December 23rd, 2009, 07:47 PM
In global warming. In this article Cosmic rays are implicated in atmospheric disassociation of CFC's and then Ozone rather than UV sunlight. In addition this unexpected interaction and the interplay between sun activity and cosmic radiation drives global temperatures to a far greater extent than any other influence according to the researcher. Have a look.
http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012
The sun plays an important role in earths climate, but the current forcing which has the greatest impact on the climate change we are currently experiencing is human contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...al-warming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosm...al-warming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/acri...ing-hotter.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...al-warming.htm
Now... from the link you shared in the OP:
We'll see.In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.
My vote is for a global warming megathread merger.........
Qing-Bin Lu directly disagrees with you. Can you have a look at his paper and tell us where he is wrong? Here is what he says:Originally Posted by inow
"My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century," Lu said. "Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."
Like I said, we'll see. I keep an open mind, but his claims have not yet been tested for accuracy. He could be the next Einstein predicting the curvature of light during an eclipse, or he could be yet another person who draws a mistaken conclusion as pertains to the current warming trend we are experiencing with earth's climate.
It's possible to cherry pick isolated points in time that would superficially support Lu's claim, but the global surface temperature trend is still in an upward direction."Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000," Lu said. "Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750...s-environment/
Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.
Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."
I read the article carefully and also a fair quantity of discussion online about the study as well. It appears that the AP requested that statisticians study two and only two data sets to form the conclusions. You might be interested in knowing what to sets they are. Could you confirm that they are the GISS and the HAD/CRU data sets? It also appears that the study is not peer-reviewed
If so, I note that those two sets stand out uniquely as two that have persistently diverge from the other global compilations now by about 0.3C. In the seventies and eighties they were in alignment but now they are not. Interestingly, they are the only global compilation where the raw data is not available. Dr. Lu chose not to use either of those data sets. Perhaps it was because they cannot be independently confirmed. Analysis of the other sets which are independently verified, show temperatures declining from 2001-2003 and onward just as Dr. Lu indicates.
Perhaps you can offer an explanation for these differences. Does David Peterson explain why only the two data sets that show the highest post 2000 temperatures were analyzed? Does he apply is expertise to evaluate the nature of the deviation between GISS/HAD/CRU and other data sets? If not, do you suppose that might be one reason the study was not peer-reviewed?
Going back though to your primary purpose of posting this, is it your contention that Dr. Lu is mistaken and as you say global temperatures continue to rise even between 2002 and today? If so, what data set are you using to support your claim and how can you independently validate that it is correct in this timeframe?
Here is a discussion of global temperature compilations for comparison purposes.
Temperature compilations:
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
Temperature Proxies
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Proxies.html
From the link.
I thought that cosmic ray/ozone interactions were stratospheric processes, whereas GHG's warm the troposphere?His conclusions are based on observations that from 1950 up to now, the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmosphere has been completely contolled by CFC's and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.
CFC's are 10,000 times more potent than CO2, as a GHG. Is this overprinting the effect of CO2, considering that CO2 absorbs heat at greater bandwidths over the poles?
Yes that's right. The research paper describes the proposed interaction. Variations in cosmic radiation influenced by sun activity alter CFC and Ozone chemistry in the upper atmosphere which then alter the amount of UV and near UV radiation penetrating into the troposphere according to Lu. These factors, as well as perhaps others not investigated, he claims intensify the warming and cooling cycles due to sun activity variations. He suggests that the recent warming trend has been magnified by CFC releases into the atmosphere which is now rapidly declining. He believes the turning point was in the late 90's and on this basis global temperatures should be declining over the next decades.
I am not sure what you are asking. I also don't understand the statement that CO2 has a different absorption/emissivity profile over the poles. Emissivity is not location dependent, it is a physical property of the molecule. It is only ever so slightly temperature dependent too.CFC's are 10,000 times more potent than CO2, as a GHG. Is this overprinting the effect of CO2, considering that CO2 absorbs heat at greater bandwidths over the poles?
I agree. The abstract of the paper hardly even mentions it as well, and certainly doesn't put a relative magnitude.
Also aren't cosmic rays somewhat correlated to total emmisivity? If so, it should be no surprise that total cosmic rays have dropped as we dipped into the current low of the solar cycle. In spite of that 2009 will be another top ten warm year, with 2005 still being the warmest of the 120 year record.
Lynx, isn't it true that only the GISS and HAD/CRU data is showing 2005 as the warmest year on record? All other global compilations show 1998 and a handful of other 20th century dates as top years? I mention this because it is not certain that 2005 is the record year you describe and the entire data set from 1980 forward is in question. Dr. Lu did not use either of these data sets in his paper. The reviewers felt it was appropriate also to not use these data sets. Do you think it is appropriate to continue to reference these data sets given the controversy over them?
It turns out that the Hadley data is now in question because they are unable to provide the raw data since they destroyed it, and now it has been revealed the Hadley numbers for Russian and Siberian temperatures have been overstated by 0.5C due to the CRU selectively choosing which stations to include and exclude. They left 40% of the stations out of the compilation and thus overstated land surface temperature by 0.5C for about 12.5% of the total land surface of the earth.
Curiously, GISS will not release their raw data either so it cannot be independently verified. Wouldn't it be better to use satellite data or data where the raw numbers are released and validated?
Over how long a time period have this data been overstated? Because of it had been done over a few decades it would not change the slope of the relevant parts of the graph, only it's location on the y-axis. Emergent trends would still be accurate.
Not sure overstated its the right term. It is consistently the highest and it continues to diverge from the others over time. Here is a comparison to satellite data back to 1978. In the early '80s the average difference was about 0.11C and now the average difference is about 0.33C
The GISS data does appear to match other global compilations (other than the satellite data) in the 60's through 70's and part of the 80's, though I don't recall where I saw that data. I don't see it in the trends from Junkscience. I like the satellite data, not so much for its accuracy but because it is more difficult to have hidden errors and because the trends are likely good even if the absolute numbers are not. Unfortunately the technology did not exist prior to the late 70's.
OK, I see this is an example where you get the lack of correlation since the 70's. Here I have offered two highly probable reasons. Lag energy accumulated in the oceans, and the clearing of the skies due to more efficient burning and environmental regulations.
Can you say these possible reasons are wrong with certainty?
I only looked a couple links provided in this forst link of yours, the second being Evaluating sun–climate relationships since the Little Ice Age:
I read that as Judith Lean saying we have evidence of a 0.55 C increase of the 0.8 C increase by solar irradiance changes. Am I wrong? 0.3 + 0.25 = 0.55... right?From the coldest period of the Little Ice Age to the present time, the surface temperature of the Earth increased by perhaps 0.8°C. Solar variability may account for part of this warming which, during the past 350 years, generally tracks fluctuating solar activity levels. While increases in greenhouse gas concentrations are widely assumed to be the primary cause of recent climate change, surface temperatures nevertheless varied significantly during pre-industrial periods, under minimal levels of greenhouse gas variations. A climate forcing of 0.3 W m−2 arising from a speculated 0.13% solar irradiance increase can account for the 0.3°C surface warming evident in the paleoclimate record from 1650 to 1790, assuming that climate sensitivity is 1°C W−1 m−2 (which is within the IPCC range). The empirical Sun–climate relationship defined by these pre-industrial data suggests that solar variability may have contributed 0.25°C of the 0.6°C subsequent warming from 1900 to 1990, a scenario which time dependent GCM simulations replicate when forced with reconstructed solar irradiance. Thus, while solar variability likely played a dominant role in modulating climate during the Little Ice Age prior to 1850, its influence since 1900 has become an increasingly less significant component of climate change in the industrial epoch. It is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970, not withstanding recent attempts to deduce long term solar irradiance fluctuations from the observational data base, which has notable occurrences of instrumental drifts. Empirical evidence suggests that Sun–climate relationships exist on decadal as well as centennial time scales, but present sensitivities of the climate system are insufficient to explain these short-term relationships. Still to be simulated over the time scale of the Little Ice Age to the present is the combined effect of direct radiative forcing, indirect forcing via solar-induced ozone changes in the atmosphere, and speculated charged particle mechanisms whose pathways and sensitivities are not yet specified.
Maybe I made another math error. Please, tell me if I right or wrong. I haven't learned thie "new math" they teach in schools today.
Maybe because of the lag explained in the article, some will believe warming causes cosmic rays...
I'm not sure what to think about cosmic rays, but the southern pole does get about 7% more heat from the sun than the northern pole during their respective summers. The polarity of the earths magnetism may play a role too. I think these theories or still beyond us to adequately test beyond seeing correlations that may or may not be true.
Well, just another article that states the obvious, but fails to acknowledge the lag that the 71% of the solar radiation hitting the earth has, or the cleaner air that followed innovation and regulation.
Hmmmm...
Hmmm.... again....They concluded that from solar minimum to maximum (eg - from 1996 to 2001), the forcing from the sun increases global temperatures by 0.18°C.
Now another 0.18 C increase. Add that to the 0.55 C and we get 0.72 C!
Tell me my math is wrong... isn't it the period of 1750 to 1005 that the IPCC focuses their data on, and the temperature by other material is at 2005!
Am I wrong? If so, why?
Now Inow, since you like to debate with what links say, I give you these two:
Oppositely Directed: Errors and omissions cast doubt on Royal Society's solar study
The Sun Approaches Its 11 Year Minimum and Activity Cycle 24
Remember what I said about not using short term data because of 30 year and less oscillations?
I would like you to take a look at this LINK. The guy gives a short overview of temperature readings and produces a graph superimposing data from GISS, RSS, HadCRU and UAH, not only two of them. They show remarkable similarity if you ask me. Here is an updated graph he produced:Not sure overstated its the right term. It is consistently the highest and it continues to diverge from the others over time. Here is a comparison to satellite data back to 1978. In the early '80s the average difference was about 0.11C and now the average difference is about 0.33C
You'll notice around 1998 that the satellite data pops out at the top, showing higher temps than all the rest. The guy speculates that because 1998 was an el nino year, that middle troposphere temps might have increased disproportionately, temperatures that singularly affect satellite data, alternatively he speculates there might be a difference in the way ocean temps are measured.
I might be inclined to not expect absolute convergence of the surface and satellite data due to the fact that satellite and surface measurements differ in what they measure, no?
Yet RSS data shows the highest decadal increase of all the data sets. Also, satellite measurements are not free of error. Several corrective adjustments have had to be made in the past due to, for instance, orbital degradation of the satellites and calibration with faulty radiosonde data. Why do you think satellite data would show more accurate trends than surface data? Another thing to consider, is that satellite data includes MSU channel 2 measurements, which includes lower stratosphere measurements (which have been cooling, both measured and predicted). I believe this has been taken account of recently, but it just shows that satellite data is not as reliable as you might have thought. Corrective adjustments are common with all the data sets.I like the satellite data, not so much for its accuracy but because it is more difficult to have hidden errors and because the trends are likely good even if the absolute numbers are not. Unfortunately the technology did not exist prior to the late 70's.
Wild Cobra, your MSU graph ends in 2005. In that same year MSU data was adjusted to correct errors that crept in due to the degradation of the satellite's orbits. Was that taken account of?
Yes, in the graphic you offer the data has been normalized to the same baseline. So it has been adjusted to remove offsets. You should note that about 0.25C has been removed from the GISTemp in the 2005 timeframe.
Agreed, completely.I might be inclined to not expect absolute convergence of the surface and satellite data due to the fact that satellite and surface measurements differ in what they measure, no?
The RSS data has the greatest average slope over that total time, but remember the data has been adjusted. RSS and UAH uses the same raw data, they apply different algorithms to generate temperature. UAH is still in the process of adjusting for diurnal drift and claim their October and November numbers are still a bit high.Yet RSS data shows the highest decadal increase of all the data sets. Also, satellite measurements are not free of error. Several corrective adjustments have had to be made in the past due to, for instance, orbital degradation of the satellites and calibration with faulty radiosonde data. Why do you think satellite data would show more accurate trends than surface data?
The satellite data shows the most leveling and decline in 2002-2009. Surface numbers suffer most from urbanization and selective inclusion or exclusion of weather stations, two factors that likely figure heavily into the .75C difference between land temperatures and sea surface temperature.
True it did in the past. I find the satellite data more difficult to have concealed errors. The fact that these issues are known and in the process of being adjusted is testament to that. The inability to make adjustments in the surface data due to unavailability of the raw set is disturbing to me. Then when you learn that stations are selectively excluded, well I don't think that is the right way to go about compiling a temperature record.Another thing to consider, is that satellite data includes MSU channel 2 measurements, which includes lower stratosphere measurements (which have been cooling, both measured and predicted). I believe this has been taken account of recently, but it just shows that satellite data is not as reliable as you might have thought. Corrective adjustments are common with all the data sets.
As I understand it all the previous data has been adjusted. If you look at the adjustments over the years they change monthly numbers at times but the trend is very similar. In 2008 they applied correction for diurnal drift as well. It does appear as if his data set is old.Wild Cobra, your MSU graph ends in 2005. In that same year MSU data was adjusted to correct errors that crept in due to the degradation of the satellite's orbits. Was that taken account of?
But the pertinent question should be why it has been removed. Do you know? Also, there is nothing wrong with adjustments to the same baseline. The purpose of such graphs is after all to compare trends. The presence of offsets or anomalous data points are a given (no measurement can claim complete accuracy right out of the bat) and the factors attributing to data points have to be taken into account to assist producing as reliable data as can be achieved.Yes, in the graphic you offer the data has been normalized to the same baseline. So it has been adjusted to remove offsets. You should note that about 0.25C has been removed from the GISTemp in the 2005 timeframe.
Yes, RSS has been adjusted, but so has the UAH data. Does that mean UAH is more reliable than RSS? I don't think so. In fact, it was RSS that pointed out the errors due to orbital degradation in the first place. Also, remember that the most important thing to look at is the prevailing trend, rather than short term inconsistencies.The RSS data has the greatest average slope over that total time, but remember the data has been adjusted. RSS and UAH uses the same raw data, they apply different algorithms to generate temperature. UAH is still in the process of adjusting for diurnal drift and claim their October and November numbers are still a bit high.
Have La Nina events been accounted for? There have been quite a few over that period. Satellite data covers a larger ocean area than GISS and CRU does. Remember that RSS is also satellite data, so saying that satellite data shows lower trends does not represent the whole picture. Surface numbers do suffer from these issues, but attempts are made to account for them and when the source and/or extent of anomalous data is unclear, that data is excluded as I would expect the best practice should be. Including data that has a relatively unknown error margin over time makes no sense. One thing to remember about ocean surface temperatures is that a large part of the gained solar energy is lost from measurements in a short space of time due to evaporation.The satellite data shows the most leveling and decline in 2002-2009. Surface numbers suffer most from urbanization and selective inclusion or exclusion of weather stations, two factors that likely figure heavily into the .75C difference between land temperatures and sea surface temperature.
My point is that satellite data is also prone to error and that the identifying of errors does not exclude the possibility of new ones showing up in the future. Errors are inherent in all data sets. As it pertains to surface measurements; Anthony Watts from wattsupwithat and his band of intrepid researchers did a survey of US based temperature stations and identified a list of stations that minimize potential errors, but subsequent graphs using data from those stations still pretty much followed the previously produced curves exactly.True it did in the past. I find the satellite data more difficult to have concealed errors. The fact that these issues are known and in the process of being adjusted is testament to that. The inability to make adjustments in the surface data due to unavailability of the raw set is disturbing to me. Then when you learn that stations are selectively excluded, well I don't think that is the right way to go about compiling a temperature record.
Now the bigger question is: Why are you so sceptical of surface data when satellite data show close to similar trends and even worse in the case of RSS? Even if you throw out all surface data and only focused on satellite data, you would reach the exact same conclusion. The average between RSS and UAH is the same as the surface data trends. Whatever the reason might have been for NASA to keep the raw data from the public or for CRU to destroy raw data, their published data still closely agree with satellite data.
WildCobra:
Could you point me towards where you discuss your justification for expecting a lag between TSI and atmospheric CO2 of the order you claim? Naming the thread will suffice. You see, I don't understand why you would choose the Maunder minimum as a basis to start from and quote the increase in TSI as the driver of current CO2 trends, when atmospheric CO2 levels haven't been as high as they are now for at least 15 million years. Also, solar forcing of CO2 increase seems to have a lag in the order 800 +-200 years, not anywhere near what you are claiming. Historically ocean outgassing of CO2 have been greatly aided by the ending of glacial periods where more surface water gets exposed. The termination III event of about 240 000 years ago only had an increase in atmospheric CO2 in the range of 100 ppm to 300 ppm. Further, TSI levels of the medieval maximum closely rivals that of today, yet atmospheric CO2 levels never reached today's highs.
Sure, the maker of the graphic wanted to make the series seem most similar to each other. The maker was making a relative comparison and chose to adjust them to illustrate the point being made.
Agreed. When making relative assessments, absolute values are not important. the most important aspect of reliable adjusted data is the ability to independently reconstruct the adjustments. When raw data is not available, you can't do it. When the raw data includes many sources that show artificial trends due to urbanization or relocation of the station, it becomes very hard to validate the data. Those factors make the data less reliable.Also, there is nothing wrong with adjustments to the same baseline. The purpose of such graphs is after all to compare trends. The presence of offsets or anomalous data points are a given (no measurement can claim complete accuracy right out of the bat) and the factors attributing to data points have to be taken into account to assist producing as reliable data as can be achieved.
Agree.Yes, RSS has been adjusted, but so has the UAH data. Does that mean UAH is more reliable than RSS? I don't think so. In fact, it was RSS that pointed out the errors due to orbital degradation in the first place. Also, remember that the most important thing to look at is the prevailing trend, rather than short term inconsistencies.
No adjustments for ocean patterns like El or La Nina. They are real events that alter global surface temperatures.Have La Nina events been accounted for? There have been quite a few over that period.The satellite data shows the most leveling and decline in 2002-2009. Surface numbers suffer most from urbanization and selective inclusion or exclusion of weather stations, two factors that likely figure heavily into the .75C difference between land temperatures and sea surface temperature.
Not lower trends, different trends.Satellite data covers a larger ocean area than GISS and CRU does. Remember that RSS is also satellite data, so saying that satellite data shows lower trends does not represent the whole picture.
I mischaracterized the .75 as an absolute difference but should have described it as an additional increase. The land temperatures show an additional increase above and beyond the average combined land and sea increase. The additional rise is not easy to effectively explain.Surface numbers do suffer from these issues, but attempts are made to account for them and when the source and/or extent of anomalous data is unclear, that data is excluded as I would expect the best practice should be. Including data that has a relatively unknown error margin over time makes no sense. One thing to remember about ocean surface temperatures is that a large part of the gained solar energy is lost from measurements in a short space of time due to evaporation.
.My point is that satellite data is also prone to error and that the identifying of errors does not exclude the possibility of new ones showing up in the future. Errors are inherent in all data sets
Agree, but when you have the raw data you can correct errors. When you don't , you can't.
Few people still doubt that surface temperatures have been rising so accurate data sources should show a increase from about 1700 through 2000. What I find curious is the divergence in the data sets over the most recent years.As it pertains to surface measurements; Anthony Watts from wattsupwithat and his band of intrepid researchers did a survey of US based temperature stations and identified a list of stations that minimize potential errors, but subsequent graphs using data from those stations still pretty much followed the previously produced curves exactly.
I am quite happy to us RSS data and/or UAH data. As you say, they show the same general trend. I like them because the raw data is available, both groups go out of there way to make the data and their methods available, they are quite open to admit errors and make retroactive adjustments to correct the errors. You don't see that from GISS or Hadley/CRU. In fact you see just the opposite.Now the bigger question is: Why are you so sceptical of surface data when satellite data show close to similar trends and even worse in the case of RSS? Even if you throw out all surface data and only focused on satellite data, you would reach the exact same conclusion.
In addition, you don't reach the same conclusions. The satellite trends, after adjusting for known ocean related events including Oscillations and Nina, show far better alignment with recent changes in sun and cosmic ray activity. The fact that the others don't show this same characteristic is why I think the raw data should be reviewed, but alas, that is not possible. It is why I don't think it should be used as widely as it is. It is not good practice to use data that cannot be independently verified. Do you disagree?
And if averages were all that were important, then the average of the four would do just fine. Averaging and smoothing artificially drives the data to a trend that one would obtain by CO2 forcing. Those with a bias or prior commitment to AGW would find averaged and heavily smoothed data more significant, and would tend to make use of it over other reporting methods. The skeptic would tend to avoid averaged data sets.The average between RSS and UAH is the same as the surface data trends.
And if close were good enough, then it would not matter. But it does matter and therefore we should use the best practices available. One of them is to use data that is independently verifiable, with any errors that can be adjusted for. Do you agree?Whatever the reason might have been for NASA to keep the raw data from the public or for CRU to destroy raw data, their published data still closely agree with satellite data.
The Chinese and other Asian skies, the Indonesian skies, the African skies, the South American skies, have not been cleared by regulation and efficiency since the 70s.
As far as I can tell, the "lag energy" you hypothesize appears to not exist. I have no idea what you are referring to. Solar warming of the ocean warms the very shallow, surface, upper layer, predominantly. There is no "lag" in the influence of the ocean's surface waters on the air - La Nina, for example, has measurable influence immediately.
The total increase is .9, not .8. Otherwise correct arithmetic. That kind of analysis is where the IPCC gets its estimate of solar variation accounting for about 25% of the warming since 1900, with greenhouse effects explaining most of the remaining 75%.
The people claiming to see a cooling trend since 2002 are the ones relying on short term data - not for the first time (recall last year they were heralding a one year return of the Arctic sea ice, "wiping out" the entire loss of ice since the '60s?)
Meanwhile - perhaps a stroll down memory lane, just a few year's worth, will suggest some good reasons to treat the latest iconoclastic, lone wolf, independent minded researcher who has in one study overthrown the bogus IPCC consensus and revealed the true pattern behind global warming. Because the last few didn't stand up to much scrutiny, did they.
Again you intimate deliberate fudging.Sure, the maker of the graphic wanted to make the series seem most similar to each other. The maker was making a relative comparison and chose to adjust them to illustrate the point being made.
But raw data is not suitable for extracting trends or anything mildly conclusive. The very reason they have been adjusted is to make them more accurate. Who will consider each data point and make the necessary adjustments? Will you? Those researchers have gone through large piles of data and evaluated each of them on their particulars. Will you do the same?Agreed. When making relative assessments, absolute values are not important. the most important aspect of reliable adjusted data is the ability to independently reconstruct the adjustments. When raw data is not available, you can't do it. When the raw data includes many sources that show artificial trends due to urbanization or relocation of the station, it becomes very hard to validate the data. Those factors make the data less reliable.
Especially global surface ocean temperatures, wouldn't you agree? See where I am going with this?No adjustments for ocean patterns like El or La Nina. They are real events that alter global surface temperatures.
You said: "The satellite data shows the most leveling and decline in 2002-2009.".Not lower trends, different trends.
See the above on the effect of La Nina on ocean surface temps. If a large portion of satellite data is from measurements over ocean waters and the overall trend has been for ocean waters to cool due to La Nina, would you not expect a combined data set to differ from relatively exclusively land based measurements?I mischaracterized the .75 as an absolute difference but should have described it as an additional increase. The land temperatures show an additional increase above and beyond the average combined land and sea increase. The additional rise is not easy to effectively explain.
It might be curious as in interesting, but like I said, RSS data gives the steepest slope of the lot.Few people still doubt that surface temperatures have been rising so accurate data sources should show a increase from about 1700 through 2000. What I find curious is the divergence in the data sets over the most recent years.
Can you provide a reference for this? Remember that your graph needs to come from after 2005, because the data has been adjusted since then. The TSI have leveled out over the last three decades, yet temps have kept increasing. Also the trends of TSI and CO2 never compare as they do now in the last 15 million years. Why believe CO2 all of a sudden increased now due to solar activity only exactly when human contributions have reached the huge levels they have? It seems to me that the only possible way your thoughts would make sense is if CO2 did not play the part in climate that all the trained scientists think it does and how climate models have accurately predicted it to have.The satellite trends, after adjusting for known ocean related events including Oscillations and Nina, show far better alignment with recent changes in sun and cosmic ray activity.
I'd say it depends on the context. In many cases keeping records of all collected data becomes impractical and I would think that one would be able to derive the original data from looking at how adjustments have been made in the past. But like I said, what use would it serve to keep all the raw data?It is why I don't think it should be used as widely as it is. It is not good practice to use data that cannot be independently verified. Do you disagree?
I don't think that is the case at all. Averaging means that natural variability is removed. This variability does little more than complicate the issue. Can you seriously extract moderately accurate trends without applying some level of smoothing? I recall the temp graph you linked to at the end of the other thread. Can you seriously easily extract trends from that graph? Also, climate change works on the scale of decades, so the smoothing of natural variability like solar activity makes perfect sense. Inferring nefarious and self serving intentions in the smoothing of data is disingenuous. AWG proponents might counter claim that sceptics purposefully prefer unsmoothed data, because it supports their preconceived notions. The simple fact is that smoothing enhances the usefulness of charts.And if averages were all that were important, then the average of the four would do just fine. Averaging and smoothing artificially drives the data to a trend that one would obtain by CO2 forcing. Those with a bias or prior commitment to AGW would find averaged and heavily smoothed data more significant, and would tend to make use of it over other reporting methods. The skeptic would tend to avoid averaged data sets.
But they have been adjusted for. Why should raw data be made available to untrained skeptics who have little or no expertise to do a proper job of doing the adjustments themselves?And if close were good enough, then it would not matter. But it does matter and therefore we should use the best practices available. One of them is to use data that is independently verifiable, with any errors that can be adjusted for. Do you agree?
I still wonder, Cypress, why you assume nefarious intent on the part of AGW proponents? The fact remains that all data sets show a warming trend, especially over the last few decades. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the artificial increase of atmospheric CO2 can have no effect other than to retain extra energy from the sun. WildCobra's solar forcing idea is bunk.
I don't know if it was or not. My thought was the overlay of ENSO/optical depth and temperature. Other things affect the earths temperature besides CO2.
Oceans are deep and except for the surface generally stratified. In order for the surface to retain a higher (or lower temperature) the lower layers have to come to a new equilibrium so that heat transfer rates stabilize. If the transfer rates are low and total mass is high relative to the energy flux, then it will take a relatively long time to stabilize. This is the nature of the lag. Through differential analysis, the lag time can be estimated. I would guess that this lag would be in the order of tens of years. If I thought it would make a difference to this discussion I might even calculate it. I find that those with prior commitments are rarely swayed. Maybe someone has figured this lag time and posted it on the web.
There is, but it is fairly short. On the order of weeks or months.There is no "lag" in the influence of the ocean's surface waters on the air - La Nina, for example, has measurable influence immediately.
True enough. I see that the trend toward a return to average arctic ice cover continues. The low point was late 2005- mid 2007. Today it is just below the -2 standard deviations from average and continues on a path to recover hampered slightly this year by strong wind patterns in the barents sea rather than higher temperatures.The people claiming to see a cooling trend since 2002 are the ones relying on short term data - not for the first time (recall last year they were heralding a one year return of the Arctic sea ice, "wiping out" the entire loss of ice since the '60s?)
I'm not sure about that at all. To what certainty have the previous few alternatives been dismissed? If that certainty is less than 90%, I would say they are still in play. Any ideas on that certainty?Meanwhile - perhaps a stroll down memory lane, just a few year's worth, will suggest some good reasons to treat the latest iconoclastic, lone wolf, independent minded researcher who has in one study overthrown the bogus IPCC consensus and revealed the true pattern behind global warming. Because the last few didn't stand up to much scrutiny, did they.
I'm not going to look for it. The basic concept is that the circulations of the oceans take several hundred years in some places to complete. CO2 is more readily dissolved (sinked) in the polar regions, and more easily expelled (sourced) in the equatorial areas. The oceans very slowly warm or cool to stay in equilibrium with the solar energy. This warming and cooling affects the effectiveness of both sinking and sourcing CO2. With the increase in solar radiation as far back as about 1950, we really don't know how the heat lag through slow circulation affects the ratios of CO2 between the ocean and atmosphere. I say it is very probable we still see increased CO2 from the solar warming that basically ended about 1950. We have had no significant increase in solar irradiance since the 1900 to 1950 period.
Well, there are several prominent people that say the lag time is 600 to 100 years in length. Others deny it could possible be that long, then those like Inow claim lag is impossible.
This lag, however long it may be, is not only a lag that controls CO2 respiration, but latent heat also.
This is true by my understanding for the total values that are completly natural in cause. I figure that much of the effect is seen by about 70 years time, partially because surface water effects are more immediate, and because of the unnatural temperature increases in the arctic polar region that I attribute to the soot-on-ice warming and melting. It could easily be more or less, but 70 years seems to fit, and yes, I an guilty of the correlation/causation thing here. That is just my best guess.
Dr. Glassman's assessment is that the half-life of CO2 is 0.65 years, 1.83 years, or 3.0 years, depending on who's data you look at. Sinking and sourcing are rather fast. However, a change in equilibrium because of pH, salinity, or temperature can sink or source will This means that the changes that goes through the whole Thermohaline Cycle, which can take as much as a 1600 years to complete a circuit.
from CO2: "WHY ME?":
That is one more piece of information that makes me believe the warming is hindering the natural CO2 sinking. The IPCC claims ridiculously long years, without looking at it in half-life terms.Regardless of which way one poses the problem, the existing CO2 in the atmosphere has a mean residence time of 1.5 years using IPCC data, 3.2 years using University of Colorado data, or 4.9 years using Texas A&M data. The half lives are 0.65 years, 1.83 years, and 3.0 years, respectively. This is not "decades to centuries" as proclaimed by the Consensus. Climate Change 2001, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, p. 25.
I will claim that solar energy is the single major influence on the ocean temperature. The oceans cover 71% of the earths surface and absorb 92% of the solar energy they receive. They are so much more massive than the atmosphere, that the atmospheric temperatures have little influence on them, but they, a great deal on the atmosphere.
Now if we assume we had no variations in solar energy for more than 1000 years, I think it's safe to say sinking and sourcing will be very close to equal, in teerms of equilibrium, based on Henry's Law. Since the oceans contain more than 98% of the ocean and atmospheric carbon budget, without a changing sea temperature, it would take our current output of CO2 more than 1500 years to accumulate the amount of CO2 that we have since 1750. This is why there is no reason to ignore the way temperature affects equilibrium. This is based on the NASA/GISS carbon cycle model in wiki. I based the 750 GtC to correspond with 350 ppm. That means 2.14 GtC per ppm. The ratio between the 39120 GtC ocean CO2, and carbon forms of it, to the atmosphere is more than 52:1. Today's levels are about 387 ppm, or 107 ppm higher than about 1750. 107 x 2.14 = 229 GtC increase. For ever 53 parts, 52 is absorbed by the ocean and one remains in the atmosphere. At 8 GtC annually, it takes 1517 years. 229/8 x 53.
I don't have all the answers, only possible causes for that claim. First of all, I would say the major place for sinking are the polar regions. This black ice on soot causes too much unnatural warming. It very likely reducing the sinking of CO2 far more than any slow natural warming. I would also point out that temperature reconstruction that long ago by ice core samples exceeds hundreds of years between data points. In the case of CO2 even longer yet. Dr. Glassman this nout in the same link I referenced:
Check the Vostok data. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal...tok/co2nat.txt {Err. 12/8/09}.
The CO2 samples number 283, covering 414,085 years. The average spacing is 1463 years. The chances of sampling an epoch like the present 50 year record, if it existed, is about 50/1463 or 3.4%.
That translates into a 3.4% confidence level for the statement that the present CO2 trend was unprecedented in the last 420 Kyears. That confidence level does not begin to rise to an acceptable standard for a scientific conclusion.
This unprecedented claim is a mantra of the Consensus. It made a normal scatter plot of the Vostok data, but then seduced itself by connecting the dots!
9. The Vostok record (Figure 3.2(d)) shows five peaks in 420,000 years. What are the chance that the peaks shown are below the true maximum given that the average sample interval is a millennium and a half? A. The chances are about 96.6%. Thus the confidence is greater than 95% that any measured maximum is more than 50 years from the peak CO2.
First of all, older data was only available from industrialized nations. We really don't have a good idea of 3rd world temperature data of the past. Even though other nations may lack the scrubbers to remove black carbon, they don't generate very much power compared to the USA of the 60's, with the exception of Asia. Without looking at circulation patterns, I believe these other nations also have most their pollution carried over the oceans, rather than large land masses. China is the primary problem in my view because so much of their black carbon ic carried over and deposited on ice. That then reflecting I think 85% to 90% of the solar energy, they now reflect less than 60%. 40% or more of that energy is melting the ice rather than 10% to 15%, that would do so little with ambient temperatures.The Chinese and other Asian skies, the Indonesian skies, the African skies, the South American skies, have not been cleared by regulation and efficiency since the 70s.
How far do the various spectra of light go before being completely absorbed? i don't recall, but especially in the northern summer, it's added energy that sinks as it cools. It just isn't as cold as it would otherwise be. This is latent stored energy for decades to centuries in length. As for what stays in the surface layer, it's still not immediate. Any large system has longer time lags and oscillations than small systems.
Well, I have pointed out how they are wrong. They are only using values that equal direct changes in radiative forcing. They obviously discount the added forcing that geenhouse gasses do since they are a feedback of the increased longwave radiation that the sun's shortwave radiation creates.The total increase is .9, not .8. Otherwise correct arithmetic. That kind of analysis is where the IPCC gets its estimate of solar variation accounting for about 25% of the warming since 1900, with greenhouse effects explaining most of the remaining 75%.
What ever percentage you want to use, the increased greenhouse gas radiative forcing is nearly linear to the change in solar irradiance. That change, to be properly placed, should be added as total solar radiative forcing change. Please not they cleverly, and purposely use the word "direct" for solar irradiance changes, adding the indirect to changes for CO2 I suspect.
Yes, but we are just pointing it out, and we suspect the trend to continue because of solar irradiance decreases. We are not hanging our hat on that short term change, but would be a good statistical bet.The people claiming to see a cooling trend since 2002 are the ones relying on short term data - not for the first time (recall last year they were heralding a one year return of the Arctic sea ice, "wiping out" the entire loss of ice since the '60s?)
I agree that many things said could be disputed. However, I have never seen dismantling of 'denier' reasons as any better science than the correlation used by alarmists. There are too many factors, and you can almost always find one factor to dispute another. Thing is, how many hold up to the whole picture.
How can you say that? I do not say that added CO2 doesn't add to the greenhouse effect. I only say it doesn't add as much as anyone is saying.
CO2 already is about 95% opaque to the spectra it absorbs.
What I claim is that the radiative forcing is about equal to the irradiance change of the sun. Do you disagree?
From about 1700 to about 2000, we have seen about a 0.24% increase in solar radiation. Between the years the IPCC uses, about 0.18%. Do you disagree with this assessment:
I used this model to assume 2005 levels, and added what the levels would be if the irradiance was 0.18% higher in 2005 than in 1750. The IPCC claims a 0.12 watt direct solar radiative forcing. We see that with the 67 - 66.88 number. We also see a 451.19 to 452, or 0.81 watt increase of the direct longwave heat and greenhouse effect cause by the increased solar energy. Because of this, my assessment is that the total change in radiative forcing from the sun is 0.93 watts. Considering the IPCC model has 1.66 watts attributed to CO2 and about a 1.6 watt total, to properly place that 0.81 watts into the sun category means reducing the CO2 watts, probably by half.
If you see a problem with this theory, please explain.
As for me claiming that CO2 can do so little more, how am I wrong? How about looking at this:
What is between the two sets of lines I added is a coverage of about 95%. there is so little radiative increase for CO2 to have, especially since it is logarithmic in nature. The smaller areas I didn't include do have quite a bit of room for growth, but it takes so much more CO2 to see much difference there.
If we go by what Al Gore says in "An Inconvenient Truth", then by using this chart:
Then we see that CO2 has an approximate 26.4 watt forcing (265.4 - 230) at 280 ppm and about a 28 watt forcing at 387 ppm, or what ever level he is using. This is about the 1.66 IPCC estimate, causing about 1/2 degree of CO2 warming. With me saying the radiative forcing is actually half under this example, then we can attribute 1/4 degree warming to CO2. I still say it's smaller because evidence in the past few years does recognize a greater effect of soot on ice. I don't recall for sure, but I thing the value was raised from 0.1 watt to 0.3 watts. What is the effect of CO2 is only about 0.6 watts?
IPCC chart:
Not at all. Perhaps you just don't care for my prose, or maybe you suspect my motives. I assure you if I meant a particular viewpoint I would state it directly.
Sure, and it is appropriate to do so as long as the raw data and the methods of adjustment are available. GISS and CRU don't make either available. Why do you suppose that is?But raw data is not suitable for extracting trends or anything mildly conclusive. The very reason they have been adjusted is to make them more accurate.Agreed. When making relative assessments, absolute values are not important. the most important aspect of reliable adjusted data is the ability to independently reconstruct the adjustments. When raw data is not available, you can't do it. When the raw data includes many sources that show artificial trends due to urbanization or relocation of the station, it becomes very hard to validate the data. Those factors make the data less reliable.
I would if I were sufficiently motivated. But there are plenty of funded groups who will do this work if the data were available. The primary point though is that data that can be independently verified is far more valuable and useful than data that cannot. Do you doubt this?Who will consider each data point and make the necessary adjustments? Will you? Those researchers have gone through large piles of data and evaluated each of them on their particulars. Will you do the same?
Sure but I find it short sighted and generally in the wrong direction. Mean global surface temperature is not the ultimate issue. The near surface global energy budget is because it is this that influence surface climate. Ocean oscillations influence this energy budget and are therefore significant. Those with a bias to one or another particular conclusion would improperly include it (those who cite the peak as a record high point or alternatively those who want to remove it).Especially global surface ocean temperatures, wouldn't you agree? See where I am going with this?No adjustments for ocean patterns like El or La Nina. They are real events that alter global surface temperatures.
Right a different trend. Do you see the difference?You said: "The satellite data shows the most leveling and decline in 2002-2009.".Not lower trends, different trends.
Sure, but La Nina is a short term event lasting a few years at most and it is a mechanism to bring stratified ocean layers into equilibrium more quickly when they get out of balance. The divergency of land verses sea temperatures in the GISS and CRU data sets is over a 50+ year period and lacks any good physical explanation other than urban heat island effects. Maybe you have a better explanation?See the above on the effect of La Nina on ocean surface temps. If a large portion of satellite data is from measurements over ocean waters and the overall trend has been for ocean waters to cool due to La Nina, would you not expect a combined data set to differ from relatively exclusively land based measurements?I mischaracterized the .75 as an absolute difference but should have described it as an additional increase. The land temperatures show an additional increase above and beyond the average combined land and sea increase. The additional rise is not easy to effectively explain.
Yet it does not show any divergence between land and sea area troposphere readings, and average long term slope is of strong interest if you are prejudicially looking for a pattern that matches CO2 concentration. Far more interesting is the empirical correlations the unadjusted values have to various known influencers. On this point the RSS data seems to tell a good story and it can be independently validated. It is a data set that can be adjusted to take in any number of independent and dependent input variables in figuring a near surface energy budget. The GISS and CRU data cannot because they cannot and/or will not provide the raw data and calculation methods.It might be curious as in interesting, but like I said, RSS data gives the steepest slope of the lot.Few people still doubt that surface temperatures have been rising so accurate data sources should show a increase from about 1700 through 2000. What I find curious is the divergence in the data sets over the most recent years.
I'll see if I can't dig this up again. The data cited by Lu in his original report address the correlation with sun and cosmic activity to a fair degree. I'll have a look around.Can you provide a reference for this? Remember that your graph needs to come from after 2005, because the data has been adjusted since then. The TSI have leveled out over the last three decades, yet temps have kept increasing.The satellite trends, after adjusting for known ocean related events including Oscillations and Nina, show far better alignment with recent changes in sun and cosmic ray activity.
I don't think too many skeptics discount the contribution of CO2 by human causes. Clearly the addition has altered short term and dynamic state concentrations. The question is what influence does this dynamic state of decreased hydrocarbon and coal sequestering of carbon have on climate? In short I do not believe the elevated CO2 levels are solely due to ocean temperature increases driven by solar influences. Clearly steady state closed system conditions have been altered by human activity.Also the trends of TSI and CO2 never compare as they do now in the last 15 million years. Why believe CO2 all of a sudden increased now due to solar activity only exactly when human contributions have reached the huge levels they have?
Most people with an understanding of heat transfer, physical chemistry an and thermodynamics will agree that CO2 alters radiant transfer. I do as well. So we can safely say that CO2 does have a role in the atmospheric climate conditions. The question is how significant is that role. The direct effect of radiant forcing as CO2 concentration increases from 280 to 380 ppm and on up to 700 ppm when any further increase is nearly insignificant is far less than the 2-3C limit being proposed by UN negotiators. Then when you consider that at equilibrium, about 95% of any CO2 released into the atmosphere will be absorbed by the sea, it causes me to question the concern.It seems to me that the only possible way your thoughts would make sense is if CO2 did not play the part in climate that all the trained scientists think it does and how climate models have accurately predicted it to have.
Climate models, like all software models produce the results that are coded into them by their designers. If the designer codes in an impact for CO2, then it will exhibit that behavior. This is true for all software that rely on empirical correlations rather than known physical properties and relationships. Do you believe the models are correct? If so why?
I would think you would be accusing me of sounding like a broken record by now. The usefulness of keeping the raw data is be able to independently validate the results and conclusions. Without the raw data, if the results are questioned, one can not properly rely on it. Record keepers are well aware of this and do not dispose of raw data without cause.I'd say it depends on the context. In many cases keeping records of all collected data becomes impractical and I would think that one would be able to derive the original data from looking at how adjustments have been made in the past. But like I said, what use would it serve to keep all the raw data?
Sorry, no I disagree completely. Averaging depends on the time range of the effect you are interested in evaluating. Short term inputs can be completely masked by long term averaging to the point one could conclude it had no effect while an inconsequential long term influencer could be improperly identified as the cause.I don't think that is the case at all. Averaging means that natural variability is removed. This variability does little more than complicate the issue. Can you seriously extract moderately accurate trends without applying some level of smoothing?
Yes you can extract very accurate trends from non-averaged data by applying a host of statistical techniques to generate confidence intervals and isolate empirical correlations of multi-dimensional analysis.
Yes, as I explained above. Do you have any training in statistical analysis of experimental data?I recall the temp graph you linked to at the end of the other thread. Can you seriously easily extract trends from that graph?
For presentation purposes, I completely agree. Also to mask over short term influences that are not interesting or are understood, sure.Also, climate change works on the scale of decades, so the smoothing of natural variability like solar activity makes perfect sense.
NO sorry, I disagree.Inferring nefarious and self serving intentions in the smoothing of data is disingenuous.
.AWG proponents might counter claim that sceptics purposefully prefer unsmoothed data, because it supports their preconceived notions
As they should.
Sometimes as explained above.The simple fact is that smoothing enhances the usefulness of charts.
They claim that best practices were followed but how do we verify this is the case unless an independent analysis is done? Raw data should be made available to anyone who wants to review it. The trained and unbiased person will treat it fairly, while the trained skeptic will work hard to find gaps, errors and omissions. Then the proponent will independently adjust for them and make corrections. After a few cycles the final product will be much better. The untrained skeptic will muck up their conclusions and few will take them seriously, with only a slight cost to the overall improved product.But they have been adjusted for. Why should raw data be made available to untrained skeptics who have little or no expertise to do a proper job of doing the adjustments themselves?And if close were good enough, then it would not matter. But it does matter and therefore we should use the best practices available. One of them is to use data that is independently verifiable, with any errors that can be adjusted for. Do you agree?
I don't think you and I are on the same plain. I find them generally to be good intentioned, I just think they are likely wrong.I still wonder, Cypress, why you assume nefarious intent on the part of AGW proponents?
Had our technology been in place in the 900's you would have been able to say the same thing. The only difference would have been the 60 or so extra ppm due to emissions and the resulting dynamic imbalance from equilibrium. You would have been wrong, and then after a while, temperatures would have cooled again. How can you be so sure you are correct? Why did you pretend to be undecided when in fact you are not?The fact remains that all data sets show a warming trend, especially over the last few decades. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the artificial increase of atmospheric CO2 can have no effect other than to retain extra energy from the sun. WildCobra's solar forcing idea is bunk.
When our planet is in a warming cycle it takes the surface layers of the ocean about three decades to absorb heat from the atmosphere, and a 1000 years or more to reach the ocean depths.
Stouffer, R.J. 2004. Time Scales of Climate Response. Journal of Climate 17, pp. 209-17.
Source?
Returning now to one of the central themes of the work shared in the OP... specifically the claim that the earth has been cooling... The context below shows just how ridiculous such an assertion is. I will ignore for the moment how they are cherry-picking some of the warmest years on record to suggest that the years that follow present a cooling trend, and just end with the statement that measurements indicate that 2009 is among the top 5 warmest years, and that the past decade has been the warmest on record.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre...pr_869_en.html
The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
<...>
The decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990–1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980–1989).
<...>
This preliminary information for 2009 is based on climate data from networks of land-based weather and climate stations, ships and buoys, as well as satellites. The data are continuously collected and disseminated by the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHSs) of the 189 Members of WMO and several collaborating research institutions. The data continuously feed three main depository global climate data and analysis centres, which develop and maintain homogeneous global climate datasets based on peer-reviewed methodologies. The WMO global temperature analysis is thus based on three complementary datasets.
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news-...2-20384-2.html
Prof Martin Manning, Director of NZ Climate Change Research Institute at Victoria University of Wellington, comments:
“This is an important statement for the WMO to make. Given the amount of criticism that has been aimed recently at one of the groups doing careful summaries of temperature data, it shows that our knowledge of the increasing global temperatures is widespread and certainly not reliant on any individual organisation.
“This update on recent global temperatures shows that those arguing that there was a peak in temperatures in the 1990s are not making a balanced interpretation of the available data.
<...>
Professor Tim Flannery is Professor of Environmental and Life Sciences at Macquarie University, Chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council and Australian of the Year (2007), comments:
“A central plank of the climate sceptics’ creed has been that the Earth has been cooling since 1998. They have misled many, and damaged public policy as a result. Here is the definitive proof that they are wrong. Unfortunately the warming trend continues, and will continue as long as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to grow”.
Professor Andy Pitman is Joint Director of the Climate Change Research Centre a the University of NSW, comments:
“Given we are in a period of low solar activity, and have been through a sustained La Nina, 2009 should have been a cool year. The fact it ranked in the top 5 since 1850 is actually frightening. The heatwaves in NSW, Victoria and South Australia that occurred in 2009 are also frightening and do not bode well for 2010 and beyond”.
I don't know of many who will deny that the 1990's through 2009 has been the warmest since the 900-1000's when temperature proxies indicate it was even warmer.
See this page for a review of the other proxies.
However note that there is a difference between saying global temperatures seem to have peaked in 2002 and are now flat and cooling as was the context in the original post and the valid but out of context (can you say red herring?) observation that this decade is the warmest since modern record keeping. The relevant question is what is the likely trend for the coming decades? This study indicates that the trend is a peak at 2002 followed by a downward trend for the next decades.
What Inow seems to be saying is "yeah but this decade has the highest temperatures in the last 150 years" but it adds nothing to the discussion since Dr. Lu has already acknowledged the same thing.
CO2 levels have continued to rise steadily but global temperatures seem to have peaked. Mid to Late 2009 and into 2010 seems to be another El Nino year (like 1998 only not as strong), so pacific temperatures are elevated a bit. Other than that, the trend is downward from the peak in 2002 as Lu indicates. If we should discount 1998 as Inow insists we do then we also have to dismiss 2009 for the same reason.
Dr. Lu has the peak at 2002 not 1990's so I this seems equally irrelevant. furthermore since we properly must dismiss 1998, then 2009 also must be dismissed since it also is an El Nino year (about 1/2 as strong). While we are at it we might want to exclude 2002, 2004 and 2006 too.“This update on recent global temperatures shows that those arguing that there was a peak in temperatures in the 1990s are not making a balanced interpretation of the available data.
And once again irrelevant to use 1998 as the gauge. Lu uses 2002 as the peak and the warming trend does not continue as Tim has claimed. Only data sets that cannot be independently verified show a slight continued trend. But data that cannot be verified should not be used unless you have an agenda.Professor Tim Flannery is Professor of Environmental and Life Sciences at Macquarie University, Chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council and Australian of the Year (2007), comments:
“A central plank of the climate sceptics’ creed has been that the Earth has been cooling since 1998. They have misled many, and damaged public policy as a result. Here is the definitive proof that they are wrong. Unfortunately the warming trend continues, and will continue as long as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to grow”.
Oops Professor Pitman seems to be in error. 2009 is an El Nino year.Professor Andy Pitman is Joint Director of the Climate Change Research Centre a the University of NSW, comments:
“Given we are in a period of low solar activity, and have been through a sustained La Nina, 2009 should have been a cool year. The fact it ranked in the top 5 since 1850 is actually frightening.
Inow you should check your facts closer, you are racking up a pile of errors.
I wonder why Andy thinks local events are a good indicator of global trends. Given his confusion over El [Nino] and La Nina I suppose it makes sense.The heatwaves in NSW, Victoria and South Australia that occurred in 2009 are also frightening and do not bode well for 2010 and beyond”.
In short I don't see anything here that adds to the discussion.
You mean El Nino and La Nina?Given his confusion over El and La Nina I suppose it makes sense.
Yes thanks, KALSTER
To make such a claim you should probably show a more relevent chart that includes the current decades in question (see below). In addition, the warmest year was 2005. Lastly climate, by definition are 30 year averages. There's been some movement to measuring 20 years at a time, because it might give useful climate change information. Year to year interanual variations don't carry much weight.
It does no good to make a direct comparison of an historical temperature proxy with a non historical direct measurement and then confidently proclaim that the direct measurements are warmer than direct measurements would have been back in the 11th century. You have to use the same proxy for both time periods. And that proxy shows the 11th century warmer.To make such a claim you should probably show a more relevent chart that includes the current decades in question.
Only by a compilation from a group that won't share its raw data or compilation methods. Not good practice to use such data.In addition, the warmest year was 2005.
But the thread was talking about individual years.Lastly climate, by definition are 30 year averages.
The consensus seems to be CO2 and/or anthropogenic sources has warmed near surface by about .4C thus far do you disagree?
Why? The entire point of using proxy data is to derive by a variety of methods to get at what the direct measurement would have been. If you have a problem with the composite of more than a dozen proxies than that's an entirely different subject that would need to be discussed for each proxy.It does no good to make a direct comparison of an historical temperature proxy with a non historical direct measurement and then confidently proclaim that the direct measurements are warmer than direct measurements would have been back in the 11th century. You have to use the same proxy for both time periods. And that proxy shows the 11th century warmer.To make such a claim you should probably show a more relevent chart that includes the current decades in question.
Most of the data is and always been available, just not in a convenient form because it spans more than a century....I think you know this already.Only by a compilation from a group that won't share its raw data or compilation methods. Not good practice to use such data.In addition, the warmest year was 2005.
--
--Lastly climate, by definition are 30 year averages.
You could have fooled me.But the thread was talking about individual years.
The plot you show is misleading. It is apples to oranges. Why not compare current tree ring proxy data to 11th century proxy data? Why superimpose compilations of directly measured temperatures rather than continue the proxy series given that the proxy series is continuous even up to today? It is poor practice to mix sources unnecessarily and it leads to misleading conclusions.
Returning to the primary point, we have Dr. Lu describing the warming trend post 1950 resulting from sun and cosmic ray effects interacting with CFC's. He sees that primary impact as ending given the decline in CFC's as they have been phased out. Do you dispute this? If so how?
They do. That's how they calibrate the 11th century tree ring data.
They aren't foolish enough to use their calibrated data as if it were independent of the calibration data, of course.
Were is as simple as that, nobody would take issue with their "trick" of hiding the decline.They do. That's how they calibrate the 11th century tree ring data.
They aren't foolish enough to use their calibrated data as if it were independent of the calibration data, of course.
Nonsense. People would still take issue with the "trick" because they've been convinced that it means something it does not... and that misinterpretation/misunderstanding gets propagated in the denialist echo chamber by folks like you over and over and over again ad infinitum.
Here is what the "trick" of "hiding the decline" is referring to. I'm not hopefully this will help, though, as you've been shown this (and much more) evidence and context before and have chosen anyway to repeat your misrepresentation.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Clim...ils-hacked.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What...s-tell-us.html
It is not a misrepresentation. Jones and others know exactly what they did and is is simply not good practice from a statistical standpoint. You don't merge data types and yet this is exactly what Jones did. Then in most representations of the merged data, it was not represented as such. Spin it any way you want, these two basic realities don't go away.Nonsense. People would still take issue with the "trick" because they've been convinced that it means something it does not... and that misinterpretation/misunderstanding gets propagated in the denialist echo chamber by folks like you over and over and over again ad infinitum.
Here is what the "trick" of "hiding the decline" is referring to. I'm not hopefully this will help, though, as you've been shown this (and much more) evidence and context before and have chosen anyway to repeat your misrepresentation.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Clim...ils-hacked.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What...s-tell-us.html
This does not take any convincing, and I do not need to read anything into what they did or why. I am well versed in handling experimental data and dealing with statistical significance. You simply do not do what Jones did.
Ignoring for a moment the data that was merged, other than this case, provide an example of where this is acceptable and desirable practice.
Returning to the primary thread, Dr. Lu did not find the temperature data you offered valid and used other sources. His research was peer reviewed and apparently the reviewers accepted use of the data he did use and the conclusions he reached based on that data. I have offered explanations for why the GISS and CRU data should not be used, but you seem to disagree. Perhaps you can provide a convincing argument why we should use data that cannot be independently verified and validated because the raw data and methods are not available to independent parties. Can you?To make such a claim you should probably show a more relevent chart that includes the current decades in question (see below). In addition, the warmest year was 2005. Lastly climate, by definition are 30 year averages. There's been some movement to measuring 20 years at a time, because it might give useful climate change information. Year to year interanual variations don't carry much weight.
You're an idiot. Let's review for a moment what Jones and others did. Let's put things in perspective. Let's get a sense why you're here berating them so unabashedly and so consistently.
They knew of a problem with the tree ring proxy data after the 1960s. They were familiar with research showing a divergence in the tree ring proxy after that time period. They knew that after this time point that data was flawed.
Since they knew there was a problem with the proxy data after that time due to the speed and amount of warming which was taking place, they chose to use a MORE ACCURATE set of data to ensure their information was as close to reality as possible.
zOMG! Those bastards! How could they!?! How can we trust them?!? That's so bad... holy crap... somebody get the pitchforks and torches.
Again... what did they do? They knew of a problem with a portion of the data. They also knew why that problem existed. So, with this knowledge, they chose to make sure their report used the MORE ACCURATE data source.
And here you are, talking about how evil they are for doing so.
You're an idiot, Cypress.
Yeah. You're right. Hardly any alignment at all from different sources.
Ok.You're an idiot. Let's review for a moment what Jones and others did. Let's put things in perspective. Let's get a sense why you're here berating them so unabashedly and so consistently.
As stated you are incorrect. What they knew is that between 1850 and 1960 in one case to and 1981 in another , tree ring proxy data tracked local temperatures well. They noted that the tree ring proxy did not track well after that point. They had no local data for the tree ring data prior to the 1700's and therefore could make no assessment of where else the proxy data did not track. They had no basis to say the tree ring data was flawed, it showed what it showed and was accurate as far as raw data goes. However, by applying the proxy formula, it simply did not represent local temperature after 1960 and 1981. No proxy formula would provide good results in that time period. Review of the historical data would however indicate other periods of divergence.They knew of a problem with the tree ring proxy data after the 1960s. They were familiar with research showing a divergence in the tree ring proxy after that time period. They knew that after this time point that data was flawed.
Again incorrect. They did not know at the time why the data did not correspond but they did improperly choose to mask in one area that they had a particular interest in keeping with their particular bias, but they did not choose to mask over other areas. In masking over the area that diverged, they did not disclose what they were doing.Since they knew there was a problem with the proxy data after that time due to the speed and amount of warming which was taking place, they chose to use a MORE ACCURATE set of data to ensure their information was as close to reality as possible.
It is improper to substitute one data type for another. If the tree ring data for that particular area was suspicious in their minds, they should have found some tree ring proxy that did not have this characteristic. The reason is that they by masking over the post 1960's data they eliminated any ability to compare todays data with historical data from say 1050 because they had no idea if the 1050's erazOMG! Those bastards! How could they!?! How can we trust them?!? That's so bad... holy crap... somebody get the pitchforks and torches.
data was also in need of masking over. They made the data apples and oranges and made it statistically invalid data which is never good practice. Then they made the problem worse by not clearly disclosing in every representation of the data what was done to the data to give it the character it has.
What they did is violate a basic principle of statistical data analysis.Again... what did they do? They knew of a problem with a portion of the data. They also knew why that problem existed. So, with this knowledge, they chose to make sure their report used the MORE ACCURATE data source.
I am talking about how they followed very poor experimental practice and then misled many by not clearly disclosing what was done. When bias overrides the desire to follow good practices, this is what happens.And here you are, talking about how evil they are for doing so.
I noticed that you did not provide a clear example elsewhere where this is good and desirable practice. You did not because it is not good and desirable practice.
I agree with your assessment.
Isn't it standard practice to throw statistical outlies out, rather than throw out all the data?
For one example to be bad and thow out the lot is inexcusable. Too many tings can happen to a single or few data points. If the rest are good in every other way, then you just throw out the outliers. I'll bet a 3 sigma distribution would have been fine to use. If not, they should have at least used a two sigma distribution.
Not if there is a well documented and well understood reason why data after a given time period is inaccurate.
"Hey, everyone knows this data after this year is bad. We probably should not use it after that year. "
I really don't know what's wrong with you guys. :?
What's wrong is that you don't understand proper statistical methods. First of all at the time they had no idea why the proxy did not give good results. It is still being debated. Second if the proxy is known to be 'wrong' at one time then it should be suspect the entire time for which corroborating data is not available. Proper data treatment would have them scrap the entire series prior to 1800, but they did not want to do that because they had an important point to make. . .
Cypress, the tree ring proxy aligns rather well with all other proxies prior to 1960. The samples from tree rings, ocean corals, bore holes, ice cores, fauna, and others all show a tremendous confluence very far back into the past. It is for that reason that the tree ring proxy is used. It matches the other data quite well, and has been demonstrated in study after study to be a valid indicator of past climates.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html
However, after around 1960, the tree ring data begins to diverge from the other proxies, and also from the instrumental record. While you are asserting (with no evidence) that there is tremendous debate about why this is so, most research shows that the reason for the divergence is the speed and amount of warming which is occurring... It changes the growth patterns of the tree.
Many articles have been written and published on this phenomenon, and contrary to your ridiculous claims above, it is rather well understood why tree ring proxies are only valid up to roughly 1960.
The researchers knew this. They were publishing data regarding climate, and they needed their data to be as accurate as possible... to reflect reality very closely. Statistical methods was not the priority, so really you should shut up about that already. It truly is nothing but a red herring. This was not a statistics issue, but a "let's be sure we represent reality accurately" issue.
The fact that you continue to rant on and on about these researchers being out of line shows only your lack of academic integrity, the fact that you are doing little more than pushing an agenda, and that people in the future should they happen to read your posts will likely feel rather sorry for you, and sorry for the rest of us who've had to put up with your silliness so often.
If so, there would be times in the past where the same divergence could be true. The proxy is either valid or it is not. You and Jones and his friends seem to be asserting that the proxy is invalid. Therefore it should not be used since it deviates from direct temperature measurements.
Only people who are gullible and ignorant of statistics would buy the feable arguments.Many articles have been written and published on this phenomenon, and contrary to your ridiculous claims above, it is rather well understood why tree ring proxies are only valid up to roughly 1960.
Provide for me one example where one kind of data is substituted for another and is considered good scientific and good statistical practice. You can't!!!!The researchers knew this. They were publishing data regarding climate, and they needed their data to be as accurate as possible... to reflect reality very closely. Statistical methods was not the priority, so really you should shut up about that already. It truly is nothing but a red herring. This was not a statistics issue, but a "let's be sure we represent reality accurately" issue.
This is your rant. Just give me an example seperate from this case where it is valid practice and I will be silenced. At this point I must ask if you have any formal training in statistical methods? I do, it was a focus area in my studies.The fact that you continue to rant on and on about these researchers being out of line shows only your lack of academic integrity, the fact that you are doing little more than pushing an agenda, and that people in the future should they happen to read your posts will likely feel rather sorry for you, and sorry for the rest of us who've had to put up with your silliness so often.
I agree that tree ring proxy data can be innacurate after we started nuclear bomb testing. However, I think the alarmists too easily dismiss this proxy data because they dislike it rather than the extra isotopes in the air. You see, when 14C, 10B, etc. are created in the atmosphere there is a mixing and distribution starting in the high altitudes, and it takes about 60 years for it to settle. Nuclear testing does not have the same timeframe of influence, and it starts at a surface burst. Not in the ionosphere. cannot quantify it, but it's also more localized. I'm pretty certain it does not affect too much of the tree ring data.
[/quote]Only people who are gullible and ignorant of statistics would buy the feable arguments.Many articles have been written and published on this phenomenon, and contrary to your ridiculous claims above, it is rather well understood why tree ring proxies are only valid up to roughly 1960.
Inow is absolutely correct. This is no mystery. Co2 is climbing so high and has reached such an unprecendented level that it's effects on plant growth and drought resistent have changed the relationship between tree rings and temperatures that existed up until about 1960.
Just two of many which discuss the subject in detail and should be available from a any good library:
Briffa KR, Schweingruber FH, Jones PD, Osborn TJ, Shiyatov SG and Vaganov EA (1998a) Reduced sensitivity of recent tree growth to temperature at high northern latitudes. Nature 391, 678-682.
Rutherford SD, Mann ME, Osborn TJ, Bradley RS, Briffa KR, Hughes MK and Jones PD (2005) Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere surface temperature reconstructions: sensitivity to method, predictor network, target season and target domain. Journal of Climate 18, 2308-2329.
And lets not forget it's not just tree rings but also Ice Cores water molecule isotopic compositions, boreholes, corals growth, Lake and Ocean Sediments and others.
Every use of proxy data is this by definition in every field--whether it's climate or astronomy.Provide for me one example where one kind of data is substituted for another and is considered good scientific and good statistical practice.
OK, but now you aren't seeing the whole picture.The total increase is .9, not .8. Otherwise correct arithmetic. That kind of analysis is where the IPCC gets its estimate of solar variation accounting for about 25% of the warming since 1900, with greenhouse effects explaining most of the remaining 75%.
Let's say it is 0.9 C increase, and solar accounts for 0.55 C. That is still only 0.35 C for CO2 and other factors.
Judith Lean is far more accurate in my opinion that those who take a stand on the issue. She just analysis the data as she sees it and doen't voice an agenda either way on global warming.
She says there is evidence that solar accounts for the 0.55C in temperature increase, i believe her. And the total increase I have read varies from 0.6 to 0.85 C. Never seen 0.9 C until you brought is up. Have a source, or is that just rounding up the 0.85 C?
He is incorrect, gullible and ignorant about applying proper statistical methods to this situation. I am not disputing that the proxy data deviated or questioning why it deviated. I am pointing out that Jones, Mann and the others did not treat the situation they were confronted with properly and they mislead people when they presented the merged data without disclosing it each time it was presented.
Proper treatment would require them to determine every case in the entire proxy set where the data deviated. However they could not do that because they did not have local direct measures for the entire data set. They had two choices at this point .... One, use the data as is including the data they wanted to hide and did not want to present or .... two, throw the entire proxy out and choose a different proxy that did not have the problem this one had.
Show me where it is proper to throw out some of the proxy data and substitute a different kind of data in its place.Every use of proxy data is this by definition in every field--whether it's climate or astronomy.Provide for me one example where one kind of data is substituted for another and is considered good scientific and good statistical practice.
The National Research Council who examined this subject at the behest of Congress disagrees with you and broadly concluded that their methods help only minor shortcomings which did not effect the results. (see http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...=11676&page=R1) Since than other statistical methods and multiple proxies have only strengthened Mann's original conclusions. Why you keep tilling this old ground is beyond me but the baseless argumentative nature of your contributions without research is not only tiresome but disruptive to constructive discussions about climate.He is incorrect, gullible and ignorant about applying proper statistical methods to this situation.
Show me where it is proper to throw out some of the proxy data and substitute a different kind of data in its place.[/quote]Every use of proxy data is this by definition in every field--whether it's climate or astronomy.Provide for me one example where one kind of data is substituted for another and is considered good scientific and good statistical practice.
It's proper and applied in nearly every case where either a better proxy or real data is available. Many examples exist such as selection of radioactive isotope and its decay products used in radiometric dating compare to other methods, using actual wind measurements instead of the Beaufort Wind Scale, use of direct measure surface temps instead of borehole temps at some depth years later. There are many examples in quantitative research.
Nope, I don't see anywhere in that report where they address substitution of proxy data with direct measurement. They address many other topics but not the one we are discussing. Nice Red Herring Lynx.The National Research Council who examined this subject at the behest of Congress disagrees with you and broadly concluded that their methods help only minor shortcomings which did not effect the results. (see http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...=11676&page=R1) Since than other statistical methods and multiple proxies have only strengthened Mann's original conclusions. Why you keep tilling this old ground is beyond me but the baseless argumentative nature of your contributions without research is not only tiresome but disruptive to constructive discussions about climate.
Comparisons, yes. Substitutions, absolutly not!!! thanks for the confirmation.It's proper and applied in nearly every case where either a better proxy or real data is available. Many examples exist such as selection of radioactive isotope and its decay products used in radiometric dating compare to other methods,
Show me where it is proper to throw out some of the proxy data and substitute a different kind of data in its place.
More comparisons. No examples where a partial dataset of one type is substituted for a partial data set of another because they don't compare favorably.using actual wind measurements instead of the Beaufort Wind Scale, use of direct measure surface temps instead of borehole temps at some depth years later. There are many examples in quantitative research.
Thanks. It is as I said it is. If you don't wish to spend anymore time discussing this then I suggest you simply not reply.
| « Global Warming Real Or Not.... | Atmos. Co2 Fraction Steady (More support for W. Cobra) » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
