In the next week/s the institutions responsible for collecting and collating thermometer temperature data will complete their analysis for December 2008 thus enabling a comparison of the entire year with other years typically back to the 1860s.
There will be much discussion about how warm the year 2008 was, relative to other years in Australia, North America, and globally.
While this news will no doubt grab mainstream media headlines it is unlikely there will be any discussion in the same media about how reliable the information actually is.
Meteorologist and blogger, Anthony Watts, has been surveying official weather stations in the US since May 2007 and his findings often make incredible reading. Indeed, many official weather stations are very poorly located – including one beside a barbeque and others immediately above air conditioner exhausts.
Mr Watts recently posted part 80 of “how not to measure temperature” showing an official US climate monitoring station at a funeral home in downtown Fort Scott, Kansas. Like so many official weather stations in the US the environment surrounding this weather station, between a water fountain and a brick wall near the centre of the city, will probably not provide high quality data.
It is unclear that the situation is much better in Australia – noone has done the type of audit being undertaken by Mr Watts in the US.
Long time Australian Bureau of Meteorology critic, Warwick Hughes, recently suggested there has been a decline in the quality of rainfall data held by the Bureau with values missing from series for no apparent reason.
In conclusion, while the average global citizen might assume that with all the kerfuffle about global warming the data would be beyond reproach, or at least improving, but his is not necessarily the case at least when it comes to the much quoted thermometer temperature data. So, perhaps be prepared to be entertained by the likely barrage of commentary on temperatures over the next week/s, but also be a little skeptical.
I have previously written that in not so many years time weather station data will be collected more for fun, a sense of history and for site-specific information, than for serious regional and global climate statistics. In the future it will be data from satellites that is recognised as much more reliable for understanding regional and global temperature trends.
Photograph of the official weather station at a Funeral Home in Fort Scott, Kansas, from Anthony Watts.
As I read it from Anthony’s site.
In the US many of the ground weather stations were originally attached to airports. These stations were monitored by airport meteorologists and were originally intentioned to give pilots an indication of actual ground conditions. Airport conditions and environments have changed dramatically – from grass areas to concrete aprons and hot jet blasts. None the less the reflect the real ground conditions at the time as required by those who need the information – UHI or not.
As such these stations are not entirely credible for long term statistics but do function for the area they are in and the purpose they were put there.
NASA launched a set of satellites in 1979 to monitor the overall world temperature fluctuations. These were monitored for NASA by Dr.Roy Spenser and Dr. John Christy. Their views are different from the Hansen NASA team. Note that both these gentlemen are still monitoring projects for NASA.
It’s amazing that the IPCC do not take any notice of the satellite information even though they were put there for a specific reason.
The wheels are coming off.
The Huffington Post.
You are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore.
Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that “the science is in.” Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.
These articles could have set them off.
So will the pseudo sceptics explain the differences between the various temperature data sets and make a fair comparison with the satellite data series.
Will they also discuss the ongoing sea level rise showing ongoing warming
Or will the faux sceptics – need to be reminded again and again by serious climate scientists how not to cook them thar books
And will the pretend sceptics discuss Australia’s climate reference network.
Of course not – which makes shooting fish in a barrel (carp) so much fun.
So why not watch the video instead? http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=r9ioJ_i8P3k
but that video is just like the AGW movement Lukey boy!
It acts and looks real serious but it’s really just computer nerds playing around in their bedroom.
Louis Hissink says
You are referring to all the modelling results not measured observation because quite frankly the lack of geological understanding in climate science is quite low.
Take sea level rise showing ongoing warming – I think you might find that it is more likely casued by the depletion of ground water supplies by humanity, than expansion from warming or melting of ice deposits. Put simply, we are pulling ever larger quantities of ground water and the water levels in these subsurface deposits are dropping to dangerous levels making extraction almost impossible in some cases. As this water is not returning to the acquiifers by precipitation, it is fairly obvious where it is going to – the oceans. Oh and your pseudoites are also factoring in the water production from all the sea floor hotspots as well, or are they being dismissed as simply recycled water.
Just spent reading Regolith Science by various CSIRO scientists for review purposes, and it’s interesting to note that the hydrological cycle is limited to recirculation of rainwater with minimal introduction of mantle derived water. In this respect, having worked for the Snowy Mountains Engineering Authority as a geologist, I would place more credence on Lance Endersby’s view on this crucial aspect of understanding the hydrological cycle.
Oh before you lapse into more of your asinities geologists are intensely interested in climate because it’s a crucial input into how we interpret the stratigraphic record, as well as landform development.
I look forward also to the deliberation by the pseudosceptics as well, but I know that an analysis of these data are already in progress.
Graham Young says
The HuffPo article is interesting, as the Huffington Post is one of two sites, Daily Kos being the other, which are the online homes of what the Americans call “liberals”. It is the last place you would expect to see an article like this.
I’m not sure of their editorial policies but I don’t think they let just anyone post an article. Can’t find a link to their editorial policy, but their quality is too high for it to be likely that you can just sign-up and post. While Harold Ambler, the author, is writing a book on climate change, and has a blog as well, so this is essentially promotional, it might pressage a decision by the editors to run a more diverse range of articles on climate change.
One of the strategies that the AGW crowd has tried to use to lock-in support is to portray skepticism as being a political, rather than a scientific, view. If the “liberal” establishment is feeling more relaxed about this, now that they have vanquished George W, then perhaps the debate will open-up some more.
If it does, I suspect it will be as likely due to the visual evidence dug-up by people like Watts, than to articles. Which raises the question as to why no-one is doing the same work in Australia. Perhaps Jennifer could make this a New Year’s project. Even Luke might take some photos in an effort to prove that the record is pristine!
Graham – your ignorance of the Australian reference network is appalling.
But what do we expect from fake scepticism.
Oh Luke – as usual talking about your own red herring. The Australian Reference Network.
What about the 1800 and 4000 year temp record in NZ and China that blows Mann out of the water and even questions the current temp charts.
“QUOTE: Consequently, the seven independent speleothem records that produced the results reported by Lorrey et al. are of great importance to the ongoing global warming debate, as they greatly advance the thesis that the MWP was indeed a global phenomenon, and that there is thus nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about earth’s current warmth, and that it therefore need not be attributed to the historical increase in the air’s CO2 content.
“QUOTE:and that it “provides the strongest evidence yet for a link among sun, climate, and culture.” In addition, we note that it provides equally strong evidence for at least the Northern-Hemispheric-extent of the Medieval Warm Period and its greater and more persistent warmth than that of the Current Warm Period.
Graham; I find your last post as curious as ever. In seeking new climate evidence we find a musician!
Incidentally, the Watts Up band is quite thin outside blogsphere.
Janama has to be a drummer too
Lutz Jacoby says
I’m only an engineer, so I don’t claim to be informed on climatology (whatever that is). To my sort of calculations a temperature is a value of no meaning. It is a transitory, momentary reading of a condition to see if you have reached the condition you are looking for. For example: If you are wanting water at boiling at sea level you measure 100 deg C when you get there. This has no further importance.
What really matters is heat content. So, now you need to know how much of whatever medium is at that temperature. Water, air, molten aluminium .. whatever. When someone claims that a there is an average temperature of a certain environment, this has no further meaning. You don’t know what the temperature is 10m higher or lower or to the left or right.
If we want to claim that the earth’s atmosphere is increasing in average tempearture (or decreasing) we would need to calculate the heat content of the entire volume of air and set an average for it.
I’m sorry, but that is not possible.
Pathetic Pyjamas – pathetic. Graham raised the issue. More diversionary faux pseudo shonk scepticism.
“Oh look another rabbit – if we can’t win here let’s bring something else up”.
Answer the question mate !
Lutz: “What really matters is heat content…………..”
When working in support of all engineering we only need a handy reference that is external to our own tools. In building, it can be the horizon that is used to confirm a level. In temperature control it’s the rate of change that becomes important, not the average. We could use our finger to test the kettle and so on.
I say again here, all we need is a series of spot measurements at virtually any given place to reach a conclusion about both the kettle and the atmosphere.
Believe me when I say as one who did a lot of ice water thermometer calibrations, the level in your bucket changes at the runnaway point.
No you first mentioned it Luke
QUOTE: And will the pretend sceptics discuss Australia’s climate reference network.
I didn’t bother about it as I’ve already checked out all the major stations in Australia and whilst most appear to be OK there’s some doosies like Sydney’s in the center of the circle leading out of the Cahill Expressway. Nothing like the mess in the US though.
actually I’m keyboards gavin and again it was Luke who bought up the music. He doesn’t do science these days, only distractions.
Jennifer states with hopeful certainty and no hint of ambiguity “In the future it will be data from satellites that is recognised as much more reliable for understanding regional and global temperature trends”. But the satellites belong to the major polluters and that will increasingly bring “the polluter plays principle into play”. So there is no hope unless fearless independent experts like Jennifer set up their own independent ethical satellite service to counter all those ones run by national and international agencies that are in on the game. Now is the time to stand up and be counted so the temperatures can be too. It is up to Jennifer to launch a fund to put thermometers into orbit. If you dont know how to look for disconfirming evidence or manage paranoia, your only hope is to control the evidence.
Well Pyjamas – There’s nothing wrong with a climate station in the centre of Sydney – inmates may like to know the temperature? But you wouldn’t use in a high resolution Australian climate change analysis? – so is it used – no it isn’t you clown ! More faux scepticism.
Might it have an effect if it was – who knows?
If Watts was any good he’d show the analysis with and without the alleged crook stations …. of course that might be doing something useful.
isn’t it funny – all this talk about not being able to trust the thermometers, yet the pseudo sceptics are so sure the climate is now cooling ….. any tinge of hypocrisy ?
But Bazza – how do we know that Jen might have a vested interest and only pick “cool” satellites herself – even if she launches her own mission ? I mean trust noone here. Perhaps Jen herself might be a counter counter counter counter agent for the Dept of Climate Change under “deep cover”. So deep in fact that even she can’t remember !! A sleeper agent put there into the IPA by Rudd in an early Qld Goss regime.
God that’s dastardly !!
Perhaps we need to have the systems personally vetted by Sir William Deane or Shane Warne himself ?!
Too hard – easier just to play the music – http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=yIfiQePVbqU I think PJ and Cohers will like this one – about “remake” of heat.
Gotta stop doing these drugs …
Australian data collection is looked at here;
I can remember having this discussion with luke some time ago; I said I had checked the temperature data at my local BoM site, Nobby’s Lighthouse; the records here go back to 1862, 145 years; there is no evidence of any warming at any of the indices [Seasonal, minumum, maximum]; in fact the warmest decade is the 1890s, and the coolest the 1990s. Back then I asked luke to examine his local and give us the results; no reply; I then went and examined about 50 or so other lcoations around Australia, including several in the MDB; nothing unusual; so, the question is, if individual stations are not showing the AGW effect how come the nationals and regionals are?
Tim Curtin says
When will Luke et al spell out the temperature data used by GISS and HADCrap for global temps from 1850 to 1900 in Kinshasa, Kampala, Nairobi, Harare, Port Moresby, Panama, Khartoum, etc. ad nauseam, and then use them to adjust the GISS et al bullshit about global temps from 1850 to 1900 to show the reality that from 1850 to now there has been NO increase in global world temps?? Sadly, I realise this is beyond Luke’s intelligence, but the truth is that GISS et al invent temps in the places mentioned above to show global temps as much as 0.7oC now since Arrhenius’ 1896. See my Quadrant article for more.
Oh dear Cohenite – you haven’t learnt a thing have you – come back with the metadata pre-1900 – off you go now chappy – run along now. (ring BoM and find out why before you embarrass yourself further). Actually Cohers – I take that back – why don’t YOU publish your “analysis” in the Australian Met Magazine – hohohohoho ho – hum
As for Timmy…
No Timmy – I won’t be. Why don’t you ask them yourself instead of being a childish faux sceptic.
I wouldn’t be seen dead reading rightist bilge like Quadrant either. One needs some basic standards in life.
Tell us about the pre-1900 site metadata will you Timmy – LOLZ
quote:the question is, if individual stations are not showing the AGW effect how come the nationals and regionals are?
exactly! In the US as well.
I was happy to read your article Tim.
Good idea luke! I’ll compile the MDB stats for example, including the catchement area, and mean the lot and compare that with the metadata, whatever that is.
Tim; do you have a link to your Quadrant article?
Well Cohers – just make sure sites haven’t moved down the road a ways or to the airport (often) – and make sure what the actual instrumentation enclosure is (i.e. Stevenson screen or ??) or we’ll be up you for the rent !
You see if you’re going to start chucking rocks – just make sure you’ve used BoM’s degree of rigour in site selection. You don’t just to decide your mate’s thermometer on the back of his shed or something worse is the bees knees.
So you’re looking for quality sites, as little changed by development as possible, in the exact same position, and with constant quality instrumentation. I imagine you’ll be on a road trip and in the BoM archives for quite some time. Now hurry along …
Why just stick with the MDB ?
Geoff Brown says
“Graham; I find your last post as curious as ever. In seeking new climate evidence we find a musician!”
Interesting that Music is pure mathematics, while politics is about talking B/S.
I would prefer getting information from a musician rather than from a failed politician.
In fact, I would prefer getting information from a musician rather than from discredited scientists like Mann, Bradley and Hughes who produced the fraudulent “hockey stick” after IPCC lead author Jonathan Overpeck said that they had to get rid of the MWP.
Warwick Hughes says
Luke, with ref to the Sydney thermometer site you say; “But you wouldn’t use in a high resolution Australian climate change analysis? – so is it used – no it isn’t you clown ! More faux scepticism.”
Luke and others, there is a huge point you are missing here and that is that IPCC global warming is not derived from any “high resolution Australian climate change analysis”.
While “Australia’s climate reference network” might have some relevance here re data quality it has little to do with generation of IPCC global warming data.
janama can rest assured that Sydney temperature data was used by PD Jones et al in their compilations of global temperature trends which have been quoted for decades by the IPCC as evidence of global warming (GW).
For a list of the Jones et al 1986 southern hemisphere stations (40% cities over 50,000 population) see;
These data defined IPCC GW which conned policy-makers before the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, which lead to Kyoto and where we are now. Later iterations of Jones and Jones et al might have added more stations but took no cities out. Jones 1994 is the last time station data was available to check what was used.
I have a page on Jones use of Sydney here.
Links to other cities critiqued here;
On another related subject Luke, you say, “Oh dear Cohenite – you haven’t learnt a thing have you – come back with the metadata pre-1900 – off you go now chappy – run along now. (ring BoM and find out why before you embarrass yourself further). Actually Cohers – I take that back – why don’t YOU publish your “analysis” in the Australian Met Magazine – hohohohoho ho – hum”
Cohenite was referring to the Nobbys Signal Station temperature trend that goes back into the 1800’s and shows the late 1800’s to be comparably warm with recent decades. In my opinion and after some research, I believe the BoM created a myth that the Stevenson screen was not used in Australia until 1907 (start of the BoM) and that the late 19C warmth was an artifact of more primitive thermometer exposures. For sure that is what I was told in conversations in the BoM in 1991-92 but when I examined records of Colonial Conferences held in 1879, 1881 and 1888 I found many references indicated use of the Stevenson screen.
Anyway, the story is on this page which includes scans of my 1995 published paper.
Comment on D.E. Parker, “Effects of Changing Exposure of Thermometers at Land Stations.” International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 15, pp. 231-234.
Graham Young says
Geoff, some would say that I fit both your criteria, so perhaps one cancels the other out.
Luke, I’m not a skeptic because I have ever doubted that it has been getting hotter, and my judgements don’t depend on whether it has been getting hotter or not, but I’ll be pretty angry if I find that part of the data has been fiddled as well.
But as I’m obviously the dumb one here, perhaps you could help me out. The RCS network is well-illustrated with photographs, but I’m a little puzzled to find out that only 40 of them are on the list of the bureau’s Long Record Temperature sites, and that only 6 of them have temperature records going back 100 years or more, and 92% of all the RCS sites commence in 1939 or later. So, how are we producing average temperatures for the last century?
Presumably other sites are being used, not the RCS network, and some sort of statistical matching is going on. Maybe you could explain the statistical process and send me the link to the list of sites and the photos of the equipment.
I realise the issue has probably been covered here before, but you have to repeat yourself occasionally for people who come in on an issue for the first time, and are honest enough to say they don’t know.
Tim Curtin says
Thanks, Janama and cohenite, see http://www.quadrant.org.au.
Luke, why don’t you tell us about the pre-1900 site metadata? I am sure New York in January is an excellent meta proxy for Leopoldville before that had been founded. Just as Canberra Airport temps before 2000 cannot be consistent with those since, but the BoM like Luke (“quality sites, as little changed by development as possible, in the exact same position, and with constant quality instrumentation”) knows not and cares less.
Graham – no problem. If you really want the fine detail on specific analyses and specific data sets you should email or phone Blair Trewin in BoM Melbourne and ask.
The RCS contribution is ongoing from now but illustrates that BoM are very well aware of station location and quality issues unlike the thread title perhaps implies.
But there is also nothing wrong with having a met station in a capital city – as many people living there probably would like to know about the meteorological conditions that surround them – heat island or not. Whether those data get into a wider analysis or indeed even if they do matter is the issue.
But for some background on your issues and stats actual methods try
and especially http://www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet/docs/climdyn_2004_della-marta.pdf
There has also been significant historic attempts to improve the network coverage by data punching paper records. A very expensive and tedious process. White gloves/archives protocols – the full bit.
Dash RipRock III says
AL GORE HAS GUARANTEED THAT THE NORTHERN POLAR ICE CAP WILL BE COMPLETELY GONE IN FIVE YEARS!!!
When I heard this, I assumed it was a rumor started by skeptics trying to make Gore look bad. It wasn’t until I viewed the video with my own eyes that I realized what Gore had done. Gore has started a five year credibility countdown timer ticking and it’s up to all of us to make sure that he is held accountable and proven to be a fraud when his dire prediction aimed at drumming up support doesn’t come true.
The mainstream media isn’t going to let this video see the light of day because they, unlike Al, understand the precarious position in which he has placed himself.
It is therefore up to us to spread the word about Big Al’s prediction. He must be exposed for the fear mongering opportunist that he has become.
To view the video, please visit the following site and click on the picture of Big Al holding up five fingers.
While visiting this site, you might want to watch a preview of the film “Not Evil, Just wrong” which is linked to from the home page or watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle” which can be found in the video section.
The BOM’s reference station network can be viewed from this page http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml . It includes site photos (click on the location on map). Obviously urban locations are not part of the network.
Taluka Byvalnian says
Dash RipRock III says
“AL GORE HAS GUARANTEED THAT THE NORTHERN POLAR ICE CAP WILL BE COMPLETELY GONE IN FIVE YEARS!!!
When I heard this, I assumed it was a rumor started by skeptics trying to make Gore look bad. It wasn’t until I viewed the video with my own eyes that I realized what Gore had done. ”
I posted that video on my blog on Dec 15th http://talbyv.blogspot.com/2008/12/al-gore-says-polar-ice-cap-will.html
Graham Young says
Robert, I don’t think you’ve been following the thread. Most of those sites are relatively recent and don’t have a longterm history of temperature and are therefore not involved in determining trends since 1910, which is when we start doing trends apparently.
The links that Luke provides explain that the gap is filled-in by a variety of “objective” and “subjective” methods. The “objective” are largely types of statistical manipulation, some of which are regarded (Della-Marta) as inferior to others, hence my use of quotation marks around “objective”. The “subjective” aren’t entirely ad hoc, but involve individuals making judgements against criteria, making “subjective” a little misleading as well.
The reasons for the need for the statistical and other manipulations are largely to do with weather stations being moved around, and changes in technologies, such as the introduction of Stevenson screens. They try to adjust for movements by comparing new stations against old stations by running them simultaneously, but as the required adjustments can be both positive and negative, depending on the time of year, this seems fraught, and they don’t always have comparisons in which case they do some sophisticated guessing.
When you combine this with the uneven spread of stations around the continent, you’d have to say that it is pretty unsatisfactory when you’re trying to detect global temperature fluctuations of tenths of a degree over the course of a decade or so.
No doubt this is why Jennifer is so insistent that the satellite measurements are to be preferred – they do away with most of the issues of consistency.
The first link that Luke provides also gives a commonsense over-view of trends and their use and misuse. For example “Analysis periods starting after 1970 are considered too short to calculate meaningful trend values.” Suggesting that a lot of the politicised arguments that we have about whether temperature is trending up or down are meaningless.
I’ve noted the comments by Cohenite above about checking individual stations, so I took the 40 stations thought reliable enough to be in the RCS _and_ which have at least 50 years of temperature records. BOM provide a part of their site where you can compare 30 year averages with the average for that weather station. The link is http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/ca_site_file_names.shtml.
When you eyeball the data, it tends to bear out Cohenite’s claim. The data judged on 30 year averages appears to be virtually trendless i.e. there is little or no change in the averages. The list of RCS stations with over 50 years of data is at the end of this comment.
So, back to you Luke. Can you explain what appears to be a discrepancy between the RCS stations with a long enough history to appear not to need statistical massaging, and the rest of the network?
CAPE OTWAY LIGHTHOUSE, ROBE, BURKETOWN POST OFFICE, RICHMOND POST OFFICE, NHILL
CAPE LEEUWIN, TIBOOBURRA POST OFFICE, WILLIS ISLAND, BROOME AIRPORT, CANBERRA AIRPORT, CEDUNA AMO, KALGOORLIE-BOULDER AIRPORT, MARREE, NORFOLK ISLAND AERO, ROCKHAMPTON AERO, OODNADATTA AIRPORT, TOWNSVILLE AERO, ALICE SPRINGS AIRPORT,
AMBERLEY AMO, DARWIN AIRPORT, GERALDTON AIRPORT, CAIRNS AERO, CHARLEVILLE AERO, MOUNT GAMBIER AERO, WAGGA WAGGA AMO, WILLIAMTOWN RAAF, COFFS HARBOUR MO, LAVERTON RAAF, HALLS CREEK AIRPORT, CARNARVON AIRPORT, EAST SALE AIRPORT, MILDURA AIRPORT, GUNNEDAH SCS, MACQUARIE ISLAND, PORT HEDLAND AIRPORT, WOOMERA AERODROME, CUNDERDIN, MEEKATHARRA AIRPORT, COCOS ISLAND AIRPORT, MAWSON
That’s a blatant lie, and you only have to listen to the video that was provided on that link to know that it’s a lie. He says “May well be gone”. A vast difference between what was said and what was claimed.
Jennifer, why don’t you look at what your own side is saying.
That temperature graph for the satellites and ground observations looks remarkably consistent to me.
Except that there is no such thing as a global temperature. 😉
Chris W says
Could you guys PLEASE check with the The Numbskull Institute (or whatever think-tank is coordinating denialwit thought these days) and QA your posts for consistency before posting !!
Cohenite lashed Brad back on the “Global Warming is Over” thread with an anonymous graph purporting to show that sea level has been dropping. Louis tells us above that it is actually rising.
Please … for the love of God … as a reasonable person I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt – but you’re making it almost impossible to believe that denialists know what the hell they’re talking about.
Oh, sorry Chris, the data is here;
Graham – email David Jones at BoM and ask him for exactly what details you need. I’m sure Jen will forward for you.
But Graham it is remarkable after all this hand wringing that the terrestrial time series appears to broadly agree with the satellite series in bumps and trends. So how exactly would you be better informed?
Also the RCS is an ongoing project – the longer high quality temperature datasets can be downloaded here. Winzip will open TAR archives.
luke; those trends are similar between the indices but if you note at the end point in 2008 there is almost 0.2C difference between UAH and GISS; that is the issue.
I must say also that it is strange that Williamtown is on the RCS network and not Nobby’s; Warwick has pointed out quite convincingly the problems with Williamtown whereas Nobby’s, apart from being one of the longest [is there a longer one?] site records, seems remarkably consistent and unblemished.
There are differences all through the history of the four sources, but they all agree quite well over the long run. At various times, they differ, but cherry picking isn’t going to help you at all. The ‘endpoint’ has the RSS and UAH differing more than the UAH and GISS.
“The ‘endpoint’ has the RSS and UAH differing more than the UAH and GISS.”
Thank you Will, I can always depend on you to cheer me up with something absurd and unworldly.
You’re the one picking points.
Gordon Robertson says
SJT “Jennifer, why don’t you look at what your own side is saying. That temperature graph for the satellites and ground observations looks remarkably consistent to me”.
Pielke Jr. has asked a question and broken it into the obervations from at least two camps. I don’t see how you relate any of that to ‘our’ side. He is ‘asking’ objective questions, perhaps a little too objectively.
The graph is a piece of garbage. Note the title…it came from the IPCC. The most recent review was AR4 in February 2007. That means the data for RSS and UAH is about 3 to 5 years old. Since then, they have ironed out their differences and are pretty well in lockstep.
Note the linear relationship between temperature and rising CO2 values predicted by the IPCC ‘based on computer model studies’. Hadley is claiming that’s not correct. Doh!! Hadley is contradicting the almighty IPCC? They are talking about natural variations on one hand and anthropogenic global warming on the other, as if CO2 is warming the planet linearly, as the IPCC has wrongly implied. Well which is it?? Someone at Hadley is seriously confused.
Here’s the real UAH graph with it’s proper trend:
Remember that RSS and UAH pretty well agree these days. Also, remember what the IPCC said about the global average, which was 0.6 C to 0.8 C. Where on that graph does it show ground temperatures being 0.4 C to 0.6 C above the atmospheric temps of UAH and RSS?
I’m still waiting for you or any of your high priests at RC to explain to me how a cooler atmosphere warms a warmer surface. Of course, I’m wasting my time asking. Your reply will be cherry-picked from minor points in my reply to you.
Gordon Robertson says
Graham Young “No doubt this is why Jennifer is so insistent that the satellite measurements are to be preferred – they do away with most of the issues of consistency”.
It’s not just the consistency, Graham, satellites cover 95% of the atmosphere by sweeping it with the MSU units. Also, there’s only a few satellites, all monitored by the same people.
Gordon Robertson says
Beano “It’s amazing that the IPCC do not take any notice of the satellite information even though they were put there for a specific reason”.
The IPCC did take notice of the satellites in TAR, They admitted the satellite data did not agree with the model data. If you look at the hockey stick graph, in all its glory, there is a dingy little graph of satellite data on the previous page. NAS (National Academy of Science) agreed the satellite data did not agree. Somewhere along the way, NAS changed its strict admission policy, opening the door to global warming freaks. They have put pressure on NAS to lighten their skepticism and both NAS and the IPCC have since joined in the movement to discredit the satellite data.
Try as they might, they have been unsuccessful. Any so-called corrections to the data have been miniscule and have not altered the glaring fact that the atmosphere has warmed by no more than a couple of tenths of a degree C. When John Christy of UAH corroborated the satellite data by affirming it with weather balloon (sonde) data, guess what the IPCC crowd did? You go it…they tried to discredit the sonde data.
The IPCC noticed the satellite data alright, and they have tried everything in their power to make it go away. The truth has a way of sticking, however. What was that saying, “you can fool some of the people some of the time….”.
Utter utter crap Roberston – the story is that different is it. Lordy me you lot drone on.
Your comment about warm surfaces shows your knowledge of the subject is about that of an earthworm.
What will never be forgotten is how Spencer and Christy totally ballsed up the analysis of their own satellite data and “cooling” suddenly became warming. Spare the sermon mate. Their science sucks.
Chris W says
Er, thanks for the link cohenite. FWIW I didn’t think you just drew that graph from some shared denialist fever dream, I was actually more stunned that you and Louis seem to have mutally exclusive opinions on sea level.
His post above plainly says that sea level IS rising but isn’t caused by AGW – while the graph and data you endorse on that other thread says sea level ISN’T rising (the reverse in fact).
Gordon Robertson says
Luke “Your comment about warm surfaces shows your knowledge of the subject is about that of an earthworm”.
I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who has a gravatar like yours. So, I’ll pat you on the head and say, “there, there Lukey”.
Of course, if you actually look like that, my apologies.
Gordon Robertson says
Chris W. “His post above plainly says that sea level IS rising but isn’t caused by AGW – while the graph and data you endorse on that other thread says sea level ISN’T rising (the reverse in fact)”.
The real question is why people make such a big deal about a couple of tenths of a degree warming and a few millimetres sea level rise or fall. Sea levels in parts of the Indian Ocean have fallen about a foot, while levels in other parts of the globe have risen. We’re back to this ‘average’ again. What does ‘average’ mean locally, or anywhere for that matter?
Chris W says
Not sure if you’re referring to that paper by Morner, Tooley, and Possnert but if you are, it was well and truly kicked into touch by these guys http://staff.acecrc.org.au/~johunter/Church_et_al_2006_published.pdf
I particularly liked the bit that says … “in contrast to Mörner et al. (2004), we find that there is no indication of a fall in sea-level of 20 to 30 cm at any time in the last 30 yrs (which would imply a rate of fall of between 7 and 10 mm yr−1 over 30 yrs, and double that over the “1970s to early 1980s” specified by Mörner et al. (2004)). This drop in sea-level has also been shown to be inconsistent with geological data (Woodroffe, 2005;Kench et al.,2005).”
Man, they sure smoked that sick puppy of a paper didn’t they ?
At base though, the cohenite/louis contradiction is is yet another golden thread in the rich tapestry of confused denialist thinking. CURRENT denialer beliefs would seem to encompass the following …
There is no warming,
There is warming, but its the Sun, stupid.
There is warming from CO2, but the rate is WAY less than the IPCC says, so no problem.
There is warming, but that’s a good thing.
There is warming from CO2, but we should fix world hunger first.
There is warming from CO2, but we’ll bankrupt ourselves if we spend a small % of GDP on
There is warming from CO2, but we’re arrogant to think man can do anything about it.
etc, etc and multiple permutations of each of the above.
And now of course:
Sea level is falling
Sea level is rising, but it would be wrong to attribute it to AGW
Doesn’t seem to be very consistency-rich now does it ?
Look, here’s some gratutitous advice … you all agree on ONE point to argue with us realists about (feel free to incorporate the usual levels of denialist stupidity and misrepresentation though) then hammer the cr*p out of that single issue.
You know it makes sense.
Charles Higley says
I did not know where to post my observations, so I found something related to being careful.
I was perusing material on Wikipedia today and found some relatively limited and slanted material on CO2, ocean CO2, and the Little Ice Age. I added some relevant and referenced science to balance the material. For example, the text mentioned that humans emit 130 times the CO2 of volcanoes and leaves it at that. What they do not do is mention that the IPCC describes human emissions as only 2-3% of natural annual emissions. Within minutes this addition was removed. I put it back. Poof! Gone again.
The Little Ice Age Causes section details that the plagues, population decrease, and farmland reforestation fixed so much carbon that it caused the Little Ice Age. That and Europeans contacting the American Indian and decimating their populations with disease. They claim that land use changes were the cause? They neglect to admit that the world population and land use was much to smal to have such an effect. The are references to some researcher who finds evidence of carbon fixation and jumps to the conclusion that CO2 changes drove the climate cold. I simply added that, considering the relatively small human population and the low agriculture and technology of the times, it would be overestimating land use effects and CO2 changes to claim these effects. It was gone in minutes also.
I added some a reasonable statement to “Ocean CO2” to add that addition of CO2 to the carbonic acid/bicarbonate/carbonate equilibrium must increase carbonate concentration and increase availability to organisms. As the H+ produced by this equilibrium is part of the equilibrium it will have no effect. Furthermore, as CO2 has been much higher for much f the last 600 million years, it is no surprise that most marine organisms are fine with a slight pH drop, photosynthesis raises the pH, and the reefs are thriving. Again it was gone in seconds.
Some ad hominem comments to me by the author/monitor/changer threatened to have me banned from editing. He called my input “twaddle”, made disparaging comments about Beck (“junk science”) and Jaworowski and was very sarcastic. One arrogant jerk.
A little sleuthing and I find that the person policing the content is one of Dr Mann’s colleagues, William M. Connolley. He apparently patrols certain parts of Wikipedia to make sure that the material follows the bad, limited point of view and junk science of the IPCC and, of course, Mann’s hockeystick point of view.
I want to spread the word in general to be careful of material related to climate change as it is pointedly being policed by global warming bullies who squat on the science and limit what the readers of Wikipedia can see. I believe their activities degrade Wikipedia severely and makes these bullies non-scientists and patently dishonest.
I would be glad to find out where I can place observations such as this for a wider audience. I would appreciate the input.
I have been messing with getting a blog started, but I do not know how to get it out there.
Cheers, C. Higley