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.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The only criticism I have is that the datasets are all temperature anomalies, ie data which has been derived from the means.
As a physical scientist I want to see the raw data, not the processed stuff.
If this were mining company assays, alarm bells would be ringing with this type of reporting because it fails JORC standards for disclosure, transparency etc.
Given the statistical jiggery-pokey being identified in the compilation of the temperature datasets, what else could they conclude?
Raw data please, not processed by various in house techniques.
Spot on Louis.
This is another post for later use??
I assume you disagree with it?
“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.”
You forgot to add this critical line to the end of your post. Probably why Louis was only critical of them using anomalies (he doesn’t realise the authors disagree with his POV)
Mr T.,
The entire summary/abstract of the document has been posted. Perhaps you should have another read.
I did read it. Did you?
The authors are pretty convinced there hasn’t been any cooling over the last ten years.
They are saying the data don’t support the idea of “No cooling since 1998”.
I think you need to read it more carefully…
Here’s a clue as to how they feel:
“These results do not support the idea that global temperatures have remained static since
1998, let alone the idea that a cooling trend has started. They are consistent with the
proposition of a continued warming of the earth’s lower atmosphere, driven by the
greenhouse effect.”
I have been looking at graphs and drawing conclusions from them for a living for about 35 years.
I would have been unemployed if I had used the statistical chicanery described above.
Doug,
so what specifically is wrong with what the authors did?
As far as I can make out [and I have forgotten more statistics than I know] the effect of the averaging is to effectively bury the appearance of any change in trend for a long time.
e.g. The sort of trend caused by the sun suddenly going very quiet.
Doug: e.g. The sort of trend caused by the sun suddenly going very quiet.
“The Sun suddenly going quiet”. Why did noone tell me this had happened? AGW denialists have been saying for years that “it’s the Sun, stupid!” According to this fable, the Sun’s activity has increased to record highs, thus explaining the late 20th Centurt run-up in temperatures. Now they suddenly assert the Sun has “gone quiet”. I hope I may be excused for spluttering sliently into my tea.
Doug, well you may know more than me.
I didn’t find what they did so offensive.
“For global temperature data, an average calculated over the year itself
and five years either side will remove most of the year-to-year variations. This procedure
produces a time series of “unweighted” 11-year average temperatures”
No real hocus pocus…
Jen, you are to be admired for promoting a well researched article destroying the cooling myth. Maybe there was a faint chance your reward would be one of your loyal locked-ins discovering a flaw. The only certainty about chance is that luck changes. So it is not about luck. On the evidence so far, in so much as it reveals the extraordinary lengths that your typical climate sceptic will go to to avoid evidence-based discourse, not to mention even a casual acquantaince with minimal numeracy, you and they are simply waisting everybodys time.
Are you sure it was deliberate? Looks like it was a blunder on Jennifers part to me Bazza. She’s ruined all the cred she had on the “Global Warming has stopped” meme.
The paper does not even mention the satellite data. This omission was probably deliberate because the satellite data tells a different story.
If I was an alarmist then I would have to accuse Jones and Fawcett of scientific fraud and insist that they are paid stooges of Al Gore and carbon credit industry.
But I am not so I will simply write it off as further evidence that many of the key scientists involved in AGW have abandoned their scientific objectivity.
Quoted from the paper “For global temperature data, an average calculated over the year itself
and five years either side will remove most of the year-to-year variations”
OK folks, how do you do this for the last five years without knowing the 2008 – 2013 temperatures?
So what did they *really* do?
You’re right, Raven. No satellite data. Just more cherry picking and dubious statistical methods.
Quoted from the paper: “For global temperature data, an average calculated over the year itself
and five years either side will remove most of the year-to-year variations”
How do you do this without knowing the 2008 – 2013 temperatures?
What did they *really* do?
No satellite data. Just cherry picking and dubious statistical methods.
There are several problems with this report.
1. NCDC does not have adequate heat island effect correction.
2. The GISS record is fraudulent. This has been show in a number of ways. For example, Hansen pushing down past temperatures of rural stations in order to get more slope. Just this month, Hansen shows a monthly temperature rise that is twice the size of HadCrut3 and 5 times the size of the sattelites. Hansen is obviously an AGW zealot, and his data simply cannot be trusted.
3. The satellite data is purposely left out because it so obviously does not support the assertions.
4. The first three month of 2008 are left off because they also pull the trend line down.
5. The writer complains about 98 being an El Nino year, and having that contribute to a flattening of the slope. But the two years following that El Nino were strong La Nina years, and so helped to contribute to giving the trend line an upslope. They seem to want to have it both ways.
Jennifer: The next time you’re doing maintenance please delete my similar post on your “No Balance in Water Negotiations” thread. It’s amazing how a post loses its effect when it’s on the wrong thread. I’ll try again.
As Raven pointed out, the Fawcett & Jones paper doesn’t include satellite indices. In the following graphs of UAH and RSS MSU global temperature anomalies, I used monthly data from Jan 1998 to Mar 2008. In red, I also added the IPCC forecast Fawcett and Jones resurrected in the last sentence on Page 8 of the report: “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected. (IPCC4AR WG1 SPM)”. They chose not to include the comparisons to the IPCC predictions for obvious reasons. Maybe we could do a quick rewrite and re-title their paper: “Waiting for IPCC Projection”.
UAH MSU (Flat Trend):
http://i31.tinypic.com/24688rd.jpg
RSS MSU (Negative Trend):
http://i31.tinypic.com/20igopk.jpg
Regards
Looks like the boys are onto the trend early.
The NCDC monthly report is out (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/mar/mar08.html). Says March was the second-warmest on record globally. Land temperatures were the highest on record for March (and the anomaly is the second-largest on record for any month, just behind January 2007). Also interesting is that Eurasian snow cover, which was highest on record in January, is lowest on record in March.
Mr T,
Was your first post a soliquy?
And yes the authors do not agree with my POV; how amazingly perceptive of you – I would never have known this.
But I wonder whether instead the authors are very devoted to their belief, and adjusted the data to reflect it?
One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is quarantining the raw data so critics cannot check them out, having to rely solely on the assurances of authority that all is ok with the data.
Er, no Mr T, that is not how science is done.
Louis – one of the telling signs of wankery is that you could get the data yourself should you not be so lazy and publish an alternative analysis. Your piffly rebuttal attempt is mind numbingly stupid and tedious – grow up.
As for knowing how science is done – given you’ve never done any – ROTFL.
The final quote you’ve added is NOT by the authors as you imply by having it in quotation marks. It is actually a quote from others that the authors have included to illustrate the erroneous statements that swill around the ether.
So its quotes out of context now. Has this site lost all journalistic ethics?
I’ve just fixed the formatting error. In particular, I’ve moved the quote to a separate paragraph and in italics.
I had a lot of trouble posting the graph and must say was probably reading the text from the main article rather than blog post.
My apologies to David and Robert for any confusion that may have been caused by running the three paragraph together in the initial blog post.
I still find it really amusing that with all the talk from the deniers of processing data makes it fraudulent the most heavily processed, shortest and furthest removed from the actual physical property that is being measured, the MSU satellite data, is held up as the gold standard.
The MSU satellites where not even really designed for the job they have been press ganged into doing and they have no instrument that looks at the lower troposphere. The lower troposphere measurements are derived from two others instruments by a statistical process that has already been proven wrong once and had to be corrected.
The surface temperature record is, by contrast, longer, closer the the actual physical entity being measured and far less heavily processed. For those of you calling for the raw data, stop bleating and get it from the various agencies and do your own analysis , publish it and prove AGW wrong if it is.
None of the datasets show a cooling trend yet even if you cherry pick the year you start from.
Maybe we like the satellite data because of its almost global coverage(including over oceans), lack of sampling error, lack of UHI and poor siting effects and because it measures temperatures not just at the surface.
If the paper’s authors were thorough they’d have included UAH and RSS data.
The paper implies a symmetric low pass filter was applied – average a given year and then take 5 years in the past and five in the future for your 11 year mean. Obviously if that is the filter you want to use it only works to 2003. What did they do for the last 5 years?
Ender, I would be interested to know what you think of the two graphs provided by Bob Tisdale. Click on his two links.
Jen
Re Bob’s graphs
Do we have an actual IPCC prediction for MSU and RSS trend? And which scenario was that?
Which data sets include an estimate of Arctic temperatures? GISS only?
What happens if you removed 1998 and 2008?
On short term expectations
“Seasonal Climate Outlook Temperature Archive”
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/ahead/index_T.shtml
“Aurora Australis docks with new climate data”
http://www.ipy.org/index.php?/ipy/detail/aurora_australis_docks_with_new_climate_data/
>If the paper’s authors were thorough they’d have included UAH and RSS data.
These data do not include the poles, they are not surface, and they are patched together from 13+ different satellites. They also suffer from stratospheric contamination, and in the case of UAH are bordering on fictional over the Antarctic where MSUl2t peaks below the surface. T
The paper is about the surface record which is where we live, where we have long records, and for which the IPCC provide projections.
>The paper implies a symmetric low pass filter was applied – average a given year and then take 5 years in the past and five in the future for your 11 year mean. Obviously if that is the filter you want to use it only works to 2003. What did they do for the last 5 years?
The graphs clearly show that the smoothed lines do not come to 2007. The running mean is a conventional mean centred one.
So the best people here can do is complain they didn’t use Satellite data? Or that the other data sets are “fruadulent”That hardly accounts for a serious rebuttal.
Seriously it’s a weird kind of conspiracy fest. It is simply denying data because it doesn’t serve your paradigm.
And the graphs by Bob hardly confirm the global cooling meme. They’re basically flat, which is not unexpected in a global warming scenario.
Eyrie, GISS and HadCRUT3 have data over theoceans too. Figures 1 and 6 end in 2003, that what used the 11 year smooth. The other figures don’t use it. Read the text it’s clearly explained.
Eyrie – “Maybe we like the satellite data because of its almost global coverage(including over oceans), lack of sampling error, lack of UHI and poor siting effects and because it measures temperatures not just at the surface.”
But how can you trust it’s results when you have not got the raw data as all of you are suggesting? The satellites have other problems.
“The only criticism I have is that the datasets are all temperature anomalies, ie data which has been derived from the means.”
It’s one way of dealing with UHI.
“I still find it really amusing that with all the talk from the deniers of processing data makes it fraudulent the most heavily processed, shortest and furthest removed from the actual physical property that is being measured, the MSU satellite data, is held up as the gold standard.
The MSU satellites where not even really designed for the job they have been press ganged into doing and they have no instrument that looks at the lower troposphere. The lower troposphere measurements are derived from two others instruments by a statistical process that has already been proven wrong once and had to be corrected.”
Correct, they’ve been told that a hundred times aready. Just goes in one ear and out the other.
Can someoneone please correct me but it seems the BOM has removed the effect of the 1998 El-Nino from the data and then has compared subsequent years to that baseline. I wonder, did they remove the residual effects of the 1998 El Nino (which the papers says occurs after El Nino and La Nina)? I can not ascertain if they did. If they didnt then the analysis is rubbish as all they have done is lowered the base year of comparison and not adjusted the subsequent years – I am sure I am not right but can some please prove it to me to help me understand more?
{Doug: e.g. The sort of trend caused by the sun suddenly going very quiet.
“The Sun suddenly going quiet”. Why did noone tell me this had happened? AGW denialists have been saying for years that “it’s the Sun, stupid!” According to this fable, the Sun’s activity has increased to record highs, thus explaining the late 20th Centurt run-up in temperatures. Now they suddenly assert the Sun has “gone quiet”. I hope I may be excused for spluttering sliently into my tea.}
Sadly, Solar cycle 23 now looks like the longest since the 19th Century, and there have been very few sunspots for 6 months. The sun’s magnetic field is now weaker than for a very long time.
Sounds quiet to me.
Julian, they removed ENSO effects – so yes both El Nino and La Nina.
Doug, how much weaker?
“Annual temperature data…show year-to-year variations…and come about from a range of factors, including persistent aerosol veils in the high atmosphere from volcanos…”
I have showed David the improved correlation between MEI and global temps (once the volcanic effect is removed) on another forum. It is interesting that though mentioned, the volcanic effects are not adjusted for in this study.
So, while interesting, this study is an exercise in cherry picking. It ignores the effects of volcanic eruptions on global temps, and it uses SOI instead of the MEI. (The MEI is a better indicator of the “strength” of an ENSO event simply because the pressure difference between Darwin and Tahiti does not capture the true intensity of an ENSO event, whilst the MEI, which includes OLR, winds, temperatures and air pressure).
So again, if you adjust the temperatures by the aerosol forcings used in the GISS models ( h t t p://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ ) you get an extremely good correlation between global temps and MEI.
http://i32.tinypic.com/o0rxg5.jpg
Now, there is a lot of the “noise” or “variability” in global climate that is perfectly well captured by the various indices such as the MEI – and let’s face it, these indices specifically represent a measure of localized variability. In the same way that David and Robert have adjusted temps by the SOI index, I’ve done the same in the two graphs below – the green “residual” is what remains after I subtracted the blended AMO/MEI/Aerosol indices from HadCRU3:
http://i29.tinypic.com/xnhic0.jpg
Looking at the residual, it immediately becomes apparent that since 1950 the trend is +0.1C / decade – but the line of best fit is not linear, a polynomial trend line shows that post 1998 the temperature trend has clearly flattened.
And (admittedly to my surprise) there is also a hint of the solar cycle in there as well:
http://i26.tinypic.com/2q1xl4x.jpg
I think that this type of regression analysis has merit in determining true underlying trends, and it is a pity that this was not done as well as it could have been in David and Robert’s paper.
I would suggest that if slightly different timeframes and indexes are used, the conclusion that the data does not support them may not be quite correct.
cheers
Arnost
Arnost – norty – seeking correlation optima by data dredging is not a statistical argument. “a polynomial is best fit” – say who – because you’d like it better or what?
You can fit lots of climate factors – the more you fit – the more likely you’re in statistical voodoo land. Ask a statistician !
Volcanoes since 1998?
The real answer is that we’re going to have to wait for it ! Only time will settle the dispute.
Your first graph looks like a good argument for global warming too.
Mr T
With respect to magnetic fields, use the link below and look for David Archibald’s paper “The Past and Future of Climate” about P15
I saw a better graph somewhere but due to a cumputer misshap I have lost the link.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/
“Your first graph looks like a good argument for global warming too.” – Maybe, but not at the IPCC projected rate of 0.2C/decade, – flat since 1990…
“Arnost – norty – seeking correlation optima by data dredging is not a statistical argument” – Again maybe, if I had the time I would have re-done the graphs with only the MEI and aerosol trends, but the story would not have changed much. You use what you have…
But the point I’m trying to make is that David and Robert did a bit of data dredging themselves and used an index that is not as well correlated to temps as the MEI and ignored the optical aerosol (whilst mentioning them) impact. Now I consider SOI etc as the “climate”, but volcanos certainly are not – it is more justifiable to remove the volcanic effect from climate than the ENSO. And removing the volcanic PLUS ENSO effect gives a COMPLETELY different result. Cherrypicking.
Doug: Sadly, Solar cycle 23 now looks like the longest since the 19th Century, and there have been very few sunspots for 6 months. The sun’s magnetic field is now weaker than for a very long time.
Sounds quiet to me.”
Doug, so can this sudden subsidence, apparently beginning six months ago, in solar activity have played a role in the apparent cooling that is being argued about here? That cooling is alleged by some to have prevailed over the period since the alleged temperature maximum in 1998.
Cheers,
Doug: Sadly, Solar cycle 23 now looks like the longest since the 19th Century, and there have been very few sunspots for 6 months. The sun’s magnetic field is now weaker than for a very long time.
Sounds quiet to me.”
Doug, so can this sudden subsidence, apparently beginning six months ago, in solar activity have played a role in the apparent cooling that is being argued about here? That cooling is alleged by some to have prevailed over the period since the alleged temperature maximum in 1998.
Cheers,
Oops.
Arnost returns with some plucky support for regression beyond the last decade and IMO manages to find the case for AGW in his first attempt however the polynomial that “fit” escapes me.
When Luke wrote “the more you fit – the more likely you’re in statistical voodoo land” it reminded me of this add-on for Bob R on the R. Underwood thread (not posted).
Given perhaps 3/10 thermometers were spot on and probably 3/10 were off by a degree or two after a while, we still have certain data problems to be resolved officially.
Note: Despite a fair exposure to the Australian scientific / industrial instrument world from the late 50’s I was never directly across Government weather stations as such. Any “insight” comes only from guessing and their lack of relationship with an independent body such as NATA.
Direct reading from a thermometer fixed to a post is very open loop considering just a few human variables.
Although we all needed to respect national standards from time to time, in most other industries there was usually a local routine documented as a guide to system performance right down the line. The only gear that could be relied upon from design was a positive displacement device such as your household water meter. Everything else was “force balanced” or had some other feedback employed.
Ian M hit on another point; I don’t recall industry ever relying on max / min recordings for a process including all forms of energy transfer between plants. We studied sampling rates with the advent of digital electronics. Filters and fudge also became part of the game and so we have moved a long way from using simple “gold scales” up front today.
The only escape is to analyse various groups of data in turn with respect to their probable errors, then look for trends.
My normal practice was to look for the most certain information linking a series of measurements with uncertainties. Global temperature has always determined sea level and that like atmospheric CO2 is going up by the decade at ever increasing rates despite this apparent “cooling”.
Luke,
Which comic strip do you feature in? The Wizard of Id as Bung?
David:
Yes the satellite data does not include the poles. I did say “near global” coverage. Better than the surface record which has little ocean coverage. The fact that the satellites aren’t confined to the surface temperatures is a feature not a bug. Convection effectively distributes heat throughout the troposphere anyway.
>But the point I’m trying to make is that David and Robert did a bit of data dredging themselves and used an index that is not as well correlated to temps as the MEI…
The MEI uses temperatures in its calculation. Using a temperature variable to predict a temperature variable is statistical cheating – of course its a better predictor of global temperature because it measures global temperature. The SOI is the most generally recognised measure of ENSO – period. That’s why we used it.
The paper had one purpose and that was to investigate the claims of global cooling. The claims don’t stack up…
Careful Arnost you’ve just argued for a GCM.
David: “Using a temperature variable to predict a temperature variable is statistical cheating”.
The MEI uses temperatures in its calculation. True – but so what? Air pressure is directly correlated to SSTs – higher than normal SSTs will generally be associated with lower than normal air pressures, and lower than normal SSTs will be associated with higher than normal air pressures. So the SOI is indirectly measuring the SSTs between Darwin and Tahiti – same sort of cheating. Yes?
Bottom line, the SOI is a climactic index just as the MEI is. But the MEI measures cloudiness, wind strength and pressure as well as temps AND correlates far better to global temps than SOI. We are both cherrypicking – but my choice correlates better with global temps than yours, so I think I’m on firmer ground.
After removing a trend of 0.1C per decade from the HadCRU3 temp, my composite AMO/MEI/Aerosol index v HadCRU3 loks like this:
http://i28.tinypic.com/2wqx3cj.jpg
And you can’t dismiss the apparent correlation as measuring the same thing because the composite index leads HadCRU3 by 5-6 months!
So this allows me to quantify some of the “noise” in global climate – and I get RID of it and look at the residual.
And the residual trend has flattened over the last 20 years and declined over the last 10.
You and Robert did not account for an obvious “non-climactic” forcing by leaving the (acknowledged) volcanic activity in. I think that this is “cheating” as well. And an observation, you did not account for the MJO activity which has a significant effect on the SOI. Without accounting for the SOI and volcanic aerosols your “search for the best relationship” between SOI and temps will assume a less than optimal relationship – distorting your result.
cheers
“Without accounting for the SOI and volcanic aerosols” => “Without accounting for the MJO and volcanic aerosols…”
DOH! – sorry
“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 …