I see government departments doing their job according to the line that their present ministers adopt. As it happens I’ve been in the government system, at a decently high level, and I’ve seen how what the Minister wants affects the way data and argument are presented. A good example was Martin Parkinson’s trumpeting the Labor Government’s climate change line when he was the secretary of the relevant department. I thought that was wrong at the time, but these days all secretaries are on contract., and some are believers anyway.
As to this particular example, I’ll comment on WUWT along the line you argue and see if I can get a response from the author. This is what he said about the rules: ‘Being curious, I asked for the metadata. Eventually I got a single line, most of which was obvious, latitude, longitude, height above mean sea level, followed by four or five alphanumerics. This was no basis for the “adjustments” to the raw data.’ Maybe the alphanumerics were part of the explanation, but if you aren’t given the key, they’re not much use.
And it is not clear what processing the BEST people have done, at least not to me. To you?
I’m with you Jimbo and Nga on this WUWT article. Not very wise taking such articles at face value. A good thing about WUWT is that glaring errors such as the time magazine cover and the raw data supporting homogenisation were subsequently brought up in the comments section. Professor Lloyd probably won’t get another gig after this.
Ah, Jimbo, it’s so easy to be wise after the event! Would you have given this lecture, I wonder, had you not been told there was a station shift? I’ve asked my question at WUWT, and may get an answer. If I do and it’s appropriate, I’ll let readers know. If necessary, I’ll email you.
Dlb, I did not take the article at face value, but I did assume the data were from GISS, and correct. Indeed, they are correct, as I was able to find another GISS source. What we don’t know is the extent to which the data have been manipulated, and by following which rule. The author has been asked to elaborate.
It’s fascinating to read a story from one of the professional bleaters that said then the exact opposite of what they are now bleating:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/Time-Ice-Age-06-24-1974-Sm.jpg
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.html
What sort of a year did we have WRT temps?:
“Listed below are a collection of 60 peer-reviewed scientific papers published within the last year (2016) undermining the “consensus” position that modern warming patterns are global in extent and synchronization, and that today’s warmth is both unusual and unprecedented. – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/22/the-hockey-stick-collapses-50-new-2016-scientific-papers-affirm-todays-warming-isnt-global-unprecedented-or-remarkable/#sthash.fvKYdbUj.7TEHaG6R.dpuf”
http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/22/the-hockey-stick-collapses-50-new-2016-scientific-papers-affirm-todays-warming-isnt-global-unprecedented-or-remarkable/#sthash.fvKYdbUj.7TEHaG6R.dpbs
Some years ago I extracted from the Bureau of Meteorology web site average temperature details of all Australian weather stations that did not appear to have changed and had continuous records back to 1910. The average of the maximum/minimum temperatures for each station for the standard 30 years 1911-1940 was compared with the standard 30 years 1981-2010. Of the 68 stations, there were 9 whose average temperature fell over this 70 year period! However, the average temperature change for all of the stations was an increase of 0.43C, which was well below the official homogenised data at that time.
Of interest is that the biggest increase from one decade to another was seen in the maximum temperatures between 1971-2000 and 1981-2010. Under AGW it is nighttime temperatures that should rise the faster.
“Jimbo, I use data. ”
Then look at the data. Look at the raw data, not the data after it’s been through that guy’s 5-year average filter. Look at the massive drop at ~1962. Do you think weather behaves like that? Or do you think the 1962 relocation of the weather station might have had something to do with it?
How did you teach your students to do deal with big break-points in time series data that occurred exactly when the measuring process changed? How would you deal with this very common occurrence when dealing with long time frame time series data? When you’re measuring something physical for a hundred years, things are going to get bumped around, you’ll get moved, equipment will break, you’ll migrate to newer technology, a bunch of buildings will go up next door. What do you propose for dealing with these inevitable changes?
Jimbo, put your glasses on. 1962 is not the cause of the adjusted warming. Your adjusters accepted that and left it alone [probably because it would have made little difference?] and did the usual trick of cooling a large slice of the past [look at everything before 1910] and warming the latest data.
It would take pages of explanation to alibi all that if at all possible.
And you warmist sympathisers have the hide to blame Lloyd and not the people responsible.
“Ah, Jimbo, it’s so easy to be wise after the event! Would you have given this lecture, I wonder, had you not been told there was a station shift?”
After which event, the 1962 station move? Nobody “told me” the station had moved, I simply did what you should have done. I looked at the claim and thought that seems improbable, spent 5 minutes googling and found the station had been relocated. If you directed just half of the skepticism you direct towards NASA at what you read at WUWT, the quality of your musings would go up tenfold.
Do you notice any difference between your blue plot and his red one? Did you ask yourself why he’s applied a 5 year average to the data? Weren’t you quoting the Statistician-to-the-Stars Briggs at me recently? One of his golden rules is there’s never any reason to smooth physical sensor data readings and yet when Lloyd does it, you don’t raise an eyebrow.
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but the only reason I can think for Lloyd passing his data through a low pass filter like that is to soften that alarming early 60s cliff that shows up much clearer in your blue plot. It’s screaming out that there’s a problem with the data.
So Don, in general, what techniques do you recommend for dealing with break-points in long term time series data caused by changes to measurement process?
dlb: “Professor Lloyd probably won’t get another gig after this.”
I daresay he’d be welcome here though. It would save Don some cut-n-pasting.
Nobody told you the station had moved, but when you had discovered it had done, you then gave me your lecture.
Since you take Briggs seriously you’ll also remember that he says to plot the data and eyeball it. The later GISS data shows the same trend as the first, but with all the movement left in.
In answer to your last question, I’ll repeat an earlier statement: when breakpoints occur, you should start again, and not subject the data to pressure so that you have a continuous line. I first made that observation to BAE people in the 1960s, when some indices had breaks and others didn’t.The reason for getting rid 0f breaks was always that someone wanted a continuous line. And to repeat a statement I have now made several times, and to you: The only reason we have these homogenisations is that there seems to be an obsessive quest to have a lot of ‘continuous’ temperature data that might show that the world is warming (in an unprecedented way etc). We do see breaks in trend lines from time to time, but the much greater tendency is the continuous line.
Now, Jimbo, perhaps you would show me, as I suggested earlier, how you would fix on a temperature for a 300,000 square kilometre block in the southern ocean for which you have only three observation in the year.. You will need them for each day in the year. Tell me where you would go to get your estimate, and what you think the error is likely to be. There will be perhaps a few dozen of these blocks.
Oh, for the experiment at the end of my comment above: the year is 1937.
But, Don, it was your job to tell us the station had moved. It was sloppy of you to cut and paste something you read on a site, namely WUWT, which has an appalling track record for publishing junk, without spending an hour or two checking its credibility and sourcing information that might defeat the argument contained therein. At the moment you are acting as an echo chamber which is sad because you obviously have the talent to make a genuine contribution to the debate.
“Nobody told you the station had moved, but when you had discovered it had done, you then gave me your lecture.”
I’m not sure where this is coming from. I’ve been lecturing you on the joys of homogenisation long before this curious Cape Town excursion. You appear to be berating me for not lecturing you after I read your Cape Town story but before I found the station had moved? That was a pretty small window… maybe 5 minutes of googling. I looked at the raw data, saw a very unlikely vertical cliff in the early 60s that I thought warranted further investigation, and 5 minutes later had the answer. Why didn’t you do that?
“plot the data and eyeball it. The later GISS data shows the same trend as the first, but with all the movement left in.”
Yes, my point exactly. Eyeball that plot, especially the raw data rather than Lloyd’s filtered data, and the early 60s is screaming out as something that warrants further investigation. I did that, while you just copy-n-pasted it all onto the end of your essay no questions asked.
” when breakpoints occur, you should start again”
Don really? Why should we deny climate scientists statistical tools that the rest of use uncontroversially on a regular basis? It’s almost as if you’re trying to prevent them from finding any long term trends.
“fix on a temperature for a 300,000 square kilometre block in the southern ocean”
And finally, right on cue we arrive at step 3 in the loop of illogic. No matter which data we’re talking about, when all else fails whip out the “but the SST data is shockingly bad” trump card. Don the thing about that card is that it works just as well at the beginning of the game as the end. If you’re going to play it, and you invariably do, play it early and save us all some time and effort.
OK, Jimbo, so you won’t have a go at the 1937 task. But others did and those ‘measurements’ are part of what you take for granted. Yes, it is possible to make ‘estimates’, but what is their error? We don’t know. Actually, nobody knows.
Now you accept them, and I think you’re wrong to do so. And you show no interest in rethinking this part of your perspective. So be it.
On break-points, read Briggs. He says you should start again. I thought so too, fifty years ago, and nothing that has happened since suggests any reason to change my mind. Real data have noise in them. You can get a feeling for the noise and for the signal just by looking at a plot. Don’t make up connections between the new trend and the old one. Often you don’t have to, because the message is reasonably obvious. But the search for comprehensive global data that allow people to say not just that the earth is warming, with which I would agree on other grounds, with but warming at a precise rate, has corrupted so much of what passes for climate science. You don’t see this. Is it that you don’t want to see it?
Why did I show the GISS Capetown data? Because the article appeared just after the homogenisation stuff on this thread. I took the GISS graph at face value — I don’t check everything — and indeed the real GISS data are the same. I still await a reply from the author about station shifts.
According to BOM data for the last 50 years (excluding 2016) Australia has been warming at a trend rate of .018C per year.
This is just on 1.8C per century.
So if greenhouse gases have not caused this – what has?
What happens if this continues?
Don given your track record here, I think your scam-detector would benefit from a complete polarity reversal; try swapping the red and black wires and see if that helps. Next time some data or process looks very suspicious to you, let it through, it’s probably ok. And next time some story looks totally credible, be very suspicious, check everything before you consider bulk copy-n-pasting others’ errors into your reputation.
Thank you for your helpfulness, which nearly matches Nga’s modesty.
Further to the question of station shifting, Professor Lloyd has not responded to my question but others have, and many insist (as I would) that when you shift one station to another site, in this case apparently 40 km away, you start again, you don’t adjust all the old temperatures to the new one.
But I guess if adjustment is what you do for a living, you go on adjusting.
Station break. You may not have to worry your pretty little heads about it for much longer …
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/01/27/mikhail-gorbachev-appears-world-preparing-war?
Don’t be snooty, Don. Jimbo and I did the work you were too lazy to do. You have banged on about adjustments in over 100 comments by my estimation yet you haven’t given us so much as a shred of evidence to prove monkey business is afoot. In fact all you have done is prove you are a patsy.
And you nga are just a prig.
I hate to say it, but it sounds like Lloyd is ducking you, Don. Or am I being too sceptical?
Would you care to put a name to people who suggested you throw out the data.
I am sure your brother would keep the data.
David, you have a genius for misrepresentation. Who suggested I throw out what data?
Don
What do you mean by “start again?”
“…shift one station to another site, in this case apparently 40 km away, you start again, you don’t adjust all the old temperatures to the new one.”
You are chopping your time series aka throwing out data.
David @ 6.53 pm You misunderstand. I’m not suggesting throwing away any data, simply start a new data series. Read below.
Don
If I have misunderstood then my apologies.
Chris please tell us what happens if this continues? And then tell us how to mitigate your so called CAGW? But don’t forget that the satellite data shows a flat OZ trend since Aug 1995 and a full trend of 1.6 c since Dec 1978.
Also there are many recent PR SL studies that don’t support your claims and neither does the Leclercq world glacier study. That study found a slowing of glacier retreat since 1950, but you seem to prefer the much adjusted BOM data. I still maintain that UHIE would answer much of the increase in temp over the last 40 years and probably much longer.
Allowing just 0.1 c for the UHIE is ridiculous and any modern car can pick up much higher temp inside a town or city than the surrounding rural areas. I’ve tried this myself and it is the case.
Neville
When people are asked:
So if greenhouse gases have not caused this – what has?
What happens if this continues?
Then responding as you have is completely inappropriate.
BOM data is data near the ground – satellite data is around the level of the Himalayas.
BOM data is more indicative of chnages which will disrupt agriculture, disrupt the distribution of flora and fauna, and produce new weather events.
BOM data for the period matching satellite data shows warming in Australia of over 2C per century.
There have been some strange things going on with the word’s temp data-sets since Phil Jones’s 2010 interview with the BBC. The warming trend from 1910 to 1940 was 0.150 c/ decade, but that has now changed to 0.129 c/ decade first HAD 4 column and 0.139 HAD 4 Krig data.
But here is the interesting part, GISS data shows just 0.090c/ decade and the Berkeley data is 0.143 c/ decade, plus NOAA is just 0.090 c /decade. But even NOAA land trend is now below what Jones quoted for L&O in 2010. In fact NOAA Land trend is just 0.134 c / decade today. This has be nonsense when even the much faster land trend can’t reach Jones’s L&O trend in 2010. Yet Berkeley land trend is 0.172 c/ decade for that period.
But move forward and look at the trend from 1910 to 1945 ( 36 years) and we find more strange results. Had 4 trend is 0.140 c/dec, Had 4 krig is 0.151/ dec, NOAA is 0.134c /dec, GISS is 0.133 c/ dec and Berkeley jumps to 0.160 c/ dec.
NOAA land trend is now 0.145 c/ dec , while Berkeley land trend is now 0.173 c/ dec. Clearly there have been adjustments made for HAD data since 2010 and the GISS and NOAA temp trends are ridiculously low for the period 1910 to 1940. But they do help to raise the later overall trend I suppose. Please note that Jones chose the trend period 1910 to 1940 and they are not a cherry pick.
Here’s the York uni tool.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
And here’s Jones’s 2010 BBC interview.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Geez, I thought this thread was about Australia.
Did you divert attention because you have no explanation of the Australian warming trend of over 2C per century?
“that when you shift one station to another site, in this case apparently 40 km away, you start again, you don’t adjust all the old temperatures to the new one.”
Don you’re still being suckered in by these folk. Where’s the skepticism you’re known for when you really need it? You can see all the neighbouring stations and their distances and data here:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_find.cgi?lat=-33.90&lon=18.50&ds=7&dt=1
You link doesn’t help much, does it. On the face of it, the station that was in the city of Cape Town is moved to a new site 40 km away, on a new airfield. There is a drop in temperature as a result. You have three choices. (1) start a new trend line and leave the old one as it is; (2) adjust all the new temperatures as though they were still in Cape Town (which is what was done), (3) adjust all the Cape Town temperatures down to match the new site’s temperature. I would go for (1). Don’t you see anything even remotely odd about the huge adjustment that was done?
I need to think about it some more and maybe knock up a spreadsheet to demonstrate it, but my gut feel is that those 3 choices of yours will all result in pretty much the same answer. You’ve said many times that the concept of a global mean temperature is meaningless, and I agree… actually, I’d call it more abstract than meaningless. It’s an arithmetical munge of mins and maxs from diverse places some over land and some at sea. If someone told me the global average mean temperature in 2016 was 14.6°C (don’t quote me I just picked that as an example) I’d respond “so what?”. There is only one possible use for a number that abstract, and that’s to compare it to itself at another time, and that’s what climate scientists do. It’s all about anomaly, or divergence from mean, or graphically you can think of it as the slope of the trend line (if there is a statistically significant trend line). The useful answer is always 0.01°C/decade (or century, or year or whatever), never just 14.6°C (all numbers made up).
From there it’s pretty easy to realise you can do a lot of things to the data and not harm the result. For instance, I could take the entire GISS dataset and add 20°C to every reading ever taken at every location. The answer will still be the same at 0.01 °C/decade. The 14.6°C will shoot up to 34.6°C but again, I’d reply “so what?” it’s an abstract number not a useful measurement in itself.
You can take that one conceptual step further and conclude that what these weather stations are really reporting in with, is their contribution to the global trend line slope (at least from an information point of view). Some are getting warmer and reporting in with positive slopes, others are getting cooler and reporting in with negative slopes. It all gets munged into the global result of 0.01°C/decade. (Yes, I know the reality is they don’t report in slopes, they report in °C on a regular interval.. but conceptualise what information gets extracted from that and you can imagine them just reporting in their slope contribution).
Then if you turn your attention to Cape Town and the big vertical drop. The first thing to determine is whether the vertical drop is true or not. If it’s what the weather/climate actually did, then no further action is required and you can leave the data unmolested. The trend iine stuff will struggle with all that variance, but importantly, that big drop in temperature will get included in the global result.
If on the other hand you conclude the big vertical drop was totally bogus and caused by instrumentation issues then it would be totally reckless to just leave it alone. So now conceptualise what Cape Town is really trying to report in: a trend line slope from before the break-point, and a trend line slope from after the break-point (they may even be the same, but let’s not make any unnecessary assumptions). That’s it, only two bits of information. Now consider what happens to those two bits of information under your 3 solution scenarios. Nothing! All 3 approaches preserve the two bits of information.
There are a few assumptions and generalisations there, but hopefully it’s a starting point.
[And for the record, I too would assume that if you moved a station 40km you’d call it a new station. I’m not convinced that’s what happened at least from what I can see in GISS data, but in any case, for the reasons outlined above, I’m not sure it much matters]
Jimbo,
Thank you for this long comment and its sequel, which I found most helpful. Yes, I think your wording ‘abstract’ is better than my ‘meaningless’, where I had in mind a person living somewhere in particular, for whom the global average had no meaning where they lived. In debate, ‘abstract’ is better.
The nub of this issue is the search for continuous temperature data. I don’t think it would make much difference if NOAA had kept the Cape Town station going, and started a new one called Cape Town Airport. One would then have had continuous records in two places, one of them earlier and longer than the other. It is the urge to adjust that vexes me.To make Cape Town Airport Cape Town proper, the analyst says we will need to adjust the CTA temperatures upwards, or the CT records downwards. Perhaps it’s easier to do the former, though I can’t really see why. I see no reason to do it at all.
I do understand that there are lots of problems with the raw data. There may be no record for one day, because the guy was ill. Or he was drunk, and read it wrongly. In my view it is always better not to think one knows why there appears to be an error, and ‘correct’ for it. Just as it is always better to start a new set of records if the criteria change. In 1960s what counted as agricultural exports, if I remember right, changed more than once. The BAE, in this case, started a new trend line, and did not even ink in some dots from the end of the earlier trend tom the beginning of the new one.
I think your setting out is excellent, but as a purist (if that is what I am), I see no reason to adjust at all. It isn’t helpful to be told that Sydney has had its hottest day on record when you know that there have been some changes to where the measuring instrument has been sited. Particularly if the difference we are talking about is small.
“It is the urge to adjust that vexes me.To make Cape Town Airport Cape Town proper, the analyst says we will need to adjust the CTA temperatures upwards, or the CT records downwards. Perhaps it’s easier to do the former, though I can’t really see why. I see no reason to do it at all.”
Well you have to do something (one of your 3 enumerated solutions) otherwise you end up doing what Lloyd wants to do which is to fold that massive drop into the global calculations. I had no problem with your solution #1 because I thought it involved terminating the original time series at the point of discontinuity and starting a new one. I think that’s mathematically the same (but administratively different) from your solutions #2 and #3 so everyone can choose whatever works best for their system, you’ll still get the same answers to the only question that matters: What was the rate of temperature change over this period? All the original raw data always gets carried along so if their solution #2 or #3 doesn’t work for your systems, you can go with solution #1.
But now I’m thinking your solution #1 keeps the original time series in-tact before and after the discontinuity? I can’t agree with that, although Lloyd does. That will definitely give you a different answer to the only question that matters. You need to decide up front whether the discontinuity was real or man-made. If it was real then leave all the data undisturbed and forget you even noticed it, if it was man-made then don’t let that discontinuity anywhere near the global calculation, it’ll poison the result with cooling that never happened.
I haven’t thought about it fully, but I would still have started a new trend for Cape Town Airport, and kept the Cape Town one going. Of course hundreds of stations were eliminated in or about 1990, so presumably one or other would have been dropped then. My rule would be don’t adjust. I accept that for those who think it is imperative to have continuous temperature records going as far back as possible, but not before 1910 in Australia, for some reason, adjustment will be the order of the day. That gets people into error problems. You think the algorithms do the work satisfactorily. I don’t see any necessity to do it at all, as I wrote above. Your link above shows that most stations are a long way from CTA. In Canberra we can have three or four temperature maxima for the one day, within thirty km.
If nothing were done, and we used raw data only, you would be able to say, at the end of a century, that on the face of it there had been warming, maybe of around 0.6 degrees C± 0.2 degrees C. You would be able to say much the same things for some but not all big cities. But you would not be able to talk about average global temperature,, which I think would be an excellent thing.
I don’t think I can add anything more useful.
Those vertical drops are almost certainly man-made, and make a massive difference to the trend-line result for that station over many decades, depending on which way you choose to deal with them. Annual mean temperatures at a location are very stable numbers. When they do move big (~1 °C) in a single year, it’s invariably because of some big weather event that will easily be seen by other stations.
More generally, when you know your discontinuity is an instrumentation issue and not a genuine reflection of the signal you’re trying to measure, basic QA requirements demand you do something about it. A lot of people have invested a lot of time and effort simulating all these various real-life issues, starting with real live data sets, disturbing them in some way, and then blind testing the various algorithms to see how they perform at fixing the problem. What seems like months ago now, I posted a link to a paper (somewhere above) that demonstrates just how effective they are. Surely you should study that before writing them off?
What you see as being pure to the data, I see as turning a reckless blind eye to obvious measurement errors. Maybe the problem is you’re too used to looking at survey results in the social sciences. Perhaps in that scenario the data is the data, you can’t go second guessing what the respondent really meant to say. Go out and talk to folk who read real physical sensors for a living.
If Airbus took the same approach you suggest the BOM take, planes would be dropping from the sky all over the place. Even with all the redundancy, all the cross-checking between independent flight systems, and all the software de-spiking of sensor data, they still sometimes get it wrong, with near catastrophic results. When that happens what do they do? They improve the de-spiking algorithms. Nobody would even think of suggesting they just go back to using raw sensor data.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/aair/ao-2008-070.aspx
Don says:
“If nothing were done, and we used raw data only, you would be able to say, at the end of a century, that on the face of it there had been warming, maybe of around 0.6 degrees C± 0.2 degrees C.”
Don, this comment makes no sense. To give just one example of why, many stations started off peri-urban but are now urban, so UHI contaminates the raw data. The raw data is completely and utterly meaningless. It tells us nothing.
Oh, and the only reason it looks like it does matter in Lloyd’s two plots is because of his sleight of hand putting both plots through a low-pass filter (5 year average). The best question to ask Lloyd is why he did that.
The concepts I’m asking you to visualise are much better done on your final unfiltered blue plot of the GISS data. You can pretty much imagine a trend line heading up through that first batch before the drop and another one heading up through the batch after the drop. Shifting either of those two trend lines vertically so they line up (your solutions 2 and 3) make no difference to their slope. Likewise taking those two trend lines and splitting them into two stations makes no difference either, once munged together into the final global result.
I have not been following the fine detail of this discussion. But if “adjustment” is a concern when estimating a function like
Temp = Constant + CO2 + error
I think the standard solution is to add a dummy variable (D-Station-moved =1) if adjustment made to the weather station.
If the coefficient for this dummy variable is not statistically significant that tells you that on average adjustment made no difference to the relationship. If it was statistically significant you would start to explore if it effected the the coefficient on CO2.
But let’s face it, relocation of stations is most likely to have zero net effect on the coefficient for CO2 unless one buys into those weird conspiracy theories.
Same old compromised sources. Groupthink central.It must be CO2 because we can’t think of anything else.Well me lads;case not proved and therefore thrown out of court.
What’s your alternative suggestion
update: Phil Lloyd has returned to the WUWT fake skeptic site. If anyone still doubts this guy is a clown note that he is still maintaining that he must be right based on a Time Magazine cover which others on the thread have noted is a hoax. He has also manufactured a conspiracy theory to explain his broken link!
But there is still more! The climate crank and evolution denialist, Roy Spencer, has also been caught using the very same hoax Time Magazine cover as Lloyd as evidence of monkey business! Remember folks, these unwitting comedians are the ones Don tells us are suppositories of bottom up wisdom!
OK, Nga, you go into moderation from now on. I find your remark both coarse and offensive. You should leave humour to David, and technical stuff to Jimbo. They’re both a lot better than you at their specialities. I recognise that only leaves you with the tanty, but there it is.
Awfully PC today, Don. A bottom joke?
Nga has trouble in writing anything without being personal and abusive. I’ve told her that many times. So I’ve acted. I didn’t think that being opposed to coarse personal abuse was being politically correct…
If you look at temperature data from the BOM for Australia from 1900 you find that the night-time warming trend is greater than the day-time warming trend.
This is strong evidence for a green house effect.
This can only worsen if greenhouse gas concentrations in the southern hemisphere increase.
Chris, it can also be a result of the UHIE. Also a small increase in clouds over that period can also raise night time temps. But come on tell us how to mitigate your so called CAGW? You claim this is the most serious problem but you’re too timid to dip your toe into the water. And we all know why, don’t we?
Chris, when you talk about night-time warming, are you referring to the trend shown by the BoM’s minimum temperature anomaly set?
I just had a look at the BoMs data since 1970 where Max temps increased by 0.20C per decade while Min temps increased 0.16C per decade. This would seem to be contrary to what you are saying?
Yes
Urbanisation may well be throwing more heat to be trapped into the atmosphere. You only get increased clouds if there is increased water vapour and warmer surface temperatures create just this. It is a nasty feedback mechanism.
This has to be included – not excluded. The extra heat from urbanisation is also being trapped by greenhouse gases.
There is no possibility of mitigation that I am aware of.
So you and I are on the same page about their multi trillion $ mitigation BS, good thing to clear that up. I think Lomborg is correct, we must spend more money on better R&D and also concentrate on better adaptation.
There will always be extreme weather events and certainly we have been lucky since 1900 because we now live in a scientific world and deaths from extreme events have dropped everywhere by about 97% since the 1920s. Life expectancy has nearly doubled since 1900 and we all live much better and happier lives .
I hope the US does pull out of COP21, because it may focus their attention on better ways to fix future problems. Of course the US has reduced co2 emissions by a much greater percentage than any other country over the last 10 years. Germany’s stupid headlong pursuit of S&W has been a super expensive disaster and has not reduced their co2 emissions. Let’s hope this story is accurate.
http://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-news/trump-set-to-pull-out-of-paris-agreement/news-story/07e7cac1eb27080017a3e1c7ca8d0bce
Chris
Regarding your comment about increased cloud cover, the Kiehl and Trenberth Earth Energy Budget has 342 W/M2 of incoming solar radiation, of which 77 W/M2 is reflected by clouds, aerosols and the atmosphere, ie around 23% does not reach the surface. This seems a significant cooling impact and that without an atmosphere (including clouds), daytime temperatures would be much higher.
The presence of water vapour in the atmosphere is evidence that the surface has cooled. (Animals including humans, vegetation and the earth’s surface (land and oceans) evaporate water as a means of reducing heat). The latent heat in the water vapour is released into the atmosphere when the parcel of air has cooled and a proportion of this energy is radiated to space.
Greenhouse gases, particularly water vapour, at night slow the rate of surface cooling. If heat is being “trapped” by these gases it would not be cooler in the morning. Absorption of infrared radiation by water vapour, carbon dioxide etc is only half the story – the energy absorbed is immediately radiated away.
Ross
I thought this thread was about Australia. Globally – it may be very different s the globes surface is mostly water.
More solar radiation enters the water so here, daytime temps may rise faster and night time temps may be buffered by the high specific heat of water.
Over a vast relatively dry land such as Australia a pure effect may be seen in the long run.
When water vapour condenses to clouds, the latent heat released probably just maintains a constant temperature while this phase change occurs. There is no reason for any extra latent heat to be radiated to space.
dlb
Why-o-why do we get these bl***dy cherry pickers. Of course if there was no warming, temperatures would go up and down so you can always find relatively short run trends to suit your personal favourite view. In the long run the real effect emerges.
MAX (Anomaly BOM full data set)
-0.57
-0.38
0.12
-0.51
0.31
0.41
-0.62
-1.29
-0.24
0.12
-0.78
-0.34
-0.15
-0.09
-0.43
-0.56
0.09
-0.28
0.42
-0.54
-0.26
-0.55
-0.24
-0.43
-0.32
-0.19
0.07
-0.08
0.48
-0.65
0.27
-0.55
0.13
-0.31
0.06
-0.12
-0.23
-0.37
-0.04
-0.82
-0.73
-0.07
-0.19
-0.14
-0.28
-0.65
-1.04
0.45
0.2
0.32
-0.61
0.36
0
-0.24
-0.12
0.44
-0.56
-0.06
-0.65
0.2
0.17
-0.24
0.43
0.07
-1.09
-0.31
-0.52
0.16
-0.52
0.4
0.88
0.15
0.18
0.11
-0.51
0.24
0.13
0.09
0.63
-0.26
0.35
0.68
-0.17
0.03
0.61
-0.1
0.56
0.11
0.53
0.07
-0.45
-0.03
1.21
0.63
0.5
1.17
0.51
0.71
0.44
1
-0.24
-0.24
0.51
1.45
1.16
0.96
0.7
*************************
MIN
-0.24
-0.76
-0.31
-0.97
0.13
-0.01
-0.34
-1.02
-0.68
-0.29
-0.24
-0.02
-0.67
-0.46
-0.77
-0.88
-0.38
-0.67
-0.02
-1.02
-0.18
-0.6
-0.42
-0.35
-0.25
-0.57
-0.19
-0.45
0.08
-0.34
-0.55
-0.42
0.15
-0.77
-0.62
-0.27
-1.04
-0.09
-0.8
-0.89
-0.3
-0.57
-0.44
-0.53
-0.28
0.16
-0.64
-0.25
0.17
0.3
-0.56
-0.18
-0.08
0.09
-0.2
0.14
-0.44
-0.34
-0.12
-0.21
-0.35
-0.19
-0.15
0.93
-0.36
-0.14
-0.94
-0.22
-0.12
0.26
0.48
0.31
-0.33
0.45
-0.38
0.05
0.21
0.17
0.75
0.11
0.5
0.43
0.3
0.47
-0.34
0.32
0.47
0.29
1.16
0.32
0.14
-0.09
-0.01
0.55
0.35
0.9
0.25
0.55
0.24
0.63
0.63
-0.02
-0.28
0.94
0.66
0.69
1.03
**************
Chris, the last 47 years is hardly a cherry pick. It was when the bulk of the CO2 went into the atmosphere (80 ppm). While the 60 years prior to 1970, CO2 only increased by (20 ppm). The last 47 years is the so-called blade of the hockey stick where most global data sets show the late 20th Century warming. According to the BoM data you present, the rate of temperature rise for this later period is much more than the previous 60 years and is also more statistically significant.
So given what you say, we should see more warming of the minimum (night-time) temperatures from CO2 and the water vapour feedback. But in the last 47 years the opposite is true, where the maximum daytime temperatures show the greater warming.
Please when making statements add the word “may” it sounds less dogmatic and allows you to weasel out when things don’t go as expected. “may”, “possible” and “probable” are loved by scientific papers and IPCC authors for this reason.
I use the data.
Uncut.
My trend is based on low CO2 to high CO2 when, presumably, all other cycles have been netted-out by time.
Also the real effect may well lag a short-term disruption.
Maybe the future will be different due to massive increases in fauna and cuts to flora.
“I use the data. Uncut.”
You mean, like the IPCC, chrissie?
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2017/01/29/us-scientific-integrity-rules-repudiate-the-un-climate-process/
Spam
“My trend is based on low CO2 to high CO2 when, presumably, all other cycles have been netted-out by time.”
How much time would you like, chrissie luv? would 367 years be enough?:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=7603
In terms of temperature Australia is not doing too badly. How about discovering an unknown coral reef of around 6,000 square kilometres where the “warm” seas are supposed to be killing the coral?
Scientists puzzled? Who’d’a thought?
It puts into perspective scientific understanding of corals, climate, SLR etc.
If it wasn’t sending us broke it would be funny:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-01/new-reef-discovered-near-great-barrier-reef/7806580
[Thanks, Jo]
SD,
This is one of your sillier comments and God only knows there has been some stiff competition. How does the discovery of a reef in deeper, presumably cooler water, tell us anything about the dynamic processes of AGW?
FYI being puzzled is the first step in the scientific process.
Davie, so you think that scientists who have been predicting doom for this GBR for years are not left with egg on their faces with the discovery of this huge 6,000 square klm reef that is in warmer [to the north] and quite shallow [20m] waters?
But still on their doorstep.
If they had done their job instead of doom mongering they should have discovered it a long time ago.
The fact that you can’t see any loss of credibility here is understandable coming from a warmist sympathiser but it doesn’t do anything for the cred of those “scientists”.
Yep, I was right, your silliest comment.
It’s not a CORAL reef that has been found.
Boring stuff, Drongo, and pure Dunning Kruger. A small number of coral spp. have very high heat tolerance and are found in hotter waters than the GBR. Everyone apart from you and the other members of Club Fake Skeptic knows this.
dlb
Canberra has just experienced it hottest mean January temperature on record. Breaking the previous record by 0.5 of degree. Is that enough of an incremental increase for you dlb???.
So what are you going to do dlb? Splice the data and tell us how the 31st January was cooler than the 30th January. Must be a “pause”. Or perhaps you can try and show there was no statistically significant increase between the 12th and the 13th.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberra-has-sweated-through-the-hottest-january-on-record-20170131-gu2ch8.html
Nobody denies it’s getting warmer, davie. It’s called weather and climate change.
Remember when Hannibal took his elephants over the alps?
And those Vikings settled Greenland?
On both occasions it warmed for a few centuries. but it also cooled afterward.
Brisbane was built on the cement made from the dead coral in Moreton Bay that grew in abundance when it was warmer some while back. A little of that coral is still alive but not much because it is still too cool.
When you can show that it is all down to ACO2 and the feedbacks are positive, get back to us.
No one denies it’s getting warmer. Really?
What about Prof Don “the data are not fit for purpose” Aitkin or Dr Jenifer “the BoM cooked the books” Morasy?
Or dlb’s efforts to “have some fun” as he calls it with climate fata he finds on the web?
Or Fakery in the Bakery Nev
What’s happened to your sense of humour David? or has Don got that wrong too?
The climate data I use is from the BoM website. What’s wrong with that? Is Marohasy right after all?
Nothing wrong with the data. My issue is the way you analyse it.
What’s the point of running a regression over 26 data points and then breathlessly reporting the p value is only 0.13 when there are studies out there which have analysed millions of temperatures and reported an increase which is statistically significant.
CW showed you a time series of 26 temperatures which he said indicated an increase. And he was right!
My sense of humour? See my comment about frost bite
About Marohasy.
Has she completed her work, yet? About a year and a half ago she boasted how she and her ‘team’ would be able to predict weather 12 months in advance!
Be up and running, in a year, she claimed.
I still can’t see any sign or word of progress on this earth shattering claim.
All enquiries are Ignored.
Is Jennifer a fraud? Or just imaginative. (touched)
Every time I go to her site, all I see is another ‘Skeptik’ blog. Shouldn’t she be working?
Perhaps you could chase that up, Don? I get nothing.
My apologies David, I should have had a look at the BoMs monthly data.
Yes, according to their monthly data there is a trend of 0.22 per decade over the last 21 years.
Having said that, the UAH satellite data over Australia show no definable trend in their monthly data for the last 21 years.
You really don’t pay attention in so many respects, do ya, davie luv?
Hanibal’ elephants died of frost bite.
About two dozen made it across the mountains, not as many as he had when he left, and not enough to allow him to take large Roman cities. Easy enough to get evidence. Polybius and Livy (neither of whom was there) gave different routes for his crossing of the Alps anyway.
I can vouch for the dead coral in Moreton Bay.
I have been to Mud Island a few times and it is a misnomer. The island is mostly dead coral from warmer temperatures in the past and when the sediment plume of the Brisbane River was much further west during times of higher sea level.
Spot on, dlb. Good to see someone has a look around sometimes. There used to be huge amounts of brain coral around the bay that I wrecked many a centreboard and rudder on but the Darra Cement Co dredged most of it. Still a bit of live stuff in Horseshoe Bay. Mud Island used to be a boat wrecker.
Coral experts have told me there is even dead coral in Jervis Bay.
Dlb the day I find SD in agreement with something I have posted I will take some time to reconsider my position. You should do the same!
“Dlb the day I find SD in agreement with something I have posted I will take some time to reconsider my position. You should do the same!”
Are you saying that dlb is wrong in his obs of Moreton Bay corals, davie?
That’s the trouble with you true believers, you only believe what other deluded warmists tell you.
Never your lyin’ eyes.
Go and make some observations for yourselves. The evidence that’s out there will blow your tiny minds.
I think it’s probably best if posters on this site take Dons lead, and place spangled drongo in moderation. Good day.
David, one January does not a record summer make.
Plot out the BoM summer maximum temperatures for Canberra since 1970 and there is no discernible trend. Yes, I know I should be increasing the sample size with a few more towns in the area , I shall leave that to you, I highly doubt that you shall find much of consequence if you do. If you go back to 1939, you do get a trend of 0.18C per decade at the 95% CI. But the correlation coefficient is quite low at (0.27).
If you look at the BoM mapping for this January, half of NSW and parts of southern Qld have had above normal temperatures. But these are balanced by the below normal temperatures in NW Australia. The slow moving low pressure systems in the NW have been feeding hot air into SE Australia.
And what about all the cyclones AGW is supposed to be bringing us? The season is half over and I think there has only been one cyclone in the Australian region. The experts at the BoM were predicting an average to slightly above average season.
Never mind the cyclones in tropical Australia. You are starting to sound like Nev.
Bottom line is that the average January temperatures was a record in Canberra, Brisbane and Sydney.
Just saying that’s all.
More on why “climate change” is simply politics and not science.
The doomster scientists have moved the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight when the US is getting on better with Russia than at any time since the clock was set up by atomic scientists after the Manhattan project and concerns of nuclear war.
Because of Trump wishing to stop sending the world bankrupt over a possible non-problem:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/nuclear-doomsday-clock-ticks-closest-to-midnight-in-64-years-20170126-gtzliu.html
They should rename it the bed-wetting-for-any-reason-clock.
Good day , Drongo.
Maybe the drongo could explain why it is getting warmer?
For the same reason it has always done, chrissie luv.
When you can prove any different get back to me.
Fail.
Empty.
Useless.
I said PROVE, chrissie, not blither.
We know you can blither about anything.
Maybe the drongo could explain why it is getting warmer?
Gee, chrissie, now it’s double-blither, hey?
Wanna try for triple-blither?
Good day.
After record average global temperatures in 2014 and 2015 I can recall Don posting in about May 2016 that a cool change was on the way because a larger than usual el ninio was in the works.
Anyway 2016 was another all time high record.
And now here in on the East Coast of Australia ( Sydney, Canberra and Brisbane) January 2017 continues to break 100 year temperature records.
Where is that cold change you predicted.?
What a collection of half-truths we have here. You ought to know that el Nino (not el ninios) tend to be followed, not necessarily at once, by la Nina. But no one is able to predict them, least of all me. If I go back to whatever i said whenever I said it I doubt that I did any prediction. Only that in the course of things the hot periods tend to be followed by cool and wet periods. When it will happen I don’t know,
I’ve already pointed out that the supposed ‘all time high record’ is hardly significant. Canberra does not have a 100-year old temperature history, and — so what? Are you saying that the January hot period has been caused by CO2? If so, how do you explain the action of the gas on high pressure systems in continental Australia, and why hasn’t it happened before/
It’s no use just pointing to high temperatures and exclaiming, See! You need something more sophisticated than that.
“I don’t know.” Finally!
You should try saying it yourself, often. I’ve said it many times, including below in a recent comment.
Brisbane this January broke the previous minimum record in 1973 by (0.2C).
However the mean max for Brisbane this January was equalled or beaten by the following years: 1902, 1903, 1912, 1914, 1929, 1931, 1980, 2002, 2004.
Nothing special going on, uncomfortable as it may be.
“Anyway 2016 was another all time high record.”
“NOAA fixed the 2016 increase at 0.04 degrees Celsius. The British Met Office reported an even lower rise, of 0.01C. Both increases are well within the margin of error for such calculations, approximately 0.1 degrees, and therefore are dismissed by many scientists as meaningless.”
Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was quoted at Climate Central referring to the past temperature record and saying “2016 has really blown that out of the water.”
http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2017/01/29/scientists_criticize_hottest_year_on_record_claim_as_hype.html?utm_source=RCP+Morning+Note&utm_campaign=ce9023db54-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_11_11&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a4db5f2336-ce9023db54-84236157
“But no one is able to predict them, least of all me.”
You said the la Nina would be bigger than usual. And we are continuing to experience record temperature.
“I’ve already pointed out that the supposed ‘all time high record’ is hardly significant.”
Of course it it. How can not pass off three consecutive global temperature records as “hardly significant” .
Canberra does not have a 100-year old temperature history
Yes it does. I can see that data collection commenced in Duntroon in 1912. That is 104 years
“Are you saying that the January hot period has been caused by CO2?.”
Yes absolutely. The globe is experiencing record temperatures is because of man made CO2.
“Yes absolutely. The globe is experiencing record temperatures is because of man made CO2.”
Eminence based, as opposed to evidence based, as usual.
Show us your evidence, not your big mouth and empty mind, davo.
Don are you going to throw SD into the naughty corner?
Sorry to offend, davie, but when you make such unscientific statements I do tend to lose my otherwise cool composure.
SD comments a lot, but he doesn’t use the coarse and abusive stye of Nga. If he does, he will follow the same trajectory.
Global temp report from UAH for January:
“Tropics cool in January; globe doesn’t
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade
January temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.30 C (about 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.27 C (about 0.49 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.33 C (about 0.59 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.
Tropics: +0.07 C (about 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/01/global-temperature-report-january-2017/
Canberra is not the RMC, and the station has been shifted at least three times. Yes, I know about homogenisation.
I doubt that I said that the la Nina would be bigger than usual, or that I predicted when it would come. To repeat, the Southern Oscillation tends to provide la Nina episode that follow el Nino episodes. But they do not have to happen back to back, and you can even have two episodes of the one kind, the second being smaller than the first, before you get one of the other kind. Its not hard to find a graph that shows all this.
If you want to believe, and I use the verb advisably, in all these records, I can’t stop you. But they mean nothing unless you can show (i) that they are caused by CO2, (ii) that they will continue to rise, (iii) that the rise is really bad for living things, , (iv) that if we stop burning fossil fuels the rising will stop, and (v) the cost to human life of our doing so is hardly relevant. None of these propositions is self-evident, and the data to support them are rubbery or non-existent. But believers don’t care about such trivia, do they.
I’ve given evidence before that the Holocene climate optimum was much warmer for thousands of years and this impacted OZ as well. At the end of the Holocene optimum SLs were about 1.5 metres higher down our east coast than today.
The Calvo et al study also also found that Southern OZ has been cooling for the last 6,500 years and SLs today show only a slight increase over the last century. One of my references for the much higher SLs came from the ABC’s Catalyst program called Narabeen man. I’ve linked to all of the above a number of times and I can again if necessary.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our weather/climate today, in fact the reverse is true. Of course go back to the Eemian inter-glacial and SLs were 4 to 6 metres higher than today and coral reefs grew much further south than today. In WA the remains of these reefs can still be found today. And the Eemian was from about 130,000 to 116,000 years BP when max co2 levels reached about 285 ppm.
And the Petit et al study found that temp dropped first to end the Eemian IG and yet co2 levels remained at the higher levels for at least another 6,000 years. I’ve linked to all of these a number of times in the past and if I have to can do so again. All PR studies. Perhaps I’ll link to another Catalyst story checking out the Super cyclones that used to occur down our coasts during the LIA. Here’s one link.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1502462.htm Here’s an earlier ABC link that shows the last Super cyclone hit about 200 years ago on OZ east coast or just before the end of the LIA. This confirms what Lindzen found about more severe storms during those earlier LIA times. But during the last 200 years we’ve been very lucky, yet who knows what the future holds?
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s382613.htm
Nev try and focus.
The Holocene climatic optimum refers to temperature increases of about 4 degrees that were reported to have occurred over a 5000 year period. AGW hypothesizes similar a increase over 100 to 200 year period depending on your model. Now I get that you don’t agree with AGW, its beyond your wit. But can you understand why my eyes glaze over when you run this line of argument. Its not a relevant comparison.
Davie, you are a bit out of focus yourself.
Check the warming following the Younger Dryas if you want something incredibly rapid and natural.
Like possibly 10c in 10 years.
When are true believers like you ever going to come down to earth and admit that natural climate variability has always been far in excess of any of this small warming we are seeing in recent times since the end of the LIA.
…..and when are skeptics like you going to recognize that the changes that accompanied “natural climate variability” were not necessarily that nice. Lets face it fire, clothing and shelter were invented to protect humanity from “natural climate variability”.
And look at some of the changes in sea level associated with the Younger Dryas.
” The Younger Dryas occurred after meltwater pulse 1A, which was a 13.5 m rise over about 290 years centered at about 14,200 calendar years ago and before meltwater pulse 1B, which was a 7.5 m rise over about 160 years centered at about 11,000 calendar years ago.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas)
Why would we want to potentially bring about these sort of climate changes on ourselves?
“Why would we want to potentially bring about these sort of climate changes on ourselves?”
Why indeed?
But dave, d’ya possibly think that if they have happened before, many, many times as part of our natural system, it might be rational to think that they could be due to something else entirely?
And that removing something that may be our only saviour could be a bit foolish?
And that making huge lifestyle changes without knowing half the facts could lead us into a much bigger mess than we are in at present?
And that, as on the law of averages our earthly potential for catastrophe comes from so many different directions, this is only a tiny segment of that potential catastrophe?
For heaven’s sake look at the bigger picture and remain rational.
This thread has done just about as much as any other to prove that our so-called climate skeptics are Fake Skeptics. To top it all off, we now have Spangled Drongo simply lifting and repeating, sheep-style, one of Jo Nova’s falsehoods. Nova has a post up about coral reefs that says new ones are being found all over the place. But if you check one her links, which here: http://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/australia/aussie-scientists-find-new-reef-behind-the-great-barrier-reef.aspx , you see that Jo Nova is making a false claim. The link says:
“It sounds almost unbelievable, but researchers have discovered a vast reef hiding behind one of Australia’s biggest tourist attractions.
Using laser data from the Royal Australian Navy, scientists from the University of Sydney, James Cook University and Queensland University of Technology, found fields of strange donut-shaped mounds. The mounds, spotted from data taken by a LiDAR-equipped aircraft, are Halimeda bioherms – geological structures formed by the growth of a green algae made of living calcified segments. ‘We’ve known about these geological structures in the northern Great Barrier Reef since the 1970s and 80s, but never before has the true nature of their shape, size and vast scale been revealed,’ said James Cook University’s Doctor Robin Beaman. ”
So Nova has simply lied. These reefs were known about and they are NOT even coral reefs!
On this thread we’ve also seen how two Fake Skeptic heroes, Roy Spencer and Phil Lloyd, are more that happy to try and pass off hoax magazine covers off as genuine evidence of past climate concerns. On top of that Anthony Watts has shown he is happy to publish a disingenuous post by Phil Lloyd that tries to suggest data has been inappropriately manipulated at a Cape Town weather station but which fails to point out that the anomaly in the raw data is the result of the weather station being moved! Of course, Don has simply taken part in a pile on without bothering to check Lloyd’s credibility or the accuracy of what he has said in his post.
The cherry on top of the cake for me is that the Fake Skeptics who visit Jo Nova and Anthony Watts’ sites have simply ignored the misrepresentations and given the posts great big ticks of approval, with the Nova post getting graded 9.6 out of 10 from 54 votes and the Lloyd guest post at Watts’s site getting a perfect 5 out of 5 score from 73 votes! It is a readily observable reality, as the response to these posts demonstrate, that Fake Skeptics have absolutely no interest in truth or facts.
Nga your post reminded me that JoNova and her partner David Evans have a long term bet with Bryan Schmidt on predicted global temperature. I think there is about $20,000 riding on it. They have gone low and Schmidt has gone high. The bet terminates in 2020. But with these persistent temperature records they are screwed. They don’t understand climate science nearly as much as they think they do.
https://skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html
Don, Tamino over at ‘Open Mind’ currently has an article that asserts that sea level acceleration is a fact.
See: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/01/30/sea-level-acceleration/#more-9281
Can you comment ?
Rest assured, Gary, Don will make sure the Inconvenient Truth of sea level rise acceleration is given to Winston Smith at the Ministry of Truth so that he may flush it down the memory hole.
Sea level rise has accelerated from around 20 cm per century (100 years ago) to around 1 ft per century now.
This is corroborated by Ralph Cicerone, President, US National Academy of Sciences in 2016. See;
Here are two recent SL studies that don’t support the dangerous SLR scare.
Donchyts et al., 2016 Earth’s surface water change over the past 30 years [1985-2015] … Earth’s surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas. [A net decline in water on the Earth’s surface relative to land, including across the Earth’s coastal regions.]
(press release) Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists surprise, coastlines had gained more land – 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) – than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles). … “We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” said Dr Baart. “We’re were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking.” … The researchers said Dubai’s coast had been significantly extended, with the creation of new islands to house luxury resorts. “China has also reconstructed their whole coast from the Yellow Sea all the way down to Hong Kong,” said Dr Baa
Here’s another interesting 2016 study.
Hansen et al., 2016 Together with a general sea-level rise of 1.18 mm/y, the sum of these five sea-level oscillations constitutes a reconstructed or theoretical sea-level curve of the eastern North Sea to the central Baltic Sea, which correlates very well with the observed sea-level changes of the 160-year period (1849–2009), from which 26 long tide gauge time series are available from the eastern North Sea to the central Baltic Sea. Such identification of oscillators and general trends over 160 years would be of great importance for distinguishing long-term, natural developments from possible, more recent anthropogenic sea-level changes. However, we found that a possible candidate for such anthropogenic development, i.e. the large sea-level rise after 1970, is completely contained by the found small residuals, long-term oscillators, and general trend. Thus, we found that there is (yet) no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming in the world’s best recorded region.
GC, if sea levels were rising at the rate claimed by Church and White [using satellite altimetrics] it would be obvious to the thousands of people who have lived on sea frontages for a reasonably long period.
On the east coast of Australia which is a tectonically stable part of the world the king tides at normal barometric pressure are lower than they were 70 years ago.
Not only is SLR NOT accelerating, SLs are NOT rising!!!
Do you know of anyone on the east coast who can point to a specific benchmark and say “here I have observed SLR”.
Remember Envisat? It showed no SLR until its operators got a right good seein’ to by the Topex/Poseidon/Jason operators and were brought to heel.
Satellite measurement of SLs on a pear shaped geoid using circular orbits requires huge amounts of fakery at the bakery and you have to be a true believer to swallow that adjusted rubbish.
Keep yelling at the ocean, Dangles. I’m sure it cares.
“Keep yelling at the ocean, Dangles. I’m sure it cares.”
Confused as usual, hey, rossie? Please show where I was yelling.
You confused yelling with looking.
Try it sometime.
You’ve got a lot to learn.
This sounds like a job, for the Star Spangled Drongo!
Oh dear. How can I take seriously an essay which begins with this hyperbole: ‘A regular big lie from climate deniers, in fact a huge lie from climate deniers, is when they deny that there’s been acceleration of sea level rise. Sea level acceleration is a fact.’
Let’s take a deep breath. First of all. Sea-level acceleration is not a fact, it’s a hypothesis. Those who don’t agree are not deniers or liars. They are disputing the hypothesis. That happens all the time in science.
Now what does the essay do. It wobbles around erratically between tide gauge and other stationary stations, and satellites. Satellites show a degree of sea-level rise about double that shown by tide gauges like Fort Denison and Honolulu. They also show some acceleration in the very recent period. That may be happening. I don’t know and nobody else does, either. It will take another twenty years before we know whether such an event has occurred. If you read the Comments to the Tamino article you will see that there is a great deal of uncertainty about sea level rise, which of course has been happening since the end of the last glacial period.
That’s the best I can do.
I agree, apart from the largely speculative analysis of sea level, his essay is littered with political jibes such as:
“Others, particularly “free-market think tanks” (translation: corporate profit over public good) do so for no other reason than to discredit the trend from satellite data.”
and
“But of course “free-market think tanks” (translation: corporate profit over public good) will continue to dispute this, will continue to discredit any data ”
and “deniers, deniers & deny” in the opening sentence.
“Open Mind” ? more like closed shop.
Umm, Don, most of the climate revisionists/ fake skeptics you glowingly praise and eagerly cite on this website use similar hyperbole. It seems clear that you did not understand Tamino’s post so you’ve decided to throw mud in the hope that some will stick.
Don says:
“Oh dear. How can I take seriously an essay which begins with this hyperbole”
Your own essays often begin with you disparaging your interlocutors as Climate Botherers, alarmists and members of a religious cult. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Nga, look the meaning of hyperbole.
Hyperbole: Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally
Everybody in this discussion engages in hyperbole including you. But as we’ve seen on this thread, the folk on your side also routinely lie , for instance making and spreading fake magazine covers. I note you still haven’t even commented one the one faked and one misrepresented magazine cover in the Lloyd article you chose to spruik in your OP. I find that really strange. Do you approve of such behaviour?
As to Tamino aka Grant Foster, he has numerous highly regarded and oft-cited peer reviewed publications such as this http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta;jsessionid=734549624A55B101DA2FC60D9336A8C9.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org
It is observably obvious that Grant Foster has at least one hundred times more credibility than Lloyd. Lloyd’s history is shabby to say the least, which has me wondering why you hold him in such high regard. Clearly none of this is to do with science.
Nga,
Don’t you read what you write? Calling people climate bothers or warmists is not to engage in hyperbole, and I have never described such people as members of a religious cult. Those are your words not mine.
If you’re going to try to engage in serious discussion, you need to use words carefully. I do not think I engage in hyperbole, and if you disagree, you might show me an example. Of course, some people use hyperbole ironically, but I don’t think that’s me either.
You say people, more correctly, ‘folks on [my] side …), routinely lie’. To tell a lie is to to knowingly make a falsehood. Which folks made and spread a false magazine cover? Are you saying that you know that Professor Lloyd knew that magazine cover was a fake? On what evidence do you base your charge? Which other ‘folks’do you have in mind? I certainly don’t knowingly make falsehoods, and am careful to avoid making claims and statements for which I cannot provide supporting argument and evidence. I didn’t think the magazine covers were relevant to the point about Cape Town temperature, which is why I passed them by. I’m not responsible for them and have no comment to make about them either. They are simply irrelevant to the point at issue — the temperatures in Cape Town.
Grant Foster is an astronomer and mathematician, who has no particular standing in climate science (but then, most people are like that). What is the point of arguing that he is somehow more to be relied upon than Phillip Lloyd, who was a writing a piece about temperatures in a town where he lived?
Your stuff wanders around, never sticks to the point, and is more like a rant than a contribution to a discussion.
“highly regarded and oft-cited peer reviewed publications such as this
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta;jsessionid=734549624A55B101DA2FC60D9336A8C9.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org”
Interesting paper thanks Nga. I do like it when someone brings a bit of signal processing to the party.
“It is observably obvious that Grant Foster has at least one hundred times more credibility than Lloyd. ”
Foster’s analysis certainly seems way more robust than Lloyd’s. Don did you ever ask Lloyd why he ran a 5-year average over the data? I see you still have his smoothed graphs tacked to your essay, so I assume he satisfied you that it was legit?
Tamino has described himself as ‘Hansen’s bulldog’, which does not suggest any kind of open mind
The world’s MSM exaggerated and lied about the Pacific and Indian ocean’s sinking islands nonsense until the Kench et al study forced them to take a more realistic look at the case.
Here is what the study found over the last 60 to 100 years quoting the Fairfax press.
Pacific atolls resilient to rising seas: study
|
Last updated 13:35 21/04/2014
MICHAEL FIELD
“Rising sea levels caused by global warming are unlikely to swamp the small atoll nations of the South Pacific, a University of Auckland academic claims.
Writing for the Australian science website Conservation, Professor Paul Kench said new evidence suggested that low-lying coral reef islands would be more resilient to sea-level rise than thought.
Sand and shingle islands lying one to three metres above the current sea level were considered among the most vulnerable places on Earth.
“The new findings suggest that, rather than being passive lumps of rock that will be swamped by rising seas and eroded by storms, the islands are dynamic structures that can move and even grow in response to changing seas,” he said.
Kench closely examined how reef islands formed over the past 5,000 years, including Jabat Island in the Marshall Islands. That island was created 5,000 years ago as sea level rose to 1.5 metres above its present level.
Other case studies in the Great Barrier Reef and the Maldives also showed that islands could form under a range of sea-level conditions including rising, falling, and stable.
The Auckland study also looked at how islands physically changed over the past 60 to 100 years, including areas where the sea level has been rising at more than two millimetres per year for the past five decades.
In Tuvalu’s Funafuti Atoll the researchers found most of the islands either remained stable in size or grew larger, in spite of rising sea levels.
“All of this shows that reef islands are able to grow under current climate conditions.”
The findings suggested coral islands were very dynamic landforms that adjust their shape and position on reef surfaces over decades, Kench said.
“Low-lying islands are built by the action of waves and currents, which deposit sand and gravel at the shoreline.”
In the process islands can change their shape and migrate across reef surfaces.
“Our results suggest that islands can grow upwards when waves wash over them during storms or tsunami, depositing sand in the process,” he said.
“This suggests that islands may be able to withstand rising sea levels and increased storminess – although life on those islands may be very different to today.
He said on the face of it the findings ere potentially good news for Pacific communities”.
– Fairfax Media
From memory, the SLR quoted for the tide gauge at Fort Denison, Sydney Harbour, for the last century is around 65mm (0.65 mm/y) with a recent GPS tag showing a rate of settlement of a similar amount. IOW, nothing happening.
But tide gauges only give you the net result whereas what really affects people living by the ocean is the top level of ~ normal BP king tides.
The highest one of these at Fort Denison was over 40 years ago.
Clisci [AKA Tamino/ Church/White/Hunter et al] with their usual dancing angels is simply in delusional dreamland.
Hopefully there will be some serious SLR auditing with Trump in charge:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01/31/delingpole-trumps-climate-plans-made-medias-heads-explode/
“It’s only just beginning…..”
Thanks, Jo.
Crony capitalist Government vetting science? Good day.
Well here’s another very practical way to prove that co2 cannot be causing unusual warming. The table grape season around Mildura/Robinvale is way behind schedule because the grapes haven’t reached maturity yet.
As I write this the season has been cooler on average since the start of spring and last winter was the 4th wettest on record in the MDB system. So if co2 can cause warmer weather in parts of NSW and Qld how come the grapes in Vic haven’t reached maturity yet? The same co2 levels exist over OZ yet some how by magic we can have a late season in Vic because of a cooler season. More evidence again that it isn’t CAGW causing anything unusual AT ALL. Clearly just variable and NATURAL weather systems over the last few months.
And Neville, I’ve got a tree full of beautiful Kensington Prides, fully grown but not ready to pick for a month yet.
Neville, you man of little faith.
Didn’t you know AGW is like God, it works in mysterious ways.
AGW God like? Dlb we are not the ones that need to dream up Factor X to make our view of the world whole.
Oh. The sceptic ‘religion’ trope, again. So very tired, chaps.
See ABC Landline program 6 June 2016: – Rising temperatures spark ‘race to Tasmania’ for winemakers escaping heat.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-05/rising-temperatures-spark-winemakers-move-to-tasmania/7371262
Excerpts:
– They are one of the oldest families of wine in Australia, and after more than 120 years in Victoria, Brown Brothers’ decision to expand outside of its traditional growing area because of rising temperatures is paying off.
– “In Victoria, where it’s warm, we are up in the mountains getting up towards snow country and that’s about as cool as it gets on the mainland. And yet we are still being pressured by warming conditions, every year we find the fruit is getting riper a couple of weeks earlier. We wanted to find a cooler site, we looked throughout Victoria and finished up in Tasmania”. (They’re talking cool climate grapes here – Pinot Noir).
-Viticultural expert Professor Snow Barlow and his University of Melbourne colleagues have been observing the trend for decades. “This is overwhelming research … we did a survey of 45 vineyards around Australia where people had long-term data sets, some back as far as 100 years, some back as far as 70, but the minimum was back for 25 years … and that showed effectively that vintage was progressing or becoming earlier one day per year,” Professor Barlow said.
GC, you can take various messages away from that. The main one is that cooler country wines have become more in demand simply because the warmer country wines are over supplied.
But as in Minoan, Roman, Medieval and any other warm periods, grapes in higher latitudes produce better.
That has absolutely nothing to do with our argument about evidence that proves ACO2 causes the warming.
” And yet we are still being pressured by warming conditions, every year we find the fruit is getting riper a couple of weeks earlier.”
Is he saying that in the last 26 years of warming his grapes are now ripening 12 months early?
Good to see that the Japanese haven’t lost their logic or reason. They plan to build another 45 coal fired power stations in the near future.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-31/japan-coal-power-plants/8224302
And the OZ Coalition govt have moved to make sure we don’t follow the SA idiocy. They plan to make sure that we have reliable power supplies to protect our businesses and jobs. Hopefully this will mean the building of many more coal fired power plants here as well. Unbelievable to think that a Labor govt would sell coal all over the world yet refuse Aussies the benefits and rewards of cheaper and very reliable electricity here at home. And a rock solid guarantee that none of Labor’s mitigation stupidity would make any measurable difference to temp by 2100 at all. Just simple maths and science.
http://www.thegwpf.com/australia-plans-to-build-new-coal-power-plants/
Given that drongo has failed, maybe some one else might like to explain what caused this:
http://www.tinyurl.com/1900-2020 [US Environmental Protection Agency]
if not industrial greenhouse gas emissions?
What happens to our biota if this trend continues?
New, unprecedented, warming record for chrissie.
Triple blither!!!
Emitting too much ACO2, chrissie luv.
Good day Drongo.
What caused the rise? probably some influence from GHG emissions, maybe long term oceanic cycles. I wouldn’t like to speculate, we don’t understand enough.
What happens to the biota if this trend continues? There will be adaptation and migration with winners and losers, as has happened many times before. This trend is quite slow unlike year to year temperature changes and the massive assaults on nature caused by human activities like fishing, hunting, farming and industrial development.
Will the trend continue? I don’t think anyone knows. My personal belief is that natural feedbacks will stop the trend. At least it is running well below what the climate models forecast.
Luckily we do understand enough and there are no oceanic cycles that explain the long term trend.
The trend is pretty close to models as shown here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment Reports/AR5 – Synthesis Report/Topic 1/Fig 1.10-01.png
What a sweeping statement about “we” do understand enough. The IPCC admit they don’t have enough information about trends in cloudiness, have no idea why stratospheric water vapour has increased, and why there has been an apparent decrease in surface winds in the tropics and mid-latitudes. All these three things could influence surface temperatures significantly.
The difference between you and me is certainty. You “know” CO2 is the driver and that you are right. I’m a lot more doubtful and think CO2 may be just one of many climate drivers, and unlike you I am also prepared to admit I might be totally wrong.
Chris, here’s that other full GISS record again up to 2014. And you’ll note your silly graph is highly inaccurate because it shows UAH to have a higher trend than RSS. In fact full RSS trend is 1.35 c/century and UAH V 6 is 1.2 c/ century. So what is your source?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lPGChYUUeuc/VLhzJqwRhtI/AAAAAAAAAS4/ehDtihKNKIw/s1600/GISTemp%2BKelvin%2B01.png
Radio interview conducted by Chris Smith with Howard Brady
I’m aware this discussion has concluded but I’m posting a URL to a 2GB radio interview conducted by Chris Smith with Howard Brady recently. Some of you may be interested in it:
Neville
What you call “silly” was produced by the US government (EPA) pre-Trump.
So it is you who represents “silly”.
You obviously do not know how to access GISS data.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Neville, see my response to your comment above about grape harvesting times.
Gary I have no doubt that some warming has occurred recently but I am also aware that this year is a late season for table grapes etc in the Mildura/Robinvale area. I think it just shows that co2 may not be the primary driver of some increased warming over the last 60+ years.
Around the planet it isn’t showing up in world glacier retreat trends and there are plenty PR SL studies that don’t support the theory either. Also Greenland warming was faster during the earlier 20 th century than the recent warming since the 1990s. The NATURAL AMO change is probably the major cause of both Greenland warming periods.
Also the Calvo et al study has found that overall southern OZ has been cooling over the past 6,500 years. And Antarctica has been cooling slightly over the full satellite record for the past 38 years. So much for more warming at the poles. Warming at the NP but not the SP and co2 levels only vary slightly with the SP showing levels are now over 400 ppm.
x
The ice core records always show temp rise and fall and then co2 levels then follow after a period of time. IOW over hundreds of thousands of years co2 always lags behind temperature and sometimes the lag is thousands of years behind the change in temp.
Humlum et al 2013 looked at the modern relationship between temp and co2 and also found that temp increased first and co2 lagged behind over all the data-sets. Here is a summary from The Cornwall Alliance of the PR Humlum study. Here is the Link about temp and co2 from the Alliance looking at many ice core studies and the recent Humlum study is at the end of the link.
http://cornwallalliance.org/2012/12/carbon-dioxide-and-air-temperature-who-leads-and-who-follows/
Here is their summary———–
“That is exactly the focus of a recent paper by Humlum et al. (2013). Their premise was to examine the lags and leads between a number of annually-averaged variables including (1) surface air temperature from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre, (2) surface air temperature data from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, (3) surface air temperature data from the US National Climatic Data Center, (4) sea surface temperature data from the Hadley Centre, (5) lower troposphere air temperature data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville, (6) globally-averaged marine CO2 data, (7) data on anthropogenic releases of CO2 from the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, and (8) global warming potential data on volcanic eruptions.
Interestingly, they found that although conventional wisdom suggests that CO2 should lead air temperature, it doesn’t. They concluded that “changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always [lag] behind corresponding changes in air temperature.” Overall, the chain of effects proceeds from the oceans to the land surface to the lower troposphere. They go on to conclude “the maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11-12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature.” Moreover, changes in ocean temperatures are good predictors of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 while CO2 released from anthropogenic sources are not well correlated with changes in total atmospheric CO2.
Thus, changes in CO2 may be lagging changes in temperature (oceanic, land surface, and lower troposphere) on annual time-scales, consistent with the results from ice cores over longer time periods. Sampling differences are likely the cause for the different lag rates between the Humlum et al. (2013) study and the ice core records (yearly versus multi-centennial lags) but a clear picture is beginning to emerge: CO2 does not drive changes in global air temperature, it follows them.
In short: Mr. Hescox puts the cart before the horse”.
David R. Legates, Ph.D., is Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware, former Delaware State Climatologist, and a Senior Fellow of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
Neville
Humlum has been debunked in a later issue of Global and Planetary Change, by Mark Richardson.
He shows:
Humlum et al.’s conclusion of natural CO2 rise since 1980 not supported by the data
Their use of differentiated time series removes long term contributions.
This conclusion violates conservation of mass.
Further analysis shows that the natural contribution is indistinguishable from zero.
The calculated human contribution is sufficient to explain the entire rise.
Humlum’s et al. use of differentiated time series removes long term trends such that the presented results cannot support this conclusion.
Using the same data sources it is shown that this conclusion violates conservation of mass.
Furthermore human emissions explain the entire observed long term trend with a residual that is indistinguishable from zero, and that the natural temperature-dependent effect identified by Humlum et al. is an important contributor to the variability, but does not explain any of the observed long term trend of + 1.62 ppm yr? 1.
Chris, you do love ‘debunked’. But the right word is ‘disputed’. Whether or not CO2 leads or lags temperature is indeed a disputed area. Richardson’s article cannot resolve it fully. But it is an area that you could explore. If CO2 lags temperature rises, then of course it can’t be responsible, and the whole AGW edifice would collapse. So it is worth your having a detailed look.
So human induced climate change hasn’t been debunked then? Good.
‘Human-induced climate change’ is a hypothesis, and while it has been and is disputed, it is still live. I don’t think it is especially strong, but you know that.
And while you’re looking, here’s a thought, chrissie:
Remember that ~ 0.5c rise pre 1940 which was a similar rate to the ~ 0.5c pre 2000 rise over a similar time frame?
If the first one was predominantly Nat Var, could the second one possibly be for the same reason?
Oh, and chrissie, don’t forget to apply yourself a little more diligently to the data and facts than is the wont of the usual suspects these days:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/03/university-culture-and-climate-change/
We know you can do it.
I am sure “debunked” works just fine.
Neville. So now your source is a right wing Christian think tank. From 4 years ago. Forgive me if I seem…sceptical.
We love you to be sceptical, rossie, but try applying that scepticism to the message instead of an AK47 to the messenger.
Otherwise you seem something other than sceptical.
From Don to NGA
“Nga, Don’t you read what you write? Calling people climate bothers or warmists is not to engage in hyperbole, and I have never described such people as members of a religious cult. Those are your words not mine.”
Well there is this alternative fact that I dug up from “25 Years of failed predictions”
“…At the same time, electorates are used to hyperbole from politicians, and probably discount what they hear. There certainly are people who believe in the predictions and worry, and I feel sorry for them. The whole thing is reminiscent of RELIGIOUS DOOMSDAY CULTS, whose leaders prophesy that their search of the Bible shows that the Earth will come to an end on some given date. When that fails to happen, they go into a tent, later to emerge and declare that there is a new date, when this time the Earth will really come to an end.” http://donaitkin.com/25-years-of-failed-predictions/
David, you have the same problem as Nga. It’s not an alternative fact at all. It’s just David rushing to say ‘Gotcha!’ before he has read much or thought at all.
Look up ‘reminiscent’. No, to save you the trouble : (Shorter OED) ‘reminiscence…a recollection or remembrance of some past fact or experience related to others…’ Now look at the text you’ve quoted. Has Don called those, like you,’who believe in the predictions’ members of a religious doomsday cult’?
Well, no he hasn’t has he. He says ‘The whole thing’ — the urge to believe and not question the belief — reminds one of such cults.
Oh, and it still isn’t hyperbole, either.
Utterly desperate Don. We can all read EXACTLY what is in front of us. Spin it any way you want. But to me you and your ‘friends’ are reminiscent of….
I’ll stop there, shall I? A pity you didn’t. But there it is.
Yes, if you can find an alternative to the last word.
My machine is playing up. My comment at 2.20 pm is directed to David. This one is directed to Ross at 11.04 am: Alas, you are not reading exactly what is in front of you but what you would like to think is in front of you. A bit like David, you jump to what you want rather than thinking for a moment.
No Don. I can read what you posted. You are now using word games that would make the Tweeter of the United States, blush. Certainly reminiscent of.
Don, you are far too polite. These sandwich-board wearing doom-screamers need calling out at every opportunity:
“It’s typical misleading nonsense,” Lindzen said. “We’re talking about less than a tenth of degree with an uncertainty of about a quarter of a degree. Moreover, such small fluctuations – even if real – don’t change the fact that the trend for the past 20 years has been much less than models have predicted.”
http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2017/01/29/scientists_criticize_hottest_year_on_record_claim_as_hype.html
So are we alliwed to make statments like
Don, SD and Nev present arguments that are reminisant of climate change denialists ?
“Don, SD and Nev present arguments that are reminisant (sic) of climate change denialists”
Davie, I get the foolish point you are trying to make but why don’t you warmists man up and try telling the truth for a change.
Sceptics strongly believe in climate change and you lot know it but you misrepresent us all the time.
If you wish to proclaim [the truth] that warmists believe in and support catastrophic, man made, climate change but that for some reason your opponents on the other side of the debate do not support that line of argument and that they claim it is either Nat Var or if to some extent man made it is not likely to be a problem, then for goodness sake try admitting the facts for a change.
You are perfectly aware of the situation as I have explained it but you choose to hide behind your pathetic “climate change denialist” slogan which is not only dishonest but a sure sign that you have lost the argument.
SD
“Skeptics strongly believe in climate change and you lot know it but you misrepresent us all the time.
If you wish to proclaim …”
This is not true. Don for example is forever arguing that ” the data are not fit for purpose” How can you derive any conclusions about trends if you don’t accept the data are valid?
“How can you derive any conclusions about trends if you don’t accept the data are valid?”
David, haven’t you noticed that going back at least as far as the hockey stick [last century] this is what the argument has mostly been about.
The gatekeepers are consistently warming the present and cooling the past.
There is possibly some argument for homogenisation In some situations but when any rational person is aware there are many situations when, because of the huge UHIE in the major centres awa at bare, black tarmac airports in otherwise frozen countryside [and it is these developed centres where most of the thermometers are kept] this necessary heavy adjustment in the opposite direction does not happen, this does tend to invalidate the data.
What we all read in the “climategate” emails didn’t set any sceptics’ fears at rest either.
How you can possibly conclude that this has anything to do with denial of climate change is beyond belief.
David: “Don for example is forever arguing that ” the data are not fit for purpose” How can you derive any conclusions about trends if you don’t accept the data are valid?”
Apparently, once you’ve declared the data invalid, the cautious approach is to shrug and carry on regardless. You know, like when you’re towing a 3T caravan across the Nullabor with a headwind, outside air temp is reading 45C, engine temperature gauge is slowly climbing towards two thirds before it fails and reads dead cold. Whadya’ gonna’ do? Shrug and accelerate, the data are invalid. “But what about the trend we were seeing before it failed?” asks the Mrs. Pfff… mechanics are always biasing those gauges to read too high to keep themselves in radiator work.
Yeah, that’s right jimb.
It’s those dumb sceptics that are fiddling the instruments.
Don, clearly you are the one with “the urge to believe and not question the belief”. This is why you copied and pasted Philip Lloyd’s article from WUWT as “evidence” to bolster your claim that data homogenisation is making warming more significant than it really is without taking some obvious steps to check the article’s accuracy. As we now know, (1) Lloyd’s raw data wasn’t raw at all, he applied a 5 year rolling average without telling us he had done so [although his graph is labelled as such], (2) he failed to mention that the station had been moved because he didn’t do enough research to find that out (3) he provides no evidence to suggest any of the homogenisation treatments were inappropriate, (4) he failed to provide us with the metadata he had been given, (5) he tried to bolster his claim that temperatures dropped in the 1940s to 1970s globally and in Cape Town with a hoax magazine cover and (6) his assumed drop in temperature in Cape Town from 1960 was in fact the result of the station being moved!
I’m surprised that you’re still this feisty with all that egg on your face. Aren’t you just a wee bit embarrassed?
Nga,the best way to deal with this rant is to copy it and comment:
Don, clearly you are the one with “the urge to believe and not question the belief”. [No, I am not believer, but someone who doubts and relies on good data and argument.]
This is why you copied and pasted Philip Lloyd’s article from WUWT as “evidence” to bolster your claim that data homogenisation is making warming more significant than it really is without taking some obvious steps to check the article’s accuracy.[No, that is not why I acted as I did, as I have explained elsewhere.]
As we now know, (1) Lloyd’s raw data wasn’t raw at all, he applied a 5 year rolling average without telling us he had done so [although his graph is labelled as such], (2) he failed to mention that the station had been moved because he didn’t do enough research to find that out (3) he provides no evidence to suggest any of the homogenisation treatments were inappropriate, (4) he failed to provide us with the metadata he had been given, (5) he tried to bolster his claim that temperatures dropped in the 1940s to 1970s globally and in Cape Town with a hoax magazine cover and (6) his assumed drop in temperature in Cape Town from 1960 was in fact the result of the station being moved! [None of this is relevant to why I used the data he provided. The raw data show the same. It is not my business to check everything. I relied on his GISS average in good faith.]
I’m surprised that you’re still this feisty with all that egg on your face. Aren’t you just a wee bit embarrassed? [No, not at all.]
Nga, in future I will comment only on a serious contribution you make, not on rubbish like this.
deleted
“Nga, in future I will comment only on a serious contribution you make, not on rubbish like this.”
Manners thanks, Donald.
“The raw data show the same.”
Actually no. The raw data shows a clear instrumentation issue. The more he smooths that, the more he convinces people it’s not a measurement issue at all but rather just normal weather variations. This is actually the case of a skeptic “hiding the decline” because the decline is too vertical to be taken seriously.
“It is not my business to check everything. ”
To be honest Don, I’d go so far as to say you don’t seem to check much at all. You blindly cut-n-paste nonsense from dubious sources, and refute well argued papers without even looking at them in detail.
In any case, now that you know how deceiving those 5 year averages are, and your own oft quoted statistician to the stars says there’s no reason to ever do that, you could of course remove them from your essay. But I’m guessing so long as they fit the story rather than the facts, they’ll stay.
Shorter Don Aitkin: defending the faith matters more than defending the facts.
— already posted —
Nga,
I find Lloyd’s arguments reminiscent of those — snip — who howl at the moon. You know the sort.
Davie luv, is lying and misrepresenting the only thing you know?
Honesty still too hard to cope with?
Don snip away if you feel the need. But at a minimum you should justify why you feel it is OK for you to preface
“religious doomsday cults” with “reminiscent” and that is OK but we are not afforded the same liberty with “denialist”?
Paper thin! You got caught with your pants down. Pull them up. And lets move on.
“You got caught with your pants down. Pull them up. “
Is that what happened? —snip—
Snipped again Nga?
I think you are being circumscribed.
Don
I have read the paper which is here:
http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf
It is appalling.
If any lag in any series is less than 12 months you MUST NOT adjust the data by averaging over 12 months.
An example will make this clear. If you lag a sine wave you end up with a cosine. But if you take the running averages over a full cycle, the lag completely disappears. The running average for a sine wave is exactly equal to the running average of a cosine wave for all points in time.
Now of course warmer temperatures will produce additional CO2 through outgassing, so once you have eliminated the CO2 first temp second lag, you endup with the second effect or feedback – temp rise producing a CO2 pulse.
Still waiting for a reply, chrissie, to my question February 4, 2017 at 11:40 am.
Good day.
Still waiting for greenhouse [as the late, great John Daly would say]
Still waiting for chrissie to answer a simple question.
Here it is again, chrissie luv in case you can’t find it:
Remember that ~ 0.5c rise pre 1940 which was a similar rate to the ~ 0.5c pre 2000 rise over a similar time frame?
If the first one was predominantly Nat Var, could the second one possibly be for the same reason?
SD,
What sort of question is this? And to think I spent my time trying to find this question above. Anyway setting aside your frequently demonstrated inability to interpret the scientific literature, lets assume you have managed to accurately collect a few factoids from the web. Well, yes, it could be true. Except for the fact that there is enough published scientific evidence to sink the QE2, that suggests otherwise,
‘What sort of question is this?”
An extremely basic one, davie dear. And very relevant to the AGW debate.
But apparently too hard for both you and chrissie.
But give it a go, davie.
You might surprise us all yet.
Chrissie and davie, this might help:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1910/to:2000
FROM SD
“Why would we want to potentially bring about these sort of climate changes on ourselves?”
Why indeed?
But dave, d’ya possibly think that if they have happened before, many, many times as part of our natural system, it might be rational to think that they could be due to something else entirely?
And that removing something that may be our only saviour could be a bit foolish?
And that making huge lifestyle changes without knowing half the facts could lead us into a much bigger mess than we are in at present?
And that, as on the law of averages our earthly potential for catastrophe comes from so many different directions, this is only a tiny segment of that potential catastrophe?
For heaven’s sake look at the bigger picture and remain rational.
SD you write
“But dave, d’ya possibly think that if they have happened before, many, many times as part of our natural system, it might be rational to think that they could be due to something else entirely?”
Absolutely: This temperature increase is due to a man-made increase CO2! What else did you think I was going to say?
Agree making changes for AGW could be foolish. And I agree catastrophe could come from other sources and that AGW is only a proportion of our potential risk, but this is a risk we can potentially mitigate.
You ask me to be rational. I am. It is rational to accept that as humanity increases from 1 to 11 billion people over 400 year time span and our energy consumption per person also undergoes a 100 fold increase that collectively we will have an impact on our environment. The ecosystem is much more interrelated than you appreciate. O2, CO2 Plants animals and our climate are all inter-related. We are currently releasing millions of years of stored CO2 into the atmosphere.
I do not think a she-will-be-right attitude is going to cut it. It might be rationale for old men like you to be sanguine about the future. A few more laps around the sun and you will be out of here. For you AGW is just something to moan about in retirement along with people who do not pick up after their dogs. But you will be fine. But for the rest of us the consequences are potentially a bit more concrete.
For younger people it is rational to exercise a bit of caution, we are the ones who will need to live with the consequences of our decisions, right or wrong.
“Absolutely: This temperature increase is due to a man-made increase CO2! What else did you think I was going to say?”
Davie luv, I sure knew you were going to say it.
Because that’s all you are capable of doing. Making irrational assertions.
Now, how about you follow that up with some supporting evidence and/or give us all a break.
And stop with the generalised waffle about the ecosystem.
I spend half my life data logging wildlife, native and feral, fauna and flora, and I have a pretty good idea what goes on.
Certainly a lot better idea than most middle aged and younger people who rarely set foot in the wilderness and if they do it is usually with earphones and a video screen in front of them.
They wouldn’t know “caution” if they stumbled over it.
Are you one of these?
Your and their [one and the same?] idea of caution is the foolish “precautionary principle” which, when boiled down means paying a premium that is far in excess of the cost of any possible potential damage and when it comes to doing any detailed and serious cost benefits study you run a mile. And abuse the proposer.
I have already published a new essay, which is not about climate change at all. But Judith Curry’s website has a most interesting story written by the former Principal Scientist of NCEI about shenanigans that went on before he retired. They concern the methods used to generate a new measure of SST, about which I have written a few times (ERSST4), the publication of the Karl paper that used it, and the methods used to bypass the normal checks and quality control related to data. It is a most absorbing piece, and hard to fault. Judith Curry points out that the paper would probably have been rejected by the Obama Administration, since the Karl paper was important to it in its ‘climate change’ vision. It may have greater traction now. I expect that this incident will grow to be something like the ClimateGate fuss of 2009. I may write my own reflections on it in due course, but it is very well worth reading now.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/#more-22794
Don two questions
1. Is the meaning of shenanigans the same as conspiracy or do you mean shonky.
2. Do you mean shenanigans or just reminisicent of shenanigans?
Thanks, Don. Fascinating insight by someone who would know. Look forward to your thoughts on this.
Meanwhile the true believers keep criticizing us for being sceptical of the “valid, adjusted data” produced by these gatekeepers.
Thanks, Don. You might want to hold fire until we know whether Bates is a reliable snitch lest you get more egg on your face. A snooty post on Aunt Judy’s blog means nothing in the absence of corroborative evidence.
Don, if you look hard enough I bet you’ll find that Bates has even corresponded with Lloyd.
Whereas Church, White, Hunter et al can feed us all the cobblers in the world and it makes no difference to their lilywhite cred.
Poor ol’ enge is pathetic ain’t she?
Plainly you didn’t read it properly, or probably at all. Just remind readers of Bates’s position in the NCEI system, and what he tried to do.
For those interested in the present state of the debate about Bates’s whistleblowing on the Karl paper, and much else beside, readers can go to Judith Curry’s site, where you will find a strong, even acerbic, debate in the Comments, following JC’s summary of where she thinks it is at. Again, this is only the beginning. But the great advantage of JC’s site is that it does attract both sides of the AGW debate, and you’ll find many of the names there. Warning, it can’t be done in five minutes.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/#more-22812
Popular Science has a great article on what is clearly a Fake News story. It notes:
“At the center of the argument is contention over how NOAA maintains climate data records. Climate researchers receive grants to process and develop climate-related data sets. Once those data sets are fully developed, it becomes the responsibility of NOAA’s National Climactic Data Center (NCDC) to preserve, monitor, and update that data—which can sometimes be what data scientists refer to as messy. “The problem,” said Kevin Trenberth a Distinguished Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “is that this is quite an arduous process, and can take a long time. And, of course NOAA doesn’t necessarily get an increase of funds to do this.” Maintaining this data fell under the purview of Bates’ group, and it’s this data that he has taken issue with publicly. “Bates was complaining that not all of the data sets were being done as thoroughly as he wanted to,” said Ternberth. “But there’s a compromise you have to make as to whether you can do more data sets or whether you can do more really thoroughly. And the decision was made that you try and do more.”
…
“[Bates] primary complaint seems to be that when researchers at NOAA published this paper in Science, while they used a fully developed and vetted ocean temperature product, they used an experimental land temperature product,” said Zeke Hausfather, an energy systems analyst and environmental economist with Berkeley Earth. Because climate data comes from a number of different sources, methods of handling that data go through a vetting process that ultimately dictates the use of one for the official government temperature product. That can mean controlling for known defects in the devices that gather climate data or figuring out the best way to put them together. The product that Karl used for land temperature data hadn’t finished that process. “That said,” said Hausfather, “the land temperature data they used in the paper is certainly up to the standards of an experimental or research product.”
So what does that mean for those of us on the outside? Not much. The record data that Bates takes umbrage with showed roughly the same amount of warming as the old record. And the evidence that the Karl paper cites as to why there’s no hiatus is based on ocean temperatures—not land. So even if Bates’ critiques were valid—and given that this methodology, after much peer review, is now the default way that NOAA calculates land temperatures, his complaints seem problematic—it doesn’t upend the study’s conclusion.”
http://www.popsci.com.au/science/the-house-science-committee-claims-scientists-faked-climate-change-data8212heres-what-you-should-know,450206
SD make up your mind do you accept the world is warming or not. One post you protest “of course we accept the world is warming” and in another you talk about the data is invalid.
I suggest you go away and think about it and come back when you have someting coherent to share with us all.
Wakie, wakie, davie dum dums.
You obviously didn’t open my WFT link that I asked you to comment on yet you carry on brainless waffling as though you did:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1970/to:2000/trend/pl ot/hadcrut3gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1910/to:200 0
Bob Tisdale and others knew the Karl paper was BS and a con the moment it was rushed through to suit the their fra-dulent Paris COP 21 agenda. Let’s hope that the Republicans and Trump will pursue these con merchants and bring charges against them.
Amazing that we are now told that Karl’s study cannot be replicated because of a computer crash. Here’s the Daily Mail link to the greatest scandal since Climategate. Don was spot on to be concerned about their dubious SST claims.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
That link is a bit hard to read, too many distractions from the click-bait on the RHS of the webpage.
Bob Tisdale is a crank: https://tamino.wordpress.com/?s=bob+tisdale
“And stop with the generalised waffle about the ecosystem.
I spend half my life data logging wildlife, native and feral, fauna and flora, and I have a pretty good idea what goes on”
This is so typical SD. So apparently you spent half your life living in the eco system. Did you get a bit of TA? So where did you spend the other half of your life?
You are clueless!
“So apparently you spent half your life living in the eco system.”
What dumb conclusions you manage to draw from simple statements.
No wonder you can’t come to grips with a relatively simple problem or answer a simple question.
You’re next, chrissie.
Any improvement on davie dum dums?
My god, Drongo, you really are a first class idiot, aren’t you? Go stare at the tide.
Rossie and davie are a pigeon pair. They can’t make a logical statement or come to a rational conclusion.
Or have two sensible ideas on climate to rub together.
Instead of engaging in fact-free insults, rossie, would you care to submit some data from your own observations of the “catastrophe” we are on the threshold collapsing into?
Or do you only believe what your religious instructions tell you?
Rossie and davie, here’s the abstract of your religious instruction:
Brief exposure to Pope Francis heightens moral beliefs about climate change
Jonathon P. Schuldt, Adam R. Pearson, Rainer Romero-Canyas, Dylan Larson-Konar
“In his recent encyclical letter Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home, Pope Francis issued a moral appeal to the global community for swift action on climate change. However, social science research suggests a complex relationship between religious concepts and environmental attitudes, raising the question of what influence the pope’s position may have on public opinion regarding this polarizing issue. In a national probability survey experiment of U.S. adults (n?=?1212), we find that brief exposure to Pope Francis influenced the climate-related beliefs of broad segments of the public: it increased perceptions of climate change as a moral issue for the overall sample (and among Republicans in particular) and increased felt personal responsibility for contributing to climate change and its mitigation (among Democrats). Moreover, prior awareness of the pope’s views on climate change mattered, such that those who indicated greater awareness of the pope’s position showed stronger treatment effects, consistent with a priming account of these effects. Results complement recent correlational findings and offer further evidence of the Vatican’s influence on climate change public opinion.”
Science just doesn’t come into it, eh?
SD,
You believe natural variation (NV) is an alternative to CO2 to explain global warming. You see them as competing alternatives, and argue that NV is better. However, there is no reason why they could not both be included in a climate model like this.
Temperature = f (CO2, NV)
The problem is that NV cannot be defined. What is a unit of NV?
If NV could be defined and data collected, this model could be estimated. And the coefficients for CO2 and NV could be compared.
In many respects, your argument is similar to Judith Curry’s reliance on Factor X. What is a unit of factor X?
But unlike you, Professor Curry recognizes that empirical proof is required. This is why she is forever asking for just-one-more-grant to find her Factor X. Its obviously a very self-serving argument.
I do not deny that NV could exists. Who knows maybe one day someone like Judith Curry may prove you right. However, until NV can be defined and measured and your hypothesis remains untested.
But credit where credit is due SD. Your line of argument is intellectually more much sophisticated than Don’s “the data are not fit for purpose” trope.
“I do not deny that NV could exists [sic from red cordial].”
COULD davie?
COULD?
Please come out of that ivory tower, davie, and descend into reality.
NV for the last 100 centuries of the Holocene has moved up and down around 3c.
NV for the period of life on earth is possibly 10 times that.
The fact that you are showing this incredible ignorance this late in the argument makes me want to give up.
Correction
I dont deny that NV DOES exist. It could be increasing or decreasing temperature as we speak. We dont know. The only rational response is to assume that on average has no effect on temperature, until empirical evidence is presented to tje contary
But until you can demonstrate how to measure it NV remains an untested hypothesis.
What you need to do SD is first explain how to measure NV; Kilos, mettes, litres or volts?
Then estimate a model as I outlined above.
SD instead of throwing around acusations of ignorance at others spend some time thinking about the basic concepts.
What is NV and how do you measure it?
Until you can answer these questions it can be included in any empirical study.
“What is NV and how do you measure it?”
That is exactly what scientists have been asking for a long time.
But there is no argument that it exists and as can be seen from all the proxies going back as long as you like, for the Holocene, Nat Var has been about 3.0c and as I said above, possibly 10 times that over the longer term of life on earth.
There are studies to show that Nat Var has been around 1.0c per century for the last 80 centuries.
But one thing is for certain: when Nat Var has just gone through 4 centuries of the coldest extended period in the Holocene known as the little ice age following the medieval warm period it’s only going to head in one direction for a while, and that is more warming.
Neville and I have been trying to point this out here for a long time.
But it’s not so much what it is as what causes it.
And that’s exactly what science doesn’t know and can’t quantify.
And when science can’t do that it certainly can’t apportion what part of the warming is due to Nat Var and what [if any] is due to ACO2.
Considering that our measured global warming for the last couple of centuries is less than 1.0c and that is measured by thermometers that are kept where all the UHIE is and that same UHIE has been measured in big cities to be as much as 6.0c on a given day then it follows that ACO2 could be just as easily causing cooling.
The best data of course comes from the satellites which avoid most UHIE.
And then of course there is the reasoning that other forms of land use change also causes warming, such as land clearing, which has a very noticeable effect in rural areas awa suburbs.
That total ” measured global warming for the last couple of centuries of less than 1.0c ” is very hard pressed to cover all those global warming effects so how can you possibly claim, let alone prove, ACO2 causes warming?
Hellloooo chrissieeee!!!!!
It’s still raining in Innisfail!!
We’re still waiting for greenhouse!!
And still waiting for an answer to a very simple question I asked you 32 hours ago that should be right up your alley.
Like could these two separate warm periods have possibly occurred for the same reason?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1910/to:2000
A smart bloke of your cabernacity should be able to work it out no trouble.
Don’t let yourself down. Remember, I’m always here if you need me.
A simple yes or no would do but some reasoning for how you arrived at your decision would be wonderful.
SD dilute the red cordial.
How can you deal with climate science if you subscribe to theGod-lobbyist’s “Intelligent Design” dogma:
“Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”
But this is the hidden agenda of many associated with the Cornwell Alliance which receives hidden funds from the so-called Donors Trust.
Roy Spencer had a tract published by Texas Public Policy Foundation in 2016 also funded by hidden cash.
And now in Australia the IPA is about to publish “Climate Change: The Facts 2017” based on the usual suspects. The IPA is funded by rightwingers in Australia and also substantial sums from the United States. See:
http://conservativetransparency.org/recipient/institute-of-public-affairs/
Agree. Our continued existence is not guaranteed. I have read that 99% of the species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. It seems logical that the greater our abilty to affect our future the more care we should exercise.
Chrissie and davie,
Meditate on the message and moderate messenger murder
SD you could replace the expression “natural variation” with the expression “God’s will” in your argument and it would make just as much sense.
God’s Will or Gaia’s error or whatever, davie luv.
It’s a fact and it is happening and has been happening forever.
Please don’t be foolish enough to deny it.
Quite recently NV was in the region of 20 c as you can see here:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=gisp+ice+core+graphs&biw=1042&bih=570&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMqtz08fzRAhUKmJQKHWe1CQwQsAQIOA&dpr=1.25#imgrc=W01RlEuz2UGZKM:
How does your “terrifying” 0.8c of measured warming in the last 2 centuries stack up against that?
Do you see how ridiculous it is to claim that this miniscule current warming can only be down to human emissions when Nature, God or Gaia produced 20 times that amount in the last 20,000 years.
Meanwhile Ken Stewart exposes more of the extremist nonsense from their ABC. The BOM temp data doesn’t support the dying baby turtles rubbish peddled last week by these con merchants.
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2017/02/05/another-abc-fail/#comments
Neville
While it is necessary to have good data and produce it for others, the 1998 fetish, pause-mongering has been debunked already.
See: https://skepticalscience.net/pdf/rebuttal/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.pdf
I assume you have not read Thomas Karl’s paper and are just reiterating third hand stuff from those pushing ExxonMobil agendas.
You may ask where Karl’s and the several other contributors paper on the demise of the pause mysteriously got eaten by a single computer- no backup whatsoever. As well as using ship sea temperatures when Argo didn’t comply. Vieux Jeu!
“David, one January does not a record summer make.” Is that right DLB ?
In “Sydney weather: City sweats through summer without peer as NSW records melt” the SMH reports another record.
“Sydneysiders will get a couple of days of relief from the abnormal warmth before another tide of heat arrives, all but assuring this summer will be the city’s hottest on record….”
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/sydney-weather-city-sweats-through-summer-without-peer-as-nsw-records-melt-20170206-gu6fnl.html
(4) CO2 is said to be a well-mixed gas. And by and large that seems to be true. If so, and increases in the amount of CO2 are the principal cause of warming, then warming should be much the same in both hemispheres. This is not the case. If the effect is greater in the northern hemisphere, how is that to be explained?
I am trying to come to grips with this stuff.
A number of seemingly reputable and qualified people such as Ted Ball seem to be saying that co2 does not cause warming. Warming of the oceans result in the emission of Co2. And the increasing Co2 in the atmosphere has a beneficial effect in that the world is becoming greener.
This to me rather turns the story upside down.
Brian
Well mixed does not mean instantly uniform.
Ted Ball has been debunked:
Despite having a short (eight years as a professor) and undistinguished (five peer-reviewed publications in his lifetime) career as a geography professor at the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Ball was able in the last 10 years to elevate himself to the level of self-appointed climate change expert. By working with energy industry lobby firms .. http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die , he was able to insinuate himself as a would-be advisor to committees of the Canadian House of Commons and the the U.S. Senate. At one point, he presumed to send a letter directly to Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, introducing himself as “one of the first climatology PhDs in the world .. http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Johnson%20statement%20of%20defence.pdf ,” – a claim so far from accurate as to be laughable.
By his activism, his constant and so-often ill-informed criticism of scientists who were actually working in the field of climate change, Ball had, by 2006, established himself as Canada’s pre-eminent global warming denier. The Globe and Mail called him “Mr. Cool,” although the accompanying feature .. http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html .. was anything but complimentary.
Still, at least he was getting attention.
When someone (University of Lethbridge Professor Dan Johnson) finally called Ball on his trumped up resume, the uber-denier launched a suit of defamation. Big mistake. The statements of defence .. http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-lawsuit-documents .. included more devastating slander than Ball had ever previously endured. Lawyers for the Calgary Herald, for example, dismissed him as someone “viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry, rather than as a practicing scientist.”
Ball abandoned his suit and went back to spreading disinformation in small prairie town service clubs. This blow to his credibility was such that he is no longer even a candidate for inclusion in the periodic lists that the climate denial industry creates to try to give the impression that there is still a legitimate scientific debate about climate change. For example, in a full page that the Cato Institute placed in five major American newspapers last week, Ball’s name was left off the list .. http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/cato_climate.pdf , in favour of “climate experts” like Dr. Susan Crockford, an archeoanthropologist who’s actual expertise in the evolutionary theory of the domestic dog. The folks at Cato might even be applauded for trransparency. Instead of using Ball, who has tried on many occasions to deny that his income derives directly or indirectly from oil and gas revenues, Cato included on his petition A Neil Hutton, the past president of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists. There is clearly no question who’s interests the American Petroleum Industry-sponsored Cato is trying to defend – and without the help of a damaged ally like Tim Ball.
So now Dr. Ball is left with a dwindling audience, writing his weekly column in the little-known libertarian website Canada Free Press. There .. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9746 , recently, he set upon doctors James Hansen and Andrew Weaver, two of the most respected climate scientists on the continent. Both of these men have published more peer-reviewed research in a single season than Ball wrote in his entire career. Both have gained the respect and admiration of their professional colleagues and both are prominent contributors to the Nobel quality work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Both are also seriously (and justifiably) concerned about government inaction in the face of a slimate change threat that grows more daunting by the day. Ball is fond of dismissing concern as “alarmism” – as if alerting your neighbors to danger is somehow a bad thing.
It’s true that pulling the fire alarm in a theatre is an act of mischief – WHEN THERE IS NO FIRE. But when providing an early warning could save lives, it is an act of heroism. That may be especially the case when standing up to raise the alarm can subject you to the kind of ill-informed character assassination that Ball directs at Hansen and Weaver.
The question, for Dr. Ball – an expert with no credentials and, increasingly, an advocate with no audience – is this: If he would have us criticize Hansen and Weaver for alarmism – for “frightening people” in a theatre that is about to be engulfed in flames – what accusation would he hurl at the usher who blocks the door and recommends people return to their seats and ignore the smoke already curling around their head.
I’d suggest “criminal negligence” at the least, especially if that “usher” truly had above-average scientific understanding and was particularly able to assess the risk.
As the bodies start piling up, others may prescribe more dramatic charge – perhaps some variation of “deadly irresponsibility.” In the first degree.
Brian
Well mixed does not mean instantly uniform.
Ted Ball has been debunked:
Despite having a short (eight years as a professor) and undistinguished (five peer-reviewed publications in his lifetime) career as a geography professor at the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Ball was able in the last 10 years to elevate himself to the level of self-appointed climate change expert. By working with energy industry lobby firms .. http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die , he was able to insinuate himself as a would-be advisor to committees of the Canadian House of Commons and the the U.S. Senate. At one point, he presumed to send a letter directly to Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, introducing himself as “one of the first climatology PhDs in the world .. http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Johnson%20st atement%20of%20defence.pdf ,” – a claim so far from accurate as to be laughable.
By his activism, his constant and so-often ill-informed criticism of scientists who were actually working in the field of climate change, Ball had, by 2006, established himself as Canada’s pre-eminent global warming denier. The Globe and Mail called him “Mr. Cool,” although the accompanying feature .. http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html .. was anything but complimentary.
Still, at least he was getting attention.
When someone (University of Lethbridge Professor Dan Johnson) finally called Ball on his trumped up resume, the uber-denier launched a suit of defamation. Big mistake. The statements of defence .. http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-lawsuit-documents .. included more devastating slander than Ball had ever previously endured. Lawyers for the Calgary Herald, for example, dismissed him as someone “viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry, rather than as a practicing scientist.”
Ball abandoned his suit and went back to spreading disinformation in small prairie town service clubs. This blow to his credibility was such that he is no longer even a candidate for inclusion in the periodic lists that the climate denial industry creates to try to give the impression that there is still a legitimate scientific debate about climate change. For example, in a full page that the Cato Institute placed in five major American newspapers last week, Ball’s name was left off the list .. http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/cato_climate.pdf , in favour of “climate experts” like Dr. Susan Crockford, an archeoanthropologist who’s actual expertise in the evolutionary theory of the domestic dog. The folks at Cato might even be applauded for trransparency. Instead of using Ball, who has tried on many occasions to deny that his income derives directly or indirectly from oil and gas revenues, Cato included on his petition A Neil Hutton, the past president of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists. There is clearly no question who’s interests the American Petroleum Industry-sponsored Cato is trying to defend – and without the help of a damaged ally like Tim Ball.
By his activism, his constant and so-often ill-informed criticism of scientists who were actually working in the field of climate change, Ball had, by 2006, established himself as Canada’s pre-eminent global warming denier. The Globe and Mail called him “Mr. Cool,” although the accompanying feature .. http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html .. was anything but complimentary.
Still, at least he was getting attention.
When someone (University of Lethbridge Professor Dan Johnson) finally called Ball on his trumped up resume, the uber-denier launched a suit of defamation. Big mistake. The statements of defence .. http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-lawsuit-documents .. included more devastating slander than Ball had ever previously endured. Lawyers for the Calgary Herald, for example, dismissed him as someone “viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry, rather than as a practicing scientist.”
Ball abandoned his suit and went back to spreading disinformation in small prairie town service clubs. This blow to his credibility was such that he is no longer even a candidate for inclusion in the periodic lists that the climate denial industry creates to try to give the impression that there is still a legitimate scientific debate about climate change. For example, in a full page that the Cato Institute placed in five major American newspapers last week, Ball’s name was left off the list .. http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/cato_climate.pdf , in favour of “climate experts” like Dr. Susan Crockford, an archeoanthropologist who’s actual expertise in the evolutionary theory of the domestic dog. The folks at Cato might even be applauded for transparency. Instead of using Ball, who has tried on many occasions to deny that his income derives directly or indirectly from oil and gas revenues, Cato included on his petition A Neil Hutton, the past president of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists. There is clearly no question who’s interests the American Petroleum Industry-sponsored Cato is trying to defend – and without the help of a damaged ally like Tim Ball.
So now Dr. Ball is left with a dwindling audience, writing his weekly column in the little-known libertarian website Canada Free Press. There .. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9746 , recently, he set upon doctors James Hansen and Andrew Weaver, two of the most respected climate scientists on the continent. Both of these men have published more peer-reviewed research in a single season than Ball wrote in his entire career. Both have gained the respect and admiration of their professional colleagues and both are prominent contributors to the Nobel quality work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Both are also seriously (and justifiably) concerned about government inaction in the face of a slimate change threat that grows more daunting by the day. Ball is fond of dismissing concern as “alarmism” – as if alerting your neighbors to danger is somehow a bad thing.
It’s true that pulling the fire alarm in a theatre is an act of mischief – WHEN THERE IS NO FIRE. But when providing an early warning could save lives, it is an act of heroism. That may be especially the case when standing up to raise the alarm can subject you to the kind of ill-informed character assassination that Ball directs at Hansen and Weaver.
The question, for Dr. Ball – an expert with no credentials and, increasingly, an advocate with no audience – is this: If he would have us criticize Hansen and Weaver for alarmism – for “frightening people” in a theatre that is about to be engulfed in flames – what accusation would he hurl at the usher who blocks the door and recommends people return to their seats and ignore the smoke already curling around their head.
I’d suggest “criminal negligence” at the least, especially if that “usher” truly had above-average scientific understanding and was particularly able to assess the risk.
As the bodies start piling up, others may prescribe more dramatic charge – perhaps some variation of “deadly irresponsibility.” In the first degree.
Seems to me a case of shooting the messager.
What about the question. Tim Ball is not on his own.
CO2 is, at least in part is produced by a warming ocean?
Brian Austen, I don’t think Ball has been “shot” for his errant views on climate science, more ignored. Quite right too.
‘Well mixed does not mean instantly uniform.’
But is must mean something close to it. What do you think it means, and why do you think so?
It’s a process.
A single pulse of CO2 will eventually be spread due to mixing.
This was observed with fallout from French Tests.
What a weak response.It means nothing. What does well-mixed mean?
I do not use this term. I just say it does not mean instantly uniform.
Brian, this is an anti-science site run by a non-scientist who cuts-n-pastes blog material that he doesn’t check or understand to buttress his prejudices. If you want to learn about science, go to a genuine science site. By the way, it is “Tim” Ball not “Ted” Ball and in spite of his claims to the contrary, he is not a climate scientist.
SD you wrote
“What is NV and how do you measure it?” That is exactly what scientists have been asking for a long time. But there is no argument that it exists and as can be seen from all the proxies going back as long as you like, for the Holocene, Nat Var has been about 3.0c and as I said above, possibly 10 times that over the longer term of life on earth. There are studies to show that Nat Var has been around 1.0c per century for the last 80 centuries.
But one thing is for certain: when Nat Var has just gone through 4 centuries of the coldest extended period in the Holocene known as the little ice age following the medieval warm period it’s only going to head in one direction for a while, and that is more warming. Neville and I have been trying to point this out here for a long time. But it’s not so much what it is as what causes it. And that’s exactly what science doesn’t know and can’t quantify.
And when science can’t do that it certainly can’t apportion what part of the warming is due to Nat Var and what [if any] is due to ACO2.
Considering that our measured global warming for the last couple of centuries is less than 1.0c and that is measured by thermometers that are kept where all the UHIE is and that same UHIE has been measured in big cities to be as much as 6.0c on a given day then it follows that ACO2 could be just as easily causing cooling
The best data of course comes from the satellites, which avoid most UHIE. Then of course there is the reasoning that other forms of land use change also causes warming, such as land clearing, which has a very noticeable effect in rural areas awa suburbs.That total “measured global warming for the last couple of centuries of less than 1.0c ” is very hard pressed to cover all those global warming effects so how can you possibly claim, let alone prove, ACO2 causes warming?
**************************************
Where to begin?
1. SD a proxy is a substitute. For example, car ownership could be a proxy for wealth. If a suitable proxy for NV existed, then it could be substituted for NV in the model
Temp = f (CO2, NV)
The coefficients for CO2 and NV could then be compared and AGW debunked. Rest assured if such a proxy existed, Professor Curry would stop filling out her umpteenth grant application and publish the results in an instant. The paper would complete her life’s work. But she hasn’t.
You write “But it’s not so much what it is as what causes it. And that’s exactly what science doesn’t know and can’t quantify.”
Yes it can . It is like saying lung cancer is caused by natural variation but also recognizing that lung cancer is caused smoking. I don’t need to be able to fully explain the cause of every cancer death before I can say that lung cancer is causally linked to cancer. This is what the confidence intervals around the coefficients allow scientists to do.
You also write “And when science can’t do that it certainly can’t apportion what part of the warming is due to Nat Var and what [if any] is due to ACO2.”
Yes you can. You could for example estimate this
Temp = f (CO2, X, Y, Z)
and record the R2. Where X. Y & Z were other measurable factors, which affect temperature. Then estimate this model without CO2
Temp = f (X, Y ,Z)
and record the R2. Then you would conduct a test to determine is the two R2s were statistically different. If they were then the difference would equal the percentage of the variation in temperature that can be explained by CO2.
My congratulations, David, on a measured and substantial contribution to discussion — your first! Ok, it’s patronising in tone, but there is substance there.
You could think about a second one where you deal with NV’s being a combination of factors, none of them easily measurable. There is no doubt whatever that there re factors other than CO2, both in the past and now. But it is not easy to say what they all are save on general terms (‘bounce-back from the Little Ice Age’).
But you’re going well!
Thanks Don
🙂
David
“Considering that our measured global warming for the last couple of centuries is less than 1.0c”
It has been more than 1 C.
See: http://www.carbonbrief.org/data-dashboard-climate-change
This is only the surface – the oceans down to 100 metres have warmed over 0.5C per 50 years.
See: https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/meantemp_0-100m.png
As the amount of ice declines these trends will increase as a lot of heat is diverted to melt ice (latent heat of fusion).
David
If you focus on the last 20 years, and remove the disruption due to El Nino, the warming trend is around
0.3C per 20 years.
This suggests a warming surface trend of around 1.5C.
See: https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/cru_nonino.jpg
Thanks CW.
The only excuse that I can offer is that fact checking every factoid that SD (and Nev) dredge up would take forever.
You’re getting ahead of yourself, davie, thanking chrissie for his fake facts.
Do you really want to learn or simply have your brain washed?
If the former, stick with Neville and me.
If you prefer the latter just go with the chrissie crap below.
Gee SD, I have always found CW to be very reasonable. His thought processes are ordered, his use of facts well researched and his understanding of how the universe functions tightly conscribed by reality.
You on the other hand not so much.
Chrissie luv, when are you gonna stick with data instead of fakery at the bakery:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:2017/trend
But whatever fakery you choose it doesn’t come within cooee of natural climate variability. Like 10c in a couple of decades:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=gisp+ice+core+graphs&biw=1042&bih=570&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMqtz08fzRAhUKmJQKHWe1CQwQsAQIOA&dpr=1.25#imgrc=W01RlEuz2UGZKM:
SD when are you going to find some data for NV instead of some imaginary “proxy”
Chris,
Aren’t you the one who prefers satellite data?
One glacier in Northern Hemisphere is loosing
5 billion tons per year due to global warming.
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/greenland-glacier-zachariae-isstrom-melting
“5 billion tons per year due to global warming.”
Is that your latest blither or blather, chrissie?:
https://www.iceagenow.info/greenland-ice-sheet-growing-like-crazy/
Follow it daily:
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
I wonder how many days it takes for chrissie to work out what or if there are different causes here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1910/to:2000
86 hours now chrissie luv!!!
Is he very methodical d’ya think, or just slow?
Or could he be in denial?
A hyperactive — snip — posted:
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
but did not read the statement:
” The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”
200 Gt/yr from Greenland includes 5 Gt/yr from one glacier.
” The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”
Do you know where that is coming from, chrissie?
How about satellites with a poor reference frame.
Like those that tell us that sea levels are rising at more than twice the rate of tide gauges.
Since GRACE has been measuring the ice sheet it is known to have a faulty terrestrial reference frame and is being replaced by GRASP.
But look at the graph that tells you the current accumulated surface mass balance of ice relative to the mean AWA past years on Greenland.
It is way above average:
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
You can believe the BS from the satellites with known faulty references or you can believe your lyin’ eyes.
Now, while I have your attention, would you care to answer the question above?
No?
Why am I not surprised?
Drongo reckons it knows more about Greenland Ice sheet than the Danish Meteorological Institute
This is the evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland%2BAntarctica_Mass_Loss.png#/media/File:Greenland%2BAntarctica_Mass_Loss.png
Compare it to the dogmatic statements from our bumblers.
You’ll have to do better than to quote William Connolley et al, the climategatekeepers at Wikipedia.
You really mean to say you don’t know about GRACE telling us for the last 15 years about the dubious Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melting?
DMI feel obliged to quote this data but anyone with a sceptical bone in their body knows it [just like the satellite altimetry] is somewhat less than factual.
So they display those graphs which show the true picture that currently the Greenland ice sheet is considerably above the longer term average.
With satellite altimetry for example, not only is it a circular orbiting satellite trying to measure a pear-shaped geoid with a dubious reference frame but sea levels can change anywhere between nothing and 20,000 mm in one second yet we are supposed to believe it measures SLR of 3mm every 31,536,000 seconds with great accuracy.
What would any rational person consider the error bars might be?
Drongos must be as blind as bats or allergic to science.
The clearly annotated source was NASA.
And for slow-learners, the link to NASA was included.
Sorry about that but once I see a Wikipedia mention in an evidence link on AGW I don’t even click on it.
However NASA use the same source of data and just look at what they have now decided about your link re Antarctica:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
And that DMI graph is saying the same about Greenland but you botherers are in denial about it.
Drongo
Read stuff before trying to misuse it.
It is possible that for the periods and areas covered, that ice balance was positive, but you cannot replace longterm trends with selected short term fluctuations.
For 2016 southern summer …. the sea ice loss has been particularly swift and the Antarctic sea ice extent is currently at the lowest level for this time of year ever recorded in the satellite record, which began in 1979.
No doubt you could find a run of cherry-picked years since 1979, when sea ice increased. And base your entire view on it.
In fact it is your standard practice.
You’re missing the point.
This has nothing to do with sea ice which has no effect on SLR. There are so many unknowns WRT to underwater volcanoes that affect the sea ice.
This is about land ice which, when it melts affects SLR.
But SLR is virtually not happening.
When someone like NASA use a faulty system to endlessly quote ice cap melting to suit their argument and we know that the temperatures where they claim melting is happening are so cold for so long that there has to be build-up [as effectively demonstrated by the “Glacier Girl” experience] we see from NASA’s sudden recant and that DMI graph that they have been using flawed GRACE data and they know it.
If the satellite data that was previously showing net loss is now [with a bit more study] showing net gain, what do you think this says about their various measuring systems?:
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
If they weren’t so enthralled by their own BS systems and data and simply observed sea levels in tectonically stable parts of the world like our east coast they would know that when you observe normal BP king tides a foot lower than they were 70 years ago there is not much net glacier melt.
Drongo says:
“But SLR is virtually not happening.”
United States NOAA says:
“Global mean sea level (GMSL) has increased by about 21 centimeters (cm) to 24 cm (8–9 inches [in])
since 1880, with about 8 cm (3 in) occurring since 1993 (Church and White, 2011; Hay et al., 2015;
Nerem et al., 2010). In addition, the rate of GMSL rise since 1900 has been faster than during any
comparable period over at least the last 2800 years (Kopp et al., 2016a). As is discussed in detail in
this report, scientists expect that GMSL will continue to rise throughout the 21 st century and beyond,
because of global warming that has already occurred and warming that is yet to occur due to the still-
uncertain level of future emissions.”
No further comment is necessary.
“United States NOAA says:”
They never stop saying incorrect stuff. That’s precisely what we have just proved.
How often must I keep pointing out to you how it is proven that NASA, Church and White et al keep using flawed systems to produce false SLR [and other data] that is not observable in tectonically stable areas.
This is precisely what Don means by “data not fit for purpose”.
Are you aware of any human being on the east coast of Australia who can point to a benchmark and show any evidence of SLR?
Nobody can because it’s not happening.
Just like net glacial ice melt.
Try living in the real world, not fairyland.
SD, I found some data. 39 degrees in Canberra today
Another PR 2017 study has found AGAIN that glacier retreat was much greater in the earlier 20th century ( 1925 to 1950) . And after 1960 some glaciers actually advanced until the 1980s. This supports the Le clercq world glacier study that found a slowing of retreat after 1950. Of course no impact shown from higher co2 emissions.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/09/new-paper-glacier-melt-rates-were-up-to-3-times-greater-faster-during-early-20th-century/#sthash.8YtEuni8.dpbs
And again here is the link to the Royal Society graph showing little dangerous SLR for the next 300 years. This is a graph of all the IPCC referenced models untii 2300. Note Antarctica is negative for SLR for the entire period.
Oh Davy must believe in more co2 magic. Seems SWWA can have record cold temps this month while NSW has a run of the mill NATURAL heat wave. The sort of NATURAL heat wave that’s been experienced for the last 220+ years. Surely they believe co2 is magical pixie dust.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roypta/364/1844/1709/F4.large.jpg
[…] In an earlier essay this year, I used the useful maps prepared by Professor Ole Humlum of http://www.climate4you to ponder about how hot it actually was in Australia last year. I did so because of claims that the year was the hottest ever, as it was said to be for the world. When I wrote the piece I did not have access to the summary for the whole year, but I now have it, and it is displayed below. […]