Three new research papers debunk earlier research that showed the planet was not warming up, according to ABC Online. The news report states:
In 1990, study of data collected by the University of Alabama satellite found that the atmosphere’s low-level troposphere was not warming in line with computer modelling predictions.
The study been used ever since by global warming sceptics.
But now a correct reading of the data has revealed unequivocally that the planet’s atmospheric and surface temperatures are on the rise.
The Californian firm that did the new reading, Remote Sensing Systems, has found the University of Alabama satellite was collecting faulty data.
Dr David Jones, from the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Climate Centre, says one satellite used to collect the data was not properly calibrated.
And I never realized that the global warming believers ever accepted the earlier satellite readings that now appear to have been incorrect.
I just found this post that I made at John Quiggin’s blog on 22nd April. The information was sent to me some time ago by Bill Kininmonth in response to a question from me:
Greenhouse gases in the troposphere cause the troposphere to cool. The upward emission to space and the downward emission to the earth’s surface exceed the sum of direct absorption of solar radiation and absorption of upward emissions from the earth’s surface. Whether it is 280 ppmv (pre-industrial) or 380 ppmv (now) the direct effect of greenhouse gases is to cool the troposphere.
The ‘radiative forcing’ hypothesis of IPCC suggests that as the concentration of CO2 increases the upward emission to space decreases slightly and hence energy is retained in the earth’s climate system, leading to ‘global warming’.
We cannot measure the net radiation at the top of the atmosphere to better than of order 5 W/m2 (greater than the ‘radiative forcing’ for a doubling of CO2) so the hypothesis cannot be verified directly.
Satellite measurements (Wielicki et. al. 2002, Evidence of large decadal variability in the tropical mean radiative energy budget. Science Vol 295, pg841) suggest that, at least over the tropics, longwave emission to space increased over the period 1985-1999, contrary to what would be expected from anthropogenic greenhouse radiative forcing.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer – no the data did not conform to the models correctly. This was used by the AGW skeptics to say that the computer models were faulty.
Thats an interesting thread Jennifer!
After a little pressure the pro GW gang;
1) defend the right to hold forth on subjects in which they have no expertise
2) admit to have no expertise in the matter
3) refer you to those who they consider to be expert in the matter
4) deride those they consider not to be expert in the matter
5) call you a troll
At least they are off the streets!
Yep agree with Ender. But also that it was asserted that the physics in the model was not correct. So it appears that now we have an aligned independent set of measurements (i.e. satellite) that agrees with modelled physics. So we move on …
On Jen’s radiation comments you have to figure in the radiation budget that from Australians Roderick and Farquhar that we have observed global reduction in evaporation tanks which seems paradoxical given the greenhouse effect. However as previously discussed (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml )we also probably have global dimming from more reflective clouds and particulate pollution.
So gotcha is clean up the atmosphere from pollution and we may be sitting on a greater CO2 warming than has hitherto been evident. i.e. could we entertain the prospect of a higher end warming scenario ?? (with higher evaporation rates too!!)
If you’re young enough you can sit here and watch the numbers come in as the years tick by ….
OR – you might want to take a risk minimalist position with the only planet we have got ?
So for the sceptics – how much has to line up before we might hear the words – unsure, uncertain… and probability. Risk minimising position.
What irritates most about the anti-case is the CERTAINTY of the position in the face of a substantial but admittedly incomplete body of evidence.
Benny Peiser sent me this:
There are, of course, three possibilities. One is that the sceptics are right.
A second is that the models are wrong. And the third is that there is something
wrong with the data. Three papers published in this week’s issue of Science
suggest that the third possibility is the correct one…. It is, nevertheless,
doubtful that these papers will end the matter. Studying the climate is a hard
problem for three reasons. The system itself is incredibly complex. There is
only one such system, so comparative studies are impossible. And controlled
experiments are equally impossible. So there will always be uncertainty and
therefore room for dissent. How policymakers treat that dissent is a political
question, not a scientific one.
–The Economist, 11 August 2005
Jennifer – the new papers say nothing of the sort. Benny Peiser must have been reading a different set of papers to everyone else. The clarification of the data brings together 2 data sets that were in error. Even Christy has issued corrections to his study that showed cooling.
There was nothing wrong with the data it just needed proper analysis. Once the shortcomings of the instruments were properly understood the warming predicted by the models was apparent.
What puzzles me is that there are some who argue that the computer models are right and the data is wrong or contains errors.
These same people then argue against the concepts of Intelligent Design, Creationism or Religion and say that they have no role to play in a modern secular society.
There is a straw man making an appearance here. I have been following the GW debate, and the sceptics, for years, and few if any of the important sceptics have been claiming (in the past five years at least) that the globe is not warming. The real question for policy-makers is not “Is the globe warming?”, but “Is the component of warming that is due to human activity dangerous?”
The satellite data, which has been a main plank of the sceptics, has been in positive territory since at least 1998. This new resarch just modifies the upward trend from 0.085 degrees per decade, to 0.12 degrees. It still doesn’t really agree with the surface measurement figure of 0.19 degrees.
0.12 degrees per decade will not lead to disaster. Only if there is a major acceleration will problems occur. That is where the models come in. How far can we trust the models when the system is poorly understood and prone to chaos?
I for one will trust the models when someone can model the 20th century climate using only the conditions in 1900 as an input. I am particularly thinking here of the cooling that occurred globally between 1940 and 1975. When the models can reproduce that without fudging, I will be more impressed with them.
Well we don’t know if its dangerous until we do it do we ? and we’re definitely going to double atmospheric CO2 , probably triple it and likely 4x it if we’re mad enough. So would be a pity to do so and then go “whoops – wish we had not done that – “. It’s only 6.3 billion of us at stake here…. It will be a tad late to think about taking the CO2 out once it’s up there.
And yep models built on good physics might be right (MIGHT) over some data. Depends on validation done. Data are data – not knowledge or wisdom. If the data are not what you think they are well …. in this case the data were subject to orbital satellite corection (which anyone who dabbles a lot in remote sensing would and did suspect).
Computer models design cars, aircraft, space shuttles, drugs, other computers … they’re just a tool. And sensible modelling is not a free for all. It’s a serious science with demanding tests.
And 0.12 degrees compared to 0.19 – jeez – come on !! what do you want ? and this is nowhere near 2x or 3x CO2 – AND for the umpty mpth time it is the change in the distrubtion tail that’s the issue. Not a few degrees in mean state.
Look up the Climate of the 20th Century Project and IPCC reports – the current models reproduce the climate of the 20th century WELL (well not perfectly) – this gives one some confidence. If you think a totally unforced unbounded model evolution since 1900 will give you anything sensible – well give up now…. (it’s called chaos and what humans have done during the 20th century). The models do a good job on the last century’s temperatue data when all forcings (solar, volcanic and greenhouse) are included.
The models have still got somewhere to go but it is a worry that the errors might be on the wrong side. i.e we are going to get more warming than is computed already. (the global dimming story). And many climatologists are surprised at the rate of global change in the past 10 years. Most did not think we’d be seeing obvious signs already.
Chaos can be sampled for with ensemble runs. Its like the tide at the beach – you can predict very accurately in advance what the tide heights will be – with a simple mathematical MODEL. However at any moment (like the weather)… wave action and wind may make the reading quite variable on the height gauge. But when you average that out the tide prediction (the climate) works.
rog – I don’t get what you are saying here. The computer models are not absolutely correct because we do not know everything about the atmosphere and we cannot model it exactly as this would require an infinitely large computer even if it is possible.
What we can do is get reasonabley close. Much the same CFD models are used to design aircraft. However as useful as these models are no-one would dream of designing a plane in a computer and building it straight from this. The tools are only useful to get the optimum parameters and reject the ones that will not work without expensive hardware boing built. An optimum design prototype is always built and tested as well as wind tunnel models. This does not mean the computer models are wrong only that there is always uncertainty.
I really don’t know where the ID and religion remarks come into it.
A model of the earths climate is, by definition, a 4 dimensional representation. A graph of temperature vs. time is not a model. The model outputs I have looked at are incapable of reproducing the grid by grid historical temperature and/or precipitation. One model I recall, that achieved a reasonable global average of time vs. temperature, did so with such absurdities as Michigan having a higher average temperature then Arizona. Obviously there is an infinite number of grid by grid combinations that will yield the same average temperature. It is not possible to make any claims of validity from a 2 dimensional plot of a 4 dimensional system.
Agree – it’s “a” validation graph ! And yes you can make “some” claims from that as a piece of evidence. It’s a question whether the model is an “adequate” model for the purpose from a number of perspectives – spatial, temporal, output distribution characteristics. different meteorological elements etc. This is what cliamte modellers spend lots fo time doing with partial success. and improving success.
Pls what’s the reference for the “model” that you recall.
OK – if say then all models are rubbish then we have no basis for knowing anything except from 100 years observed data (with attendent errors) and “models” of past climate from tree rings and bubbles in ice – they’re ust models too. All we know for now is that things are melting at the poles, glaciers are melting, records are being broken, frosts are down, seasons are changing, temps are up, cyclones are faster. So all we therefore can do is sit here and watch what happens. Hope it works out OK !
Ender says that while “computer models are not absolutely correct” ..” we can.. get reasonabley close”.
Reasonably close to what?.
Yep good point. You can get close to the unknown future state. You can validate on observed data. You can ensure you have the best physics known.
A big issue if the emissions scenario itself – at the moment emissions are growing unabated. We have done very little. But we might at some point – this would influence the outcome … as would changing the global dimming parameters such as by reducing aersol pollution. Then you have sudden and abrupt shifts in climate once thresholds are crossed.
Unfortunately we don’t have a replicate planet Earth to play with. What technology does one have at one’s disposal if the problem is too big, too long in time, too costly or too impractical to implement as a real world experiment. Simulation is the only technology you have. And that of course leads one to some disquiet as all models are obviously wrong somewhere (by definition).
It’s a real management call – imperfect information and evaluation of risk. Ender’s blog has some considerable discussion of Type I and Type II errors and consequences.
Checklist:
(1) we have a body of evidence that something is going on with warming – sceptics say it’s natural or we don’t know enough
(2) we have atmospheric physics as a science
(3) our models validate against the real world data to some extent and are increasing improving
(4) we now have 6.3 billion people on Earth – many exposed to droughts, floods and temperature extremes – and a finally balanced global economy/stockmarket
(5) we have model projections based on the above
So you can decide on this imperfect set of information to:
(a) do nothing
(b) drastically reduce CO2 NOW
(c) continue climate research and set a course for a sensible post-Kyoto position
(d) decide what to do with the next decade as it seems that it will be too late once we have a double or triple CO2 atmosphere
I’m definitely not for option (a) on what I see before me. Surely at least we all have an interest in (c)…
At the moment though we’re doing (a) !!! So sceptics have what they want ….
You have model projections based on data including…… a finally balanced global economy/stockmarket??
Nope –
Just relecting that the current world has a substantial population directly affected by weather and long term climate. And the global economy is also prone to shocks and jitters from “unforeseen” events and the consequent financial reaction can also affect nation states and their citizens in a big way.
We all know the old joke about a man with his head in the fridge, and his feet in the fire, being, on average, quite comfortable. The arithmetic mean, in isolation, can be misleading.
Can anyone tell me (a self confessed climate ignoramus) if the observed mean temperature rise over the last hundred years or so is due to warmer summers, or winters, or both? What about warmer days, nights, or both? Is everywhere getting warmer, or some places getting colder (most of Antarctica?), or remaining the same?
Davey Gam Esq – The people doing the measurements take the ones of the head, plus the ones of the feet and average them over time to produce a trend. If both the fire and the fridge are getting warmer over time then whatever the comfort of the person there will still be a heating trend. This trend has been observed to be about 0.6 degrees.
Again the statistical tools the climate scientist use smooth out and account for the highs and the lows to leave the overall heating trend.
Partial answer for Australia:
Minimums are up more than the maximums.
See BoM’s trend maps at …
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi?variable=tmax®ion=aus&season=0112&period=1910
You can also play with seasons…
what about the day v night temperature trends?
Try
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/trends.html
and
Science, Vol 277, Issue 5324, 364-367 , 18 July 1997
RE rog’s comment: “I for one will trust the models when someone can model the 20th century climate using only the conditions in 1900 as an input.”
How could this be possible? The climate system is not closed. It is affected by external factors: stratospheric aerosols from volcanoes, solar variations, greenhouse gases, tropospheric aerosols from industry. (OK, some of these are not external to the Earth, but they have to be treated as external in any reasonable climate model.)
Unlike you, I have been very impressed (and surprised) by the climate models’ ability to reproduce the temperature variations over the last century. To do this they need to have various forcings specified. You call this fudging, but to me the modellers have been very careful in specifying what the forcings are and how & why they chose them. It seems to me they have good reasons for their choices, not just “We did it this way to get the answer we want.” I haven’t seen any serious criticsim of their choices. I haven’t seen any credible alternatives.
Interesting how the Europeans have shunned the US led Asia Pacific Pact despite the Pact has embraced the principles agreed at the latest G8 conference held at Gleneagles.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/081505E.html
In general from the above links – the minima are increasing more than the maxima – the diurnal temperature range is getting smaller.
Exceptions to warming are where sulphate air pollution is making things cooler. See Fig 28 in this link.
http://www.bom.gov.au/info/GreenhouseEffectAndClimateChange.pdf
Thanks for your comments and guidance Phillip. I am beginning to suspect that climate, like ecosystems, may be more complex than we think, and possibly more complex than we can think.
But let’s not give up. Unbounded intellectual tasks may yet be the salvation of the human race. Let’s hope ecology and climate are two of those endless tasks. We should push on, but with appropriate humility.
As some of my Welsh Quaker forebears might have put it, nobody knows more about God than anyone else, but there is an observable Inner Light.
I wish you guys would stop asking me to defend statements I have not made; the author name follows the post.
No wonder I am a sceptic!
The following comment from Phillip Done in response to a comment by Rog was blocked on the basis of “Questionable content” – so Phillip sent it to me for posting. I also couldn’t send it as a regular comment without also getting the message, this comment contains “questionable content”. Now where is the ‘questionable content’?
———————————————————————
From Phillip Done:
Finally a half well written and semi-credible article from Tech Central Station …. except for the interesting comment “assuming it is a threat at all”.
The Asia Pacific Partnership does not specify that emission reductions will occur. So there’s the let-out for oil and coal companies, neocons, thinly liberalised communist regimes to get around peak oil and secure the paradigm of economic growth at ALL costs and the way of life.
Or an energy intensive way of life if you’d like one pls.
If the Asia Pacific Partnership (APP) can seriously deliver emissions reductions and improved energy systems for the next 100 years well and good.
I would applaud that 100%.
But again you have to look at track records. Australia despite not signing Kyoto claiming to have complied by fudging the numbers with savings in tree clearing while having unchecked energy and transport growth. And that not even done by the national govt but by a free kick from a Labor Qld Govt??
Bizarre
and lucky but really achieving nothing on energy and transport – growth up and up.
Would we call the industrialisation of China clean thus far – emissions and pollution are rampant and corners cut.
AND the good ol’ USA – can’t live with them – can’t live without them.
Dragging us into adventurism in far off lands to secure that oil supply to keep those SUVs running. And introducing democracy and civilisation by doing a “Beirut” on each country visited while making it more unsafe from terrorists at home every day. This is progress ??
(P.S. note US interest in Central Asian republics, Nigeria, Venezuela but lack of interest in Sudan, Rwanda, Zimbabwe !! – wouldn’t be anything to do with oil would it?)
Yep Kyoto is a fatally flawed attempt at doing something about CO2. It has dimensioned out the sheer difficulty of the problem – that’s about it.
Would
achieve very little. Needs to be a lot more restrictive reductions to achieve anything (and the anti-AGWs wouldn’t let that happen), less loopholes, and much more inclusive with developing nations.
At the end of the day CO2 is either a looming problem for the planet’s atmosphere or not – you can’t just hope it will go away.
So the die is cast – the USA have decided on our global behalfs to “technofix their way out” of the greenhouse problem with a bit of “shootin’
their way out” on the side to keep your aim in. Well he is from Texas !
Or is it really just trade deals and energy security while the APP let the emissions pile up. Will the temptation to take a punt on greenhouse being a very silly and wrong idea be too great as sequestration proves too difficult as a technology – so we’ll say “oh who cares anyway” and let the emissions build up and take the climate hit. It’ll be OK – trust us !! Only whimps worry about CO2. (enter very stage right the anti_AGW spin-meisters here to deliver the message and reassure us).
Well I hope so – as we’re all going to find out one way or another – are we not ?
Of course the EU would be against APP and pro Kyoto; they are already substantially nuclear powered.
Australia isnt nuclear powered because
a) it has coal
b) it was too political
It was not too political for the EU.
Nobody has/can show how signing up to Kyoto would reduce global GHG emissions.
I’ve just had a look at John Quiggin’s take on my post here and I don’t think he is being consistent. I have left a comment at:
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/08/16/climate-change-modellers-vindicated/ .
Quiggin cannot do otherwise – to reject climate modelling would be tantamount to denying his own discipline – economic modelling.
Jennifer, the statement “I don’t think he is being consistent” is not very useful. Perhaps you could spell out the inconsistency you perceive.
Hello Ender, sorry, I missed your comment for a day or so. You are correct – if the head and feet both get warmer, than the mean temperature will rise. Similarly, if both get colder, mean temperature will fall. But if one gets warmer, and one colder, than the mean can rise, fall, or stay the same, depending on the relative magnitude of the changes. That’s why the mean can be misleading. Some of us think that a mean should always be accompanied, at least, by its standard error. That way we might draw a conclusion on whether we are looking at a real signal, or just random noise. I am sure you are aware of all this. Perhaps you, like Phillip Done, can help me. Where can I find the standard error of the mean global temperature change over the past century?
The essential point is “the planet is warming”. What, the physical mass under our feet, or that tenuous film we call the atmosphere.
In a general sense, the planet, EARTH, is not not warming.
Oh alright then – the thermometers in those little white boxes and it seems the lower atmosphere too …. and the warming seems to be even found down those lil’ old bore holes.
Amazing how something so tenuous can create such havoc eh?
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
How accurate are the hemispheric and global averages?
Annual values are approximately accurate to +/- 0.05°C (two standard errors) for the period since 1951. They are about four times as uncertain during the 1850s, with the accuracy improving gradually between 1860 and 1950 except for temporary deteriorations during data-sparse, wartime intervals. Estimating accuracy is a far from a trivial task as the individual grid-boxes are not independent of each other and the accuracy of each grid-box time series varies through time (although the variance adjustment has reduced this influence to a large extent). The issue is discussed extensively by Folland et al. (2001a,b) and Jones et al. (1997). Both Folland et al. (2001a,b) references extend discussion to the estimate of accuracy of trends in the global and hemispheric series, including the additional uncertainties related to homogeneity corrections.
In the TaveNH/SH/GL2v files averages are now given to a precision of three decimal places to enable seasonal values to be calculated to ±0.01°C. The extra precision implies no greater accuracy than two decimal places.
Jennifer, no response yet to my request for some clarification of my supposed inconsistency on this issue. Any chance of a retraction?
John, The comment stands. Let others make up their own mind. I wouldn’t presume to be able to convince you – not even on Murray River issues.
I would be happy to make up my own mind on the alleged inconsistency if I knew what it was. Like others, I just can’t see it.
I too am mystified. Please Jennifer, can you state what you think the inconsistency is?
Hey John, Tim and Mark,
On 22nd April John suggested “the satellite data is a very weak reed for GW sceptics” and then on 19th August stated “that put the closing seal on the most significant issue in the debate”. And on 22nd April John suggested “all groups now agree that the satellite data shows a warming trend” then on 19th August John referring to how it was before (like in April) wrote “correcting for this, and adding more data, the satellite data now showed a slight warming trend, but not as much as the surface data. More data and alternative analysed reduced the discrepancy somewhat, but it remained a problematic issue.”
In summary the satellite temp data has gone from being a “weak reed” to the most “significant issue” and the warming trend that was once considered a consensus is now remembered as having been a problematic issue.
These are the inconsistencies as I see it.
Nevertheless, John’s prediction of how the troposphere data might be reconciled with the model has proven remarkable accurate – to the moment.
You have the events in reverse order Jennifer. The discrepancy was a significant issue when the satellite data showed tropospheric cooling, exactly the opposite of modelling projections. By the time of my post in April, after numerous revisions to the satellite data, all groups agreed on warming trend, but the discrepancy between the Spencer-Christy estimates and the surface trend was still large enough to be problematic.
However, looking at the history of revisions, I predicted that the discrepancy would be resolved and that the issue was now a week reed for sceptics. This prediction has now been proved correct and those sceptics with any concern for their own credibility (such as Ron Bailey and Pat Michaels) have now conceded the reality of global warming.
I’m new to this, and the scientists may not like this particular statistic. The most important factor in all this GW debate is this: no one is going DO anything about it. Let me say it again, in case any didn’t hear: no one is going DO anything about it. Politics, commerce and human nature mitigate against ANY meaninful greenhouse gas emission measures being taken by the human race. Can the met scientists factor this one certainty into their models and tell us what will happen -because whatever is goign to happen will.
There seems to be so much confusion between governments saying things and the naive belief among some scientists that anybody will DO anything. They won’t. CO2 emissions WILL go up (a lot), end of story. The sensible thing now is to plan for what may happen as a result of this truth. The lobbying and treaties are merely a political exercise: scientists should deal in realities.