Waiting for Global Cooling: Robert Fawcett and David Jones
Posted by jennifer, April 17th, 2008 - under Uncategorized.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
There is very little justification for asserting that global warming has gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard yardstick) over the period 1998-2007 remains upward. While 1998 was the world’s warmest year in the surface-based instrumental record up to that point in time, 2005 was equally warm and in some data sets surpassed 1998. A substantial contribution to the record warmth of 1998 came from the very strong El Niño of 1997/98 and, when the annual data are adjusted for this short-term effect (to take out El Niño’s warming influence), the warming trend is even more obvious.
from Waiting for Global Cooling by Fawcett and Jones
Because of the year-to-year variations in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures, about ten years are required for an underlying trend to emerge from the “noise” of those year-toyear fluctuations. Hence, the fact that 2006 and 2007 were cooler than 2005, is nowhere near enough data to clearly establish a cooling trend.
“Global warming stopped in 1998. Global temperatures have remained static since then, in spite of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Global temperatures have cooled since 1998. Because 2006 and 2007 were cooler than 2005, a global cooling trend has established itself.”
All these statements, and variations on them, have been confidently asserted in the international and Australian media in the past year or so, but the data do not support them.
Read more here: http://www.aussmc.org/documents/waiting-for-global-cooling.pdf
Article via Luke Walker. Thanks.
—————-
Keywords: National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology, April 2008, David Jones, Robert Fawcett, warming, cooling, global temperatures, Australian Science Media Centre.
“Careful Arnost you’ve just argued for a GCM.”
Nope – all I’m trying to do is to remove “noise” in order to isolate the TRUE shape of the underlying trend, and to see what it DOES fit to.
I’m more than happy for you to tell me what assumptions are wrong, save me time from finding them myself. But at the moment the 0.2C/decade trend or the logarithmic CO2 trend just are not there.
It’s only “flattened” as you’ve decided to draw a line like that. You could just as reasonably calculate a single upwards regression.
The reason to use a GCM approach is to formally calculate the effect of the various forcings and you know what those simulations broadly show. Only way you can attempt to cope with the non-linearity of the various interactions.
“you know what those simulations broadly show”
That you can’t explain the rise in global temps in the early 20th Century?
Jennifer said in a recent interview with Duffy concerning Spencer’s work on satellite data:
Marohasy: “That’s right … These findings actually aren’t being disputed by the meteorological community. They’re having trouble digesting the findings, they’re acknowledging the findings, they’re acknowledging that the data from NASA’s Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they’re about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide.”
Duffy: “From what you’re saying, it sounds like the implications of this could be considerable …”
Marohasy: “That’s right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer’s interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point.”
This aroused my curiosity. I googled far and wide to find evidence of this ‘shock’ but I was singularly unsuccessful. If the climate community is really that stressed it is remarkably good at hiding it.
What I did find was, inter alia, the following two comments on these satellite data and Spencer’s interpretation of it:
The first one is by Andrew Revkin in the New York Times (August 2005):
“The scientists who developed the original troposphere temperature records from satellite data, John R. Christy and Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, conceded yesterday that they had made a mistake but said that their revised calculations still produced a warming rate too small to be a concern.
“Our view hasn’t changed,” Dr. Christy said. “We still have this modest warming.”
Other climate experts, however, said that the new studies were very significant, effectively resolving a puzzle that had been used by opponents of curbs on heat-trapping greenhouse gases.”
The second one is from a study by T.L.Wigley et al, published in the context of the US Climate Change Science Program. This is the first paragraph of the summary:
“Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.”
Following on from Arie …
So they have fixed the initial problems with the satellites measurements.
But they have not fixed the problem with the surface temperature recordings, to the extent that Ross McKitrick has a published paper suggesting something like 50% of the warming recorded for the US since about 1982 can be attributed to the Heat Island Affect. There is much about this at Anthony Watt’s blog.
I get the impression the problem with the surface recordings is particularly bad in the US. I am of the opinion, David Jones and others are working hard to avoid this problem with Australian data.
I thought that Tim Lambert at Deltoid had fairly effectively dealt with this.
>But they have not fixed the problem with the surface temperature recordings, to the extent that Ross McKitrick has a published paper suggesting something like 50% of the warming recorded for the US since about 1982 can be attributed to the Heat Island Affect. There is much about this at Anthony Watt’s blog.
With 70% of the earth ocean and another about 10% more desert and ice to suggest that urban heat island are a significant part of global warming simply does not stack up. Further, the multi-decadal rate of warming in the most recent radiosonde data, satellite and surface data all broadly agree on a warming in the range of near 0.15C/decade.
>I get the impression the problem with the surface recordings is particularly bad in the US. I am of the opinion, David Jones and others are working hard to avoid this problem with Australian data.
This is a largely solved problem in Australia. You get essentially the same amount of warming whether you use just remote rural sites or whether you use every site (good and bad). The urban heat island effect is not a major affect across the Australian network.
The sorry history of corrections to the UAH satellite data has brought these data closer and closer to the surface. They will never be the same – though – as they measure different things – the satellites don’t include the poles, they should not include the Andes, the Himalayas or the whole Antarctic plateau (though UAH extrapolate into these regions), they have some contamination from the cooling stratosphere, and they are pieced together from more than a dozen satellites with big question marks over a couple of the joins – particularly around NOAA 10. The MSUl2t data are the most accurate estimate we have of a fictional temperature constructed by a complex weighting of levels in the atmosphere using a very complex proxy for temperature associated with oxygen emissions. It is not a measure of global warming at the surface or the near surface and never will be.
Of course, we moving away from the paper and its purpose. That is to investigate the claims of global cooling. The finding for all to see is that these claims do not stack up at the surface.
David,
Of course conversely this means that the surface stations cover less than 20% of the globe, and not withstanding the problems with satellite measurements that you describe, one can not have have unbridled confidence in the integrity of all the surface stations either.
The BOM may have a good set here in Australia, and the USA is cleaning up its act with a small smaple of renegade sites, but what does that say about the remainder, spread over the remaining surface areas of the planet.
That leaves Africa,India, South America and the whole of Russia and China to make up the rest of the sample, and from that is concluded what is concluded. Where is the evidence that all these stations ( which have been reducing in number in a big way over the years), are of the same standard, and operated in the same way.
Me thinks it is all yet more silk purses out of sows ears,and from this the policy makers are going to screw up the economy so that we may affect the global average by 0.00043C pa. Sounds sensible to me.
PS: If the satellites dont include the poles, doesnt that bias their result towards the global average being warmer anyway, or am I missing something here.
If you add additional information like glacier retreat, Artic melt, species changing behaviour and phenology – all would also point to things changing (warming) as a longer trend.
The change in mean temperature isn’t important in itself – it’s how this feeds back into changes in extremes and circulation patterns that’s the real issue. e.g. if long term drought frequency changes
Given the Arctic has shown rapid warming and the Antarctic stable – one would suppose any anomaly analysis including these areas would show some degree of greater warming.
The policy response if any is a different matter. You could decide to accept the science but not accept the policy response. They don’t have to be linked.
‘Antarctic stable’….Really?
But then if Luke added facts like Antarctic colder and packing on much more ice, many glaciers advancing, Greenland ice pack thickening, and the countless cold records that have been established in this northern winter alone;….it would spoil a good story.
Hmmm think you better close this post…
There is a very good case for a Royal Commission to be set up in Australia; with wide ranging terms of reference; and where all evidence taken, is sworn under oath; to…’Establish Whether Man Made Global Warming Is An Evidence Based Fact.’ This is the least the Australian Government could do, before implementing proposed policies which will lower the standard of living of all Australians; if not trigger a major economic collapse in our Nation.
Is such a Royal Commission likely? Not very.
Jeez you talk your share of drivel Reynolds. Antarctic colder – evidence of any significant trend? Edges are eroding and centre thickening as you would expect. Greenland thickening – as you would expect. Most glaciers advancing – WTF !! One winter – ROTFL & LMAO.
I think we should set up a royal commission into the activities of denialists like yourself. No make that a kangaroo court – why waste time. Be interesting to get your crooked opinions down under oath.
Jennifer: As far as I’m concerned this “Urban Heat Island” issue was a diversion from the main game of proving data integrity, promoted largely by a network of internet warriors who as individuals had never done a series of measurements themselves.
Given mercury thermometers tend to go high and max / min readings tend to be exaggerated by the field officer seeking temporary notoriety we would need to track both the instrument and the station personnel before worrying about the impact of UHI.
To me “UHI” is just an easy target for the naïve. All they need is an urban location to initiate an attack on the records where as anyone who has worked in say building air conditioning would know a more likely candidate for concern is their instrument response to change.
Quite frankly “AUSTRALIA’S HIGH-QUALITY CLIMATE DATASETS” would be better off with the inclusion of all older weather station’s records minus any gross errors and that way we could be sure our data set was not artificially low at the back end.
I must add the same goes for the US.
Give me a break, the policy makers and the so called Government scientists, and Greeny NGO’s are all peddling the AGW line, and are in the same bed, no matter what.
The UNFCC begins with the assumption that co2 is causing AGW.
Garnaut/Stern and crew begin with the assumption that what the IPCC says is the gospel, and on and on it goes.
There is absolutely no room for an alternative view or even a practical compromise.
At every step of the way it a self confirming process designed to ensure that there is only one official story and Krudd and his Kronies have fallen for it to suit their own political ends.
There is no doubt that we will be commiting huge sums of money to feel good,to achieve prescious little, and the science fraternity will get continuity of funding as part of that spending, and the greeny NGO’s get increased membership subscription funds, paid by mostly by those who get a tax break for so doing.
Every one wins a prize –except the sucker tax payers themselves.
“…2005 was equally warm and in some data sets surpassed 1998. A substantial contribution to the record warmth of 1998 came from the very strong El Niño of 1997/98…”
They seem to have conveniently ignored, or not known, that 2005 was a very strong el niño year too. So by their own logic, they should really have adjusted for 2005 as well which would bring the trend down somewhat. Also 1999/2000 were la niña cooling years which also need adjusted for, which again would flatten the plot out. Clearly it’s a biased piece of nonsense. And what did they assume for those 5 years after 2008? A 5 year end point assumption is very important in a 10 year trend.
The greater calumny though is that lines are being fitted to explain a mechanism which is utterly non-linear. I wish they’d just stick to eyeballing the raw data – it makes as much sense as this chicanery.
If we’re fixated on straight lines then why not extrapolate the 100 year trend to 2100 – we’ll then get 0.6 degrees of warming.
>They seem to have conveniently ignored, or not known, that 2005 was a very strong el niño year too.
No it wasn’t. 2002 and 2006 were rather weak short lived El Nino events. 2005 was borderline La Nina and 2007/2008 had a moderate La Nina. Non of these events is close to the 1997 El Nino which was by far the strongest in the modern instrumental record.
“The UNFCC begins with the assumption that co2 is causing AGW.”
Yes, of course it does. It’s job is to take the scientific findings of the IPCC and work out what to do in the political sense.
The UNFCC set up the IPCC, and the way it was to operate, and in doing that, it was a given, ie the outcome was mandated from the start.
Its all so circular and self confirming.
Listen to the David Henderson audio from the Heartland Confce, and read the actual documents.
Rubbish.
The UNFCC was set up in 1994.
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/2627.php
The IPCC was set up in 1988.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
Get your facts straight.
The problem is, Malcolm, that the AGW ‘injuns’ control all the forts,; and we ‘paleface deniers’ are out in the cold (literally), with our bows and arrows, against their cannon.
Here in Aust., Robert and David in Fort BoM control all the raw data and have the resources to produce any ‘adjusted data’ they wish, as well as call in ‘adjusted data’ from their allied Forts around the world, to shoot at us poor ‘deniers’.
David, from his ‘fort of virtual reality’ states that the northern winter was not really below average, but in fact was slightly above average .
However in the real world, factual raw data keeps rolling in to prove otherwise. From Alaska, across Canada and the US, Europe and the UK. (where Scottish ski resorts are experiencing their best snow cover in living memory; and this late in spring!).
Well Malcolm, we must keep ’shootin at em’, anyway.
Remember a guy called David, with a slingshot! And another guy called Galileo.
Sid: The problem is, Malcolm, that the AGW ‘injuns’ control all the forts,; and we ‘paleface deniers’ are out in the cold (literally), with our bows and arrows, against their cannon.
You guys are objects of genuine pathos. You claim everyone’s out to get you, that the AGW “consensus-makers”, who presumably control the scientific bodies connected with research on climate change, and also the main journals, have conspired with a “liberal” media to shut you out. At least this is my understanding of what you claim. Do I detect a conspiracy theory? You appear to have forgotten that if AGW denialists had something valuable to say, it would be possible to publish it in a decent journal somewhere. The reason their stuff is published overwhelmingly in rags like Energy and Environment is simply that it is not good enough to make it into refereed journals.
Well I am happy to admit that in relation to what came first, the IPCCC or the UNFCCC then I was wrong.
But I cant see that it changes the basic premíse anyway, namely that it is all pre-ordained.
There is no ability or incentive, for the mechanism to handle a mea culpa.
Peterd, I see is yet another pseudonomous pro AGW blogger hasnt got the balls to come out into the open. Why is it that the ratio of anonymous blogs runs about 6:1, pro- AGW to skeptics/agnostics.
No good telling others Peterd et al, to publish whilst hiding behind pseudonyms. Something not very credible about that stance is there, but then—
Well “Peterd”, whoever you are, its no ‘cospiracy theory’ but fact that many public servants/scientists/policy makers who are committed to the AGW ideology do control many research institutions, gov’t. agencies and the like.
Everyone is entitled to a personal view on the extremely important subject of climate. However those in such publicly funded agencies and institutions, or are the recipients of research grants should be quite scrupulous in their findings and presentations, so that the public can again be reasonably confident that they are factual and not tarnished by the ideology of AGW.
Especially so when the public policies proposed to deal with AGW will, at the least, have a severe affect on peoples living standards.
My sentiments exactly Sid.
Well done.
“Well “Peterd”, whoever you are, its no ‘cospiracy theory’ but fact that many public servants/scientists/policy makers who are committed to the AGW ideology do control many research institutions, gov’t. agencies and the like.”
It’s no conspiracy, but it’s a conspiracy. OK.
“Well I am happy to admit that in relation to what came first, the IPCCC or the UNFCCC then I was wrong.”
your real problem is trusting that conference. It was riddled with idiots and propagandists. The number of scientists actively researching that area was very small.
What a load of utter bolsh Reynolds – get off your lazy denialist butt – get the raw data from BoM and publish something definitive if you have a beef. I have never heard such a pathetic whinge. Is David Jones preventing you access to any data? The distinct waft of another conspiracy theory fart.
By your definition anything tainted by “AGW” is “tarnished” – bit of an a priori decision don’t you think? So what are you saying – keep reanalysing the data until you give me an answer I like?
And again you’ve linked the public policy decision to the science. Why does it have to match up? Science is science is science.
So the only rebuttal to David et al’s analysis is to dump ideological shit and innuendo on them. That’s scientific.
It still doesnt change the basic premise,but keep trying you will get there in the end.
“Riddled with idiots and propogandists” was it.
Thats about par for anonymous alarmists.
Tell me something, why is it Ok for the IPCC to assess,review and analyse all the available research selected by them to infer an outcome but its not OK for anyone else, and if they do they are “idiots and propogandists”.
The hypocrisy of some in the alarmist position is amazing
I’m quite happy for them to set up a conference. But if you are going to have people peddling outright lies like the one that was served up to you, and people like David Archibald and *Lord* Monckton there, prepare to be misled. The science itself should be good enough, without Heartland feeling it has to pad out the event with non-science.
Sid:
“Peterd, I see is yet another pseudonomous pro AGW blogger hasnt got the balls to come out into the open. Why is it that the ratio of anonymous blogs runs about 6:1, pro- AGW to skeptics/agnostics.”
Guess I must have touched a raw nerve. To answer your question, Sid, Hmm, at a guess, I’d say the reason is that you’ve got outsized egos and like to see your own names in print.
Sid: “No good telling others Peterd et al, to publish whilst hiding behind pseudonyms. Something not very credible about that stance is there, but then—”
So do you guys think tagging your names onto your blogs gives you credibility? Why don’t you get some real credibility from publishing good research, instead of acting as second-hand commentators on third-rate research?
The hypocrisy knows no bounds with you anonymous alarmists.
How many papers on what topics have you had accepted for peer reviewed publication, or are you just one more of the many public tit alarmist fraternity that frequent these blogs, with the sole aim of ensuring the survival of your sinecure, and have to do so anonymously–for obvious reasons.
A predictable comment from denialists out of ammo. ROTFL. Whinge grizzle bitch… don’t like the answer, have no science, so out come the ad homs.
Well well if it isnt the old master of humbug and hypocrisy himself, accusing someone else of ad homs.
What was that record count again– 28 posts in one thread with 13 of them containing ad homs.
And Walker, tell is about the science that you have had published,that underpins your obvious superiority in all things scientific.
Come on, be brave take a couple of prozac and give it go, ther’s a good boy.
The way the April temps. are going over a fair part of NSW, David and the BoM are going to have to do a fair bit of “correcting” of data. So far this month, here, the mins and maxs are quite a bit below the period last year. Perhaps though, April last year was ‘the hottest on record’. Also the trees have shown their autumn colours about 2 weeks earlier then last year.
Also, we had a frost on the 4th. with a min. of-1.1 C. Yes, April frost while rare, are not unheard of.
And the boys from the Bureau can take heart in the fact that a cold April is quite often followed by a warm May, with no further frosts ’till June.
If this is the case again, they can lay low on April and then trumpet May as an example of AGW…That is, if it happens.
Well El Whingo – what have you ever contributed except a big grizzle – nothing. Just spurious asides and innuendo. Getting older and grumpier are we Mal. Try to say something mildly scientific – we live in hope.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds with you anonymous alarmists.
How many papers on what topics have you had accepted for peer reviewed publication, or are you just one more of the many public tit alarmist fraternity that frequent these blogs, with the sole aim of ensuring the survival of your sinecure, and have to do so anonymously–for obvious reasons.”
Not sure who these jibes are directed at Malcolm, but I’m quite happy to tell you that I’ve had co-authored and sole-authored papers published in such “rags” as Physical Review A, Monthly Notices the Roy. Astron. Soc., and Physica Scripta. Where are your papers published, old chum?
Anyway, which Malcolm Hill are YOU??
Keep up the good work, Luke. We’ve got them on the run.
P.
Peterd
Well thanks for that, I will read with more interest any points you have about matters.
No, I have never published a peer reviewed paper, but neither have never held my self out to have done so. But I have given many papers at industry specific conferences both here and overseas.
As for having “us” on run, who ever they are, I dont know, but for mysef I will continue to point out what I think, is a lot of nonsense and humbug.
Not the least of which are:
1.The idiot notion that we should some how distort our economy to achieve an outcome of just 0.000043cpa in a lowering of the GMT, and do so on the basis of premise that doesnt have certainty, only momentum.
2.The idea that the IPCC has sole rights to review and evaluate any published literature to draw whatever conclusions, but any others who do a similar thing, but conclude something different cannot possibly be right.
3. The humbug idea that only people who have already published something have the brains to be able to read and assess literature, peer reviewed and ordinary dissertations/monographs.
4. The flawed nature of the IPCC process and the claims that are made by them and their adherents, and further, that any analysis of the way they went about their business is not for scrutiny. Even those that do so are pilloried even when there is no scientific element involved, because what has been assessed is about process and management.
5. More recently, the potentially suspect nature of most of the stations on the non western world used to derive the surface record,(but not in Australia).
6. Further, and when I have the time I would like to see just what is the peer reviewed rate of those involved in the: a) the IPCC working groups,b) the CSIRO climate group,c) the BOM and any other group who seem to be driving the AGW debate in this country.Just to see if the rhetoric is matched with substance.
7.— out of time
1. Might even agree – but the science stands apart from this. Dogmatically linking the policy and science is the equivalent of telling your physician that you don’t like their haircut.
2. Says who? Conspiracy theory not borne out by the plethora of additional reviews, blogs and public opinion expressed.
4. Science scrutiny is continual and ongoing.
5. There are more indicators than the surface station record. It’s call multiple lines of evidence. Whether that evidence is enough is your choice.
6. Well get going on Google Scholar and inform us. It’s simple a task you can do. Not having the time is not an excuse either.
Malcolm: “As for having “us” on run, who ever they are, I dont know, but for mysef I will continue to point out what I think, is a lot of nonsense and humbug.”
I was having a bit of a jest, Malcolm. I live in hope that the AGW “denialists” have a sense of humour.
No time to respond to the rest now. Perhaps later.
These poor pathetic people, completely caught up in their “global warming” make believe, as the world cools…Like ostriches with their heads buried in the sand!
Today’s Australian carries a piece by Phil Chapman, “sorry to ruin the fun,but an ice age cometh” Phil was Australia’s first NASA Astronaught, and is a geophysicist and astronaughtical engineer. The SOHO sight is worth a look. http://www.spaceweather.com
Yes Astro-”naught” indeed. Hahahahahaha …