General AGW discussion thread [Archive] - Page 13

William

2009-Dec-17, 04:15 PM

So you talk about Russian temperatures and you show for some reason or other US temperatures in a figure. Typical.

tusenfem,

I expected the point for showing the US surface temperatures when discussing the Russian surface temperatures was obvious.

The US surface temperatures does not show a warming trend.

The Russian surface temperatures does show a warming trend, however, as noted below it is alleged that the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature is excluding Russian temperature which shows cooling or no warming.

Logically CO2 should warm the entire planet. It does not make sense that Russian surface temperature should rise and the US surface temperature does not rise. That logical dichotomy could be explained if someone was cherry picking the data.

In the set of Climate Gate e-mails there is a memo that notes the "skeptics" may notice that the ocean surface temperature rise shows almost no increase in warming while the surface temperature does. That observation (ocean top 150 m warming does not match surface temperature warming) would also support the assertion that the surface data is being manipulated.

The fact the CRU destroyed the past long term temperature data records complicates the base comparison. The finding that the hockey stick graph was created by specifically selecting a very small set of tree ring data and then when that tree ring data did not correlate with planetary temperature the tree ring proxy data was manipulated. (that is the 'trick".)

The US long term temperature data was not destroyed. Hence the US long term surface temperature data does not show warming as it cannot be manipulated.

The scientific method excludes cherry picking data, blocking publishing of papers that do not support a premise, and destroying data. If the data supports a premise there is no logical reason to cherry pick data, block publishing of papers that do not support the premise, destroy data, delete emails, block information requests, and so on.

http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/70431-general-agw-discussion-thread-100.html#post1644893

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/16/russian-iea-claims-cru-tampered-with-climate-data-cherrypicked-warmest-stations/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=10&year=2009&month=10&ext=gif&id=110-00

Ivan Viehoff

2009-Dec-17, 04:40 PM

Logically CO2 should warm the entire planet.
It should logically warm the average temperature of the planet. No one has ever said warming should be even and that there cannot be local areas that get cooler, especially in the shorter term.

Strange

2009-Dec-17, 04:50 PM

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

"often does not show any substantial warming" implies either some small level of warming or no warming. It doesn't imply cooling (and if it did show cooling, I'm sure you would have highlighted the fact). And the "often" suggests there are times and/place where they did show "substantial warming".

So it sounds like it might bring the average increase down a bit, but not reverse the trend.

when that tree ring data did not correlate with planetary temperature the tree ring proxy data was manipulated. (that is the 'trick".)

So you would prefer them to use the set of values from tree rings that are known to be inaccurate rather than actual temperature measurements?

Stroller

2009-Dec-17, 09:30 PM

It should logically warm the average temperature of the planet. No one has ever said warming should be even and that there cannot be local areas that get cooler, especially in the shorter term.

How about areas which show no warming over 100 years? Like the Siberian surface stations north of 70 degrees CRU decided not to include in their global temperature product.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rqH4fUbko2U/SylPw6ygrHI/AAAAAAAAPj8/CD3YrVV-25Q/s400/Ruussian+data.jpg

Given the sparseness of data near the arctic circle, I can see no reason to exclude these data, except for reasons of bias.

lomiller1

2009-Dec-17, 09:50 PM

Yield in 2009 in the Prairies was down roughly 20% because of the late cold spring.

Spring and early summer were indeed cool, possibly due to the la nina going on at the time. Fall brought an El Nino and amazing warmth.

lomiller1

2009-Dec-17, 09:57 PM

HadCRU doesn’t include higher latitudes, North or South because weather stations are to far apart. This reduces error for the regions they do cover. GISS does the opposite, they use the higher latitude stations and extrapolate between them. This increases error, but allows them to generate more of a global result.

The biggest consequence of this is that GISS is expected to have higher warming trend because it includes the fast warming artic.

Stroller

2009-Dec-17, 10:49 PM

Maybe you should ask the person who made the plot, he might (must) know as he has the raw data.

And yah, raw data, if you don't know how to process it, you can get any result.

I agree, it would be a lot less of an obstruction if CRU were to publish their station list and precise, clear details of their homogenisation methodology in accordance with repeated freedom of information requests, and the scientific method. Because they won't, they are under investigation and a cloud of suspicion.

Because their temperature series is not reproducible, it can't be regarded as scientifically useful or valid at present.

Torsten

2009-Dec-17, 11:16 PM

Gentlemen,

This is an El Nino year. One would expect warmer weather not record cold temperatures.

Did you notice Saskatchewan had the second coldest summer in 100 years?

Freezing temperatures in Vancouver? Heavy snowfall Pacific Northwest?

Snowstorms in Europe?

You might expect monotonically rising temperatures during El Nino, but that doesn't mean that's the way it works in the real world.

You may think that Saskatchewan's summer weather was representative of the whole world, but most people will disagree with you.

You may think that freezing temperatures in Vancouver don't occur during El Nino, but that doesn't change the fact that Vancouver experienced temperatures of -10C in 1998, the year of the mother of El Ninos.

You may not be familiar with BC coastal weather, but snowstorms are entirely possible during El Nino.

I suspect similar revelations about reality vs William's notions of weather in Europe can be made by those living there.

Stroller

2009-Dec-17, 11:23 PM

Atraveller

2009-Dec-18, 12:26 AM

First proper snow of the winter in the UK today. A lot of people died in China a month or so ago when the weight of snow collapsed roofs. Cold records are heavily outnumbering warm records at the moment

I beg to differ - but we are consistantly hitting record high temps here in Australia. 2009 will be the hottest year ever on record. And the top 5 hottest years on record are all within the last decade.

Australian trend map - temperature (http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/trendmaps.cgi)

tusenfem

2009-Dec-18, 09:56 AM

First proper snow of the winter in the UK today. A lot of people died in China a month or so ago when the weight of snow collapsed roofs. Cold records are heavily outnumbering warm records at the moment

How surprising in winter.
November was the 2nd hottest in Austria.

Let's rename this thread in "what was the weather like today."

Nereid

2009-Dec-18, 02:41 PM

AGW in of itself is a theory, by defination it MUST be proven. There is NO converse theory or claim thus there is NO theory to defend. What we on the "skeptics" side are doing is showing where the theory falls flat. That's sceince.
Expand your reading to other fourms and sceincetific sources. You'll have to decide which side to believe on your own.
I'm still ploughing through the primary science-based material (papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals) ...

This post has an aspect that's been puzzling me since I first read it; can any BAUT member help me?

wrt AGW: there are, as I understand it so far, a great many hypotheses concerning the extent of the impact on global warming due to the activities of us humans, in the last century or so (burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, that sort of thing). And many of these hypotheses have been developed to the point of being potentially testable (the extent to which those hypotheses have actually been tested, and what the results of those tests are (etc) are interesting questions, but not the least bit relevant to this particular post).

The aspect of the post I'm quoting that I don't understand is something like this: is there a consistent position (narrative, case, ...) wrt (something like) the impact of the activities of us humans on global warming, in the last century or so, is below the level of detectability (as of today)? Note that this is *not* a 'prove a negative'! And if there is such a consistent position, is it a science-based one?

(Of course, if the answers are yes, and yes (or similar), then where is that case presented?)

Jetlack

2009-Dec-18, 04:13 PM

I'm still ploughing through the primary science-based material (papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals) ...

This post has an aspect that's been puzzling me since I first read it; can any BAUT member help me?

wrt AGW: there are, as I understand it so far, a great many hypotheses concerning the extent of the impact on global warming due to the activities of us humans, in the last century or so (burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, that sort of thing). And many of these hypotheses have been developed to the point of being potentially testable (the extent to which those hypotheses have actually been tested, and what the results of those tests are (etc) are interesting questions, but not the least bit relevant to this particular post).

The aspect of the post I'm quoting that I don't understand is something like this: is there a consistent position (narrative, case, ...) wrt (something like) the impact of the activities of us humans on global warming, in the last century or so, is below the level of detectability (as of today)? Note that this is *not* a 'prove a negative'! And if there is such a consistent position, is it a science-based one?

(Of course, if the answers are yes, and yes (or similar), then where is that case presented?)

The agw hypothesis is specifically based on human Co2 emissions being an overwhelming causal factor on global temperatures and other observed phenomenom such as polar ice loss, glacier retreat etc...

But what it looks like you are asking for is a more complete analysis of how humans may have warmed the planet regardless of mechanism.

Those are two different theories. I think the distinction is important because there is far too much semantic slippage in the climate change vocabulary already.

But I'd like to see a far more wide ranging investigation of UHI (Urban Heat Islands) which have always been treated as unimportant (or a minor influence) by the IPCC's dubious conclusions.

nauthiz

2009-Dec-18, 04:56 PM

But I'd like to see a far more wide ranging investigation of UHI (Urban Heat Islands) which have always been treated as unimportant (or a minor influence) by the IPCC's dubious conclusions.

The urban heat island effect has been quite heavily studied. Based on the available data, the IPCC quantified the level of uncertainty it introduces to the land record at 0.006C per decade in AR4. (source: section 3.2.2.2 of chapter 3 (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf) - pdf link)

What about that analysis do you find to be dubious?

Jetlack

2009-Dec-18, 05:14 PM

nauthiz

2009-Dec-18, 05:20 PM

Personally i think there should be a complete review of raw global temp data, and a new temp reconstruction should be made without any city records. So only data from rural areas. That way we can rule out UHI completely.

This has been done. Read the section I cited.

Webbo

2009-Dec-18, 06:01 PM

This has been done. Read the section I cited.

You mean the comparison between rural and urban sites which has the following description in the accompanying text (my bold);

"Over the conterminous USA, after adjustment for time-of-observation bias and other changes, rural station trends were almost indistinguishable
from series including urban sites"

So they first "homogonised" the rural and urban sites and then compared them to each other with the exclamation "look they are the same!".

Genius. And individuals lap it up.

nauthiz

2009-Dec-18, 06:14 PM

You mean the comparison between rural and urban sites which has the following description in the accompanying text (my bold);

"Over the conterminous USA, after adjustment for time-of-observation bias and other changes, rural station trends were almost indistinguishable
from series including urban sites"

So they first "homogonised" the rural and urban sites and then compared them to each other with the exclamation "look they are the same!".

Genius. And individuals lap it up.

Am I correct in understanding that from the phrase "other changes", you conclude that what was done to produce that graph is that they took the two different data sets and forced them to match as part of a test whose purpose is to see if they match?

I'm going to need a little more evidence than mere speculation on a two-word phrase before I'm willing to buy a claim as extraordinary as the idea that such buffoonery could pass a review panel.

Jetlack

2009-Dec-18, 06:25 PM

This has been done. Read the section I cited.

That has not been done. I want to see pure rural data analysed, no homogenisations, and for a new study to be carried out independently of the Jones and Mann brigade.

When that is done and it shows the same hockey stick pattern I will believe agw is a serious concern.

nauthiz

2009-Dec-18, 06:36 PM

I want to see pure rural data analysed, no homogenisations

The purpose of homogenization is to remove non-climactic influences on the temperature records.

So to my ear, what you just said translates as, "I'm worried that the data is dirty. I would have a much easier time trusting data that is guaranteed to be dirty."

Stroller

2009-Dec-18, 09:18 PM

The urban heat island effect has been quite heavily studied. Based on the available data, the IPCC quantified the level of uncertainty it introduces to the land record at 0.006C per decade in AR4. (source: section 3.2.2.2 of chapter 3 (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf) - pdf link)

What about that analysis do you find to be dubious?

The selective nature of the rural sites chosen for comparison.

In most cases, the rural sites are in valley bottoms, which have seen a big increase in pumped water aerosol irrigation, which has lifted night-time temperatures considerably.

It's a real issue that the purveyors of the homogenised data have dropped the stations from higher and drier locations. In a lot of cases, they have dropped long continuous records which show little warming in favour of stations with suitable infrastructure for electronic communication nearby, such as airports.

Airports have many issues, their temperature recording is geared more towards air navigation safety, and less towards long term climatic measurement. Increases in passenger numbers, flights, tarmac aprons, jet engine size etc have affected these stations, and yet the 'adjustments' are always upwards.

Stroller

2009-Dec-18, 09:35 PM

is there a consistent position (narrative, case, ...) wrt (something like) the impact of the activities of us humans on global warming, in the last century or so, is below the level of detectability (as of today)? Note that this is *not* a 'prove a negative'! And if there is such a consistent position, is it a science-based one?

(Of course, if the answers are yes, and yes (or similar), then where is that case presented?)

The uncertainties in our measurement and understanding of the various factors which affect climate are such that we have no idea whether the small amount of warming which has taken place in the last century is enhanced by human activity or not.

Notwithstanding the fact that the error bars mostly exceed the signal wrt most climate indices and proxies, it seems to me that there have been numerous warming and cooling vents within the last 1000 years which indicate that we are not witnessing anything unprecedented in the northen hemisphere. The archeological evidence from the European alps and elsewhere indicates that past warmings have enabled humans to traverse high passes etc which are for most of the time frozen.

You can find the case presented all across the internet wherever people have been sufficiently motivated to contradict the overly generalised doomsaying with their own specialised local knowledge. Diligent historians of science have also recovered mouldering textbooks containing contradictory measurements of co2 concentrations and temperatures.

It's a great puzzle which has kept me busy for a few years now in my spare time. I could provide a hundred links to specific data and general conclusions, but you will only be convinced by your own research.

I wish you well.

cope

2009-Dec-19, 04:33 AM

In most cases, the rural sites are in valley bottoms, which have seen a big increase in pumped water aerosol irrigation, which has lifted night-time temperatures considerably.

Sorry, but I have to call you on this one. Please supply sources describing station location topographies and proximity to "pumped aerosol irrigation" systems, please.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Dec-19, 06:54 AM

The aspect of the post I'm quoting that I don't understand is something like this: is there a consistent position (narrative, case, ...) wrt (something like) the impact of the activities of us humans on global warming, in the last century or so, is below the level of detectability (as of today)? Note that this is *not* a 'prove a negative'! And if there is such a consistent position, is it a science-based one?

The uncertainties in our measurement and understanding of the various factors which affect climate are such that we have no idea whether the small amount of warming which has taken place in the last century is enhanced by human activity or not.

Notwithstanding the fact that the error bars mostly exceed the signal wrt most climate indices and proxies, it seems to me that there have been numerous warming and cooling vents within the last 1000 years which indicate that we are not witnessing anything unprecedented in the northen hemisphere. The archeological evidence from the European alps and elsewhere indicates that past warmings have enabled humans to traverse high passes etc which are for most of the time frozen.

You can find the case presented all across the internet wherever people have been sufficiently motivated to contradict the overly generalised doomsaying with their own specialised local knowledge. Diligent historians of science have also recovered mouldering textbooks containing contradictory measurements of co2 concentrations and temperatures.
Nereid, as you can see from the complete lack of references in Stroller's post (and to large extent, Stroller's all other posts as well), their case is not based on science. It's just about making uncertainties look much worse than they are and making it look like the debate is still alive. Their "papers" have bad quality scientifically (http://www.bautforum.com/1633704-post2556.html), but sometimes they manage to sneek in a paper to the real journals as well but with same level of quality (few months ago published Lindzen & Choi, 2009, for example). Just recently we caught Stroller making up things about Hansen et al. (2007) (http://www.bautforum.com/1607419-post2208.html), to give an example (just one of many similar cases) of what really is going on here. Like Stroller says, you can indeed find that kind of case presented all across the internet. Compare this situation to the evolution vs. creation "debate", and you will see that the situation is almost exactly the same here.

Nereid

2009-Dec-19, 08:28 AM

The agw hypothesis is specifically based on human Co2 emissions being an overwhelming causal factor on global temperatures and other observed phenomenom such as polar ice loss, glacier retreat etc...

But what it looks like you are asking for is a more complete analysis of how humans may have warmed the planet regardless of mechanism.

Those are two different theories. I think the distinction is important because there is far too much semantic slippage in the climate change vocabulary already.

But I'd like to see a far more wide ranging investigation of UHI (Urban Heat Islands) which have always been treated as unimportant (or a minor influence) by the IPCC's dubious conclusions.
Thanks Jetlack.

Sorry if my question wasn't clear; no, I'm not asking for a more complete analysis ("of how humans may have warmed the planet regardless of mechanism"); I'm trying to work out where the science is in Bright_Light's post ... and specifically if any reader knows of a presentation (preferably internally consistent, etc, and published in a relevant journal) of a case to the effect that all the observed GW can be accounted for by mechanisms/processes/etc other than A ones.

Your mention of UHI seems to imply that there is a completely unambiguous, robust case for AW (humans create urban heat islands, which is, by definition anthropogenic warming) - is that so?

Further, you also seem to be implying that - due UHI etc - the case for GW (whether over a period of a century or so, or considerably less) is not at all strong. In my first post in this thread I asked if there was any scientific case for something like this ... and everyone who responded seemed to be saying that such a case does not exist. Are you saying there is such a case?

Finally, can you point me to where the kind of case that answers my question may be found? The one in the post you quoted, that is ...

Nereid

2009-Dec-19, 08:40 AM

The uncertainties in our measurement and understanding of the various factors which affect climate are such that we have no idea whether the small amount of warming which has taken place in the last century is enhanced by human activity or not.

Notwithstanding the fact that the error bars mostly exceed the signal wrt most climate indices and proxies, it seems to me that there have been numerous warming and cooling vents within the last 1000 years which indicate that we are not witnessing anything unprecedented in the northen hemisphere. The archeological evidence from the European alps and elsewhere indicates that past warmings have enabled humans to traverse high passes etc which are for most of the time frozen.

You can find the case presented all across the internet wherever people have been sufficiently motivated to contradict the overly generalised doomsaying with their own specialised local knowledge. Diligent historians of science have also recovered mouldering textbooks containing contradictory measurements of co2 concentrations and temperatures.

It's a great puzzle which has kept me busy for a few years now in my spare time. I could provide a hundred links to specific data and general conclusions, but you will only be convinced by your own research.

I wish you well.
Thanks Stroller.

Rather than repeat what I just wrote, in response to Jetlack, could you take a look at that post, and have a go at helping me understand?

Also, you seem to be saying that the answer to my question (in the post of mine you're quoting) is that such a case (presentation, narrative, ...) does not exist (if only because people such as yourself have not written it up and published it); is that so? If not, please set me straight.

It may be that my question is not as clear as it could be (I'm still learning the vocabulary), but at its heart it's about a class of hypotheses, the tests they are specifically designed for, and the 'no detectable A in GW' results (that's a shorthand, of course) from those tests. Much of what you write in your post seems to me to be relevant to different hypotheses (though there are, of course, similarities).

Stroller

2009-Dec-19, 09:50 AM

Sorry, but I have to call you on this one. Please supply sources describing station location topographies and proximity to "pumped aerosol irrigation" systems, please.

See Roger Pielke senior (http://climatesci.org/)'s musings and published papers on the subject.
Also, http://www.surfacestations.org

Basically, increased irrigation and more intensive agriculture over the last 50 years has caused increased surface evaporation and lifted the night-time temperatures around cultivated valley bottoms. This has introduced an upward bias into temperature readings.

Jetlack

2009-Dec-19, 09:54 AM

Thanks Jetlack.

Sorry if my question wasn't clear; no, I'm not asking for a more complete analysis ("of how humans may have warmed the planet regardless of mechanism"); I'm trying to work out where the science is in Bright_Light's post ... and specifically if any reader knows of a presentation (preferably internally consistent, etc, and published in a relevant journal) of a case to the effect that all the observed GW can be accounted for by mechanisms/processes/etc other than A ones.

Your mention of UHI seems to imply that there is a completely unambiguous, robust case for AW (humans create urban heat islands, which is, by definition anthropogenic warming) - is that so?

Further, you also seem to be implying that - due UHI etc - the case for GW (whether over a period of a century or so, or considerably less) is not at all strong. In my first post in this thread I asked if there was any scientific case for something like this ... and everyone who responded seemed to be saying that such a case does not exist. Are you saying there is such a case?

Finally, can you point me to where the kind of case that answers my question may be found? The one in the post you quoted, that is ...

Sure UHIs could be classed as agw, but they are actually ignored within the mainstream defintion of agw. The main thrust of agw theory as concluded by the IPCC is that Co2 is the main culprit. So no, even if UHIs are primarily responsible for a warming average we'll need to call it something else because the "agw" tag is a specific reference to Co2.

Of course UHIs are a local phenomenom in that they may warm the temperature around a city by about a 1 degree compared to the rural areas. Atleast last time i measured the difference in Malaga (Spain) which is not a large city (pop 500,000).

And the problem if UHIs are responsible for all the warming is what do we do about it? Or is it even a problem if confined to a local 1 degree of warming? That's not the end of the world.

I dont think there has been a study which has purposefully pulled city temperatures from the overall record and then compared the city+rural average with a rural only. That would be interesting. All the major datasets today include city temperatures which is frankly highly unscientific from what we know about UHIs.

Stroller

2009-Dec-19, 10:56 AM

Thanks Stroller.

Rather than repeat what I just wrote, in response to Jetlack, could you take a look at that post, and have a go at helping me understand?

Also, you seem to be saying that the answer to my question (in the post of mine you're quoting) is that such a case (presentation, narrative, ...) does not exist (if only because people such as yourself have not written it up and published it); is that so? If not, please set me straight.

It may be that my question is not as clear as it could be (I'm still learning the vocabulary), but at its heart it's about a class of hypotheses, the tests they are specifically designed for, and the 'no detectable A in GW' results (that's a shorthand, of course) from those tests. Much of what you write in your post seems to me to be relevant to different hypotheses (though there are, of course, similarities).

It has been difficult to get contrarian papers published, for reasons the leaked emails from the CRU make obvious.

Rather than trying to 'prove a negative', (no A in GW) sceptics have said that the uncertainties are such that the changes in temperature we have seen are within the bounds of natural variability and comparable to previous times before co2 increase. This is why the existence of the medieval warm period has been such a battle ground between sceptics and AGW hypothesis proponents. Good evidence from worldwide sources such as the Greenland ice cores are ignored or marginalised in the literature.

Here is a file containing the individual country records from 1900 before they are processed by CRU's HADcruT2 'code', but after homogenisation by GHCN.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/idl_cruts3_2005_vs_2008b.pdf

As you can see, there are many countries which show little warming over the C20th according to this data. The Russian data in the very bottom graphs only represents 40% of the landmass of Russia, which itself is over 10% of the global landmass. Stations north of 70 degrees which show no warming have been ignored.

To summarize so far. Sceptics contend that:

1) Proxy evidence for previous natural warmings and coolings has been minimised or ignored.

2) Instrumental evidence for warming has been exaggerated by selectivity and poor station keeping. We can expect a paper on this from the Watt's team in the new year.

3) The co2 record is dominated by the Mauna Loa data, which is kept by Charles Keeling's son. Ignored data shows much greater variation in co2 levels over the last 150 years.

4) The natural recovery from the little ice age, 60 year oceanic cycles, and multidecadal variation in cloud cover have not been properly factored in to calculations of climate sensitivity, which has led to an exaggerated figure for the effect of co2.

5) The solar variability has had it's effect on climate variation underestimated due to it's supposed non correlation with temperature since 1980. If this is understood as largely an effect of (2), then the sun comes back into play as a more dominant climate influence. This will further diminish co2's role in (4).

So finally to your question about disproving the A in GW.

6) Sceptics are saying that the foregoing issues mean that whatever role co2 does play in global temperature, it is much smaller than the claims made by proponents of the AGW hypothesis.

Conclusion

7) We are discussing climate analysis, rather than some kind of lab operable climate science, which cannot deliver definite prognoses of real world climate, due to the number of confounding factors in the data, and a low level of scientific understanding of potentially large factors.

Nereid

2009-Dec-19, 12:31 PM

Sure UHIs could be classed as agw
I doubt it ... it's an example of AW (anthropogenic warming), but no one is even trying to make a case that UHIs raise the average temperature of the whole Earth (i.e. GW) by more than a trivial, unmeasurable extent ... at least as far as I know.

, but they are actually ignored within the mainstream defintion of agw. The main thrust of agw theory as concluded by the IPCC is that Co2 is the main culprit. So no, even if UHIs are primarily responsible for a warming average we'll need to call it something else because the "agw" tag is a specific reference to Co2.

Of course UHIs are a local phenomenom in that they may warm the temperature around a city by about a 1 degree compared to the rural areas. Atleast last time i measured the difference in Malaga (Spain) which is not a large city (pop 500,000).

And the problem if UHIs are responsible for all the warming is what do we do about it? Or is it even a problem if confined to a local 1 degree of warming? That's not the end of the world.

I dont think there has been a study which has purposefully pulled city temperatures from the overall record and then compared the city+rural average with a rural only. That would be interesting. All the major datasets today include city temperatures which is frankly highly unscientific from what we know about UHIs.
I'm having trouble, Jetlack, and I hope you can help me.

You see, your response does not seem to answer any of the questions I actually asked! What you write might be interesting, but it's not helpful in terms of providing me insights into the scientific basis of Bright_Light's post.

Can you help me please? How can I ask my questions so that you understand them better?

Nereid

2009-Dec-19, 01:08 PM

Again, thanks for the response, Stroller.
It has been difficult to get contrarian papers published, for reasons the leaked emails from the CRU make obvious.
I've seen claims like this, of course, and I intend to look into them ... later (FWIW, in my experience "contrarian" papers have difficulty getting published - in the main, peer-reviewed journals - because they fail to meet basic standards, as science; nevertheless, it's not all that hard to get a preprint onto arXiv, or to publish in a lesser-known journal.)

Rather than trying to 'prove a negative', (no A in GW)
Perhaps I was not clear enough in my statements and questions; let me try again.

Developing testable hypotheses is, IMHO, a key part of doing science.

Bright_Light's post seems - to me - to overlook this ("There is NO converse theory or claim thus there is NO theory to defend", for example), and I'm trying to understand if this is, in fact, so.

To do that I posed what I thought was a pretty straight-forward question ("is there a consistent position (narrative, case, ...) wrt (something like) the impact of the activities of us humans on global warming, in the last century or so, is below the level of detectability (as of today)?"), but for some reason or other (or reasons), neither you nor Jetlack seems to have grasped what I am trying to get at.

I've learned that there's - apparently - a consistent position (narrative, case, ...) that the impact of the activities of us humans on *local* warming, in the last century or so, is *well above* the level of detectability (i.e. UHIs) - testable hypotheses have been developed, tested, and the results are clear; but of course that's not an answer to my question.

sceptics have said that the uncertainties are such that the changes in temperature we have seen are within the bounds of natural variability and comparable to previous times before co2 increase.
As you - or perhaps it was someone else - have pointed out, internet blogs are full of this sort of thing.

However, my question concerns consistency, the impact of the activity of humans, global warming, the last century or so, and detectability.

Can you connect the dots please? Specifically, how does what you say about what skeptics have said tie into my question?

This is why the existence of the medieval warm period has been such a battle ground between sceptics and AGW hypothesis proponents. Good evidence from worldwide sources such as the Greenland ice cores are ignored or marginalised in the literature.

Here is a file containing the individual country records from 1900 before they are processed by CRU's HADcruT2 'code', but after homogenisation by GHCN.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/idl_cruts3_2005_vs_2008b.pdf

As you can see, there are many countries which show little warming over the C20th according to this data. The Russian data in the very bottom graphs only represents 40% of the landmass of Russia, which itself is over 10% of the global landmass. Stations north of 70 degrees which show no warming have been ignored.

To summarize so far. Sceptics contend that:

1) Proxy evidence for previous natural warmings and coolings has been minimised or ignored.

2) Instrumental evidence for warming has been exaggerated by selectivity and poor station keeping. We can expect a paper on this from the Watt's team in the new year.

3) The co2 record is dominated by the Mauna Loa data, which is kept by Charles Keeling's son. Ignored data shows much greater variation in co2 levels over the last 150 years.

4) The natural recovery from the little ice age, 60 year oceanic cycles, and multidecadal variation in cloud cover have not been properly factored in to calculations of climate sensitivity, which has led to an exaggerated figure for the effect of co2.

5) The solar variability has had it's effect on climate variation underestimated due to it's supposed non correlation with temperature since 1980. If this is understood as largely an effect of (2), then the sun comes back into play as a more dominant climate influence. This will further diminish co2's role in (4).

So finally to your question about disproving the A in GW.

6) Sceptics are saying that the foregoing issues mean that whatever role co2 does play in global temperature, it is much smaller than the claims made by proponents of the AGW hypothesis.

Conclusion

7) We are discussing climate analysis, rather than some kind of lab operable climate science, which cannot deliver definite prognoses of real world climate, due to the number of confounding factors in the data, and a low level of scientific understanding of potentially large factors.
But, to repeat, has anyone produced, in a single document (or series of inter-connected documents) a consistent position (narrative, case, ...) wrt (something like) the impact of the activities of us humans on global warming, in the last century or so, is below the level of detectability (as of today)?

So far, at least, it would seem that the answer is "No".

Nereid

2009-Dec-19, 01:14 PM

[...]

Sceptics contend that:

[...]

5) The solar variability has had it's effect on climate variation underestimated due to it's supposed non correlation with temperature since 1980. If this is understood as largely an effect of (2), then the sun comes back into play as a more dominant climate influence. This will further diminish co2's role in (4).

[...]
I don't think I've seen this before; can you point me to any published papers on it please?

I am - for obvious reasons - quite interested in science-based material on the intrinsic variability of stars ...

Jetlack

2009-Dec-19, 01:39 PM

Stroller

2009-Dec-19, 02:52 PM

I don't think I've seen this before; can you point me to any published papers on it please?

I am - for obvious reasons - quite interested in science-based material on the intrinsic variability of stars ...

It's a fairly contentious and complex area, because it rests on small changes in the sun's overall output in terms of TSI, and the splicing of data from several satellites over the period of record.

There are two main camps. The ACRIM team, who maintain the sun increased it's TSI output right through to 2003, and the PMOD team who use models to justify the 'adjustment' of the ACRIM data. Something strongly contested by the scientists who ran the experiment.

The published papers you should look at include those by Scafetta and West, those by Svalgaard, and those by Frolich, Lean and Rind. Also, papers by Mike Lockwood are relevant.

To understand how solar variability miht be amplified by other terrestrial and celestial phenomena, take a look at Nir Shaviv's paper on using the oceans as a calorimeter, and Henrik Svensmark's work on GCR's and clouds.

Additionally, you may be interested in the analysis I myself presented earlier in this thread on steric sea level rise and the implicated energy gain of the oceans due to insolation 1993-2003. Also my graphs of cumulative sunspot counts and my reproduction of C20th century temperature change from a combination of sunspot counts and changes in length of day. I propose the underlying cause of both these phenomena to be changes in the relative motion of the sun and the centre of mass of the solar system, which is a function predominantly of the orbits of the gas giant planets.

Stroller

2009-Dec-19, 02:58 PM

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Dec-19, 03:52 PM

You should look at this and that... but no single link to a paper or specific reference. Genuinely helpful people give links. :doh:

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Dec-19, 04:21 PM

James Hansen on global surface temperature analysis (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfScience.pdf).

nauthiz

2009-Dec-19, 05:19 PM

I dont think there has been a study which has purposefully pulled city temperatures from the overall record and then compared the city+rural average with a rural only. That would be interesting. All the major datasets today include city temperatures which is frankly highly unscientific from what we know about UHIs.

Well there's that one I linked to you, but you seem to have rejected it on the grounds that known artificial biases were removed from the data in order to get a cleaner signal before checking to see what's going on with another artificial bias.

You don't seem to have responded to that yet. I would at least be interested to know why you suspect that some of the adjustments might have been able to shrink such a signal by a factor of 10, and which adjustments those might be.

I'm also interested to know how the USHCN and NCDC are "dependent on the Jones and Mann brigade."

nauthiz

2009-Dec-19, 08:23 PM

Another thought: The land station temperature record is not the only temperature record. Far from it.

If we were to find that the bias due to the urban heat island effect is, in fact, introducing an uncorrected bias that is many times larger than 0.006C/decade in the land surface record, that would indeed be problematic.

But it would not be because it rubbishes the idea that the planet is warming. Instead, it would raise questions about how it can be that every other temperature record of note* shows a warming trend that corresponds to model predictions but the measurements from weather stations do not. That might result in some pretty deep changes to the model having to be made. . . but that would not in any way warrant the assumption that such changes would end up rubbishing the overall gist of the model.

(It's been 150 years this year since Le Verrier reported his discovery about Mercury. That announcement set off a chain of events that I think serves as a good counterexample.)

* I know, post-1960 tree rings don't seem to. But we don't even really know how to read tree rings quite yet. When a developing technology disagrees with everything else, my first instinct is to assume it's because the technology still needs more development. I'm inclined to stick with this until compelling evidence to the contrary indicates otherwise. Until that happens, contemporary tree ring proxy data does not qualify as a "temperature record of note".

Stroller

2009-Dec-19, 11:40 PM

The plot thickens on the New Zealand surface temperature story.
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/12/nz-study-may-hold-key-to-faulty-world-temp-data.html
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/hessell1980.pdf

nauthiz

2009-Dec-20, 12:30 AM

Some googling around indicates that this paper is not long-forgotten, or at least published researchers remember it often enough for it to show up in bibliographies. Don't have too much more information since most of what I'm finding is stuck behind a paywall, though.

I also don't see much indication that Hessell's paper fell on deaf ears, something that I'm not willing to just assume. It was published 30 years ago; everywhere else in the world the methods for collecting and analyzing the weather station records has changed during that time - why not New Zealand?

Actually, the article itself implies that a re-analysis has occurred. The magazine article indicates a 1C increase over the past 100 years. The 1980 Hessell paper indicated 1C of warming over the previous 40 years.

So right now the plot that's thickening looks to be the usual "shoddy scholarship on the part of some journalists" one to me. . .

Stroller

2009-Dec-20, 09:38 AM

This looks like a useful resource for those wanting to find out about the medieval warm period, and it's global extent.

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

William

2009-Dec-20, 11:29 AM

Evidence that that the surface temperature data has been cherry picked and manipulated to create a larger global warming number than reality is the discrepancy between surface temperature measurements and satellite temperature measurements of the lower stratosphere.

The assertion that the Russian temperature measurements for 40% of the Russian stations was not used in Global Surface temperature calculation as the stations in question showed minimum warming supports the assertion that a portion of the 20th century warming was created by cherry picking and manipulation of the data.

The Russian data has a larger affect on the calculation as it is used to adjust high latitude temperatures in the Canada.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Klotzbah_etal.jpg

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Klotzbah_etal.jpg

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/daleo-and-just-like-that-the-warmings-gone-pjm-exclusive/2/

William

2009-Dec-20, 11:35 AM

This is more concerning the allegation that surface temperature data has been manipulated and cherry picked.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/daleo-and-just-like-that-the-warmings-gone-pjm-exclusive/2/

We now know that the Russian station count dropped from 476 to 121, meaning “over 40% of Russian territory was not properly included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.”

In the IEA report, there is a chart showing CRU’s selective use of 25% of the Russian data created 0.64C more warming than was exhibited by using 100% of the raw data. Given the huge area Russia represents (11.5% of global land surface area), this significantly affects global land temperatures.

We know from the maps that NASA produces — produced using NOAA GHCN data — that Canada is largely missing. As is Greenland. The Arctic. Much of Africa. Brazil. And parts of Australia. (See this post.)

To fill in these large holes, data was extrapolated from great distances away. Often the data came from lower latitude, lower elevation, and higher population centers. In addition to station dropout, the number of missing months increased by as much as tenfold in many of the remaining areas. This required filling in of data from surrounding stations, again sometimes considerable distances away from the missing location. Another opportunity for error, if not mischief.

William

2009-Dec-20, 11:38 AM

http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-345.pdf

This paper investigates surface and satellite temperature trends over the period from 1979-2008. Surface temperature datasets from the National Climate Data Center and the Hadley Center show larger trends over the 30-year period than the lower-tropospheric data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems datasets. The differences between trends observed in the surface and lower tropospheric satellite datasets are statistically significant in most comparisons, with much greater differences over land areas than over ocean areas. These findings strongly suggest that there remain important inconsistencies between surface and satellite records.

William

2009-Dec-20, 11:49 AM

This change at Wikipedia should bring the Medieval warm period back to Wikipedia.

Unbiased scientific data and analysis is fundamental to understanding this issue.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/

Jetlack

2009-Dec-20, 12:50 PM

Well there's that one I linked to you, but you seem to have rejected it on the grounds that known artificial biases were removed from the data in order to get a cleaner signal before checking to see what's going on with another artificial bias.

You don't seem to have responded to that yet. I would at least be interested to know why you suspect that some of the adjustments might have been able to shrink such a signal by a factor of 10, and which adjustments those might be.

I'm also interested to know how the USHCN and NCDC are "dependent on the Jones and Mann brigade."

Its not necessarily they are dependent on eachother, but USHCN has their own problems with poorly positions temperature stations.

I've made it clear I'd like to see new research going foward which can be categorically classed as independent, without any political driving force (or self-interests) such as IPCC (which is a political construct). So in my opinion, anything that the IPCC has used as so-called evidence is immediately suspects seeing how many of the lead authors have behaved.

And there are other independent projects going on right now such as CERN's Cloud09 headed by Jasper Kirkby which will be deliveirng results on potential correlations between solar and cosmic influences on clouds, and other climatic conditions on earth.

I'd rather wait for much more science to be done before coming to the sort of drastic conclusions you keep referring to as gospel in the IPCC reports.

nauthiz

2009-Dec-20, 01:00 PM

Stroller

2009-Dec-20, 03:31 PM

I'd rather wait for much more science to be done before coming to the sort of drastic conclusions you keep referring to as gospel in the IPCC reports.

At least one of the IPCC co-ordinating authors agrees with you.

19/11/2009
It isn’t necessary to list all the changes I have identified between what the scientists actually said and what the policy makers who wrote the Summary for Policy Makers said they said. The process is so flawed that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay.

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/12/14/another-defection-from-warmism-un-ipcc-coordinating-author-dr-philip-lloyd-calls-out-ipcc-fraud/

tusenfem

2009-Dec-20, 09:40 PM

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/12/14/another-defection-from-warmism-un-ipcc-coordinating-author-dr-philip-lloyd-calls-out-ipcc-fraud/

Stroller, I seem to remind asking for more peer reviewed science in this thread. However, what you link to is a far right, anti-science platform (from the ads on the page it seems basically against any modern science). Stop this nonsense now, if you want to keep on posting on this platform. If you have no real science to bring here, then you can refrain from posting.

This last sentence holds for all participants in this thread, some of which are indeed capable of looking up real science sources through ADS (available to anyone, but yes, you have to learn how to search) or through ISI, with only limited access (I think) if you don't have a subscription.

Now move this thread back to where is belongs and discuss the science, and if you can't find what you want, then maybe you should try for yourself to do something, or ask for help doing it.

Stroller

2009-Dec-20, 10:33 PM

Tusenfem.
My apologies for the misunderstanding of my intention caused.

I'm not trying to promote the website or the views expressed in any other part of it, I was just providing a source for the rest of what IPCC co-ordinating author Dr Philip Lloyd had to say.

I will stick solely to the science from now on, as I'm sure everyone else will.

Stroller

2009-Dec-20, 10:44 PM

Reference
Wilson, A.T., Hendy, C.H. and Reynolds, C.P. 1979. Short-term climate change and New Zealand temperatures during the last millennium. Nature 279: 315-317.

Description
"Temperatures derived from an 18O/16O profile through a stalagmite found in a New Zealand cave (40.67°S, 172.43°E) revealed the Medieval Warm Period to have occurred between AD 1050 and 1400 and to have been 0.75°C warmer than the Current Warm Period."

Now things have warmed up a bit since 1979, though looking at the study linked in William's post above regarding the difference between satellite and surface measurements, maybe not by as much as has been commonly believed.

So this is more evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was more globally extensive than has been claimed, and was slightly warmer than today's temperatures at this location.

buzgz

2009-Dec-20, 11:38 PM

The data from the Mann, Bradley, Hughes 1999 paper were apparently used in

http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/MBH1999.pdf

construction of the later graph known as the Hockey Stick graph. Quite a bit of discussion has focused on the 20th century data as presented in this graph. I would like to discuss some 19th century data which also appears to contribute to the shape and interpretation of the HS.

In addition to Mann, Thomas J.Crowley has also explored warming over the past 1000 years, and has published some results different from Mann in potentially critical ways. Paying particular attention to the years between 1840 and 1910 in Fig. 2 of the article by Crowley and Lowery,

http://ambio.allenpress.com/archive/0044-7447/29/1/pdf/i0044-7447-29-1-51.pdf

shows that Crowley displays rapid warming during that interval that is absent from the Mann plot for the same period.

Crowley infers that Mann was aware of the apparent warming during this period but chose not to show it for reasons I don’t yet understand ("anomalous tree-ring growth due to CO2"). Crowley remarks on this “considerable deviation”, saying:

The deviation occurs in 5 of our records (White Mountains,
Colorado, Urals, and west and east China records), has
been observed before (10, 33) and been attributed to (10) anomalous
tree-ring growth due to the late 19th century rise in CO2.
Mann et al. (10) addressed this problem by removing the postulated
CO2 growth effect before estimating past temperatures.
However, because this response also occurs in the Chinese phenological
data set, another source of variance for high tree-ring
growth rates cannot be excluded.

Obviously, Crowley understood Mann’s reasons for omitting this warming trend, but nonetheless chose to include the trend in his presentation. I take this as Crowley's believing the warming trend real. As shown in Fig. 4, this decision clearly makes the Crowley and Mann graphs dramatically different in the late 1800s.

Had Mann included the 1840-1910 warming trend in his data, it appears to me that the shape of the HS would have been considerably different. The 20th century warming could have been seen as a continuation of 19th century warming (for lack of volcanic activity,etc.) and the case for AGW may have been substantially weakened.

I would appreciate a discussion of the "anomalous tree-ring growth" referenced in the two articles and whether Crowley was correct in leaving it in and/or Mann was correct in taking it out.

This is a major point of confusion to me, especially as it might impact the HS graph shape and interpretation. Any help would be welcomed.

Trakar

2009-Dec-21, 12:36 AM

How about areas which show no warming over 100 years? Like the Siberian surface stations north of 70 degrees CRU decided not to include in their global temperature product.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rqH4fUbko2U/SylPw6ygrHI/AAAAAAAAPj8/CD3YrVV-25Q/s400/Ruussian+data.jpg

Given the sparseness of data near the arctic circle, I can see no reason to exclude these data, except for reasons of bias.

Exactly what is your source with regards to Siberian temp data? I don't know how CRU incorporates (or doesn't) such data but it is included in NASA sponsored and other private and public analyses as well as those of the IPCC, and none of these indicate a lack of warming over the last century.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/4/4/045013/erl9_4_045013.html

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r1441120pj872844/

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

William

2009-Dec-21, 05:47 AM

Exactly what is your source with regards to Siberian temp data? I don't know how CRU incorporates (or doesn't) such data but it is included in NASA sponsored and other private and public analyses as well as those of the IPCC, and none of these indicate a lack of warming over the last century.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/4/4/045013/erl9_4_045013.html

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r1441120pj872844/

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

Trakar,
It has been known for sometime that there is an unexplained statistically bias between the satellite temperature measurements the climate center calculated temperature data.

You picked 2005 as the global temperature anomaly in that year appeared to be a global increase in planetary temperature.

The 2008 global temperature anomaly appears to be limited to the Arctic and to Russia. The strongest warming appears to be curiously in Russia. There is no scientific explanation as to why the warming should be strongest in Russia.

Also note the global temperature anomaly in 2008 was 0.44C not 0.7C which is the number that is repeated in news papers. 2009 was warmer as that is an El Nino year, however, it seems this El Nino is different as North America, Europe, Russia, and China are all experiencing a cold winter.

Also note that Arctic Ice has increased 2007 over 2008 and 2009 over 2008 which would indicate the Arctic is cooling.

As noted the US has shown no significant temperature increase in the period.

The AWG mechanism should warm the entire planet not just specific areas such as the Arctic and Russia.

http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-345.pdf

This paper investigates surface and satellite temperature trends over the period from 1979-2008. Surface temperature datasets from the National Climate Data Center and the Hadley Center show larger trends over the 30-year period than the lower-tropospheric data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems datasets. The differences between trends observed in the surface and lower tropospheric satellite datasets are statistically significant in most comparisons, with much greater differences over land areas than over ocean areas. These findings strongly suggest that there remain important inconsistencies between surface and satellite records.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=10&year=2009&month=10&ext=gif&id=110-00
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm#top

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=10&year=2009&month=10&ext=gif&id=110-00 http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm#top

Stroller

2009-Dec-21, 08:49 AM

Obviously, Crowley understood Mann’s reasons for omitting this warming trend, but nonetheless chose to include the trend in his presentation. I take this as Crowley's believing the warming trend real. As shown in Fig. 4, this decision clearly makes the Crowley and Mann graphs dramatically different in the late 1800s.

Had Mann included the 1840-1910 warming trend in his data, it appears to me that the shape of the HS would have been considerably different. The 20th century warming could have been seen as a continuation of 19th century warming (for lack of volcanic activity,etc.) and the case for AGW may have been substantially weakened.

I would appreciate a discussion of the "anomalous tree-ring growth" referenced in the two articles and whether Crowley was correct in leaving it in and/or Mann was correct in taking it out.

This is a major point of confusion to me, especially as it might impact the HS graph shape and interpretation. Any help would be welcomed.

Beck's co2 analysis would seem to bear out a higher level in the mid-late C19th. This was coincident with high sea surface temperatures according to Hadley. Solar activity was also high during this period.

The bit I don't get is this; If trees enjoyed anomalous growth due to raised co2 levels in that period, how come they didn't do the same after 1960, such That Mann and Jones had to use "Mike's Nature trick to hide the decline."?

It seems likely that there are confounding variables affecting tree growth which haven't been accounted for by Crowley or MBH, or by Jones, Briffa and the CRU. We are assured that this 'divergence problem' is well known and has been extensively treated in the literature, but I haven't seen any specific links to papers on this issue put forward as the best explanation as yet.

As for whether it is better to leave it in or take it out, it seems obvious to me that the only scientifically honest thing to do is leave it in and draw attention to it as something which is a problem yet to be resolved.

Otherwise, people might get the wrong impression that tree rings are highly reliable and trustworthy temperature proxies.

Stroller

2009-Dec-21, 09:06 AM

Jetlack

2009-Dec-21, 10:57 AM

So, if I understand this right, what you're saying is you don't know of any compelling objections or evidence to suggest that the current quantification of the uncertainty introduced into the measured warming trend which is attributable to the urban heat island effect have been grossly understated. All you seem to have is politics and ad homs.

Fair enough, but you'll have to forgive me if I don't find that as compelling as you do.

Thats a ridiculous reading of what i said, all carefully misrepresented by your good self. And what ad hom are you talking about?

And there are plenty of good reasons to be suspicious of the IPCC conclusions seeing how the head of it is well entangled with business interests which will gain tremendous amounts financially from worldwide Co2 regulation, taxes and research.

This is a fact. We monitor politicians who have conflicts of interests in business, so i dont see why we should suspend that standard of ethics in the case the IPCC and its officials.

nauthiz

2009-Dec-21, 02:53 PM

Thats a ridiculous reading of what i said, all carefully misrepresented by your good self. And what ad hom are you talking about?

And there are plenty of good reasons to be suspicious of the IPCC conclusions seeing how the head of it is well entangled with business interests which will gain tremendous amounts financially from worldwide Co2 regulation, taxes and research.

You just went straight into an ad hominem. It may involve a statement of fact, but there's never been any condition that it must be libelous to be an ad hominem.

I cited the IPCC report primarily because it's one concise location that cites a number of studies that look into the urban heat island effect. Unless there's a lot of pseudonym usage going on these studies were not all conducted by the head of the IPCC, nor were they all reviewed and published by the head of the IPCC.

The urban heat island effect has been known and studied for a very, very long time now. It seems safe to presume that if there were compelling evidence that it is being grossly underestimated, someone should have been able to produce it by now. If a re-analysis of the temperature data like the one you suggested earlier can be made to show anything interesting, then it seems we should have seen one by now. Yet the ones I pointed you toward were met with hand-wavy dismissals which seem to indicate that you have fallen into the thought pattern of "If the studies don't say what I want them to say then that obviously means the studies were wrong."

When I asked for a clearer complaint, you give me criticisms of the IPCC - something that completely misses the point, since neither of the studies in question were conducted by the IPCC; they were done independently by two different agencies and refereed and published separately. Personally I'd add in the somewhat recent collaboration (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf) between Anthony Watts and NOAA as well. The station evaluation methods rather unfortunately make the study unpublishable, but on the other hand it does seem quite doubtful that Mr. Watts is in the pocket of the big green corporate machine, and that certainly counts for something.

As a final comment, here's an ad hominem that I think is worth chewing on: Harping on the urban heat island effect seems to be an activity that is largely confined to the more excitable corners of the blogosphere. The global warming skeptics who publish don't seem to have much interest in the urban heat island effect at all. . . as far as I can tell, their efforts center entirely on trying to find alternative models to explain the data, with clouds being the popular mechanism to focus on lately. There's the odd paper here and there, but overall the AGW skeptics who are working in climate science seem to agree that the temperature record is correct.

Stroller

2009-Dec-21, 04:33 PM

The urban heat island effect has been known and studied for a very, very long time now. It seems safe to presume that if there were compelling evidence that it is being grossly underestimated, someone should have been able to produce it by now.

So what's the explanation for the fact that the trend over the land is twice that over the ocean?

There's the odd paper here and there, but overall the AGW skeptics who are working in climate science seem to agree that the temperature record is correct.
Apart from the ones running satellites? ;)

See William's graph on the previous page on the divergence of surface and satellite over-land measurements over the last 30 years.

I think sceptical scientists working in the field can only fight so many fires at once. They are hardly likely to take on the might of the CRU and GISS in the middle of their paper are they? Anyway, the CRU refuse to release their station lists, and GHCN don't explain their adjustments in any useable detail, so what data does anyone have to work with?

If it's not replicable, it's not science.

nauthiz

2009-Dec-21, 05:40 PM

So what's the explanation for the fact that the trend over the land is twice that over the ocean?

The oceans have a greater heat capacity, and the surface is kept cooler by evaporation.

I thought that one was pretty well-known.

Apart from the ones running satellites? ;)

Take a closer look at that paper you're talking about. The discrepancy they're talking about is interesting and certainly merits closer study, but I see nothing in it to find distressing. If you look at the error ranges on the trends in question you'll see that the overlap is huge. That's not a picture of two different datasets disagreeing with each other. That's a picture of two datasets backing each other up as well as can reasonably be expected by the precision of the equipment, with a footnote indicating that it'd be really great if we could get the precision dialed in some more.

I think sceptical scientists working in the field can only fight so many fires at once.
Yes, and they gave up on fighting that battle a very long time ago and moved on to more fruitful lines of inquiry. The strong indication would seem to be that the horse is dead and it's time to stop beating it.

They are hardly likely to take on the might of the CRU and GISS in the middle of their paper are they? Anyway, the CRU refuse to release their station lists, and GHCN don't explain their adjustments in any useable detail, so what data does anyone have to work with?
That's conspiracy talk, and it's manufacturing something to whine about.

CRU has failed to release a tiny percentage of their data, and if you don't like it then use GHCN's. If you don't like the data that's available on GHCN's website because it doesn't include some information you were expecting, then ask them for it. If you don't want to ask them for it then by all means just use the satellite record in your efforts to show that. . .

. . .oh wait, nevermind, the satellite record shows significant warming too, so I guess that wouldn't get the job done either. Maybe the path of least resistance here is to just give up on trying to prove something that isn't true?

nauthiz

2009-Dec-21, 05:59 PM

Might as well also add - one of the authors of that paper, John Christy, is known for this quote that I think sums up the crux of the issue quite well:

"It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

And if you go to Wikipedia's page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_record) on the satellite temperature record, you can see a somewhat clearer graph that drives home the nature of the discrepancy of the satellite and ground records (though you can also see the same thing in the paper - it's just that this is a graphical representation):

The differences between the trends shown in the satellite and ground temperatures is that one satellite record shows the earth is warming faster, one record shows that it is warming more slowly, and the ground record shows that it is warming at a rate in between the rates indicated by the two satellite records.

(You'll also find in that article that the difference in rate of warming indicated by the surface record and satellite records is well within the level of error in the surface record that the IPCC report I cited earlier indicates may be introduced by the urban heat island effect.)

parejkoj

2009-Dec-21, 06:09 PM

... and GHCN don't explain their adjustments in any useable detail, so what data does anyone have to work with?

If it's not replicable, it's not science.

Have you even tried following my suggestion from this post (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/70431-general-agw-discussion-thread-96.html#post1641025)? Until you do, how do you know that the described adjustments aren't usable?

William

2009-Dec-21, 08:45 PM

More its only weather.

Perhaps this will make North Americans who are digging out of the first of a series of blizzards feel better.

What do you think causes cold weather? Why is this cold weather occurring now?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091221/wl_afp/europestormweather;_ylt=AnxUrXy6VSOWjg5Lnl1CPA6s0N UE;_ylu=X3oDMTNudDM0Yzg0BGFzc2V0A2FmcC8yMDA5MTIyMS 9ldXJvcGVzdG9ybXdlYXRoZXIEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIE Y3BvcwM3BHBvcwM0BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5faGVhZG xpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDYmlnZnJlZXplY2F1

Eurostar train system has been in operation for the last 15 years. What is causing the sudden mechanical problems?

The French transport ministry has ordered an investigation into the breakdown, which Eurostar said has been caused by trains unable to handle the change from freezing temperatures outside to warm temperatures in the tunnel. The breakdown of the Eurostar service under the Channel, linking London with Paris and Brussels, has symbolised Europe's suffering.

After the nightmare of more than 2,000 people stuck in the tunnel when five trains broke down Friday, tens of thousands more people have missed trains cancelled since then.
Heavy snowfall led to more delays and cancellations at Frankfurt and Duesseldorf airports in Germany, where more than 500 flights were cancelled or redirected on Sunday.
Twenty percent of flights out of Paris-Charles de Gaulle were cancelled Monday.

Air traffic was again badly hit as temperatures remained glacial: minus 20 degrees Celsius in Sibiu in Romania, where more than 50 centimetres of snow fell, and minus seven Celsius in Venice, Italy.

Spanish civil aviation authorities said 174 flights from Madrid-Barajas airport were called off. Flights from Lisbon to Madrid were among those hit while main roads in northern Portugal were cut by snow.

Croatian investigators blamed the minus 17 degrees Celsius (1.4 Fahrenheit) temperatures for a brake failure, national television reported. European temperatures as low as minus 33.6 degrees Celsius (minus 28.5 Fahrenheit) have been recorded in Bavaria.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/20/eurostar-canceled-train-s_n_398660.html

Some panicked passengers stayed underground for more than 15 hours without food or water, or any clear idea of what was going on – prompting outrage from travelers and a promise from Eurostar that no passenger train would enter the tunnel until the issue had been identified and fixed.

Eurostar runs services between England, France and Belgium. The company said Sunday it had traced the problem to "acute weather conditions in northern France," which has seen its worst winter weather in years.

nauthiz

2009-Dec-21, 09:39 PM

I think this cold weather is occurring now because it's winter. According to Weather Underground, -7C is the average monthly temperature for December in Venice.

nauthiz

2009-Dec-21, 09:51 PM

Eurostar train system has been in operation for the last 15 years. What is causing the sudden mechanical problems?

I came up with a pretty plausible answer with very little time on Google -

According to a BusinessWeek (http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/europeinsight/archives/2009/12/bad_weather_isn.html) problem, engineers believe it's because unusually fine snow particles were managing to get through the engines' air filters, which allowed condensation to build up and cause short-circuits.

In support of this hypothesis, Eurotunnel pointed out that while this has been a huge problem for Eurostar's trains, it hasn't affected any other trains that operate in the tunnel. They also point out that the British rail service encountered a very similar problem in 1991, and it was fixed by installing better air filters on the trains. Apparently Eurostar using coarser filters, and is already attempting to address the situation by installing finer ones.

Trakar

2009-Dec-21, 09:58 PM

Trakar,
It has been known for sometime that there is an unexplained statistically bias between the satellite temperature measurements the climate center calculated temperature data.

Of course, you meant to say, some have proposed unexplained statistical biases, where confirmed, appropriate adjustments have been applied.the mere assertion of unknown biases because you don't like what the data demonstrates is neither scientific nor acceptable.

You picked 2005 as the global temperature anomaly in that year appeared to be a global increase in planetary temperature.

No, that just happens to be the first graph that responded to my search for siberian data (which Stroller claimed was excluded) in global temperature analyses. If you would prefer additional analyses that contain the Siberian surface station temp data, here are a few:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

http://dss.ucar.edu/md/datasets/ds570.0/detailed.html

The 2008 global temperature anomaly appears to be limited to the Arctic and to Russia. The strongest warming appears to be curiously in Russia. There is no scientific explanation as to why the warming should be strongest in Russia.

It doesn't appear that way to me? As an aside, the 2009 anomaly is much more clearly pronounced and evident in its global scope. 2007 and 2008 were, admittedly, milder anomalies than most of the last decade, but the were still markedly above anything of the previous decade (century, millenia, etc.,). 2009 is well above either 2007 or 2008.

Also note the global temperature anomaly in 2008 was 0.44C not 0.7C which is the number that is repeated in news papers. 2009 was warmer as that is an El Nino year, however, it seems this El Nino is different as North America, Europe, Russia, and China are all experiencing a cold winter.

You are mistaken, N.AM is somewhat cooler this winter, but Europe, Russia and China are all experiencing above normal Fall seasons so far (Winter is just about to begin - so we will revisit it in a couple of months).

Also note that Arctic Ice has increased 2007 over 2008 and 2009 over 2008 which would indicate the Arctic is cooling.

Some year-to-year variance is to be expected, this however does not mean that the arctic ice has returned to its normal state.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8596 (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8596)

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/index.html

As noted the US has shown no significant temperature increase in the period.

Depends largely upon how you define "significant."

2007 was significantly warmer in the US, 2008/2009 much closer to the norm, but considering the depth and strength of the la nina, that in itself is a bit abnormal. If the rest of the globe reflected a similar pattern, I'd think you might have something to stoke a debate, but as the global warmth anomalies have more than compensated for the N.AM temp moderations I just don't see any empirical support for your assertions.

The AWG mechanism should warm the entire planet not just specific areas such as the Arctic and Russia.

The increased energy retention is a global aspect of the AGW phenomena, how that energy retention is expressed in the chaotic multifaceted interactions that manifest themselves as our planetary climate is not a simple progression as it involves complex interactions within a dynamic and fluctuating system.

Trakar

2009-Dec-21, 10:12 PM

The source of the graph I presented is here:
http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf

Your first link seem to be about models based on observations handled in a paper printed in a computer tech journal, whose authors relied on the 2000 IPCC report.

You link to data from a Russian oil and gas consortium with promoted affiliations to noted political extremist and pseudoscientific contrarian groups and expect that its accurate, or would be accepted as legitimate??

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/4/4/045013/erl9_4_045013.html

IOP = Institute of Physics (http://www.iop.org/)

It is an electronic version of their print journal, not a journal of electronics or computer technology.

William

2009-Dec-21, 10:21 PM

I think this cold weather is occurring now because it's winter. According to Weather Underground, -7C is the average monthly temperature for December in Venice.

http://weather.uk.msn.com/daily_averages.aspx?wealocations=wc:ITXX0085&q=Venice%2c+ITA+forecast:averagesd&weai=12

The average temperature for Venice Italy in the December is around 4C not -7C.

The average low is for December is 1C to 2C.

Something must change for a region to set record cold temperatures.

Torsten

2009-Dec-21, 10:43 PM

Some year-to-year variance is to be expected, this however does not mean that the arctic ice has returned to its normal state.

Yes, we've tended to focus on the end-of-summer value for extent, and I think that's a useful value for comparing trends, even though it says nothing of volume. But this year's slow freeze-up resulted in new lows for anomalies during the second week of November. Based on data downloaded from IJIS (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm#top) as of December 19, the average daily AMSR-E extent for the calendar year-to-date is lower in 2009 than in 2008. (10,376,071 km2 this year vs 10,397,627 km2 last year, in case anyone cares to check.)

(I note these things because William is quick to point out short-term fluctuations when they superficially support his view.)

nauthiz

2009-Dec-21, 10:46 PM

You got me there William; I was looking in the wrong column on wunderground's table. I was accidentally looking at the lowest monthly average on record rather than the average monthly average.

That said, even with it being the lowest monthly average that would imply that -7C isn't some sort of freak weather that melts the brains of climatologists. Judging from the way the rest of the month has gone so far this year, they'll have to hustle to get quite a few more days that are colder than that if they want it to be a record-cold december.

William

2009-Dec-21, 10:47 PM

Of course, you meant to say, some have proposed unexplained statistical biases, where confirmed, appropriate adjustments have been applied.the mere assertion of unknown biases because you don't like what the data demonstrates is neither scientific nor acceptable.

The increased energy retention is a global aspect of the AGW phenomena, how that energy retention is expressed in the chaotic multifaceted interactions that manifest themselves as our planetary climate is not a simple progression as it involves complex interactions within a dynamic and fluctuating system.

Trakar,

Scientific discussion is based on data and logic.

I presented this paper that showed there is an unexplained difference between satellite measurements of planetary temperature and the climate centres' calculated planetary temperatures.

The satellite temperature data shows less warming than the climate center temperature. The climate center temperature data we find was been mathematically processed. There is not a random difference. The climate center data show more warming than the satellite data. In addition certain specific regions of the planet show more warming than others.

http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-345.pdf

This paper investigates surface and satellite temperature trends over the period from 1979-2008. Surface temperature datasets from the National Climate Data Center and the Hadley Center show larger trends over the 30-year period than the lower-tropospheric data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems datasets. The differences between trends observed in the surface and lower tropospheric satellite datasets are statistically significant in most comparisons, with much greater differences over land areas than over ocean areas. These findings strongly suggest that there remain important inconsistencies between surface and satellite records.

As has been noted the first 150m ocean temperature changes does not match the amount of planetary temperature warming alleged to have taken place. There is an energy balance problem.

Now as I showed the GISS planetary temperature anomalies shows this peculiar warming in Russia.

AWG should warm the entire planet not preferentially Russia. I show the US long term temperature data which is the most accurate long term temperature record in the world (for a large area). It shows almost no long term warming.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=10&year=2009&month=10&ext=gif&id=110-00

Now the the tricky Russians are complaining their temperature data is being cherry picked.

Is there logic to support the Russian assertion?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif

nauthiz

2009-Dec-21, 10:50 PM

The satellite temperature data shows less warming than the climate center temperature.

Like I said earlier today, that depends on which satellite data you're looking at. One shows more warming than the surface temperature record, one shows less warming than the surface temperature record. If you take the precision into account, all three have error ranges that overlap quite deeply.

This is not a discrepancy that needs to be explained by anything more than the fact that the records are neither advertised to be nor expected to be 100% precise.

"The differences between trends observed in the surface and lower tropospheric satellite datasets are statistically significant in most comparisons, with much greater differences over land areas than over ocean areas. These findings strongly suggest that there remain important inconsistencies between surface and satellite records." is simply confirming something that was expected to be the case all along.

Trakar

2009-Dec-21, 10:57 PM

http://weather.uk.msn.com/daily_averages.aspx?wealocations=wc:ITXX0085&q=Venice%2c+ITA+forecast:averagesd&weai=12

The average temperature for Venice Italy in the December is around 4C not -7C.

The average low is for December is 1C to 2C.

Something must change for a region to set record cold temperatures.

The typical explanation for such is a shift in wind patterns, this is a particular feature of shifting climate patterns. As the jet stream is shut out of the arctic zones and shifted into new flow patterns it is quite possible that we are witnessing a new seasonal pattern in the making,...or it may simply have been a confluence of more temporary and largely random events which happen to have transpired in such a manner as to produce an unusually extreme local fluctuation in temperatures.

Btw- it is perfectly consistent and normal to be within the normal monthly low average and still experience one or several below *average* low temps, as average low is the result of all the lows added together and divided by the total. From what I can see, the lowest temp on record for Venice is 14F or -10C.
http://www.myforecast.com/bin/climate.m?city=67449&metric=false

and the average low is between 0-1C (0.5555556 degree Celsius by my calcs)

Trakar

2009-Dec-21, 11:56 PM

Trakar,

Scientific discussion is based on data and logic.

Astute and timely recognition, cudos!

I presented this paper that showed there is an unexplained difference between satellite measurements of planetary temperature and the climate centres' calculated planetary temperatures.

You offered a paper that purports to have discovered an anomalous and unaccounted for discrepancy. Until this paper, its data, analyses and methodologies have been thoroughly vetted and gone over by the appropriate field professionals, it remains but an interesting proposal.

The satellite temperature data shows less warming than the climate center temperature. The climate center temperature data we find was been mathematically processed. There is not a random difference. The climate center data show more warming than the satellite data. In addition certain specific regions of the planet show more warming than others.

http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-345.pdf

All of this has yet to be verified or checked, but presuming that the findings are as you assert them to be and valid, at the worst, they would suggest some additional adjustment of the satellite data to bring the readings into accord with the empirically observable surface data. Uneven warming is be expected and a part of CO2 driven climate change.

As has been noted the first 150m ocean temperature changes does not match the amount of planetary temperature warming alleged to have taken place. There is an energy balance problem.

You mean as you have repeatedly asserted and as has been repeatedly refuted by the scientific data?

Now as I showed the GISS planetary temperature anomalies shows this peculiar warming in Russia.

Stroller was the one claiming siberian cooling was being kept out of the official climate records, argue your against the mainstream theories against his against the mainstream theories if you wish, but this really isn't the place for such,...IMO.

AWG should warm the entire planet not preferentially Russia.

This is your opinion, not what the *AGW* anthropogenic generated CO2 forced climate change theories and models predict. The models employed by mainstream climate scientists predict that the polar regions and high latitudes will experience much more dramatic and intense warming from relatively small global average temperature increases (oh and a consequence of this averaging process means that some places on the globe are actually going to experience cool spells and dips).

I show the US long term temperature data which is the most accurate long term temperature record in the world (for a large area). It shows almost no long term warming.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=10&year=2009&month=10&ext=gif&id=110-00

How come the graph I get from NOAA looks so much different from the graph you present obstinsibly from the same source covering the same data?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=ann/timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=01&year=2009&month=12&ext=gif&id=110-00

Now the the tricky Russians are complaining their temperature data is being cherry picked.

Cite or reference?

Is there logic to support the Russian assertion?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif

2008, in the contiguous US, was a cooler, more average (wrt the long-term average) year, but this does not reflect its global temp average

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

The logic is lacking.

buzgz

2009-Dec-22, 12:06 AM

I may be able to cast further light on your comments.

Beck's co2 analysis would seem to bear out a higher level in the mid-late C19th. This was coincident with high sea surface temperatures according to Hadley. Solar activity was also high during this period.

The bit I don't get is this; If trees enjoyed anomalous growth due to raised co2 levels in that period, how come they didn't do the same after 1960, such That Mann and Jones had to use "Mike's Nature trick to hide the decline."?

It seems likely that there are confounding variables affecting tree growth which haven't been accounted for by Crowley or MBH, or by Jones, Briffa and the CRU. We are assured that this 'divergence problem' is well known and has been extensively treated in the literature, but I haven't seen any specific links to papers on this issue put forward as the best explanation as yet.

As for whether it is better to leave it in or take it out, it seems obvious to me that the only scientifically honest thing to do is leave it in and draw attention to it as something which is a problem yet to be resolved.

Otherwise, people might get the wrong impression that tree rings are highly reliable and trustworthy temperature proxies.

First off, it wasn't all trees that Mann conjectured to have anomalous growth(AG) with increased CO2. According to him, the trees with AG were those at high altitudes that were also starved for water and then were exposed to higher levels of CO2. So, he eliminated only the trees in the western U.S., those which showed higher proxy temperatures in the late 18th century.

This way he was able to keep in his study trees in the "North American northern treeline(NT)" which apparently showed no additional growth during this period.

He referenced an article by Graybill and Idso (which I haven't yet located) as justification for this treatment.

But, Crowley found the same AG in the two records for east and west China during the same late 18th century period that apparently had nothing to do with water starvation. He also found the same pattern at 3 other sites. So, Crowley concluded that the temperature had indeed risen in the late 18th century.

Now, if Mann had shown the temperature rise during that period, the HS graph would have been different and the AGW argument weaker.

It makes me wonder what the truth really is, but there is no denying that the records in the eastern and western parts of North America for the period were different.

Trakar

2009-Dec-22, 12:07 AM

For ease of comparison here are the two graphs first the one from William:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=10&year=2009&month=10&ext=gif&id=110-00

And here is the one I found:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=ann/timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=01&year=2009&month=12&ext=gif&id=110-00

both seem to be from the same source and yet display the data in visually distinct ways.

AHHH! now I see, William's graph only looks at October temps from every year in the record, whereas my data covers the entire year. seems rather deceptive, I wonder how long it took to find a graph like the one he presented as representing the overall temps in modern history.

William

2009-Dec-22, 02:04 AM

For ease of comparison here are the two graphs first the one from William:

both seem to be from the same source and yet display the data in visually distinct ways.

AHHH! now I see, William's graph only looks at October temps from every year in the record, whereas my data covers the entire year. seems rather deceptive, I wonder how long it took to find a graph like the one he presented as representing the overall temps in modern history.

Trakar,

I copied the link from your quote. There is no label on the graph that stated it was only October data.

William

2009-Dec-22, 02:59 AM

Astute and timely recognition, cudos!

Trakar,

You must have made a mistake. The GISS graph you provided a link to only for the anomaly for the month of November, 2009.

If you look at the GISS anomaly data (each year, not just 2009, showing where the warming took place) most of the warming is at high northern latitudes.

i.e. The global warming is not global warming but rather warming at specific latitude locations.

The GCR and solar wind burst cloud modulation mechanisms are latitude specific and can hence explain latitude specific warming.

The AWG mechanism is not latitude specific however the most warming should take place over the hottest locations. (i.e. There should be more warming at lower latitude locations.) That is not what is observed.

The GCR modulation by solar heliosphere change has the greatest affect at higher latitudes. (The solar wind bursts affects both high and low latitudes., however the affect is greatest at higher latitudes. The GCR modulation mechanism is greatest at higher latitudes due to how the geomagnetic field deflects GCR. The solar wind bursts create a space charge in the ionosphere which in turn creates a potential difference from the poles to the equator which removes cloud forming ions. The ocean surface warming and cooling tracks the solar wind burst mechanism.)

The affects of an increase in low level clouds differs from high Latitudes over the ocean and the Antarctic.

The albedo of the Antarctic ice sheet is greater than low level clouds (clouds warm due to the greenhouse affect and cool due to reflecting sunlight back up into space) so an increase in cloud cover over the Antarctic causes warming. That phenomena is called the Polar see-saw. (The Antarctic has cyclically cools when the Greenland Icesheet warms and visa versa.)

The Antarctic ice sheet is isolated from the surrounding ocean by the Southern Polar vortex. The Greenland Icesheet is not isolated from the surrounding ocean.

During the 20th century "global warming" the Antarctic ice sheet cooled while the Northern Latitudes warmed.

The AWG mechanism does not explain this graph.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=ann/timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=01&year=2009&month=12&ext=gif&id=110-00

As others have noted there is almost no warming until 1980.

CO2 was however increasing pre 1980 and the CO2 mechanism is logarithmic so the first increase has the greatest affect.

The US data is best even though it is has an urban contamination as it direct measurements.

As only a small portion of the global has weather station measured temperature the GISS global anomaly is a mathematical calculation. A mathematical calculation makes it possible if the objective is to create a significant positive anomaly to do so.

One indication that there is an error in the GISS calculation is that the warming does not show up on in the satellite data.

I can if you are interested provide a link to the paper that shows the first 150 m of the ocean has stopped warming post 2000 and has cooled slightly based on data up to the end of 2008.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=ann/timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=01&year=2009&month=12&ext=gif&id=110-00

Based on the observations it appears a significant amount of the 20th century warming has due to solar wind bursts which removed cloud forming ions via the process called electroscavenging. The temperature increases and decreases track the geomagnetic disturbance parameter Ak which in turn tracks solar wind bursts.

If that assertion is correct the planet will now cool as the solar wind bursts have stopped and GCR is very high.

One indication that the planet is cooling is formation of very strong cold high pressure systems. These high pressure systems move south and create blizzards, ice storms, and high snow fall when they meet warm low pressure systems.

BrentArsement

2009-Dec-22, 03:46 AM

nauthiz

2009-Dec-22, 04:15 AM

Trakar,

I copied the link from your quote. There is no label on the graph that stated it was only October data.

It's right in the title:

National (Contiguous U.S.) Temperature
October, 1895-2009

EricFD

2009-Dec-22, 04:20 AM

To satisfy myself and also to resolve this dispute between Traker and William, I am posting the context (i.e. the NOAA Web page from which Trakar obtained his graph). If you scroll down the page you will see that the graph and accompanying text corroborates Trakar's position in this matter. Trakar is quite correct!

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

Eric

parejkoj

2009-Dec-22, 04:42 AM

nauthiz

2009-Dec-22, 04:46 AM

For those that believe AGW, what do you predict will happen to Earth's climate in 50-100 years. I will ask a few bullet questions to help guide an answer.

1. Are polar caps going to melt completely year round; freeze only in the winter; refreeze thousands of years in the future?
2. Will all glaciers melt and never freeze again until our climate changes again; freeze only in the winter?
3. No more freezing temperatures in the winter in most places; only at specific altitudes/latitudes?
4. Terminal heat for flora/fauna at some altitudes/latitudes?
5. Catastrophic drought at some altitudes/latitudes?

None of the above. Some of the projections for the next century are:

- Wet and high-latitude regions get wetter, on the order of 25%. Dry and tropical areas are expected to get drier. This would somewhat increase the frequency of both drought and flooding.

- If warming is only a couple of degrees then overall agricultural productivity may increase for countries in temperate climates that have strong infrastructures because of longer growing seasons. However, that would come at the cost of increased exposure to famine risk in poor and developing nations. In more tropical parts of Africa, for example, food production is expected to decrease by up to 50% over just the next decade.

- If it's more than a few degrees then agricultural productivity is expected to decrease across the board due to local ecosystems not being able to adapt to the changes quickly enough.

- Rises in sea level due to thermal expansion would be disruptive for coastal regions.

If you want the nitty-gritty details on possible scenarios, there's all sorts of information in the working group II report (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg2_rep ort_impacts_adaptation_and_vulnerability.htm).

Torsten

2009-Dec-22, 05:01 AM

If you look at the GISS anomaly data (each year, not just 2009, showing where the warming took place) most of the warming is at high northern latitudes.

i.e. The global warming is not global warming but rather warming at specific latitude locations.

So, when the whole range of locations is included, the average temperature for the globe is higher, hence "global".

The AWG (sic) mechanism is not latitude specific however the most warming should take place over the hottest locations. (i.e. There should be more warming at lower latitude locations.)

Where did you get this idea?

From page 3 of Hansen's 1988 statement to the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:

"However, the climate model simulations indicate that certain gross characteristics of the greenhouse warming should begin to appear soon, for example, somewhat greater warming at high latitudes than at low latitudes, greater warming over continents than over oceans, and cooling in the stratosphere while the troposphere warms."

BrentArsement

2009-Dec-22, 05:32 AM

Thank you gentlemen. I see I have some reading to do.

William

2009-Dec-22, 06:45 AM

So, when the whole range of locations is included, the average temperature for the globe is higher, hence "global".

Where did you get this idea?

The current paper war concerns warming of the tropical troposphere where there should be the most warming and where there is not.

What mechanism reason (logical reason) is provided for the high latitude warming in Hansen's 1988 statement to the Senate?

Let's guess. There was warming at high latitudes then.

You should read the other sides papers and think about the logic of what is observed. The are multiple fundamental observations that are inconsistent with the AGW hypotheses.

The cooling of the upper atmosphere would also be consistent with a reduction in planetary clouds. (i.e. Less reflected energy into space which has a chance to warm the upper atmosphere when it passes through it a second time.)

The detailed analysis of the trends in atmospheric temperature at different altitudes in the atmosphere does not agree with the General Climate Models' predictions.

If a significant portion of the 20th century warming was due to a change in planetary clouds due to the two solar forcing mechanisms (solar wind bursts which cause a space charge in ionosphere which via electroscavenging removes cloud forming ions & solar heliosphere changes which modulation the intensity and the magnitude of the GCR the strike the planet) then the planet should start to cool as solar wind bursts have dropped and the GCR is continuing increase.

Comment:
The GCR creates MUONs which create multiple ions in the atmosphere. The ion mediated nucleation mechanism can re-use the same ion. The gentleman that published a paper in which he theoretical proved that the GCR mechanism cannot work and the Realclimate article on this subject incorrectly stated the mechanism. Of course there is 25 years of satellite data that supports the mechanism.

As I have stated before high GCR decreases high altitude clouds and increase low altitude clouds. High altitude clouds warm the planet and low altitude clouds cool the planet.

Whether the cloud was a net warming or cooling depends on the relative albedo of the cloud compared to greenhouse component of the frozen water vapour. The high altitude wispy clouds warm the planet. The low altitude thicker clouds cool the planet.

I am confident in the mechanism as I have looked at the paleoclimatic data, analysis, and textbooks. There is a massive forcing function that can switch on and off.

The cloud modulation mechanism is the mechanism as there are massive concurrent cosmogenic isotope changes when the cyclic abrupt cooling events occur. At first a solar forcing function was ruled out as TSI cannot change by that amount.

Trakar

2009-Dec-22, 07:27 AM

Trakar,

I copied the link from your quote. There is no label on the graph that stated it was only October data.

look at the two graphs!

The graph I present above links annual data not November data.
The graph you presented looks only at the October data, as labelled on the graphs and as represented at the described image links.

If you were linking your now adjusted image originally, your adjoining descriptor sentence wouldn't have made any sense.

"I show the US long term temperature data which is the most accurate long term temperature record in the world (for a large area). It shows almost no long term warming.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=10&year=2009&month=10&ext=gif&id=110-00"

My link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=ann/timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=01&year=2009&month=12&ext=gif&id=110-00

you'll note in your link that it demonstrates only the october (month 10) comparison, in my link the similar search/construction parameter specifies January (month=01) through December (month=12), signifying that your graph only represents and compares each the Octobers of the given years stretch, while mine represents a comparison of the full years' annual averages.

There seems to be empirical evidence for significant annual increase in N. America over the last 100 years, the last 50 years, the last 30 years, and over the last 10 years from what I can tell. You might have a point if you carefully pick a point that starts in late 2006 and extends only through late mid to late 2008, but then, you'd have to have a pretty good reason for picking such a limited time frame (1.5-2 years in isolation ) and how/why such an arbitrary period is significant of any greater and unevidenced climate event. I've seen nothing that approaches such, so far.

Jetlack

2009-Dec-22, 08:44 AM

You just went straight into an ad hominem. It may involve a statement of fact, but there's never been any condition that it must be libelous to be an ad hominem.

I cited the IPCC report primarily because it's one concise location that cites a number of studies that look into the urban heat island effect. Unless there's a lot of pseudonym usage going on these studies were not all conducted by the head of the IPCC, nor were they all reviewed and published by the head of the IPCC.

The urban heat island effect has been known and studied for a very, very long time now. It seems safe to presume that if there were compelling evidence that it is being grossly underestimated, someone should have been able to produce it by now. If a re-analysis of the temperature data like the one you suggested earlier can be made to show anything interesting, then it seems we should have seen one by now. Yet the ones I pointed you toward were met with hand-wavy dismissals which seem to indicate that you have fallen into the thought pattern of "If the studies don't say what I want them to say then that obviously means the studies were wrong."

When I asked for a clearer complaint, you give me criticisms of the IPCC - something that completely misses the point, since neither of the studies in question were conducted by the IPCC; they were done independently by two different agencies and refereed and published separately. Personally I'd add in the somewhat recent collaboration (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf) between Anthony Watts and NOAA as well. The station evaluation methods rather unfortunately make the study unpublishable, but on the other hand it does seem quite doubtful that Mr. Watts is in the pocket of the big green corporate machine, and that certainly counts for something.

As a final comment, here's an ad hominem that I think is worth chewing on: Harping on the urban heat island effect seems to be an activity that is largely confined to the more excitable corners of the blogosphere. The global warming skeptics who publish don't seem to have much interest in the urban heat island effect at all. . . as far as I can tell, their efforts center entirely on trying to find alternative models to explain the data, with clouds being the popular mechanism to focus on lately. There's the odd paper here and there, but overall the AGW skeptics who are working in climate science seem to agree that the temperature record is correct.

Excuse me but stating my distrust of the UN IPCC is not an ad hom. Obviously you feel defensive about the IPCC and thats your problem.

tusenfem

2009-Dec-22, 12:15 PM

nauthiz[/B]]
You just went straight into an ad hominem. It may involve a statement of fact, but there's never been any condition that it must be libelous to be an ad hominem.

Excuse me but stating my distrust of the UN IPCC is not an ad hom. Obviously you feel defensive about the IPCC and thats your problem.

Okay that is ENOUGH AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can't you kids discuss in a normal manner? I don't care anymore, who starts what or why. Next fight all participants get major infractions.

William

2009-Dec-22, 02:42 PM

look at the two graphs!

The graph I present above links annual data not November data.
The graph you presented looks only at the October data, as labelled on the graphs and as represented at the described image links.

Trakar,

We are in agreement this is the graph of US yearly average temperatures. Let's discuss the data.

The US average temperature looks normal up until around 1994 at which time there is warming.

I am asserting that the warming has stopped and the planet is about to cool. How could the planet possibly cool?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=ann/timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=01&year=2009&month=12&ext=gif&id=110-00

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=ann/timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=01&year=2009&month=12&ext=gif&id=110-00

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/ocean-heat-content.gif

As I said the ocean has stopped warming. The oceans cooled in the 1970's. Why? CO2 has increasing then. The ocean temperature changes track planetary cloud changes.

The ocean warming post 1994 coincides with an increase in solar wind bursts. Post 1994 there is a large reduction in planetary cloud cover and a reduction in planetary albedo.

If the assertion that planetary cloud cover was reduced post 1994 then a significant amount of the 20th century warming has not caused by C02 increases.

Now as the solar wind bursts have abated and GCR is at the highest levels in 50 years, cloud cover should increase and the planet should cool.

Is there any indication that winter of 2009/2010 is different than previous El Nino years? Yes.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/ocean-heat-content.gif

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/sea-level-rise.gif

Now this graph which shows Northern Hemisphere snow cover appears to not have been updated to show 2008 Northern Hemisphere snow cover which was a record.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/snow-cover-extent.gif

It appears the 2009 Northern Hemisphere snow cover will break the 2008 record. Large areas of North America, Europe, and Asia are now covered with snow.

Regions have received an entire years snow fall in a few weeks.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/snow-cover-extent.gif

The early part of the sea level graph shows that the sea level is rising during periods when the planet was cooling.

There are papers that show there is a lack of mass balance (i.e. Comparing the ice sheet mass change or lack of change and sea level changes.) The sea level rise is being driven by something else besides ice sheets melting.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/sea-level-rise.gif

William

2009-Dec-22, 03:14 PM

Torsten

2009-Dec-22, 05:01 PM

For those that are interested this a more detailed graph of the satellite sea level determination.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.pdf

The sea level rise has abated starting around 2004.

So now you say it has "abated". Well, that's an improvement over saying it has "stopped". You were shown on page 83 (http://www.bautforum.com/1632346-post2463.html) of this thread a chart, linked again below, that shows the trendline for the entire period of satellite monitoring, as well as several shorter period trends.

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/TOPEX-Jason_for_William.png

As I explained in the post I linked above, I downloaded those data, reproduced their 60-day running average, the trend for the whole period, and then ran some simple linear trends for the short periods represented by the yellow and cyan lines. Both of the upper short trendlines actually start after 2004 in order to bias the trend downward. Get it? I was trying to bias the result in favour of your idea and could not get a flat or negative slope. Note the similar flat slope of the yellow line between late 1997 and mid 2000. Things like that happen.

I have some work to do today. I'll respond to some of your other posts later if I have time.

lomiller1

2009-Dec-22, 06:30 PM

As I said the ocean has stopped warming. The oceans cooled in the 1970's.

No to both. There was some anomalous behaviors in ocean heat content around that time but the source has been traced to instrumentation error. When this is corrected for the effect you are referring to disappears.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html

behind a paywall but realclimate has some plots of the revised data here

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/ocean-heat-content-revisions/

William

2009-Dec-22, 07:51 PM

No to both. There was some anomalous behaviors in ocean heat content around that time but the source has been traced to instrumentation error. When this is corrected for the effect you are referring to disappears.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html

behind a paywall but realclimate has some plots of the revised data here

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/ocean-heat-content-revisions/

Lomiller,

This paper only uses data up to 1961-2003. What we need is a paper that looks at the period 2002 to 2009. The satellite data shows almost no rise for that period.

Also the paper's finding is that sea level rise is 1.5 mm/year not 3.2 mm/year.

Planetary temperature data does not correlate with the sea level rise. The sea level was rising when the planet was cooling. Something else besides planetary temperature change appears to be driving the sea level change.

Our ocean warming and thermal expansion trends for 1961–2003 are about 50 per cent larger than earlier estimates but about 40 per cent smaller for 1993–2003, which is consistent with the recognition that previously estimated rates for the 1990s had a positive bias as a result of instrumental errors 8, 9, 10.

On average, the decadal variability of the climate models with volcanic forcing now agrees approximately with the observations, but the modelled multi-decadal trends are smaller than observed. We add our observational estimate of upper-ocean thermal expansion to other contributions to sea-level rise and find that the sum of contributions from 1961 to 2003 is about 1.5 +/- 0.4 mm yr-1, in good agreement with our updated estimate of near-global mean sea-level rise (using techniques established in earlier studies6, 7) of 1.6 plus/minus 0.2 mm yr-1.

William

2009-Dec-22, 08:12 PM

There are multiple problems with the ocean data from the perspective of the AGW hypothesis.

CO2 has been increasing almost linearly year by year yet the ocean temperature rise waits until 1994. There is then two step changes in ocean temperatures. Why?

The ocean temperature warming stops in 2003. Why?

We are talking about two different but important issues.

1) Sea level rise which does not correlate with planetary temperature change or with mass balance. (Compare the change in planetary temperature long term and short term to this graph. Note that sea level post 2006 has stopped rising.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/sea-level-rise.gif

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.pdf

2) Ocean temperature change which does not make sense with the AGW hypothesis. i.e. Increased CO2 causes the planet to warm 24/7 after the initial CO2 rise. The CO2 forcing mechanism is logarithmic with each subsequent increase in CO2 having less affect on planetary temperature. (i.e. The CO2 affect saturates.) The ocean temperature first 150 m stopped warming in 2003.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/ocean-heat-content.gif

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/ocean-heat-content.gif

lomiller1

2009-Dec-22, 08:35 PM

Correct, the 3mm/year sea level rises being observed are for the more recent period and seem to be driven by increased melt rates rather then a rise in ocean heat content.

lomiller1

2009-Dec-22, 08:37 PM

The ocean temperature warming stops in 2003.

I see nothing out of the ordinary after 2003. It looks like more of the same bumpy upward trend of the last 40 years to me.

Stroller

2009-Dec-22, 09:22 PM

Where does the splice between XBT and ARGO data occur on the above graphs of ocean heat content?

buzgz

2009-Dec-22, 11:17 PM

The thing that I find most depressing about the entire AGW question, and climate science in general, is the gatekeeping of the peer review process that has apparently occurred. How can anyone truly trust any of this science ?

I have casually checked one Mann paper, MBH99, and I have reservations as I have stated in the last two days.

I'm at the point where I believe the earth is warming, has been since the LIA, and beyond that I trust little.

And I am disappointed in the lack of regard for these issues expressed here and on the E-mails thread. Is what I have seen in "climategate" representative of how science is done now? It sure wasn't that way back in the day when I was publishing papers.

Where is the outrage ?

William

2009-Dec-23, 04:27 AM

I see nothing out of the ordinary after 2003. It looks like more of the same bumpy upward trend of the last 40 years to me.

http://argo3000.blogspot.com/2008/08/how-much-have-ocean-temperatures.html

For the period since Argo achieved global coverage, 2004-2008, there is no significant trend in the globally averaged temperature. There is considerable regional and depth-variability over this time period, but the global mean temperature is approximately constant. Given the 50-year temperature record, a 4-year period of constant temperature is not particularly unusual, and should not be taken to indicate any change in the multi-decadal warming trend.

It will of course be of great interest to see how the Argo temperature record of the next 5-10 years compares to both the historical 50-year record and to the present Argo 4-year record. The Argo team will continue to make every effort to maintain the global Argo array and to provide data of highest possible quality.

I believe the Argo system was brought on line 2002-2003. The step change in ocean temperature appears to be as Stroller noted to be due to a change in ocean temperature measurement systems.

The previous ocean temperature system was adjusted down to correct or to make the ocean level problem go away.

A note in the Wikipedia Argo article states that there is currently an unexplained unbalance in the thermal budget.

lomiller1

2009-Dec-23, 05:39 AM

Stroller

2009-Dec-23, 07:07 AM

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nasa-shows-quiet-sun-means-cooling-of-earths-upper-atmosphere-79432252.html
NASA Shows Quiet Sun Means Cooling of Earth's Upper Atmosphere

The extent of current solar minimum conditions has created a unique situation for recent SABER datasets. The end of solar cycle 23 has offered an opportunity to study the radiative cooling in the thermosphere under exceptionally quiescent conditions.

"The Sun is in a very unusual period," said Marty Mlynczak, SABER associate principal investigator and senior research scientist at NASA Langley. "The Earth's thermosphere is responding remarkably -- up to an order of magnitude decrease in infrared emission/radiative cooling by some molecules."

The TIMED measurements show a decrease in the amount of ultraviolet radiation emitted by the Sun. In addition, the amount of infrared radiation emitted from the upper atmosphere by nitric oxide molecules has decreased by nearly a factor of 10 since early 2002.

I would suggest this puts a coach and four through the contention that a cooling stratosphere is all down to co2 trapping more heat in Earth's atmosphere.

Time for a big reassessment of the sun's role in climate change.

Stroller

2009-Dec-23, 07:16 AM

"ocean cooling" turned out to be bad data

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/

yes a small discrepancy remains but there isn nothing in the recent trend to overturn the longer term trend.

This is an old chestnut. Josh Willis told on online magazine that even after the corrections to the ARGO data, there had been a slight cooling since 2003. I suspect his employers asked him to avoid saying that, as his following article on the official NASA website was much more carefully worded.

The Ocean Heat Content data from the individual basins tells another story, and is worth a look for anyone interested in climate. The oceans have as much thermal heat capacity in the top 2.5m as the entire atmosphere above.

The Atlantic has been losing heat content quite sharply since 2005
http://i36.tinypic.com/ddkeas.png

Stroller

2009-Dec-23, 08:08 AM

Hadley MET have bowed to public pressure and released a subset of the 'value added' station data and couple of PERL scripts which can be used to grid and process it.

Ace programmer John Graham-Cumming takes a preliminary look here:
http://www.jgc.org/blog/2009/12/met-office-source-code.html

Torsten

2009-Dec-23, 08:36 AM

The current paper war concerns warming of the tropical troposphere where there should be the most warming and where there is not.

What mechanism reason (logical reason) is provided for the high latitude warming in Hansen's 1988 statement to the Senate?

Let's guess. There was warming at high latitudes then.

Instead of guessing, try looking for the right answer. It was figured out long before 1988:

STUDIES IN GEOPHYSICS, Energy and Climate
Geophysics Study Committee, Geophysics Research Board
Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences
National Research Council, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Washington, D.C., 1977
You can download this old book here (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12024), or start reading it online here (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12024&page=R1). On page 73 you'll find:

"Recently, Manabe and Wetherald (1975) have developed a three-dimensional model that takes into account both vertical and horizontal atmospheric motions. [snip] The temperature rise is most evident in polar latitudes (see Figure 9.2 of Chapter 9) as a result of decreased snow cover and suppressed vertical air motion. This positive feedback explains in large part why a higher temperature rise is predicted than by their one-dimensional model."

Or from the abstract (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1980/JC085iC10p05529.shtml) to a subsequent paper by Manabe and Stouffer (1980):

"It is found that the warming of the model atmosphere resulting from the CO2 increase has significant seasonal and latitudinal variation. Because of the absence of an albedo feedback mechanism, the warming over the Antarctic continent is somewhat less than the warming in high latitudes of the northern hemisphere. Over the Arctic Ocean and its surroundings, the warming is much larger in winter than summer, thereby reducing the amplitude of seasonal temperature variation. It is concluded that this seasonal asymmetry in the warming results from the reduction in the coverage and thickness of the sea ice."

The above paper apparently also noted (not in the abstract) that increases in well mixed greenhouse gases cause warming of the tropical troposphere relative to the surface. But I don't think the suggestion is that tropical tropospheric temperatures rise faster than higher latitude tropospheric temperatures.

You should read the other sides papers and think about the logic of what is observed. The are multiple fundamental observations that are inconsistent with the AGW hypotheses.

I'm quite sure after reading hundreds of your posts and the rebuttals by others that you do not know what is or is not consistent with theory.

Jetlack

2009-Dec-23, 08:56 AM

Another sceptical peer-reviewed paper, this one looking at CFCs and cosmic rays:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVP-4XVC4M5-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f16d0fd89651f3da2143b7aa4c85445c

William

2009-Dec-23, 04:34 PM

Instead of guessing, try looking for the right answer.

I'm quite sure after reading hundreds of your posts and the rebuttals by others that you do not know what is or is not consistent with theory.

Torsten,

To have a scientific discussion it is necessary to understand the completing hypotheses and what they predict.

A scientific discussion is not an argument where each person picks a side and tries to convince the other that they are correct.

In science there is truth. Ultimately in the case of this problem, the correct answers will be found.

1) The General Climate Models show that CO2 and the other greenhouse gases should show the most warming in the troposphere at tropical latitudes. The planet's surface should show less warming.

Comment:
a) The reason for this statement is the greenhouse mechanism for CO2 is saturated in the lower atmosphere. CO2 only absorbs specific frequencies. There is sufficient CO2 in the lower atmosphere to reach saturation. This comment is not controversial. The increased warming due to more CO2 must come from the mid troposphere which must warm more than the planet's surface. The reflected radiation from a warmer mid troposphere (due to the increased CO2 in this region) must then warm the planet's surface.

b) The CO2 warming mechanism theoretically is strongest where there is the most energy, which is in the tropics. The General Climate Models all show that the greatest amount of warming due to increased CO2 should be in the mid troposphere over the tropics.

2) Detailed analysis appears to show that the tropical troposphere has not warmed as predicted by the General Climate Models.

3) The finding that the tropical troposphere has not warmed as predicted by the General Climate Models supports the assertion that that a significant portion of the 20th century planet warming was caused by changes in planetary cloud cover rather than AGW.

4) The cloud cover modulation mechanisms are strongly latitude depend. The largest amount of warming has been in the Arctic not in the tropics.

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Published%20JOC1651.pdf

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions

We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

A panel convened by the National Research Council (2000) found for the satellite era (since 1979) ‘[a]pparently conflicting surface and tropospheric temperature trends’ that could not be reconciled, with the Earth’s surface warming faster than the lower troposphere. The panel concluded, after considering possible systematic errors that ‘[a] substantial disparity remains.’ From a study of several independent observational datasets Douglass et al. (2004b) confirmed that the disparity was real and arose mostly in the tropical zone. Also, Douglass et al. (2004a) showed that three state-of-the-art General Circulation Models (GCMs) predicted a temperature trend that increased with altitude, reaching a maximum ratio to the surface trend (‘amplification’ factor R) as much as 1.5–2.0 at a pressure (altitude) about 200–400 hPa. This was in disagreement with observations, which showed flat or decreasing amplification factors with altitude.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2656

A debate exists over whether tropical troposphere temperature trends in climate models are inconsistent with observations (Karl et al. 2006, IPCC (2007), Douglass et al 2007, Santer et al 2008). Most recently, Santer et al (2008, herein S08) asserted that the Douglass et al statistical methodology was flawed and that a correct methodology showed there is no statistically significant difference between the model ensemble mean trend and either RSS or UAH satellite observations. However this result was based on data ending in 1999. Using data up to the end of 2007 (as available to S08) or to the end of 2008 and applying exactly the same methodology as S08 results in a statistically significant difference between the ensemble mean trend and UAH observations and approaching statistical significance for the RSS T2 data. The claim by S08 to have achieved a “partial resolution” of the discrepancy between observations and the model ensemble mean trend is unwarranted.

lomiller1

2009-Dec-23, 06:15 PM

William

2009-Dec-23, 06:26 PM

That paper doesn't really seem to be skeptical on anything nore does it even seem to be about global climate.

lomiller,

Read this link.

It is too early to reach a conclusion. I would be surprised if the scientist in question, Qing-Bin Lu, has resolved this problem.

My comment above shows the foundation of the AGW hypothesis seems to be incorrect. As the planet did warm in the later part of the 20th century there must be a scientific reason for the warming rather than AGW.

http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012

In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs - compounds once widely used as refrigerants - and cosmic rays - energy particles originating in outer space - are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.

"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."

His conclusions are based on observations that from 1950 up to now, the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.

"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."

lomiller1

2009-Dec-23, 06:30 PM

Comment:
a) The reason for this statement is the greenhouse mechanism for CO2 is saturated in the lower atmosphere. CO2 only absorbs specific frequencies. There is sufficient CO2 in the lower atmosphere to reach saturation. This comment is not controversial.

Not controversial, just wrong. Troposphere temperature vs altitude profiles have little to do with the greenhouse effect because it’s dominated by convection. When the planet warms this increases the amount of moist air rising due to convection. When this moist air precipitates out it’s latent heat remains in the air mass so more evaporation = a hot spot in the upper atmosphere.

Realclimate shows actual results from the GUSS model in this article:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/

And the effect you speak of is clearly independent of CO2 since identical troposphere characteristics occur from solar induced warming.

lomiller1

2009-Dec-23, 06:35 PM

Read this link.

You realize ozone is a greenhouse gas and that it’s long been understood ozone depletion from CFC’s has climatic effects? You also realize the effect is cooling not warming?

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Dec-23, 07:57 PM

This is an old chestnut. Josh Willis told on online magazine that even after the corrections to the ARGO data, there had been a slight cooling since 2003. I suspect his employers asked him to avoid saying that, as his following article on the official NASA website was much more carefully worded.

The Ocean Heat Content data from the individual basins tells another story, and is worth a look for anyone interested in climate. The oceans have as much thermal heat capacity in the top 2.5m as the entire atmosphere above.

The Atlantic has been losing heat content quite sharply since 2005
http://i36.tinypic.com/ddkeas.png
Here we go again, yet another graph which is from blog post. The source is:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/update-of-nodc-levitus-et-al-2009-ohc.html

So it seems that Stroller still hasn't moved to using peer-reviewed references.

Also, this all was already discussed before and Stroller presented the same conspiracy theories back then too (without any proof of course):
http://www.bautforum.com/1526458-post1762.html

Here is Willis et al. discussing it in a peer-reviewed paper, so perhaps Stroller is kind enough to show where the conspiracy is seen:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/lyman/Pdf/hc_bias_jtech_v1.pdf

And here is Levitus et al. showing that when errors in ocean heat content measurements are corrected, ocean heat content shows an increase after 2003:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf

Another recent study from von Schuckmann et al. shows the same than Levitus et al.:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JC005237.shtml

William

2009-Dec-23, 09:18 PM

Not controversial, just wrong. Troposphere temperature vs altitude profiles have little to do with the greenhouse effect because it’s dominated by convection. When the planet warms this increases the amount of moist air rising due to convection. When this moist air precipitates out it’s latent heat remains in the air mass so more evaporation = a hot spot in the upper atmosphere.

Realclimate shows actual results from the GUSS model in this article:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/

And the effect you speak of is clearly independent of CO2 since identical troposphere characteristics occur from solar induced warming.

Lomiller,

What I said is correct and is in accordance with what the GCMs predict.

AGW should cause the mid-Troposphere to warm more than a case where the TSI suddenly increased or if there were less clouds which reduced the planet's albedo. There will obviously be a difference in the equilibrium temperature profile for the atmosphere for each case. Are you stating that there is no difference?

If you read through the RealClimate comments that is what Gavin Schmidt also states.

What RealClimate shows is a picture that states with a comment that warming of the mid troposphere is similar for other causes (besides CO2) is similar to CO2 warming. The colors used to show the magnitude of the temperatures shown in the picture makes it difficult to see the differences.

Yes there are similarities however the mid-Troposphere warms more for the AGW case.

Santer et al 2008 acknowledges that there are differences between the different warming mechanisms. That is why they published a paper in 2008 to refute Douglass et al's 2007 paper.

Santer et al did not argue that there is no difference. They acknowledge there is a difference.

If you read through the RealClimate 2007 article that is what they also say. The picture does not make the scientific issue go away.

From the realclimate 2007 article: Superficially it seems clear that there is a separation between the models and the observations, but let’s look more closely….

First, note that the observations aren’t shown with any uncertainty at all, not even the uncertainty in defining a linear trend – (roughly 0.1°C/dec). Secondly, the offsets between UAH, RSS and UMD should define the minimum systematic uncertainty in the satellite observations, which therefore would overlap with the model ‘uncertainty’. The sharp eyed among you will notice that the satellite estimates (even UAH Correction: the UAH trends are consistent (see comments)) – which are basically weighted means of the vertical temperature profiles – are also apparently inconsistent with the selected radiosonde estimates (you can’t get a weighted mean trend larger than any of the individual level trends!).

Santer et al 2008 acknowledges that there are differences, however they state that Douglass et al 2007's statistical analysis was faulty.

Santer et al however did not use the full data set available.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2656

A debate exists over whether tropical troposphere temperature trends in climate models are inconsistent with observations (Karl et al. 2006, IPCC (2007), Douglass et al 2007, Santer et al 2008). Most recently, Santer et al (2008, herein S08) asserted that the Douglass et al statistical methodology was flawed and that a correct methodology showed there is no statistically significant difference between the model ensemble mean trend and either RSS or UAH satellite observations. However this result was based on data ending in 1999. Using data up to the end of 2007 (as available to S08) or to the end of 2008 and applying exactly the same methodology as S08 results in a statistically significant difference between the ensemble mean trend and UAH observations and approaching statistical significance for the RSS T2 data. The claim by S08 to have achieved a “partial resolution” of the discrepancy between observations and the model ensemble mean trend is unwarranted.

Also Lomiller, this discussion is academic if the planet is now cooling.

In the end that is what will resolve the AGW hypothesis Vs clouds debate.

Please do not go away. There will be more planetary temperature data to discuss.

William

2009-Dec-23, 09:34 PM

This is further to my comment above.

Look at the change in the temperature vs color scale used in both these pictures from RealClimate.

CO2 doubled. GCM model atmospheric temperature predicted.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/2xCO2_tropical_enhance.gif

http://www.realclimate.org/images/2xCO2_tropical_enhance.gif

http://www.realclimate.org/images/solar_tropical_enhance.gif

TSI increases. GCM model atmospheric temperature predicted.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/solar_tropical_enhance.gif

lomiller1

2009-Dec-23, 10:19 PM

Stroller

2009-Dec-23, 11:28 PM

Stroller

2009-Dec-23, 11:38 PM

Here we go again, yet another graph which is from blog post. The source is:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/update-of-nodc-levitus-et-al-2009-ohc.html

Stroller presented the same conspiracy theories back then too

The data is from the KNMI climate explorer, and is available for anyone to download and replicate the graph.

Merry Christmas to all.

nauthiz

2009-Dec-23, 11:41 PM

The thermosphere is two layers above the stratosphere.

(The last sentence in the quote didn't seem to appear anywhere in the article, so I'm assuming that's down to a misplaced /quote tag.)

Strange

2009-Dec-23, 11:42 PM

That's not what NASA is saying now.

I assume this bit: I would suggest this puts a coach and four through the contention that a cooling stratosphere is all down to co2 trapping more heat in Earth's atmosphere should not be inside the quote?

Stroller

2009-Dec-24, 12:33 AM

Thanks guys. Yes, I copied it in haste from an earlier post and included my comment in the quote tags by accident.

nasa-shows-quiet-sun-means-cooling-of-earths-upper-atmosphere
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nasa-shows-quiet-sun-means-cooling-of-earths-upper-atmosphere-79432252.html

William

2009-Dec-24, 03:36 AM

I'm not sure I see what you are talking about, unless it's the blue line across the top of the CO2 graph, which doesn't represent the troposphere it represents the stratosphere. Cooling in the stratosphere *is* one of the fingerprints of greenhouse warming and it *is* is being observed.

lomiller,

Let's restart. Based on your comment you appear to not understand the scientific issues.

Douglass et al's Paper
Douglass et al's paper linked to below showed that the mid troposphere should warm more than the surface of the planet if the 20th century warming was due to CO2. Douglass et al ran 22 different general climate models to determine the predicted atmospheric temperature profile if the 20th century warming was due to CO2 increases. A specific temperature profile is predicted if the 20th warming was due to CO2. Do you understand this point?

Douglass et al's paper compared observational data of the atmosphere's temperature profile to what was predicted by the 22 different general climate models. What Douglass et al found was the temperature profile in the atmosphere does not match what is predicted by the 22 models if the 20th century warming was due to CO2.

Douglass et al paper showed the 20th century warming was not due to CO2.

Do you follow me to this point?

Realclimate Article
(I am going to discuss the Realclimate article however it is not relevant to Douglass et al's findings.)
The Realclimate 2007 article which you provided a link to included two graphs. One graph shows the atmospheric temperature profile that the general climate models predict would occur if there was a doubling of CO2 and a second graph that shows the atmospheric temperature profile that would occur if the sun were to suddenly produce more energy such that it warmed the planet the same amount as doubling the CO2 levels.

The Realclimate article notes the two graphs look similar. That is a red herring because the atmospheric temperatures that are observed do not match what is predicted for a doubling of CO2 and they do not match what is predicted if the sun were to suddenly produce more energy.

The Real Climate article should have modeled what is physical causing the planet to warm which is a reduction in planetary clouds.

Your comment that it is observed that the stratosphere cooled in the 20th century (and one graph shows cooling of the stratosphere and other graph does not show cooling of the stratosphere.) would be relevant if we were trying to determine if the 20th century warming was due to an increase in the output of the sun as compared to say a reduction in planetary cloud cover or to CO2 warming.

We both agree the 20th century planetary warming was not due to an increase in the energy output from the sun.

When there is a reduction in planetary clouds there is less reflected radiation and hence stratospheric cooling (Radiation passes through the stratosphere twice when it is reflected back out to space.) The fact that there is stratospheric cooling therefore does not prove that 20th century warming was due to increased CO2. Stratospheric cooling is also consistent with a reduction in planetary cloud cover.

So what is required is a atmospheric temperature profile measurement that can determine if the planetary warming was due to a reduction in planetary clouds or due to CO2 warming.

Douglass et al's Paper
Now what is observed is warming of the surface and less warming of the mid troposphere than what the twenty two General Climatic Models predict should be observed if the warming was due to an increase in CO2. (I am simplifying the issue when I state the troposphere is not warming as much as predicted. A specific temperature profile is predicted by the 22 general climate models. The atmospheric temperature profile that is observed does not match what the 22 general climate models predict should be occurring.) Do you understand this point?

The discrepancy between how the atmosphere is observed to have warmed and what is predicted by the twenty two General Climatic models if the warming was due to CO2 proves the 20th century warming was due to less planetary cloud cover as opposed to CO2 warming.

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Published%20JOC1651.pdf

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions

We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

A panel convened by the National Research Council (2000) found for the satellite era (since 1979) ‘[a]pparently conflicting surface and tropospheric temperature trends’ that could not be reconciled, with the Earth’s surface warming faster than the lower troposphere. The panel concluded, after considering possible systematic errors that ‘[a] substantial disparity remains.’ From a study of several independent observational datasets Douglass et al. (2004b) confirmed that the disparity was real and arose mostly in the tropical zone. Also, Douglass et al. (2004a) showed that three state-of-the-art General Circulation Models (GCMs) predicted a temperature trend that increased with altitude, reaching a maximum ratio to the surface trend (‘amplification’ factor R) as much as 1.5–2.0 at a pressure (altitude) about 200–400 hPa. This was in disagreement with observations, which showed flat or decreasing amplification factors with altitude.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2656

A debate exists over whether tropical troposphere temperature trends in climate models are inconsistent with observations (Karl et al. 2006, IPCC (2007), Douglass et al 2007, Santer et al 2008). Most recently, Santer et al (2008, herein S08) asserted that the Douglass et al statistical methodology was flawed and that a correct methodology showed there is no statistically significant difference between the model ensemble mean trend and either RSS or UAH satellite observations. However this result was based on data ending in 1999. Using data up to the end of 2007 (as available to S08) or to the end of 2008 and applying exactly the same methodology as S08 results in a statistically significant difference between the ensemble mean trend and UAH observations and approaching statistical significance for the RSS T2 data. The claim by S08 to have achieved a “partial resolution” of the discrepancy between observations and the model ensemble mean trend is unwarranted.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Dec-24, 07:06 AM

I would suggest this puts a coach and four through the contention that a cooling stratosphere is all down to co2 trapping more heat in Earth's atmosphere.
That news article doesn't say anything about stratosphere, so you are building a straw-man argument. They specifically say that the study is about Earth's thermosphere.

The data is from the KNMI climate explorer, and is available for anyone to download and replicate the graph.
And yet your source was a blog post.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Dec-24, 07:07 AM

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2656
Another blog post. Also the article they are advertising has not been peer-reviewed. They have even put it out through arXiv which is rather unfortunate for the reputation of arXiv:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0445.pdf

Note that McIntyre & McKitrick don't address the methodology issues which Santer et al. (2008) (http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~stevensherwood/santer_IJoC_published_2008.pdf) discussed. Santer et al. showed that the Douglass et al. (2008) (http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Published%20JOC1651.pdf) methodology was badly flawed and McIntyre & McKitrick don't address that.

But why are you concentrating only to Santer et al.? There are several other papers that show how model and observation discrepancy is becoming solved:

Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds - Allen & Sherwood (2008) (http://lubos.motl.googlepages.com/sherwood-allen-ngeo-2008.pdf)

Assessing Bias and Uncertainty in the HadAT-Adjusted Radiosonde Climate Record - McCarthy et al. (2008) (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/quarc/McCarthy_etal_JClimate200802.pdf)

Toward Elimination of the Warm Bias in Historic Radiosonde Temperature Records—Some New Results from a Comprehensive Intercomparison of Upper-Air Data - Haimberger et al. (2008) (http://homepage.univie.ac.at/leopold.haimberger/i1520-0442-21-18-4587.pdf)

Robust Tropospheric Warming Revealed by Iteratively Homogenized Radiosonde Data - Sherwood et al. (2008) (http://camels.metoffice.gov.uk/quarc/Sherwood08_JClimate.pdf) (see their figure 6 for the hotspot).

Atmospheric temperature change detection with GPS radio occultation 1995 to 2008 - Steiner et al. (2009) (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039777.shtml)

Note also that the whole time there has been observational datasets that have shown the hotspot, and as the situation has been such that different observational datasets show different results, it is a clear indication that the problem lies in the observations, not in the theory.

Stroller

2009-Dec-24, 11:52 AM

NASA Shows Quiet Sun Means Cooling of Earth's Upper Atmosphere
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nasa-shows-quiet-sun-means-cooling-of-earths-upper-atmosphere-79432252.html

While this warming has no implications for climate change in the troposphere, a fundamental prediction of climate change theory is that the upper atmosphere will cool in response to increasing carbon dioxide. As the atmosphere cools the density will increase, which ultimately may impact satellite operations through increased drag over time.

The SABER dataset is the first global, long-term, and continuous record of the Nitric oxide (NO) and Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the thermosphere.

"We suggest that the dataset of radiative cooling of the thermosphere by NO and CO2 constitutes a first climate data record for the thermosphere," says Mlynczak.

I think everyone needs to employ a little skill in reading between the lines of NASA press releases. While there is a disjunction between the troposphere and the rest of the upper atmosphere, there is nothing similar fundamentally preventing the transfer of energy from the tropopause through the stratosphere to the more rarified parts of the upper atmosphere such as the mesosphere and ionosphere. Other measurements have shown a shrinkage of the ionosphere during the extended period of solar activity. There is a lot of interesting new science happening for those open to considering it.

Merry Christmas everyone.

kzb

2009-Dec-24, 01:09 PM

William

2009-Dec-24, 01:24 PM

Another blog post. Also the article they are advertising has not been peer-reviewed. They have even put it out through arXiv which is rather unfortunate for the reputation of arXiv:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0445.pdf

Note that McIntyre & McKitrick don't address the methodology issues which Santer et al. (2008) (http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~stevensherwood/santer_IJoC_published_2008.pdf) discussed. Santer et al. showed that the Douglass et al. (2008) (http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Published%20JOC1651.pdf) methodology was badly flawed and McIntyre & McKitrick don't address that.

Robust Tropospheric Warming Revealed by Iteratively Homogenized Radiosonde Data - Sherwood et al. (2008) (http://camels.metoffice.gov.uk/quarc/Sherwood08_JClimate.pdf) (see their figure 6 for the hotspot).

Note also that the whole time there has been observational datasets that have shown the hotspot, and as the situation has been such that different observational datasets show different results, it is a clear indication that the problem lies in the observations, not in the theory.

Ari,

You miss the point also. Your comments are not comments but rather links to papers which do not support whatever your point is. You must read and think about the papers vs previous and current planetary observations. Why has the ocean stopped warming? Why was there a step change in ocean temperature rather than gradual ocean warming? CO2 increased gradually. There was not a step change in CO2.

The late 20th century did warm.

The question is what portion of the late 20th century warming was due to changes in planetary cloud cover as opposed to CO2 warming. If a significant portion of the 20th century warming was due to decreases in planetary clouds then if planetary cloud cover returns to normal levels or to previous levels the planet will cool.

As lomiller correctly noted there will also be warming of the mid-troposphere regardless of the mechanism that causes the planet to warm. The analysis must compare specifically the atmospheric warming profile noted in Douglass et al (Douglass et al ran 22 different General Climate Models) to what is actual observed.

Santer et al 2008's claim was that Douglass et al's methodology did not look at the error of the atmosphere profile temperature measurement as compared to the accuracy of the models. McIntyre & McKitrick do not dispute Santer's new methodology.

McIntyre & McKitrick use Santer's methodology with the data set up to 2008. Santer had access to the same data set and could have used their methodolgy to analysis it. The problem is the new data does not support Santer et al's assertion that late 20th century step increase warming was due to CO2.

In the end this problem will be resolved if the planet cools.

Those pushing the "special AGW hypotheses" have emphatically stated (In RealClimate for example) that Svensmark's GCR cloud modulation mechanisms (There are more than one) cannot significantly modulate planetary temperature. Now if the mid-level planetary cloud cover suddenly increases and high level cloud cover suddenly decreases causing the planet to cool, particularly at high latitudes, then there would be cooling that could not be explained by the "special AGW hypotheses".

Comment:
Included in the "special AGW hypotheses" is an assertion that there is positive rather than negative feedback to an increase in planetary temperature (The positive feedback hypothesis is independent of the forcing function). The positive vs negative feedback issue will also be resolved if the planet cools.

lomiller1

2009-Dec-24, 03:16 PM

(I am going to discuss the Realclimate article however it is not relevant to
How can an article by NASA’s chief climate modeler saying Douglass at al are misrepresenting what the climate models show be irrelevant? The problems the article points out, are further expanded on in this paper (with a whopping 17 authors, so the climate science community is clearly rejecting the Douglass paper on mass).

http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:3a8Pie8eBqoJ:scholar.google.com/+troposphere+author:schmidt&hl=en&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=2007&as_yhi=2009

[QUOTE=Stroller;1649181]While there is a disjunction between the troposphere and the rest of the upper atmosphere

The troposphere isn’t part of the upper atmosphere.

tusenfem

2009-Dec-24, 03:59 PM

I think everyone needs to employ a little skill in reading between the lines of NASA press releases.

I said it once, twice, a bezillion times here on the board, doing "science" based on press releases (even if you try to read between the lines, but are you sure then that you are reading the correct between lines?) is rubbish, therefore I prefer to see reviewed papers. Even though the press release may be based on a reviewed paper, it still can be utter rubbish.

William

2009-Dec-24, 06:45 PM

[QUOTE=William;1649094]
(I am going to discuss the Realclimate article however it is not relevant to
How can an article by NASA’s chief climate modeler saying Douglass at al are misrepresenting what the climate models show be irrelevant? The problems the article points out, are further expanded on in this paper (with a whopping 17 authors, so the climate science community is clearly rejecting the Douglass paper on mass).

http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:3a8Pie8eBqoJ:scholar.google.com/+troposphere+author:schmidt&hl=en&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=2007&as_yhi=2009

The troposphere isn’t part of the upper atmosphere.

lomiller,
Science is not a debate where one side uses every means possible to hide the truth, confuse the issue, or push specific hypotheses.

The scientific process does not allow name call such as the term "deniers" as part of the scientific process. The graphs shown in the Realclimate article are not relevant to the discussion. They are misleading.

One of the key scientists involved in this "debate" Douglass has responded in detail explaining how the scientific process was circumvented concerning their paper. The RealClimate site makes sarcastic comments in a one sided "debate". Douglass is a serious scientist. Svensmark is a serious scientist. Shavia is a serious scientist.

There is unequivocal evidence that one side in the "debate" has lobbied and interfered with the review process to stop the publishing of papers that are critical to the specific hypotheses which they are pushing. That is counter to the scientific process. There was ample evidence from hundreds of papers that the medieval warm period existed and that the little ice age existed. The removal of the medieval warm period and the Little Ice age (i.e. creation of a flat downward line with a hockey stick at the end) is unequivocal evidence of data manipulation (not hypothesis pushing).

My comment that one of the senior Wikipedia gatekeeper editors was removed for massive climate change article tampering on Wikipedia is correct. The same person is also involved with Realclimate.

What I have just stated is correct. There is unequivocal evidence of AGW hypotheses pushing.

That does not prove that the "set of AGW hypotheses" is incorrect.

What it does mean is that due to the problem of AGW hypotheses pushing we cannot use the authority of the person making statements without proof in a one side "debate" as proof the counter hypothesis is incorrect.

In the end this issue will be resolved by observation and analysis.

Santer et al proposed a new methodology to compare the atmospheric temperature profile predicted by the 22 climate models to the measured temperature profile. Santer et al supported Douglass et al's assertion that CO2 warming should have a specific atmospheric temperature profile.

The same gentlemen that found the hockey stick errors take the satellite data post 1999 and apply Santer et al's methodology to analysis it. The resultant does not agree with the 22 models.

Realclimate Article
(I am going to discuss the Realclimate article however it is not relevant to Douglass et al's findings.)
The Realclimate 2007 article which you provided a link to included two graphs. One graph shows the atmospheric temperature profile that the general climate models predict would occur if there was a doubling of CO2 and a second graph that shows the atmospheric temperature profile that would occur if the sun were to suddenly produce more energy such that it warmed the planet the same amount as doubling the CO2 levels.

The Realclimate article notes the two graphs look similar. That is a red herring because the atmospheric temperatures that are observed do not match what is predicted for a doubling of CO2 and they do not match what is predicted if the sun were to suddenly produce more energy.

The Real Climate article should have modeled what is physical causing the planet to warm which is a reduction in planetary clouds.

Your comment that it is observed that the stratosphere cooled in the 20th century (and one graph shows cooling of the stratosphere and other graph does not show cooling of the stratosphere.) would be relevant if we were trying to determine if the 20th century warming was due to an increase in the output of the sun as compared to say a reduction in planetary cloud cover or to CO2 warming.

We both agree the 20th century planetary warming was not due to an increase in the energy output from the sun.

When there is a reduction in planetary clouds there is less reflected radiation and hence stratospheric cooling (Radiation passes through the stratosphere twice when it is reflected back out to space.) The fact that there is stratospheric cooling therefore does not prove that 20th century warming was due to increased CO2. Stratospheric cooling is also consistent with a reduction in planetary cloud cover.

So what is required is a atmospheric temperature profile measurement that can determine if the planetary warming was due to a reduction in planetary clouds or due to CO2 warming.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2656

A debate exists over whether tropical troposphere temperature trends in climate models are inconsistent with observations (Karl et al. 2006, IPCC (2007), Douglass et al 2007, Santer et al 2008). Most recently, Santer et al (2008, herein S08) asserted that the Douglass et al statistical methodology was flawed and that a correct methodology showed there is no statistically significant difference between the model ensemble mean trend and either RSS or UAH satellite observations. However this result was based on data ending in 1999. Using data up to the end of 2007 (as available to S08) or to the end of 2008 and applying exactly the same methodology as S08 results in a statistically significant difference between the ensemble mean trend and UAH observations and approaching statistical significance for the RSS T2 data. The claim by S08 to have achieved a “partial resolution” of the discrepancy between observations and the model ensemble mean trend is unwarranted.

William

2009-Dec-24, 07:14 PM

The Argo ocean temperature monitoring system was placed in service in 2003. As the oceans cover 70% of the planet's surface and due to the oceans' orders of magnitude greater heat capacity than soil and rock, measuring the ocean temperature appears to be the most accurate measurement to determine if the planet is warming or cooling.

The ocean temperature data prior to 2003 cannot be compared to the Argo system so it is not possible to determine the specific amount of warming that had occurred in the 20th century based on ocean temperature measurement.

The Argo ocean temperature measurement can however be used to determine whether the planet is warming or cooling post 2003. The data indicates the planet is starting to cool not warm.

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152

Cooling of the global ocean since 2003

Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend. A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of -0.35 (±0.2) x 1022 Joules per year. The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years.

Nereid

2009-Dec-25, 12:27 AM

I doubt it ... it's an example of AW (anthropogenic warming), but no one is even trying to make a case that UHIs raise the average temperature of the whole Earth (i.e. GW) by more than a trivial, unmeasurable extent ... at least as far as I know.

I'm having trouble, Jetlack, and I hope you can help me.

You see, your response does not seem to answer any of the questions I actually asked! What you write might be interesting, but it's not helpful in terms of providing me insights into the scientific basis of Bright_Light's post.

Can you help me please? How can I ask my questions so that you understand them better?I wish i could but i am in the same state of uncertainty as you. I have looked high and low for a slam dunk case either way re:agw and have found none. Hence why i am in favour of totally new analysis of the temperature record by indpendent teams (with a pre-agreed criteria for selection and homogenisation of data). If 2 or 3 teams working in isolation of eachother, using the same unbiased process all come to the same conclusion then i think the science would be on far firmer footing.

We would not accept the current level of uncertainty or unfalsifiability in any other hypothesis in the sciences so why are we should we accept less than high standards in determining the veracity of the agw hypothesis?

But no sorry, currently, i cant point you to any clear cut evidence on either side of the argument.
Huh? :confused:

I'm not asking for "slam dunk" cases (I'm a very long way from there yet).

I thought my question was really, really straight-forward and simple ... has anyone developed hypotheses concerning AGW being undetectable (and tested them)? Again, please, what is so difficult to understand (in this question)?

For completeness, I should say that it seems there are a very great many hypotheses concerning AGW being not only detectable, but also being due to this set of causes or other, and a great many of such hypotheses have been written up, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, been subject to all sorts of tests, etc, etc, etc.

The heart of my question concerns the apparent non-science in Bright_Light's post ... to the effect that "the skeptics" (I think that's the term used) have no need to formulate testable hypotheses (or, more strongly, and worse, such work is never required).

Is this clearer? Do you see what I'm asking now?

Nereid

2009-Dec-25, 12:31 AM

It's a fairly contentious and complex area, because it rests on small changes in the sun's overall output in terms of TSI, and the splicing of data from several satellites over the period of record.

There are two main camps. The ACRIM team, who maintain the sun increased it's TSI output right through to 2003, and the PMOD team who use models to justify the 'adjustment' of the ACRIM data. Something strongly contested by the scientists who ran the experiment.

The published papers you should look at include those by Scafetta and West, those by Svalgaard, and those by Frolich, Lean and Rind. Also, papers by Mike Lockwood are relevant.

To understand how solar variability miht be amplified by other terrestrial and celestial phenomena, take a look at Nir Shaviv's paper on using the oceans as a calorimeter, and Henrik Svensmark's work on GCR's and clouds.

Additionally, you may be interested in the analysis I myself presented earlier in this thread on steric sea level rise and the implicated energy gain of the oceans due to insolation 1993-2003. Also my graphs of cumulative sunspot counts and my reproduction of C20th century temperature change from a combination of sunspot counts and changes in length of day. I propose the underlying cause of both these phenomena to be changes in the relative motion of the sun and the centre of mass of the solar system, which is a function predominantly of the orbits of the gas giant planets.
Thanks Stroller.

But, as Ari Jokimaki has already pointed out, this is rather unhelpful ... surely you have the actual references (in standard form) to published papers to hand, don't you? And perhaps you even have direct links to those papers?

Nereid

2009-Dec-25, 12:39 AM

Developing testable hypotheses is, IMHO, a key part of doing science.

But, to repeat, has anyone produced, in a single document (or series of inter-connected documents) a consistent position (narrative, case, ...) wrt (something like) the impact of the activities of us humans on global warming, in the last century or so, is below the level of detectability (as of today)?

So far, at least, it would seem that the answer is "No".Both camps have the same difficulty here, hence my comment that in truth, we are doing climate analysis rather than climate science. This is due mainly to uncertainty in data, conflicting data from different acquisition methods, lack of transparency in methodology and details of sub-sampling choices, and the lack of reliable baselines which can exclude confounding variability from factors which we have a low level of scientific understanding about.

Properly testable hypotheses are in short supply.
Double huh?? :confused: :confused:

As I just pointed out to Jetlack, only the most ignorant of ignoramuses would claim that the case for AGW lacks potentially testable hypotheses, published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals ... yet this seems to be exactly what you are claiming!?!?

On the other hand, neither you nor Jetlack has pointed to any consistent case (per my question, and Bright_Light seems to have left us), let alone one published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal.

Can you clarify please?

Specifically, what is it about my question that seems to be so hard to grasp?

William

2009-Dec-25, 02:32 AM

"ocean cooling" turned out to be bad data

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/

yes a small discrepancy remains but there isn nothing in the recent trend to overturn the longer term trend.

I disagree lomiller. It appears the planet is cooling not warming. This is a El Nino year is it not?

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152

Cooling of the global ocean since 2003

Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend. A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of -0.35 (±0.2) x 1022 Joules per year. The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years.

This is a discussion of the December 24, 2009 Northern American continent wide massive cold weather storm. This is the type of storm that is created when there are very cold temperatures in high latitudes which create massive strong high pressure regions that move down south to warm moist regions. This is the type of cold weather storm that is created when there is abrupt cooling of the planet.

lomiller, do you understand the mechanism? Do you have any comments? Ari also do you understand what is happening? Ari I would be interested in your comments concerning what we are observing.

This storm has a 1000 mile storm front.

http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=58063217001&title=Blizzard%20now%20Blasting%20Travel%20in%20Pl ains,%20Ice%20in%20East%20Tomorrow&ctr=2

This is a discussion of the affect of extreme cold weather in Europe and the last cold weather event in the US. (December 21. The next extreme cold weather event started in the US December 23.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/severe-weather-europe

Dozens of people are thought to have frozen to death as extreme conditions continued to affect many parts of Europe today.

Polish news channel TVN24 said 47 people, mainly homeless, had been found frozen to death since the start of December as temperatures dropped as low as -18C. Police in Warsaw said 15 people died on Saturday night.

Freezing temperatures and snow were causing travel chaos in many countries, including France, where 40% of flights from Charles de Gaulle and Orly airports in Paris were cancelled. In Spain, runways were closed at Madrid's Barajas airport after temperatures fell to -8C and high-speed AVE trains were suspended between the capital and Barcelona, Malagá and Seville.

Temperatures dropped to as low as -33C in southern parts of Germany where hundreds of road accidents have been blamed on the weather.

Düsseldorf International airport, Germany third busiest, was also forced to close. Airports in the Netherlands and Belgium were also affected.

"There is still heavy snowfall and every time we clear a runway to permit a flight, we have to shut it down again because of the heavy snowfall," said Jan Van der Cruysse, spokesman for Brussels National Airport.

Meanwhile, a clean-up operation was under way along the US eastern seaboard following record snowfalls in some areas at the weekend which combined with high winds to produce blizzard conditions. An entire winter's snowfall fell in Washington DC, making it the snowiest December on record, while more than half a metre of snow fell in parts of Virginia, New York, New Jersey and other eastern states.

The conditions at US airports led to flight delays to the UK with some aircraft arriving at Heathrow three hours late this morning, while at Manchester airport some passengers were still waiting to get on flights scheduled to have taken off yesterday afternoon.

Motorists were urged to stay off treacherous roads and several main arteries were closed. In Washington, drivers who ventured out often had to abandon their cars due to deep snow on the streets.

In France, the heavy snowfall was not expected to end until tonight at the earliest, according to weather bureau Meteo France. Minimum temperatures hovered close to record lows in some areas overnight, with the minimum reading in the Jura department of eastern France reaching -23C.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Dec-25, 08:56 AM

You miss the point also. Your comments are not comments but rather links to papers which do not support whatever your point is.
I give links to the relevant research on the subject. Current research says that the models and the observations largely agree with each other relating to upper tropical troposphere warming. This has been shown by several recent studies.

The question is what portion of the late 20th century warming was due to changes in planetary cloud cover as opposed to CO2 warming.
We have been through that before. According to our current body of observations, there has not been global cloud cover changes that could explain the whole of the warming (Warrent et al., 2007 (http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ignatius/CloudMap/Publications/WarrenEtal2007_CloudSurvey.pdf); Evan et al., 2007 (http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~dvimont/Papers/Evan_etal_GL028083.pdf)).

As lomiller correctly noted there will also be warming of the mid-troposphere regardless of the mechanism that causes the planet to warm. The analysis must compare specifically the atmospheric warming profile noted in Douglass et al (Douglass et al ran 22 different General Climate Models) to what is actual observed.
That is exactly what my references did. You still concentrate only on Santer et al., but all the papers I gave (http://www.bautforum.com/1649137-post3126.html) show upper tropical troposphere having a warming maximum, just as expected.

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152
...
Ari also do you understand what is happening? Ari I would be interested in your comments concerning what we are observing.
I understand. You are cherry picking the sources of information, that is what is happening. In this post (http://www.bautforum.com/1648858-post3115.html) I gave two recent papers (Levitus et al., 2009 and von Schuckmann et al., 2009) which show warming of the ocean between 2003 and 2008. Your source is from a non-scientific source (Energy & Environment is not a scientific journal, and the editor has admitted to publishing only texts that supports the political views of the editor). The author is Loehle, who is known to have published nonsense before (http://www.bautforum.com/1633704-post2556.html) (in the same journal too).

Current scientific research says the ocean has warmed since 2003.

Jetlack

2009-Dec-25, 09:49 AM

Going a bit off-topic, I'm wondering if the poor coping response of the UK to the recent snow is partially down to the constant hyping of global warming here. The met office now seems to be mostly about climate change, not predicting the weather for example.

If public services and infrastructure are being planned with a warming climate as a given fact, and that warming does not happen, where are we then? I think this is what is happening.

Thats a good point, and i noticed a similar downplaying of the UK snow and cold in the media.

The response is usually along the lines of: "well this snow is such a rare thing there is no point the UK investing in grittters and ploughs etc".

In other words, its catastrophic climate change only when its getting hotter.

Oh yeah and another beauty is this excuse: "thats weather not climate" :-)

Trakar

2009-Dec-25, 08:29 PM

BrentArsement:

Pretty much all of your questions are answered (as best they can be, given our current scientific knowledge) in the IPCC AR4 Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html). Questions about regional climate change (which nations will experience drought, which particular species will go extinct, etc.) are the subject of ongoing modeling.

A specific answer to your questions would depend on whether humanity reduces its emission of greenhouse gasses or not, and if so, by how much. The different scenarios described in the blue box (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html#fnr17) on the bottom of that page.

I, personally, believe the the IPCC assessments to be overly conservative outlines of conditions, that were weakened and made politically more palatable by the political representatives of some of the member nation interests. Most of the seperate/independent academic analyses since the AR4 WGI (that I am aware of) seem to confirm this and make much more dire projections.

Trakar

2009-Dec-25, 08:42 PM

For those that are interested this a more detailed graph of the satellite sea level determination.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.pdf

The sea level rise has abated starting around 2004.

What system of analysis are you using to determine this ceasation? I see no signs of such in either naked eye assessment of the graph, nor in simple numerical analysis of the data.

William

2009-Dec-25, 10:01 PM

I give links to the relevant research on the subject. Current research says that the models and the observations largely agree with each other relating to upper tropical troposphere warming. This has been shown by several recent studies.

We have been through that before. According to our current body of observations, there has not been global cloud cover changes that could explain the whole of the warming (Warrent et al., 2007 (http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ignatius/CloudMap/Publications/WarrenEtal2007_CloudSurvey.pdf); Evan et al., 2007 (http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~dvimont/Papers/Evan_etal_GL028083.pdf)).

That is exactly what my references did. You still concentrate only on Santer et al., but all the papers I gave (http://www.bautforum.com/1649137-post3126.html) show upper tropical troposphere having a warming maximum, just as expected.

Ari,

Santer et al 2008 accepts Douglass et 2007's assertion that the tropic troposphere is not warming as predicted by 22 different general climate models. If the AWG hypotheses is correct there should be significant warming of the tropical troposphere.

Santer et al 2008's response is that due to instrumentation and measurement uncertainty Douglass et 2007 should have used a modified methodology to analysis the data. The modified methodology takes into account the instrument uncertainty and El Nino, La Nina, and other similar complications.

Using Santer et al 2008's methodology and the same data source, the gentlemen that debunked the hockey stick graph have debunked Santer et al's conclusion. The tropical troposphere is not warming as predicted by the 22 general climate models.

The other papers you link to do not address Douglass et al's and Santer et al's issues.

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2656

A debate exists over whether tropical troposphere temperature trends in climate models are inconsistent with observations (Karl et al. 2006, IPCC (2007), Douglass et al 2007, Santer et al 2008).

Most recently, Santer et al (2008, herein S08) asserted that the Douglass et al statistical methodology was flawed and that a correct methodology showed there is no statistically significant difference between the model ensemble mean trend and either RSS or UAH satellite observations.

However this result was based on data ending in 1999. Using data up to the end of 2007 (as available to S08) or to the end of 2008 and applying exactly the same methodology as S08 results in a statistically significant difference between the ensemble mean trend and UAH observations and approaching statistical significance for the RSS T2 data.

The claim by S08 to have achieved a “partial resolution” of the discrepancy between observations and the model ensemble mean trend is unwarranted.

If the tropical troposphere really was warming as the 22 Climate models predict the planet could not cool. The fact that the planet is cooling now supports Douglass et al's data, analysis, and conclusion.

Ari, do you understand this point?

Cooling of the global ocean since 2003

Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend. A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of -0.35 (±0.2) x 1022 Joules per year. The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years.

The paper your link to below discusses planetary cloud cover 1971 to 1996. The warming starts 1994 at which time there is a significant reduction in the planet's albedo.

The fact that the planet is now cooling supports the assertion that a significant portion of the 20th century warming was caused by a reduction in planetary cloud cover. Now that solar wind bursts have abated and GCR is at the highest level in 50 years planetary cloud cover is increasing at low altitudes and decreasing at high altitudes both changes result in a colder planet.

Ari,
You appear to not understand the scientific method. Hypothesis are compared and analyzed to observations. The specific AGW set of hypotheses is obviously incorrect. As the planet is cooling not warming.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ignatius/CloudMap/Publications/WarrenEtal2007_CloudSurvey.pdf

Trakar

2009-Dec-25, 10:29 PM

Trakar,

We are in agreement this is the graph of US yearly average temperatures. Let's discuss the data.

Admission and apology accepted

The US average temperature looks normal up until around 1994 at which time there is warming.

No, the average temp was increasing prior to '94, though the rates do begin a much sharper, more true representation, increase as clean air enforcement policies enacted in the US in the 70's and in Europe in the 80's begin to seriously cut through the pollutant masking effects.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/ocean-heat-content.gif
As I said the ocean has stopped warming. The oceans cooled in the 1970's. Why? CO2 has increasing then. The ocean temperature changes track planetary cloud changes.

The graph you chose does not indicate (to my eye or simple mathematical analysis of data) that the ocean has stopped warming,

The ocean warming post 1994 coincides with an increase in solar wind bursts. Post 1994 there is a large reduction in planetary cloud cover and a reduction in planetary albedo.

By what causal mechanism are you proposing the linkage solar wind and temperature? Demonstrate the correlation of solar wind and temperature empirically rather than with the wave of a hand and bald assertion. Demonstrate planetary cloud cover reduction. Melting icecaps and high altitude snows have a tendency to reduce albedo.

If the assertion that planetary cloud cover was reduced post 1994 then a significant amount of the 20th century warming has not caused by C02 increases.

The decrease of albedo due to the loss of ice and snow due to warming climates is still attributable to anthropogenically generated CO2 incereases.

Now as the solar wind bursts have abated and GCR is at the highest levels in 50 years, cloud cover should increase and the planet should cool.

Hmmm,
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003a.pdf
and according to André Berger (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6807852/Copenhagen-climate-conference-sunspot-theory-for-global-warming-attacked.html), honorary president of the European Geosciences Union,in reference to the published papers of Henrik Svensmark and Prof Eigil Friis-Christensen, he told The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sun-sets-on-sceptics-case-against-climate-change-1839875.html): "Their controversial papers must be retracted or at least that there will be an official statement by them acknowledging their mistake."

Is there any indication that winter of 2009/2010 is different than previous El Nino years? Yes.

In your opinion, personally, I don’t see it. The el nino conditions did not begin until July of 2009 and did not strengthen to full strength until late November. In response the already above normal global temps have continued to increase everywhere except the continental US which has experienced a more typical and average Fall in general.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/ocean-heat-content.gif

Which seems to show a steadily increasing ocean heat content to both casual visual analysis and simple mathematical inspection of the data points.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

Which seems to demonstrate steadily increasing global temperatures and responses to the steadily increasing temperatures.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/sea-level-rise.gif

Which looks like a pretty clear indication that sea levels have, and are continuing to increase.

Now this graph which shows Northern Hemisphere snow cover appears to not have been updated to show 2008 Northern Hemisphere snow cover which was a record.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/snow-cover-extent.gif

It appears the 2009 Northern Hemisphere snow cover will break the 2008 record. Large areas of North America, Europe, and Asia are now covered with snow.

It is easy to assert such, but the data you present does not support your contentions. Regardless, even if accurate, snow fall is only weakly correlated to temperature, in fact it is often inversely related as warmer overall temps increase the amount of moisture in the air, which when transported over cooler areas precipitates out as snow instead of rain.

Regions have received an entire years snow fall in a few weeks.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/snow-cover-extent.gif

Wetter more energetic storm conditions are a fundemental feature of warming global climates.

The early part of the sea level graph shows that the sea level is rising during periods when the planet was cooling.

There are papers that show there is a lack of mass balance (i.e. Comparing the ice sheet mass change or lack of change and sea level changes.) The sea level rise is being driven by something else besides ice sheets melting.

As stated before, thermal expansion is a big part of current sea level rises, ice cap melts and glacial melts, so far only account for a small part of the current sea level rises.

Trakar

2009-Dec-25, 11:02 PM

The Ocean Heat Content data from the individual basins tells another story, and is worth a look for anyone interested in climate. The oceans have as much thermal heat capacity in the top 2.5m as the entire atmosphere above.

The Atlantic has been losing heat content quite sharply since 2005
http://i36.tinypic.com/ddkeas.png

You mean if we carefully cherry pick the data we can find issues which we can misrepresent as seeming contradictions to the overall data?! Amazing!

("Losing" heat content or merely reflecting the increased cold melt water runoffs?)

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

BTW, check out figure S11 of the paper for a proper comparison of heat content of all ocean basins.

William

2009-Dec-25, 11:36 PM

Admission and apology accepted

No, the average temp was increasing prior to '94, though the rates do begin a much sharper, more true representation, increase as clean air enforcement policies enacted in the US in the 70's and in Europe in the 80's begin to seriously cut through the pollutant masking effects.

The graph you chose does not indicate (to my eye or simple mathematical analysis of data) that the ocean has stopped warming, ....

Trakar,

We do not need to rely on your or my visual ability to estimate whether the planet's oceans are or are not cooling. Quantifiable analysis indicates the planet's ocean are cooling.

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152

Cooling of the global ocean since 2003

Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend. A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of -0.35 (±0.2) x 1022 Joules per year. The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=ann/timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=01&year=2009&month=12&ext=gif&id=110-00

The conclusion that the planet's oceans are cooling is consistent with US temperatures. (i.e. Global warming is over.)

Ari, you too can join this conversation.

There seems to be a disconnect between the IPCC set of AWG hypotheses (i.e. Whether feedback to forcing is negative or positive, the magnitude of the predicted increase vs the actual increase, the complete ignoring of the modulation of planetary cloud cover.) and reality. (i.e. What is physically happening.)

I use the US surface temperature data as it the longest temperature data set, for a large planetary region.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=ann/timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=01&year=2009&month=12&ext=gif&id=110-00

Trakar

2009-Dec-26, 12:14 AM

Trakar,

We do not need to rely on your or my visual ability to estimate whether the planet's oceans are or are not cooling. Quantifiable analysis indicates the planet's ocean are cooling.

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152

If you have a link to a peer-reviewed scientific analysis that indicates such please present it, this forestry products advocacy site is not representative of such, nor is the Energy & Environment "journal" an accepted peer-review
scientific journal. Loehle and Craig's "findings" are completely at odds with, and refuted by, the well resourced, supported and peer-acknowledged subsequent papers like:ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=ann/timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=01&year=2009&month=12&ext=gif&id=110-00

The conclusion that the planet's oceans are cooling is consistent with US temperatures. (i.e. Global warming is over.)

Well there you go substituting a "national" temp graph and claiming it represents "global" conditions again, and there I just complimented you for acknowledging your former dishonesty and now you try it again,..tsk, tsk

try: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=13&submitted=Get+Report#gtemp

Of special note in this report:

Based upon several factors, including the known year-to-date (January through October) temperature anomaly, recent historical values for November and December, and the presence of an El Niño episode in the tropical Pacific, the global January-December temperature for combined land and ocean surfaces is estimated to be about 0.56°C (1.01°F) above the 20th century average, which would be the fifth warmest since records began in 1880. However, uncertainty associated with the November and December outcome suggests a range of most likely ranks of fourth, fifth or sixth warmest on record. Regardless of this year's exact placement, the 2000s decade (2000-09) will be the warmest on record for the global, with a surface temperature about 0.54 °C (0.96 °F) above the long-term (20th century) average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.36 °C (0.65 °F).

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-blended-mntp&byear=2009&bmonth=1&year=2009&month=10&ext=gif

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=snowcover-nhland&byear=2008&bmonth=12&year=2009&month=2&ext=gif

As shown in the time series to the right, the mean Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during winter 2008-2009 was slightly below average. The Northern Hemisphere had the 20th lowest snow cover extent on record. The 43-year mean Northern Hemisphere winter snow cover extent for the 1967-2009 period of record is 45.5 million square kilometers.

Trakar

2009-Dec-26, 12:32 AM

Of potential interest to those less familiar with the science and specifics, the skeptical science website (which like all websites should be personally and individually vetted for scientific accuracy and perspective bias), has a fairly clear, easy to understand treatment of this topic with references to the supporting mainstream science.

Skeptical Science - Does ocean cooling prove global warming has ended? (http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm)

William

2009-Dec-26, 03:30 AM

If you have a link to a peer-reviewed scientific analysis that indicates such please present it, this forestry products advocacy site is not representative of such, nor is the Energy & Environment "journal" an accepted peer-review
scientific journal. Loehle and Craig's "findings" are completely at odds with, and refuted by, the well resourced, supported and peer-acknowledged subsequent papers like:ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf

Trakar,

Your comment is not correct concerning Loehle's paper.

Loehle is of course an oceanographer who specializes in the measurement of ocean temperatures.

Loehle's paper addresses the period from 2003 to 2008 which is when the new Argo ocean system was placed in service.

The paper you referenced covered the period 1955–2008.

In the paper your reference there is a mixture of the old ocean temperature measuring system and the new Argo ocean temperature system. The old temperature measuring system has been adjusted downward to create a decade warming.

Cooling of the global ocean since 2003

Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend. A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of -0.35 (±0.2) x 1022 Joules per year. The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=ann/timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=01&year=2009&month=12&ext=gif&id=110-00

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=ann/timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=01&year=2009&month=12&ext=gif&id=110-00

There will be more cold weather and there will be a independent investigation concerning the problems in the science.

William

2009-Dec-26, 04:05 AM

This is a description of the Argo's ocean temperature monitoring system.

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

The ocean data shows the planet is cooling. Loehl is a senior scientist. There is no motivation or logical reason for Loehl to incorrectly state the ocean is cooling 2003 to 2008.

If the planet was cooling there would be evidence that it is cooling such as an increase in Arctic sea 2008 over 2007 and 2009 over 2008.

There does appear to be evidence on the new Japanese satellite.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm#top

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152

Cooling of the global ocean since 2003

Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend. A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of -0.35 (±0.2) x 1022 Joules per year. The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years.

This is a copy of the graph from Loehl's paper which shows the ocean is cooling 2003 to 2008.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/loehle_ocean-heat-content-blog.jpg

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/loehle_ocean-heat-content-blog.jpg

What observational evidence could there be that planet is cooling as opposed to warming?

When the planet cools, very cold, high pressure air masses move down south to create massive winter storms.

Is there evidence of massive winter storms?

The December 23 US mid-West blizzard is still underway. This the third major storm to hit the US this winter.

This is a discussion of the affect of extreme cold weather in Europe and the last cold weather event in the US. (December 21. The next extreme cold weather event started in the US December 23.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...weather-europe

Dozens of people are thought to have frozen to death as extreme conditions continued to affect many parts of Europe today.

Polish news channel TVN24 said 47 people, mainly homeless, had been found frozen to death since the start of December as temperatures dropped as low as -18C. Police in Warsaw said 15 people died on Saturday night.

Freezing temperatures and snow were causing travel chaos in many countries, including France, where 40% of flights from Charles de Gaulle and Orly airports in Paris were cancelled. In Spain, runways were closed at Madrid's Barajas airport after temperatures fell to -8C and high-speed AVE trains were suspended between the capital and Barcelona, Malagá and Seville.

Temperatures dropped to as low as -33C in southern parts of Germany where hundreds of road accidents have been blamed on the weather.

Düsseldorf International airport, Germany third busiest, was also forced to close. Airports in the Netherlands and Belgium were also affected.

"There is still heavy snowfall and every time we clear a runway to permit a flight, we have to shut it down again because of the heavy snowfall," said Jan Van der Cruysse, spokesman for Brussels National Airport.

Meanwhile, a clean-up operation was under way along the US eastern seaboard following record snowfalls in some areas at the weekend which combined with high winds to produce blizzard conditions. An entire winter's snowfall fell in Washington DC, making it the snowiest December on record, while more than half a metre of snow fell in parts of Virginia, New York, New Jersey and other eastern states.

The conditions at US airports led to flight delays to the UK with some aircraft arriving at Heathrow three hours late this morning, while at Manchester airport some passengers were still waiting to get on flights scheduled to have taken off yesterday afternoon.

Motorists were urged to stay off treacherous roads and several main arteries were closed. In Washington, drivers who ventured out often had to abandon their cars due to deep snow on the streets.

In France, the heavy snowfall was not expected to end until tonight at the earliest, according to weather bureau Meteo France. Minimum temperatures hovered close to record lows in some areas overnight, with the minimum reading in the Jura department of eastern France reaching -23C.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Dec-26, 07:53 AM

You appear to not understand the scientific method.
Scientific method is not such that we offer non-scientific documents as truth, like you keep doing with McIntyre & McKitrick and Loehle. Scientific method is not such that we ignore just about every piece of information that goes against our pre-determined view, and just parrot endlessly only about the points that we think supports our view, like you keep doing.

Scientific method addresses the problems. Why are you not addressing the several papers I have offered that show how the upper tropical troposphere has been warming? Why are you ignoring (or hand-waving them off like you are trying to do with Levitus et al.) all the papers that show that the global ocean has warmed also after 2003? These are problems for your claims but you don't seem to be interested in them at all.

It is now time for you to show little bit of understanding of the scientific method which you are so eager to declare that others don't understand.

William

2009-Dec-26, 12:46 PM

Scientific method is not such that we offer non-scientific documents as truth, like you keep doing with McIntyre & McKitrick and Loehle. Scientific method is not such that we ignore just about every piece of information that goes against our pre-determined view, and just parrot endlessly only about the points that we think supports our view, like you keep doing.

It is now time for you to show little bit of understanding of the scientific method which you are so eager to declare that others don't understand.

Ari,
Let’s wait for more observational data. The planet based on what has happened before when there has been a deep solar magnetic cycle minimum will continue to cool. There is observational evidence the current planetary cooling trend has started to accelerate.

If the planet continues to cool there will be a specific point in time when there will be a public announcement that the AWG set of hypotheses is incorrect. Theories are determined to be correct or incorrect based on observations. It is obvious now based on the observations that the AWG set of hypotheses is not correct.

The current observational data shows the planet is cooling not warming.
The “AWG set of hypotheses” has massive positive feedback in the climate system to a change in forcing. The “AWG set of hypotheses” do not include any solar modulation of cloud mechanisms.

The “AWG set of hypotheses” has flattened out the past cycles in the planet’s climate in the last 2000 years, eliminating the Medieval warm period and reducing the depth of the Little Ice age. (i.e. The creation of a hockey stick temperature graph.)

Based on the “AWG set of hypotheses” the planet’s oceans cannot have cooled from 2003 to 2008. Due to a 38.5% increase (0.028%) to (0.0388%) in CO2 (The CO2 affect is logarithmic.) based on “AWG set of hypotheses” there should currently be massive planetary warming.

We have not seen massive planetary warming. The planet is obviously currently cooling not warming.

The ocean data from the global Argo temperature monitoring system shows the planet is cooling. Why are the planet's oceans cooling?

There has been an increase in Arctic sea ice 2008 over 2007 and 2009 over 2008. Why is Arctic sea ice increasing?

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm#top

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152

Cooling of the global ocean since 2003

Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend. A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of -0.35 (±0.2) x 1022 Joules per year. The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years.

This is a copy of the graph from Loehl's paper which shows the ocean is cooling 2003 to 2008.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/loehle_ocean-heat-content-blog.jpg

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/loehle_ocean-heat-content-blog.jpg

The US yearly average temperature data which is not manipulated shows the planet is cooling.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=ann/timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=01&year=2009&month=12&ext=gif&id=110-00

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=ann/timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=01&year=2009&month=12&ext=gif&id=110-00

Stroller

2009-Dec-26, 01:05 PM

Double huh?? :confused: :confused:

As I just pointed out to Jetlack, only the most ignorant of ignoramuses would claim that the case for AGW lacks potentially testable hypotheses, published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals ... yet this seems to be exactly what you are claiming!?!?

On the other hand, neither you nor Jetlack has pointed to any consistent case (per my question, and Bright_Light seems to have left us), let alone one published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal.

Can you clarify please?

Specifically, what is it about my question that seems to be so hard to grasp?
I understood your question, and tried to provide a context for my answer. If you won't or can't address the issues raised concerning the extensive exclusion of contrary hypotheses from the relevant scholarly journals through bias and bullying, the low level of scientific understanding wrt confounding variables, or the inadequacy of current and past measuring systems for reaching definite conclusions, there isn't much scope for progressing the discussion as far as I can see.

Which is a pity, as you appeared to me to be one of the more level headed and thoughtful contributors here.

Stroller

2009-Dec-26, 02:48 PM

surely you have the actual references (in standard form) to published papers to hand, don't you? And perhaps you even have direct links to those papers?

Here you go.

80–120 yr Long-term solar induced effects on the earth, past and predictions
(Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Volume 31, Issues 1-3, pp. 113-122, 2006)
- Shahinaz Moustafa Yousef

A decadal solar effect in the tropics in July–August (PDF)
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 66, Issue 18, pp. 1767-1778, December 2004)
- Harry van Loona, Gerald A. Meehlb, Julie M. Arblaster

A mechanism for sun-climate connection
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 23, December 2005)
- Sultan Hameed, Jae N. Lee

A new pathway for communicating the 11-year solar cycle signal to the QBO
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 18, September 2005)
- Eugene C. Cordero, Terrence R. Nathan

Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing
(Science, Volume 325, Number 5944, pp. 1114-1118, August 2009)
- Gerald A. Meehl, Julie M. Arblaster, Katja Matthes, Fabrizio Sassi, Harry van Loon

Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle (PDF)
(Geoscience Canada, Volume 32, Number 1, March 2005)
- Ján Veizer

Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?
(GSA Today, Volume 13, Issue 7, pp. 4-10, July 2003)
- Nir J. Shaviv, Ján Veizer

Century-scale solar variability and Alaskan temperature change over the past millennium
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 15, August 2004)
- Gregory C. Wiles et al.

Climate cyclicity in late Holocene anoxic marine sediments from the Seymour-Belize Inlet Complex (PDF)
(Marine Geology, Volume 242, Issues 1-3, pp. 123-140, August 2007)
- R. Timothy Patterson, Andreas Prokoph, Eduard Reinhardt, Helen M. Roe

Comparison of proxy records of climate change and solar forcing
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp. 359-362, February 1996)
- Crowley, Thomas J., Kim, Kwang-Yul

Cyclic Variation and Solar Forcing of Holocene Climate in the Alaskan Subarctic (PDF)
(Science, Volume 301, Number 5641, pp. 1890-1893, September 2003)
- Feng Sheng Hu et al.

Earth's Heat Source - The Sun (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 131-144, January 2009)
- Oliver K. Manuel

Earth's Radiative Equilibrium in the Solar Irradiance (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 85-95, January 2009)
- Martin Hertzberg

Eleven-year solar cycle signal throughout the lower atmosphere
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 109, Issue D21, November 2004)
- K. Coughlin, K. K. Tung

Evidence for a solar signature in 20th-century temperature data from the USA and Europe (PDF)
(Comptes Rendus Geosciences, Volume 340, Issue 7, pp. 421-430, July 2008)
- Jean-Louis Le Mouël, Vincent Courtillot, Elena Blanter, Mikhail Shnirman

Evidence of Solar Variation in Tree-Ring-Based Climate Reconstructions
(Solar Physics, Volume 205, Number 2, pp. 403-417, February 2002)
- M.G. Ogurtsov , G.E. Kocharov, M. Lindholm, J. Meriläinen, M. Eronen, Yu.A. Nagovitsyn

Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 97, Number 23, pp. 12433-12438, November 2000)
- Charles A. Perry, Kenneth J. Hsu

Global Temperature Forced by Solar Irradiation and Greenhouse Gases? (PDF)
(Ambio, Volume 30, Number 6, pp. 349-350, September 2001)
- Wibjörn Karlén

Has solar variability caused climate change that affected human culture?
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 40, Issue 7, pp. 1173-1180, March 2007)
- Joan Feynmana

Imprint of Galactic dynamics on Earth's climate (PDF)
(Astronomical Notes, Volume 327, Issue 9, pp. 866-870, October 2006)
- H. Svensmark

Inference of Solar Irradiance Variability from Terrestrial Temperature Changes, 1880--1993: an Astrophysical Application of the Sun-Climate Connection (PDF)
(Astrophysical Journal, Volume 472, pp. 891, December 1996)
- Willie H. Soon, Eric S. Posmentier, Sallie L. Baliunas

Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River?
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 111, Issue D21, November 2006)
- Alexander Ruzmaikin, Joan Feynman, Yuk L. Yung

Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate
(Science, Volume 254, Number 5032, pp. 698-700, November 1991)
- E. Friis-Christensen, K. Lassen

Linkages Between Solar Activity and Climatic Responses
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 239-254, March 2005)
- William J.R. Alexander et al.

Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development (PDF)
(Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, Volume 49, Number 2, pp. 32–44, June 2007)
- William J.R. Alexander, F Bailey, D B Bredenkamp, A van der Merwe, N Willemse

Long-Period Cycles of the Sun's Activity Recorded in Direct Solar Data and Proxies
(Solar Physics, Volume 211, Numbers 1-2, December 2002)
- M.G. Ogurtsov, Yu.A. Nagovitsyn, G.E. Kocharov, H. Jungner

Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since the 1940's (PDF)
(Physical Review Letters, Volume 91, Issue 21, November 2003)
- Ilya G. Usoskin, Sami K. Solanki, Manfred Schüssler, Kalevi Mursula, Katja Alanko

On solar forcing of Holocene climate: evidence from Scandinavia
(The Holocene, Volume 6, Number 3, pp. 359-365, 1996)
- Wibjörn Karlén, Johan Kuylenstierna

Once again about global warming and solar activity (PDF)
(Journal of the Italian Astronomical Society, Volume 76, pp. 969, 2005)
- K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, B. Kirov

Orbital Controls on the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the Tropical Climate
(Paleoceanogrpahy, Volume 14, Number 4, pp. 441–456, 1999)
- A. C. Clement, R. Seager, M. A. Cane

Palaeoenvironmental evidence for solar forcing of Holocene climate: linkages to solar science
(Progress in Physical Geography, Volume 23, Number 2, pp. 181-204, 1999)
- Frank M. Chambers, Michael I. Ogle, Jeffrey J. Blackford

Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene
(Science, Volume 294, Number 5549, pp. 2130-2136, December 2001)
- Gerard Bond et al.

Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 5, March 2006)
- N. Scafetta, B. J. West

Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 17, September 2006)
- N. Scafetta, B. J. West

Possible geomagnetic activity effects on weather
(Annales Geophysicae, Volume 17, Number 7, pp. 925-932, July 1999)
- J. Bochníček, P. Hejda1, V. Bucha, J. Pýcha

Possible solar forcing of century-scale drought frequency in the northern Great Plains
(Geology, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 263-266, Mar 1999)
- Zicheng Yu, Emi Ito

Regional tropospheric responses to long-term solar activity variations
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 40, Issue 7, pp. 1167-1172, 2007)
- O.M. Raspopov, V.A. Dergachev, A.V. Kuzmin, O.V. Kozyreva, M.G. Ogurtsov, T. Kolström and E. Lopatin

Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate (PDF)
(Journal of Coastal Research, Issue 50, pp. 955-968, 2007)
- Richard Mackey

Solar activity variations and global temperature
(Energy The International Journal, Volume 18, Number 12, pp. 1273-1284, 1993)
- Friis-Christensen, Eigil

Solar and climate signal records in tree ring width from Chile (AD 1587–1994)
(Planetary and Space Science, Volume 55, Issues 1-2, pp. 158-164, January 2007)
- Nivaor Rodolfo Rigozoa et al.

Solar correlates of Southern Hemisphere mid-latitude climate variability
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 22, Issue 8, pp. 901-915, May 2002)
- Ronald E. Thresher

Solar cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 1, pp. 29-35, January 2006)
- David C. Archibald

Solar Cycle Variability, Ozone, and Climate
(Science, Volume 284, Number 5412, pp. 305-308, April 1999)
- Drew Shindell, David Rind, Nambeth Balachandran, Judith Lean, Patrick Lonergan

Solar Forcing of Changes in Atmospheric Circulation, Earth's Rotation and Climate (PDF)
(The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, Volume 2, pp. 181-184, August 2008)
- Adriano Mazzarella

Solar Forcing of Climate. 1: Solar Variability
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 120, Numbers 3-4, pp. 197-241, October 2005)
- C. De Jager

Solar Forcing of Climate. 2: Evidence from the Past
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 120, Numbers 3-4, pp. 243-286, October 2005)
- Gerard J. M. Versteegh

Solar Forcing of Drought Frequency in the Maya Lowlands
(Science, Volume 292, Number 5520, pp. 1367-1370, May 2001)
- David A. Hodell, Mark Brenner, Jason H. Curtis, Thomas Guilderson

Solar forcing of the polar atmosphere (PDF)
(Annals of Glaciology, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp. 147-154, 2005)
- Andrew Mayewski et al.

Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900-1999
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp. 24-1, February 2003)
- Kunihiko Kodera

Solar total irradiance variation and the global sea surface temperature record
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 96, Number D2, pp. 2835–2844, February 1991)
- George C. Reid

Solar variability and climate change: Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 25, Issue 7, pp. 1035-1038, January 1998)
- E.W. Cliver, V. Boriakoff, J. Feynman

Solar variability and ring widths in fossil trees
(Il Nuovo Cimento C, Volume 19, Number 4, July 1996)
- S. Cecchini, M. Galli, T. Nanni, L. Ruggiero

Solar Variability Over the Past Several Millennia (PDF)
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 125, Issue 1-4, pp. 67-79, December 2006)
- J. Beer, M. Vonmoos, R. Muscheler

Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 8, April 2007)
- H. B. Hammel, G. W. Lockwood

Sun-Climate Linkage Now Confirmed
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 123-130, January 2009)
- Adriano Mazzarella

Sunspots, the QBO, and the stratospheric temperature in the north polar region
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 14, Issue 5, p. 535-537, May 1987)
- Karin Labitzke

Sunspots, the QBO and the stratosphere in the North Polar Region - 20 years later
(Meteorologische Zeitschrift, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 355-363, June 2006)
- Karin Labitzke et al.

Sunspots, the QBO, and the Stratosphere in the North Polar Region: An Update
(Advances in Global Change Research, Volume 33, pp. 347-357, 2007)
- Karin Labitzke et al.

Superfluidity in the Solar Interior: Implications for Solar Eruptions and Climate (PDF)
(Journal of Fusion Energy, Volume 21, Numbers 3-4, pp. 193-198, December 2002)
- Oliver K. Manuel, Barry W. Ninham, Stig E. Friberg

Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 14, July 2007)
- Charles D. Camp, Ka Kit Tung

The 60-year solar modulation of global air temperature: the Earth’s rotation and atmospheric circulation connection
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 88, Numbers 3-4, March 2007)
- Adriano Mazzarella

The influence of the 11 yr solar cycle on the interannual–centennial climate variability
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 67, Issues 8-9, pp. 793-805 ,May-June 2005)
- Hengyi Weng

The Influence of the Solar Cycle and QBO on the Late-Winter Stratospheric Polar Vortex
(Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 64, Issue 4, pp. 1267–1283, April 2007)
- Charles D. Camp, Ka-Kit Tung

The link between the solar dynamo and climate - The evidence from a long mean air temperature series from Northern Ireland
(Irish Astronomical Journal, Volume 21, Number 3-4, pp. 251-254, September 1994)
- C.J. Butler, D.J. Johnston

The signal of the 11-year sunspot cycle in the upper troposphere-lower stratosphere
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 80, Numbers 3-4, pp. 393-410, May 1997)
- K. Labitzke, H. van Loon

The Sun–Earth Connection in Time Scales from Years to Decades and Centuries
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 95, Numbers 1-2, pp. 625-637, January 2001)
- T.I. Pulkkinen, H. Nevanlinna, P.J. Pulkkinen, M. Lockwood

The Sun's Role in Regulating the Earth's Climate Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 25-73, January 2009)
- Richard Mackey

Understanding Solar Behaviour and its Influence on Climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 145-159, January 2009)
- Timo Niroma

Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 113, Issue A11, November 2008)
- Nir J. Shaviv

Variations of solar coronal hole area and terrestrial lower tropospheric air temperature from 1979 to mid-1998: astronomical forcings of change in earth's climate? (PDF)
(New Astronomy, Volume 4, Issue 8, pp. 563-579, January 2000)
- Willie H. Soon, Sallie L Baliunas, Eric S. Posmentier, P. Okeke

Variability of the solar cycle length during the past five centuries and the apparent association with terrestrial climate
(Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, Volume 57, Issue 8, pp. 835-845, July 1995)
- K. Lassen, E. Friis-Christensen

Variations in Radiocarbon Concentration and Sunspot Activity
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 66, Issue 1, pp.273, January 1961)
- Stuiver, M.

Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
(Science, Volume 194, Number 4270, pp. 1121-1132, December 1976)
- J. D. Hays, John Imbrie, N. J. Shackleton

What do we really know about the Sun-climate connection?
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 20, Issue 4-5, pp. 913-921, September 1997)
- Eigil Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark

Links here:
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/solar-and-orbital-cycles

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Dec-26, 03:39 PM

If you won't or can't address the issues raised concerning the extensive exclusion of contrary hypotheses from the relevant scholarly journals through bias and bullying,...
Nonsense (and would belong to conspiracy theory section). "Contrary hypotheses" get published all the time, like Svensmark, Lindzen, Spencer,... In fact they get published far more than they would deserve, considering what kind of nonsense they are producing. Recent paper of Lindzen & Choi is prime example of that, containing so bad flaws that it shouldn't have never passed peer-review.

Stroller

2009-Dec-26, 03:56 PM

It's not only exclusion which is the problem. And neither does the fact that many contrary papers have been published in the literature demonstrate that many other's have not been excluded, as any schoolchild studying logic could tell.
The emails between a certain Journal editor and the CRU hockey Jockey's demonstrates one example of what I'm referring to. Where some papers couldn't be excluded, they were delayed long enough for the team to formulate their response for publication at the same time.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

Daffy

2009-Dec-26, 04:44 PM

It's not only exclusion which is the problem. And neither does the fact that many contrary papers have been published in the literature demonstrate that many other's have not been excluded, as any schoolchild studying logic could tell.

It doesn't indicate that they have, either. Or maybe I just don't understand children's logic.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Dec-26, 04:48 PM

It's not only exclusion which is the problem. And neither does the fact that many contrary papers have been published in the literature demonstrate that many other's have not been excluded, as any schoolchild studying logic could tell.
Nice insult...

You specifically mentioned the "extensive exclusion of contrary hypotheses", you didn't say anything about individual papers. Neither did I by the way. I also specifically mentioned "contrary hypotheses". As usual, you are twisting the facts.

The emails between a certain Journal editor and the CRU hockey Jockey's demonstrates one example of what I'm referring to. Where some papers couldn't be excluded, they were delayed long enough for the team to formulate their response for publication at the same time.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html
There you go again with blog references. And I thought there were separate thread for your CRU email conspiracy theories.

Stroller

2009-Dec-26, 06:29 PM

The article I linked is written by the publishing climate scientists who were the subject of the emails, it is not a commentary written by a blogger.

nauthiz

2009-Dec-27, 12:28 AM

I think everyone needs to employ a little skill in reading between the lines of NASA press releases. While there is a disjunction between the troposphere and the rest of the upper atmosphere, there is nothing similar fundamentally preventing the transfer of energy from the tropopause through the stratosphere to the more rarified parts of the upper atmosphere such as the mesosphere and ionosphere.

I think an important skill when interpreting such things includes not jumping to conclusions.

If we're just talking about thermal characteristics, there's an interesting thing as you increase in altitude through the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere that would seem to indicate that it is unwise to assume that a press release that talks exclusively about how something affects temperatures in the thermosphere is something that can be taken to describe how the stratosphere works as well: In the stratosphere, temperature increases as altitude increases. Once you get to the mesophere, though, temperature decreases as altitude increases. And the inversion of the relationship happens again once you transition from the mesosphere to the thermosphere. Furthermore, temperatures in the stratosphere peak at about the freezing point of water while temperatures in the thermosphere peak at around 2,500C, and the chemical composition of the two layers is rather different as well. (The ozone layer is in the stratosphere, for example.) That would all seem to imply that whatever mechanisms are controlling temperatures in the two layers may not be all that similar.

Trakar

2009-Dec-27, 01:29 AM

Here you go.
(snip of misrepresented and discredited papers)
Links here:
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/solar-and-orbital-cycles

so nothing that compellingly and scientifically supports your contentions?

Trakar

2009-Dec-27, 03:08 AM

Douglass et al's Paper

Douglass et al paper showed the 20th century warming was not due to CO2.

Do you follow me to this point?

The Douglas, Christy, Pearson, Singer paper does no such thing. What it does attempt to do is demonstrate a flaw between several GCM predictions and observational data. An attempt that is deemed faulty and without merit by mainstream climatology and exposed in numerous published letters and subsequent papers and studies, among them:

"Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds" Robert J. Allen, and Steven C. Sherwood, 25 May 2008; doi:10.1038/ngeo208 - http://lubos.motl.googlepages.com/sherwood-allen-ngeo-2008.pdf

"Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere" - https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2008/NR-08-10-05-article.pdf

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2656

If you really wish to discuss the science in a serious manner, you would be well advised to forego the blogosphere, and pick up with the texts and published papers.

Trakar

2009-Dec-27, 04:16 AM

Trakar,

Your comment is not correct concerning Loehle's paper.

According to peer-review and the general mainstream scientific analysis and review of its methods, treatments and findings,...my comment is amply supported. Your against the mainstream perspective, however, is without compelling support and empiric findings.

There will be more cold weather and there will be a independent investigation concerning the problems in the science.

The climate has been, and continues to be, increasingly warmer on long period average according to all available evidence, there is no problem in the science, except for those who continue to try and distort its methods and findings to promote contra-mainstream pseudoscience. If you are unsure of what mainstream science has to say on the issue please do as you would do in any other area of science where you have questions, visit the mainstream global and national climate science sites and review their statements upon the issue.

John Jaksich

2009-Dec-27, 04:34 AM

According to peer-review and the general mainstream scientific analysis and review of its methods, treatments and findings,...my comment is amply supported. Your against the mainstream perspective, however, is without compelling support and empiric findings.

There will be more cold weather and there will be a independent investigation concerning the problems in the science.

The weather has been and continues to be increasingly warmer according to all available evidence, there is no problem in the science, except for those who continue to try and distort its methods and findings to promote contra-mainstream pseudoscience. If you are unsure of what mainstream science has to say on the issue please do as you would do in any other area of science where you have questions, visit the mainstream global and national climate science sites and review their statements upon the issue.

I could not have said it any better. Convoluted studies and argumentation can not refute the laws of Thermodynamics.

Trakar

2009-Dec-27, 05:04 AM

This is a description of the Argo's ocean temperature monitoring system.

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

from your linked reference:
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html

See attachment which includes covered ARGOs period data - Levitus 2009

Despite what Loehle may have asserted, neither his work nor his papers stand up to casual review, much-less field specific peer review. His data selections are largely arbitrary, and technically loose/sloppy and lacking in rigour, lending little or no support for his broad and often rambling assertions.

Among other published papers and letters refuting and correcting the errors in Loehle's work, and perhaps more importantly, the errors in the data and data collection technology which allowed Loehle to foist his distortions as legitimate representations of science:

"Improved estimates of upper-ocean warming and multi-decadal sea-level rise," Domingues et al doi:10.1038/nature07080; Received 27 December 2007; Accepted 3 May 2008
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html

"Changing Expendable Bathythermograph Fall Rates and Their Impact on Estimates of Thermosteric Sea Level Rise" http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JCLI2290.1&ct=1

"Correction to 'Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean'" - http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf

[in short, for those interested but not real handy at scoping through published science, there was a problem in the floats in that they were reading incorrect pressures, and registered that they were higher/shallower in the water column than they actually were -deeper water = colder water, the floats were deeper and colder but thought they were higher and colder thus the source of the most of the "missing heat"]

Trakar

2009-Dec-27, 05:13 AM

I could not have said it any better. Convoluted studies and argumentation can not refute the laws of Thermodynamics.

I've corrected a few minor spelling and technical trivalities in my previous post

Stroller

2009-Dec-27, 10:53 AM

deemed faulty and without merit by mainstream climatology

I agree that there has been a lot of deeming and discrediting going on. But since I was asked to provide links to papers in the peer reviewed literature, perhaps you'd like to provide links to the refutations in the peer reviewed literature. Or are you referring to 'rebuttals' on the heavily censored and discredited climate alarmist blogs like realclimate?

tusenfem

2009-Dec-27, 12:43 PM

Or are you referring to 'rebuttals' on the heavily censored and discredited climate alarmist blogs like realclimate?

I certainly hope not because NOBODY is going to use the blogsphere anymore in this thread. That will lead to an immediate 2 point infraction on either side of the AGW divide.

nimbus2506

2009-Dec-27, 04:07 PM

Don't have time to go through all of them but I'll see how many I can do. From a quick overview it looks like the majority show effects of the sun on localised regions and throughout history.

I'm very interested in this thread as it is the only one out there afaik that actually has kept itself scientific rather than letting emotionals get in the way. So thank you all :)
keep it up.

(sorry for bad spelling/grammer; I tried my best)

Here you go.

80–120 yr Long-term solar induced effects on the earth, past and predictions
(Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Volume 31, Issues 1-3, pp. 113-122, 2006)
- Shahinaz Moustafa Yousef

The majority of the cycles are discussed in first part.

Fig2, the 80–120 yr solar Wolf-Gleissberg cycle shows a dramatic increase from 40 to 80 (filtered annual sunspot number (ASN)) with a vertical line to 100 (150% increase) for first half of the century. They declined second half of the century to 30, yet temps keep going up after a short decrease for 20 years with a peak in 1998 which could correspond to the short lived sun spot ASN of 60.

A decadal solar effect in the tropics in July–August (PDF)
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 66, Issue 18, pp. 1767-1778, December 2004)
- Harry van Loona, Gerald A. Meehlb, Julie M. Arblaster

This paper suggests that their model was stronger when their solar data was combined with increased greenhouse gases

Meehl also wrote a paper which concluded that increase greenhouse gases in late 20th century was primary reason for warming and in the early century the sun was primary. (I'm pretty sure that is what the IPCC concluded to? Correct me if I'm wrong)
Meehl, G.A., Washington, W.M., Wigley, T.M.L., Arblaster,
J.M., Dai, A., 2003. Solar and greenhouse gas forcing and
climate response in the 20th century. Journal of Climate 16,
426–444

A mechanism for sun-climate connection
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 23, December 2005)
- Sultan Hameed, Jae N. Lee

During the discussion, they reference previous work done which show that the midwinter stratospheric warmings depend on QBO phase and solar cycle. They then discuss the main mechanism for that is the ultravoilet variations which influence radiative heating (Greenhouse gases afaik) and others...

A new pathway for communicating the 11-year solar cycle signal to the QBO
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 18, September 2005)
- Eugene C. Cordero, Terrence R. Nathan

Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing
(Science, Volume 325, Number 5944, pp. 1114-1118, August 2009)
- Gerald A. Meehl, Julie M. Arblaster, Katja Matthes, Fabrizio Sassi, Harry van Loon

No disagreement here. Articles do not state anything about main causes of climate change. Only that it can cause climate change which is well established. They used a model which had anthropogenic and natural forcing data.

Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle (PDF)
(Geoscience Canada, Volume 32, Number 1, March 2005)
- Ján Veizer

Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?
(GSA Today, Volume 13, Issue 7, pp. 4-10, July 2003)
- Nir J. Shaviv, Ján Veizer

Refuted by Royer and gang.

Royer, Dana L. and Robert A. Berner, Isabel P. Montañez, Neil J. Tabor, David J. Beerling (2004) "CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate", in GSA Today July 2004, volume 14, number 3, pages 4-10

Earth's Heat Source - The Sun (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 131-144, January 2009)
- Oliver K. Manuel

Earth's Radiative Equilibrium in the Solar Irradiance (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 85-95, January 2009)
- Martin Hertzberg

Linkages Between Solar Activity and Climatic Responses
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 239-254, March 2005)
- William J.R. Alexander et al.

Solar cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 1, pp. 29-35, January 2006)
- David C. Archibald

Sun-Climate Linkage Now Confirmed
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 123-130, January 2009)
- Adriano Mazzarella

The Sun's Role in Regulating the Earth's Climate Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 25-73, January 2009)
- Richard Mackey

Understanding Solar Behaviour and its Influence on Climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 145-159, January 2009)
- Timo Niroma

From what I've read you've already been told that E&E is not recognised scientific journal across the whole spectrum. Using anything from there should be treated with the same skeptism as CRU data.

It is the equivant of using papers from Journal of Astrology to prove astrology.

Even though there may be some good ethical scientists there who have picked the wrong journal. They should have researched the journal they were submitting it into more properly.

Trakar

2009-Dec-27, 07:19 PM

I agree that there has been a lot of deeming and discrediting going on. But since I was asked to provide links to papers in the peer reviewed literature, perhaps you'd like to provide links to the refutations in the peer reviewed literature. Or are you referring to 'rebuttals' on the heavily censored and discredited climate alarmist blogs like realclimate?

Are you now asserting psychic abilities?

BTW - in the very post you quote from I did provide links to published critiques and rejections of the work in question, but since it seems to be a slow thread day, here are a few additional published papers that directly address/refute the issues raised in the Douglas, Christy, Pearson, Singer paper:

"Radiosonde Daytime Biases and Late-20th Century Warming" Steven Sherwood, John Lanzante, Cathryn Meyer
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1115640v1 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1115640v1)

"Toward Elimination of the Warm Bias in Historic Radiosonde Temperature Records—Some New Results from a Comprehensive Intercomparison of Upper-Air Data" Leopold Haimberger, Christina Tavolato, and Stefan Sperka
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?doi=10.1175%2F2008JCLI1929.1&request=get-abstract

"Assessing Bias and Uncertainty in the HadAT-Adjusted Radiosonde Climate Record" Mark P. McCarthy, H. A. Titchner, P. W. Thorne, S. F. B. Tett, L. Haimberger, D. E. Parker. http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?doi=10.1175%2F2007JCLI1733.1&request=get-abstract

"Tropical vertical temperature trends: A real discrepancy?" P. W. Thorne, D. E. Parker, B. D. Santer, M. P. McCarthy, D. M. H. Sexton, M. J. Webb, J. M. Murphy, M. Collins, H. A. Titchner, G. S. Jones. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029875.shtml

Trakar

2009-Dec-27, 09:02 PM

(...)From what I've read you've already been told that E&E is not recognised scientific journal across the whole spectrum. Using anything from there should be treated with the same skeptism as CRU data.(...)

After much consideration and internal debate, I feel compelled to comment. While it is important to note and distinguish between rigorous scientific journals and journals/magazines whose primary purpose is not the vetting and presentation of substantial scientific research and consideration for the review of specific peer elements, we have to be careful not to apply a more general stigmatism to people, or even necessarily the science and consideration of the published works in those lessor standard publications.

It is one thing to say that an article has not been thoroughly vetted and is unlikely to gain appropriate peer-review because it has been published in such a venue, it is an entirely different matter to automatically reject or deny that such an article has any merit at all, merely because it was accepted for publication in such a magazine.

Likewise, we must be careful not to impune the reviewed and respected professional work of a particular individual, or especially the work of an entire research institute merely because we find the personal statements of an individual researcher to be concerning, disconcerting or otherwise suspect.

The only issue that should matter when it comes to looking at a particular researcher or piece of research, is the content of that work, whether or not it is accurate in its data, application and methodology, whether or not its findings are supported by its own processes and whether or not it is congruent with previous and subsequent similar researches.

All of these issues deserve much fuller discussion and explanation, and I would be happy to expand upon my perspective of them but they are somewhat ancilliary to the overall subject matter.

Stroller

2009-Dec-27, 09:25 PM

The only issue that should matter when it comes to looking at a particular researcher or piece of research, is the content of that work, whether or not it is accurate in its data, application and methodology

Bravo.

Of course, this is contingent on the data and precise methodology being forthcoming upon request. Something which has caused considerable difficulty for those wishing to replicate the results of some hitherto highly esteemed climatologists.

buzgz

2009-Dec-27, 09:45 PM

One of the major considerations in assessing the impact of any recent warming is to compare present warming to that during the MWP. I have been reviewing some of the papers to get a sense of how warmth during the MWP was determined, and I'm a bit perplexed at the way it was approached.

I've looked at Crowley and Lowery, Crowley(2000), and Mann (MBH99).

http://ambio.allenpress.com/archive/0044-7447/29/1/pdf/i0044-7447-29-1-51.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/289/5477/270.pdf
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/MBH1999.pdf

Numerous proxies were used, 15 by Crowley for example, consisting of either tree rings, tree densities or ice cores. His approach was apparently to concede perfect historical accuracy to each proxy, and to simply average the results.

This produced three MWPs, one from 1010-1040, one from 1070-1105, and one from 1155-1190. Since more than one maximum was produced by the simple average, there was not a single major peak as I might have thought, but different MWPs in different parts of the world at different times. (I feel the need right here to assure the reader that I'm not making this up, that Crowley actually states this, but I guess more seasoned scientists would exclaim "of course").

Now, while I have additional questions about the papers, I'll limit my discussion for present to this point. Does anyone have references that address the accuracy of historical proxy records ? If one guessed that there was a singe world wide MWP, then these records would indicate it happened about 1090, plus or minus 70 years.

Had a single world wide MWP been postulated, another scientist might have aligned the peak warming periods before averaging while explaining that the proxy record dates might be off by as much as less than 10%. Of course this approach would have produced a much (by nearly 3X) warmer MWP, and would have shown present day warming not particularly alarming by comparison.

I welcome pros and cons to the adopted approach.

Trakar

2009-Dec-27, 10:00 PM

Of course, this is contingent on the data and precise methodology being forthcoming upon request. Something which has caused considerable difficulty for those wishing to replicate the results of some hitherto highly esteemed climatologists.

All of the data is available to all people willing to pay for it and demonstrate their ability to meet the requirements and stipulations placed upon that data by those who own the raw data, just as the mainstream researchers had to do to gain access to the raw data. It is a free market economy that demands payment and respects the private ownership and control of such information. Most public institutions are willing to share what information they have, but they are not allowed to freely dispense data and processes that are privately owned and controlled.

Trakar

2009-Dec-27, 10:21 PM

(...)If one guessed that there was a singe world wide MWP, then these records would indicate it happened about 1090, plus or minus 70 years.(...)

This would be presuming the result and "correcting" the data to support that presumption.

The more objective approach would be to calibrate regional proxies for known global and regional events, where possible it is essential to cross check these against additional and accepted proxy readings and modern instrument data. One can then assess regional warming and cooling periods, combining such regional assessments around the globe one can then look to see if there are periods of global cooling and warming that are consistent and overlapping.

As an aside, it is normal and expected that there will be regional cool and warm periods, and according to most mainstream scientific evidence this is what we see. I really don't understand the seeming obsession with propping up or manufacturing global situations that aren't dervied from and supported by the evidence? And in the end, even if new evidences which completely overturned the current proxy understandings and confirmed and supported a mild global event during this time frame, it really wouldn't alter or change climate understandings, models or predictions significantly, all it would do is add a minor hump to the temperature record some 1000 years ago. A hump, I might add, that existed on most mainstream global climate records up until about a decade ago, and wasn't a serious issue to the early climate models, understandings, or IPCC findings.

buzgz

2009-Dec-28, 02:11 AM

... all it would do is add a minor hump to the temperature record some 1000 years ago. A hump, I might add, that existed on most mainstream global climate records up until about a decade ago, and wasn't a serious issue to the early climate models, understandings, or IPCC findings.

But it seems not to exist today. What is your understanding of the current proxy interpretations that caused the hump to go missing ? I'm trying to figure out exactly what changed.

Trakar

2009-Dec-28, 04:35 AM

But it seems not to exist today. What is your understanding of the current proxy interpretations that caused the hump to go missing ? I'm trying to figure out exactly what changed.

As far as I know it still exists in the N. Atlantic regional climate record and there is even a mild indication of it remaining in the global record, if I'm not mistaken, it simply isn't as significant globally as it is in the N. Atlantic region. Even within the N Atlantic, however, there is a lot of lack of consistency within both the written, early instrument and proxy records, which is a lot of what has contributed the readjustment of the magnitude of the MO/MWP even in a regional expression.

In the global record, it is averaged in with rest of the the global proxy data, much of which has only been recovered in the last couple of decades, this averaging tends to lower the impact of outlier extremes in any a single region. Prior to a more thorough assessing of global proxy data, the more numerous historical record data points of the N. Atlantic region were unduly weighted in the global assessments.

Stroller

2009-Dec-28, 09:11 AM

As McKintyre and McKittrick 2004 discovered, the disappeared MWP in MBH99 is mostly due to a misuse of statistical methods.

Southern hemisphere proxy studies do also show elevated temperatures during the MWP around 0.4 to 0.95C higher than recent temperatures too, no matter what Trakar says. I linked one of the peer reviewed studies from New Zealand a couple of pages back. Nobody commented on it (surprise!).

Reference
Wilson, A.T., Hendy, C.H. and Reynolds, C.P. 1979. Short-term climate change and New Zealand temperatures during the last millennium. Nature 279: 315-317.

Description
Temperatures derived from an 18O/16O profile through a stalagmite found in a New Zealand cave (40.67°S, 172.43°E) revealed the Medieval Warm Period to have occurred between AD 1050 and 1400 and to have been 0.75°C warmer than the Current Warm Period.

Here are some more:

Reference
Goni, M.A., Woodworth, M.P., Aceves, H.L., Thunell, R.C., Tappa, E., Black, D., Muller-Karger, F., Astor, Y. and Varela, R. 2004. Generation, transport, and preservation of the alkenone-based U37K' sea surface temperature index in the water column and sediments of the Cariaco Basin (Venezuela). Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18: 10.1029/2003GB002132.

Description
Based on the degree of unsaturation of certain long-chain alkenones synthesized by haptophyte algae contained in a sediment core retrieved from the eastern sub-basin of the Cariaco Basin (10°30'N, 64°40'W) on the continental shelf off the Venezuelan central coast, Goni et al. determined that the highest sea surface temperatures at that location over the past 6000 years "were measured during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)," which they identified as occurring between AD 800 and 1400. From the graph of their results reconstructed below, it is further evident that peak MWP temperatures were approximately 0.35°C warmer than peak Current Warm Period temperatures, and that they were fully 0.95°C warmer than the mean temperature of the last few years of the 20th century.

Reference
von Gunten, L., Grosjean, M., Rein, B., Urrutia, R. and Appleby, P. 2009. A quantitative high-resolution summer temperature reconstruction based on sedimentary pigments from Laguna Aculeo, central Chile, back to AD 850. The Holocene 19: 873-881.

Description
Von Gunten et al. developed a continuous high-resolution (1-3 years sampling interval, 5-year filtered reconstruction) austral summer (December to February) temperature reconstruction based on chloropigments derived from algae and phototrophic bacteria found in sediment cores retrieved from Central Chile's Laguna Aculeo (33°50'S, 70°54'W) in 2005 that extended back in time to AD 850. This work provided, in their words, "quantitative evidence for the presence of a Medieval Climate Anomaly (in this case, warm summers between AD 1150 and 1350; ΔT = +0.27 to +0.37°C with respect to (wrt) twentieth century) and a very cool period synchronous to the 'Little Ice Age' starting with a sharp drop between AD 1350 and AD 1400 (-0.3°C/10 years, decadal trend) followed by constantly cool (ΔT = -0.70 to -0.90°C wrt twentieth century) summers until AD 1750." Looking at the graph of their data, the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period (CWP) occurred in the late 1940s. Since that time, temperatures have declined and then risen, but not to the level of warmth experienced earlier in the century. Peak warmth of the MWP is about 0.5°C higher than that recorded for the past two decades of the 20th century, which latter period is claimed by the world's climate alarmists to have been the warmest of the past thousand or more years. Hence, it is this latter period to which we compare the peak warmth of the MWP.

Reference
Rein B., Lückge, A., Reinhardt, L., Sirocko, F., Wolf, A. and Dullo, W.-C. 2005. El Niño variability off Peru during the last 20,000 years. Paleoceanography 20: 10.1029/2004PA001099.

Description
The authors derived sea surface temperatures from alkenones extracted from a high-resolution marine sediment core retrieved off the coast of Peru (12.05°S, 77.66°W), spanning the past 20,000 years and ending in the 1960s. From their Figure 11, adapted below, it can be seen that the warmest temperatures of this 20,000 year period (~23.2°C) occurred during the late Medieval time (AD 800-1250). Taking this value, 23.2°C, and comparing it with the modern monthly long-term means in sea surface temperature, which the authors characterize as between 15°C and 22°C, we estimate the peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period for this region was about 1.2°C above that of the Current Warm Period.

Reference
Hemer, M.A. and Harris, P.T. 2003. Sediment core from beneath the Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica, suggests mid-Holocene ice-shelf retreat. Geology 31: 127-130.

Description
Changes in the location of the edge of the Amery Ice Shelf were inferred from measurements of biogenic opal, absolute diatom abundance and the abundance of Fragilariopsis curta found in sediments retrieved from beneath the ice shelf at a point that is currently 80 km from land's edge. The MWP at ca. 750 14C yr BP was likely warmer than at any time during the CWP.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Dec-28, 04:39 PM

First, a general note: Stroller, you still are not giving the links to your references, why is that?

I linked one of the peer reviewed studies from New Zealand a couple of pages back. Nobody commented on it (surprise!).

Reference
Wilson, A.T., Hendy, C.H. and Reynolds, C.P. 1979.
Note that the publication year is 1979. Most of the global warming has occurred after that, so this is irrelevant reference.

Reference
Rein B., Lückge, A., Reinhardt, L., Sirocko, F., Wolf, A. and Dullo, W.-C. 2005. El Niño variability off Peru during the last 20,000 years. Paleoceanography 20: 10.1029/2004PA001099.
And in the offered quote of this reference was:

The authors derived sea surface temperatures from alkenones extracted from a high-resolution marine sediment core retrieved off the coast of Peru (12.05°S, 77.66°W), spanning the past 20,000 years and ending in the 1960s.
Ending in the 1960s, before the most of the current warming. Irrelevant reference.

It is not surprising if even from southern hemisphere some examples are found where MWP was warmer than currently, but picking on individual cases that support your position selectively from here and there is called cherry-picking. One needs to look at big picture.

Trakar

2009-Dec-28, 06:26 PM

As McKintyre and McKittrick 2004 discovered, the disappeared MWP in MBH99 is mostly due to a misuse of statistical methods.

The irony level inherent in this single statement makes the rest of your post hard to get to.

Researchers who have (on more than one occassion) had their publications rejected and discredited by their peers for the types of elementary statistical error and the very type of using "predetermined results" to filter their data and shape their data selection process, that I mentioned above, should have very little expectation that thier protestions would draw much attention. If you would care to reference the specific paper in which this assertion was made, however, I will be happy to look into it in more detail.

Stroller

2009-Dec-28, 06:33 PM

First, a general note: Stroller, you still are not giving the links to your references, why is that?
I'm sure you can drive google as well as anyone Ari.

Note that the publication year is 1979. Most of the global warming has occurred after that, so this is irrelevant reference.
[
Note that the publication states the Medieval Warm Period was 0.75C higher than 1979 temps at that location in New Zealand, but global temperature has only increased 0.37-0.45C since. So, not irrelevant at all.

And in the offered quote of this reference was:

Ending in the 1960s, before the most of the current warming. Irrelevant reference.

But the sea temperature in the medieval warm period was 1.2C warmer than the end of the 60's at this location, and global SST has risen only 0.4C since. Once again you are trying to mislead people.

It is not surprising if even from southern hemisphere some examples are found where MWP was warmer than currently, but picking on individual cases that support your position selectively from here and there is called cherry-picking. One needs to look at big picture.

Before you accuse me of scientific malpractice, maybe you should provide some examples of peer reviewed studies from the southern hemisphere which show cooler temperatures in the medieval warm period. Otherwise, I would like you to withdraw your accusation and apologise for making your false accusation.

captain swoop

2009-Dec-28, 06:37 PM

Boing goes my Ironymeter

Trakar

2009-Dec-28, 06:38 PM

Note that the publication year is 1979. Most of the global warming has occurred after that, so this is irrelevant reference.

Well, if it is a paleo proxy study, then that (warming since 1979) is generally of little consequence, the issue at hand is whether or not subsequent proxy studies in the same area have since adjusted the weighting of this earlier data, A lot of proxy studies prior to the eighties need to be carefully examined for procedural issues and methodological assumptions as well. The understandings of the time simply weren't what they are currently. A lot of progress has been made over the last 2-3 decades.

Stroller

2009-Dec-28, 06:39 PM

The irony level inherent in this single statement makes the rest of your post hard to get to.

I think the fact that after all your bluster about no medieval warm period in the southern hemisphere, your total avoidance of the given references to the peer reviewed literature which shows otherwise says it all.

Stroller

2009-Dec-28, 06:42 PM

A lot of progress has been made over the last 2-3 decades.

Oh I agree. Plenty of progress has been made since Arrhenius' time too. Not that you'd believe it round here.

It might be worth considering that the studies I referenced elsewhere in the southern hemisphere which are as recent as this year also find the same 0.75-1.2C warmer medieval period too.

Anyway, here are some more to chew on.

Reference
Black, D. E., Thunell, R. C., Kaplan, A., Peterson, L. C. and Tappa, E. J. 2004. A 2000-year record of Caribbean and tropical North Atlantic hydrographic variability. Paleoceanography 19, PA2022, doi:10.1029/2003PA000982.

Description
High-resolution δ18O records generated from seasonally representative planktic foraminifera were obtained from two ocean sediment cores extracted from the Cariaco Basin off the coast of Venezuela (~ 10.65°N, 64.66°W) to produce a temperature/salinity reconstruction in this region of the Caribbean/tropical North Atlantic over the last 2000 years. Results indicate a general trend toward cooler and perhaps more saline waters over the length of the record. Because of this trend, the authors describe discussion of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age as "complicated," but they nonetheless acknowledge their record reveals "an interval of warmer [sea surface temperatures] prior to ~ A.D. 1600-1900" where the δ18O data "correctly sequence the relative temperature change between the so-called MWP and LIA." In viewing the authors' graph of G. bulloides δ18O (25-year mean, reproduced below), and their stated relationship that a δ18O change of 1.0‰ is equivalent to a 4.2°C change in temperature, we calculate the difference in peak warmth between the MWP and CWP to be 1.05°C, with the MWP being the warmer of the two periods.

And from elsewhere outside the "North Atlantic area"

Reference
Treydte, K.S., Frank, D.C., Saurer, M., Helle, G., Schleser, G.H. and Esper, J. 2009. Impact of climate and CO2 on a millennium-long tree-ring carbon isotope record. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 73: 4635-4647.

Esper, J., Frank, D.C., Wilson, R.J.S., Buntgen, U. and Treydte, K. 2007. Uniform growth trends among central Asian low- and high-elevation juniper tree sites. Trees 21: 141-150.

Description
Treydte et al. (2009) developed "a millennium-long (AD 828-1998), annually resolved δ13C tree-ring chronology from high-elevation juniper trees in northern Pakistan [35.74-36.37°N, 74.56-74.99°W] together with three centennial-long (AD 1900-1998) δ13C chronologies from ecologically varying sites," in the process of which they defined "an 'optimum' correction factor that is best suited to remove non-climatic trends from [their] high-elevation trees in the Karakorum," in order to "provide new regional temperature reconstructions derived from tree-ring δ13C, and compare those records with existing regional evidence." This work revealed, in their words, that "the 1990s are substantially below MWP temperatures," and they state that their reconstruction "provides additional suggestions that High Asian temperatures during the MWP might have exceeded recent conditions," which finding, as they describe it, is also suggested by "ring-width data from living trees (Esper et al., 2007)." Consequently, as they state in their paper's abstract, they "find indications for warmth during the Medieval Warm Period," which indications imply summer temperatures "higher than today's mean summer temperature." Based on data presented in the optimum proxy temperature reconstruction (cf_opt) of the authors' figure 8b, we calculate that difference to be approximately 1°C.

Reference
Ge, Q., Zheng, J., Fang, X., Man, Z., Zhang, X., Zhang, P. and Wang, W.-C. 2003. Winter half-year temperature reconstruction for the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River and Yangtze River, China, during the past 2000 years. The Holocene 13: 933-940.

Description
Working with 200 different sets of phenological and meteorological records extracted from a number of historical sources, Ge et al. produced a 2000-year history of winter half-year temperature (October to April) for the region of China bounded by latitudes 27 and 40°N and longitudes 107 and 120°E. This effort revealed that following the Dark Ages Cold Period, "temperature entered a warm epoch from the AD 570s to 1310s," when peak warmth "was about 0.3-0.6°C higher than present for 30-year periods, but over 0.9°C warmer on a 10-year basis," after which the cooling that led to the Little Ice Age commenced. Most recently, Ge et al. report that "temperature has been rising rapidly during the twentieth century, especially for the period 1981-99." However, they find that the current mean temperature is only "0.5°C higher than for 1951-80." Hence, it can be appreciated that for the big chunk of China Ge et al. studied, the 10-year-mean peak MWP warmth was approximately 0.4°C higher than today's peak warmth.

Plenty more to go yet.

Trakar

2009-Dec-28, 07:08 PM

Note that the publication states the Medieval Warm Period was 0.75C higher than 1979 temps at that location in New Zealand, but global temperature has only increased 0.37-0.45C since. So, not irrelevant at all.

This paper and its assumptions are based upon 18O/16O isotope ratios as they were recovered from a single cave stalagmite from a single New Zealand cave.

quote: We report here an investigation on the 18O/16O profile through a New Zealand stalagmite which was undertaken partly to evaluate the feasibility of obtaining high time resolution data from speleothem material and partly to compare the temperature record from New Zealand (in the Southern Hemisphere and a region meteorologically unrelated to Europe) with the English climate curve, which is the most firmly established climate curve for the last millennium.
I would have to go through the paper in question in much more depth to fully analyze it, but this alone tells me that the findings are at best a sample of one and some rather crude analysis in which they are assuming a global MWP and trying to calibrate a new technique to find that assumed global event in a single New Zealand sample.
And I don't see anything in the paper that comports with your assertions about what the paper states? Were these temps in the actual paper, or are they calculations others have made based upon data in the paper?

A most inauspicious start, presumably your other references aren't similarly misrepresented?

nauthiz

2009-Dec-28, 07:12 PM

I think the fact that after all your bluster about no medieval warm period in the southern hemisphere, your total avoidance of the given references to the peer reviewed literature which shows otherwise says it all.

Here's one paper (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf) on the topic. You can see on the temperature anomaly maps from figure 2 that Pakistan and China both seem to be in or near the warm spots.

(They're also both poor examples of southern hemisphere temperatures, on account of the entire continent of Asia being in the northern hemisphere.)

Trakar

2009-Dec-28, 07:14 PM

I think the fact that after all your bluster about no medieval warm period in the southern hemisphere, your total avoidance of the given references to the peer reviewed literature which shows otherwise says it all.

Please indicate anywhere that I stated that there were no regional climate warm periods in the southern hemisphere, if anything, I've even confirmed that from my perspective there may even have been some minor global warming during the period most often described as the MWP, it just isn't of the same nature or magnitude of what we are currently in the midst of.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Dec-28, 07:32 PM

Note that the publication states the Medieval Warm Period was 0.75C higher than 1979 temps at that location in New Zealand, but global temperature has only increased 0.37-0.45C since. So, not irrelevant at all.
Comparing local and global is meaningless. You also don't give any reference to your numbers.

But the sea temperature in the medieval warm period was 1.2C warmer than the end of the 60's at this location, and global SST has risen only 0.4C since. Once again you are trying to mislead people.
Again comparing local and global, without references.

Before you accuse me of scientific malpractice, maybe you should provide some examples of peer reviewed studies from the southern hemisphere which show cooler temperatures in the medieval warm period. Otherwise, I would like you to withdraw your accusation and apologise for making your false accusation.
You miss the point completely. Individual studies showing such things at one location are not important when trying to determine the global situation. Global analysis is what is needed. Meet Mann et al. (2009) (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/326/5957/1256), who show that MWP was cooler than modern temperatures just about everywhere than in North-Atlantic region. Oh sure, you can find locations where some proxies show it to be warmer elsewhere too, but that has nothing to do with proper global analysis. (Oh, I see that nauthiz already pointed out Mann et al.)

However, here's an example (Thompson et al., 2006) (http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10536.full.pdf+html), and it is something shown to you before, and yet here you are trying to make it look like there's no examples at all.

Stroller

2009-Dec-28, 07:35 PM

I would have to go through the paper in question in much more depth to fully analyze it
Here, let me help you.

http://www.tallbloke.net/pics/NZ-speleo.JPG

I do like the way this NZ speleotherm provides nice corroboration for Hubert Lamb's Centrl England reconstruction of 1965. Back in those days we had real climatologists in charge of the UEA Earth Science dept. Poor guy must be spinning in his grave.

A most inauspicious start, presumably your other references aren't similarly misrepresented?
A most unpleasant accusation. I hope you can back it up or withdraw it and apologise.

Stroller

2009-Dec-28, 07:41 PM

Meet Mann et al. (2009) (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/326/5957/1256), who show that

they still haven't learned how to do statistics.

Mann is currently under investigation for scientific fraud by Penn State University isn't he?

nauthiz

2009-Dec-28, 07:45 PM

they still haven't learned how to do statistics.

What's wrong with the statistics in that paper?

Mann is currently under investigation for scientific fraud by Penn State University isn't he?

There's an investigation to determine if an investigation is needed. In other words, the university had to do something to keep the newspapers happy, but since the emails didn't contain anything that the university felt was compelling evidence of anything, they had to resort to playing word games when someone asked what the investigation was actually for.

Trakar

2009-Dec-28, 08:01 PM

Here's one paper (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf) on the topic. You can see on the temperature anomaly maps from figure 2 that Pakistan and China both seem to be in or near the warm spots.

(They're also both poor examples of southern hemisphere temperatures, on account of the entire continent of Asia being in the northern hemisphere.)

I believe my statements are perfectly (or at the least "greatly") in accord with the findings and conclusions of the Mann paper.

Trakar

2009-Dec-28, 08:14 PM

Here, let me help you.
http://www.tallbloke.net/pics/NZ-speleo.JPG

I see nothing in your selected and posted fragment that contradicts or addresses the issues I reaised, in fact it all seems to confirm and support my initial readings of the paper.

A most unpleasant accusation. I hope you can back it up or withdraw it and apologise.

Your take on the paper and its findings do indeed seem to be a distortion of the purpose, intent and findings of the paper and its authors. And if it is an appropriate example of what has been done with the other papers in your listing there really isn't much value in a more extensive evaluation of their content.

When demonstrated to have been in error or mistaken, I have no problem acknowledging such, I've been wrong a lot more often than right, that is a key part of growing and learning. You can't learn anything if you think you already know everything.

Stroller

2009-Dec-28, 08:19 PM

What's wrong with the statistics in that paper?

Best we wait until Mann has archived the data and code before we get down to specifics. I'm sure he'll be doing that any day now.

Stroller

2009-Dec-28, 08:23 PM

(They're also both poor examples of southern hemisphere temperatures, on account of the entire continent of Asia being in the northern hemisphere.)

I wonder which part of "And from elsewhere outside the "North Atlantic area""

You don't understand.

Trakar

2009-Dec-28, 08:23 PM

they still haven't learned how to do statistics.

Mann is currently under investigation for scientific fraud by Penn State University isn't he?

This is the type of distortion that is all too common in much of your presented perspective on this issue.

Please produce cite and reference to any authoritative PSU statement confirming that Mann is under investigation for scientific fraud or acknowledge and admit your distortions.

NAS found Mann's statistical analysis proper and appropriate.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676 (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676)

Stroller

2009-Dec-28, 08:25 PM

You can't learn anything if you think you already know everything.

Bravo again.

Stroller

2009-Dec-28, 08:29 PM

Stroller

2009-Dec-28, 08:45 PM

Comparing local and global is meaningless. Individual studies showing such things at one location are not important when trying to determine the global situation. Global analysis is what is needed.

This isn't what you were saying when a single city study measuring co2 was put forward by you as proof of co2 driven global warming.

By the way, if UHI hardly affects the global temperature data, how come the high co2 levels in urban areas are not affecting the thermometers?

Hmmm? :)

nauthiz

2009-Dec-28, 08:49 PM

Best we wait until Mann has archived the data and code before we get down to specifics. I'm sure he'll be doing that any day now.

No, really - what's wrong with the statistics in that paper? Surely you should be able to provide something. This paper was published in Science, so it's hardly something that can just be dismissed out-of-hand.

Trakar

2009-Dec-28, 09:16 PM

Come on. Mann's hockey stick generator generated hockey sticks even when fed with random data.
Wegman severely criticised both the stats methods, Mann's lack of consultation with stats experts, and his selection of suspect data.

Please stop defending the indefensible, it just wastes time.

Your contentions and assertions are unsupported by thorough and official mainstream peer scientifc analysis and assessment, as conducted by the appropriate and acknowledged relevent mainstream scientific organizations, and in response by the authors themselves.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/CODES_MBH.html

http://web.mit.edu/~phuybers/www/Hockey/Huybers_Comment.pdf

http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/Mann/EandEPaperProblem.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/research/mannjclim05/mannjclim05.html

Wegman's analysis was not a peer-reviewed critique, nor was it published in a science or mathematical journal, it was a largely personal and biased opinion which he then ran past a handful of personally selected colleagues. If you have any peer-reviewed (applicable) publication analysis, which indicates Mann's work was substantially improper and incorrect, and present issues that are not already addressed in the above references, please present it or retract and withdraw your unsupported statements.

If you'd like we can go much more into the flaws and problems with the Wegman analysis, but as you seem to be leading in a broad spiral away from the original discussion (first to MWP, now to the Mann temp. reconstruction, next...?) perhaps we can stick with and resolve previous issues first.

nauthiz

2009-Dec-28, 09:19 PM

Swift

2009-Dec-28, 09:23 PM

The snarkiness levels in this thread are again rising into the danger levels. I don't care if you think the person on the other side of the argument is a lying idiot, the conversation here will remain civil. I strongly advise all participants to knock off the little satirical comments and the jabs.

Nereid

2009-Dec-28, 09:31 PM

Double huh??

As I just pointed out to Jetlack, only the most ignorant of ignoramuses would claim that the case for AGW lacks potentially testable hypotheses, published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals ... yet this seems to be exactly what you are claiming!?!?

On the other hand, neither you nor Jetlack has pointed to any consistent case (per my question, and Bright_Light seems to have left us), let alone one published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal.

Can you clarify please?

Specifically, what is it about my question that seems to be so hard to grasp?I understood your question, and tried to provide a context for my answer.
I'm sorry, what was your answer again (sans context)?

If you won't or can't address the issues raised concerning the extensive exclusion of contrary hypotheses from the relevant scholarly journals through bias and bullying,
If there is nothing - published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals or otherwise - the existence of such issues seems pretty moot, doesn't it?

I mean, how hard is it to develop two or three "contrary hypotheses" (of the kind covered by my question), outline a research programme to potentially test them, set up your own website, and publish?

Frankly, I was at first puzzled by a lack of answers to the question I wrote, but the series of responses, by you and Jetlack, has left me gobsmacked.

the low level of scientific understanding wrt confounding variables,
Um, ..., er, ... wouldn't the work that goes into the development of a hypothesis (per my question) need to take this into account?

How does the existence of "confounding variables" - in and of itself - prevent one from developing such hypotheses?

or the inadequacy of current and past measuring systems for reaching definite conclusions,
Ditto.

there isn't much scope for progressing the discussion as far as I can see.
As an outcome, I have, reluctantly, begun to conclude that you are right. I must say it has been quite an eye-opener ... to conclude that, wrt the scope of the post I quoted, there is no scientific basis (to "the skeptics' case").

Which is a pity, as you appeared to me to be one of the more level headed and thoughtful contributors here.
So, allow me, please, to move on to another aspect that's been bugging me, almost from day one (wrt "the skeptics' case"), namely uncertainty.

To turn up the contrast, greatly, one strand in the 'there is no AGW' narrative seems to be something like "there is uncertainty at every level, and in every aspect, of all climate studies; therefore the stated conclusions ('AGW') are uncertain (and thus provide an unreliable basis for making decisions of any kind)". To be clear: this is grossly oversimplified ... but I'm trying to point to core logic, and the central role of 'uncertainty' in it.

To my next, general, question then: how should uncertainty be handled (in climate studies)?

Trakar

2009-Dec-28, 09:41 PM

(...)To my next, general, question then: how should uncertainty be handled (in climate studies)?

In general, the way such is dealt with throughout science,...with acceptance!

Science does not deal with certainties. Even the most binding and strict theory, fact and Law, is at least somewhat conditional and relative.

If you want certainty, look to issues of faith, science is always conditional upon current understandings and evidences.

Nereid

2009-Dec-28, 09:45 PM

Here you go.

80–120 yr Long-term solar induced effects on the earth, past and predictions
(Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Volume 31, Issues 1-3, pp. 113-122, 2006)
- Shahinaz Moustafa Yousef

A decadal solar effect in the tropics in July–August (PDF)
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 66, Issue 18, pp. 1767-1778, December 2004)
- Harry van Loona, Gerald A. Meehlb, Julie M. Arblaster

A mechanism for sun-climate connection
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 23, December 2005)
- Sultan Hameed, Jae N. Lee

A new pathway for communicating the 11-year solar cycle signal to the QBO
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 18, September 2005)
- Eugene C. Cordero, Terrence R. Nathan

Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing
(Science, Volume 325, Number 5944, pp. 1114-1118, August 2009)
- Gerald A. Meehl, Julie M. Arblaster, Katja Matthes, Fabrizio Sassi, Harry van Loon

Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle (PDF)
(Geoscience Canada, Volume 32, Number 1, March 2005)
- Ján Veizer

Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?
(GSA Today, Volume 13, Issue 7, pp. 4-10, July 2003)
- Nir J. Shaviv, Ján Veizer

Century-scale solar variability and Alaskan temperature change over the past millennium
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 15, August 2004)
- Gregory C. Wiles et al.

Climate cyclicity in late Holocene anoxic marine sediments from the Seymour-Belize Inlet Complex (PDF)
(Marine Geology, Volume 242, Issues 1-3, pp. 123-140, August 2007)
- R. Timothy Patterson, Andreas Prokoph, Eduard Reinhardt, Helen M. Roe

Comparison of proxy records of climate change and solar forcing
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp. 359-362, February 1996)
- Crowley, Thomas J., Kim, Kwang-Yul

Cyclic Variation and Solar Forcing of Holocene Climate in the Alaskan Subarctic (PDF)
(Science, Volume 301, Number 5641, pp. 1890-1893, September 2003)
- Feng Sheng Hu et al.

Earth's Heat Source - The Sun (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 131-144, January 2009)
- Oliver K. Manuel

Earth's Radiative Equilibrium in the Solar Irradiance (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 85-95, January 2009)
- Martin Hertzberg

Eleven-year solar cycle signal throughout the lower atmosphere
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 109, Issue D21, November 2004)
- K. Coughlin, K. K. Tung

Evidence for a solar signature in 20th-century temperature data from the USA and Europe (PDF)
(Comptes Rendus Geosciences, Volume 340, Issue 7, pp. 421-430, July 2008)
- Jean-Louis Le Mouël, Vincent Courtillot, Elena Blanter, Mikhail Shnirman

Evidence of Solar Variation in Tree-Ring-Based Climate Reconstructions
(Solar Physics, Volume 205, Number 2, pp. 403-417, February 2002)
- M.G. Ogurtsov , G.E. Kocharov, M. Lindholm, J. Meriläinen, M. Eronen, Yu.A. Nagovitsyn

Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 97, Number 23, pp. 12433-12438, November 2000)
- Charles A. Perry, Kenneth J. Hsu

Global Temperature Forced by Solar Irradiation and Greenhouse Gases? (PDF)
(Ambio, Volume 30, Number 6, pp. 349-350, September 2001)
- Wibjörn Karlén

Has solar variability caused climate change that affected human culture?
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 40, Issue 7, pp. 1173-1180, March 2007)
- Joan Feynmana

Imprint of Galactic dynamics on Earth's climate (PDF)
(Astronomical Notes, Volume 327, Issue 9, pp. 866-870, October 2006)
- H. Svensmark

Inference of Solar Irradiance Variability from Terrestrial Temperature Changes, 1880--1993: an Astrophysical Application of the Sun-Climate Connection (PDF)
(Astrophysical Journal, Volume 472, pp. 891, December 1996)
- Willie H. Soon, Eric S. Posmentier, Sallie L. Baliunas

Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River?
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 111, Issue D21, November 2006)
- Alexander Ruzmaikin, Joan Feynman, Yuk L. Yung

Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate
(Science, Volume 254, Number 5032, pp. 698-700, November 1991)
- E. Friis-Christensen, K. Lassen

Linkages Between Solar Activity and Climatic Responses
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 239-254, March 2005)
- William J.R. Alexander et al.

Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development (PDF)
(Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, Volume 49, Number 2, pp. 32–44, June 2007)
- William J.R. Alexander, F Bailey, D B Bredenkamp, A van der Merwe, N Willemse

Long-Period Cycles of the Sun's Activity Recorded in Direct Solar Data and Proxies
(Solar Physics, Volume 211, Numbers 1-2, December 2002)
- M.G. Ogurtsov, Yu.A. Nagovitsyn, G.E. Kocharov, H. Jungner

Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since the 1940's (PDF)
(Physical Review Letters, Volume 91, Issue 21, November 2003)
- Ilya G. Usoskin, Sami K. Solanki, Manfred Schüssler, Kalevi Mursula, Katja Alanko

On solar forcing of Holocene climate: evidence from Scandinavia
(The Holocene, Volume 6, Number 3, pp. 359-365, 1996)
- Wibjörn Karlén, Johan Kuylenstierna

Once again about global warming and solar activity (PDF)
(Journal of the Italian Astronomical Society, Volume 76, pp. 969, 2005)
- K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, B. Kirov

Orbital Controls on the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the Tropical Climate
(Paleoceanogrpahy, Volume 14, Number 4, pp. 441–456, 1999)
- A. C. Clement, R. Seager, M. A. Cane

Palaeoenvironmental evidence for solar forcing of Holocene climate: linkages to solar science
(Progress in Physical Geography, Volume 23, Number 2, pp. 181-204, 1999)
- Frank M. Chambers, Michael I. Ogle, Jeffrey J. Blackford

Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene
(Science, Volume 294, Number 5549, pp. 2130-2136, December 2001)
- Gerard Bond et al.

Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 5, March 2006)
- N. Scafetta, B. J. West

Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 17, September 2006)
- N. Scafetta, B. J. West

Possible geomagnetic activity effects on weather
(Annales Geophysicae, Volume 17, Number 7, pp. 925-932, July 1999)
- J. Bochníček, P. Hejda1, V. Bucha, J. Pýcha

Possible solar forcing of century-scale drought frequency in the northern Great Plains
(Geology, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 263-266, Mar 1999)
- Zicheng Yu, Emi Ito

Regional tropospheric responses to long-term solar activity variations
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 40, Issue 7, pp. 1167-1172, 2007)
- O.M. Raspopov, V.A. Dergachev, A.V. Kuzmin, O.V. Kozyreva, M.G. Ogurtsov, T. Kolström and E. Lopatin

Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate (PDF)
(Journal of Coastal Research, Issue 50, pp. 955-968, 2007)
- Richard Mackey

Solar activity variations and global temperature
(Energy The International Journal, Volume 18, Number 12, pp. 1273-1284, 1993)
- Friis-Christensen, Eigil

Solar and climate signal records in tree ring width from Chile (AD 1587–1994)
(Planetary and Space Science, Volume 55, Issues 1-2, pp. 158-164, January 2007)
- Nivaor Rodolfo Rigozoa et al.

Solar correlates of Southern Hemisphere mid-latitude climate variability
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 22, Issue 8, pp. 901-915, May 2002)
- Ronald E. Thresher

Solar cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 1, pp. 29-35, January 2006)
- David C. Archibald

Solar Cycle Variability, Ozone, and Climate
(Science, Volume 284, Number 5412, pp. 305-308, April 1999)
- Drew Shindell, David Rind, Nambeth Balachandran, Judith Lean, Patrick Lonergan

Solar Forcing of Changes in Atmospheric Circulation, Earth's Rotation and Climate (PDF)
(The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, Volume 2, pp. 181-184, August 2008)
- Adriano Mazzarella

Solar Forcing of Climate. 1: Solar Variability
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 120, Numbers 3-4, pp. 197-241, October 2005)
- C. De Jager

Solar Forcing of Climate. 2: Evidence from the Past
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 120, Numbers 3-4, pp. 243-286, October 2005)
- Gerard J. M. Versteegh

Solar Forcing of Drought Frequency in the Maya Lowlands
(Science, Volume 292, Number 5520, pp. 1367-1370, May 2001)
- David A. Hodell, Mark Brenner, Jason H. Curtis, Thomas Guilderson

Solar forcing of the polar atmosphere (PDF)
(Annals of Glaciology, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp. 147-154, 2005)
- Andrew Mayewski et al.

Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900-1999
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp. 24-1, February 2003)
- Kunihiko Kodera

Solar total irradiance variation and the global sea surface temperature record
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 96, Number D2, pp. 2835–2844, February 1991)
- George C. Reid

Solar variability and climate change: Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 25, Issue 7, pp. 1035-1038, January 1998)
- E.W. Cliver, V. Boriakoff, J. Feynman

Solar variability and ring widths in fossil trees
(Il Nuovo Cimento C, Volume 19, Number 4, July 1996)
- S. Cecchini, M. Galli, T. Nanni, L. Ruggiero

Solar Variability Over the Past Several Millennia (PDF)
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 125, Issue 1-4, pp. 67-79, December 2006)
- J. Beer, M. Vonmoos, R. Muscheler

Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 8, April 2007)
- H. B. Hammel, G. W. Lockwood

Sun-Climate Linkage Now Confirmed
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 123-130, January 2009)
- Adriano Mazzarella

Sunspots, the QBO, and the stratospheric temperature in the north polar region
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 14, Issue 5, p. 535-537, May 1987)
- Karin Labitzke

Sunspots, the QBO and the stratosphere in the North Polar Region - 20 years later
(Meteorologische Zeitschrift, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 355-363, June 2006)
- Karin Labitzke et al.

Sunspots, the QBO, and the Stratosphere in the North Polar Region: An Update
(Advances in Global Change Research, Volume 33, pp. 347-357, 2007)
- Karin Labitzke et al.

Superfluidity in the Solar Interior: Implications for Solar Eruptions and Climate (PDF)
(Journal of Fusion Energy, Volume 21, Numbers 3-4, pp. 193-198, December 2002)
- Oliver K. Manuel, Barry W. Ninham, Stig E. Friberg

Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 14, July 2007)
- Charles D. Camp, Ka Kit Tung

The 60-year solar modulation of global air temperature: the Earth’s rotation and atmospheric circulation connection
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 88, Numbers 3-4, March 2007)
- Adriano Mazzarella

The influence of the 11 yr solar cycle on the interannual–centennial climate variability
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 67, Issues 8-9, pp. 793-805 ,May-June 2005)
- Hengyi Weng

The Influence of the Solar Cycle and QBO on the Late-Winter Stratospheric Polar Vortex
(Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 64, Issue 4, pp. 1267–1283, April 2007)
- Charles D. Camp, Ka-Kit Tung

The link between the solar dynamo and climate - The evidence from a long mean air temperature series from Northern Ireland
(Irish Astronomical Journal, Volume 21, Number 3-4, pp. 251-254, September 1994)
- C.J. Butler, D.J. Johnston

The signal of the 11-year sunspot cycle in the upper troposphere-lower stratosphere
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 80, Numbers 3-4, pp. 393-410, May 1997)
- K. Labitzke, H. van Loon

The Sun–Earth Connection in Time Scales from Years to Decades and Centuries
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 95, Numbers 1-2, pp. 625-637, January 2001)
- T.I. Pulkkinen, H. Nevanlinna, P.J. Pulkkinen, M. Lockwood

The Sun's Role in Regulating the Earth's Climate Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 25-73, January 2009)
- Richard Mackey

Understanding Solar Behaviour and its Influence on Climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 145-159, January 2009)
- Timo Niroma

Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 113, Issue A11, November 2008)
- Nir J. Shaviv

Variations of solar coronal hole area and terrestrial lower tropospheric air temperature from 1979 to mid-1998: astronomical forcings of change in earth's climate? (PDF)
(New Astronomy, Volume 4, Issue 8, pp. 563-579, January 2000)
- Willie H. Soon, Sallie L Baliunas, Eric S. Posmentier, P. Okeke

Variability of the solar cycle length during the past five centuries and the apparent association with terrestrial climate
(Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, Volume 57, Issue 8, pp. 835-845, July 1995)
- K. Lassen, E. Friis-Christensen

Variations in Radiocarbon Concentration and Sunspot Activity
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 66, Issue 1, pp.273, January 1961)
- Stuiver, M.

Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
(Science, Volume 194, Number 4270, pp. 1121-1132, December 1976)
- J. D. Hays, John Imbrie, N. J. Shackleton

What do we really know about the Sun-climate connection?
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 20, Issue 4-5, pp. 913-921, September 1997)
- Eigil Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark

Links here:
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/solar-and-orbital-cycles
Thanks for this.

Stroller

2009-Dec-28, 10:06 PM

No, really - what's wrong with the statistics in that paper? Surely you should be able to provide something. This paper was published in Science, so it's hardly something that can just be dismissed out-of-hand.

According to Jean S:

I had a quick look at the paper, SI, and the code. What seems to be done this time is that the proxy network of Mann et al (2008) is processed with a slightly modified screening of Mann et al (2008), and then the reconstruction is done with a slightly modified RegEM CFR of Mann et al (2007)! Now to answer the question that seems to be on everyone’s lips: yes, Tiljander series are still used as inverted. This can be seen from the positive screening correlation values reported in the file 1209proxynames.xls. In fact, going quickly through the screening code, it seemed to me that they have really “moved on” from the screening employed in Mann et al (2008): only “two-sided test” is used!

%------------------------------------------------------------------
%% below is for selecting full/screened/1856-1925 screened/1926-1995 screened proxy-network
%% replacing "abs(z(4,i))>=0.165"/"abs(z(5,i))>=0.513" in line 75/84 with the followings for your expected proxy-network
%% abs(z(4,i))>=0 / abs(z(5,i))>=0 (full proxy-network)
%% abs(z(4,i))>=0.162 / abs(z(5,i))>=0.496 (screening over 1850-1995)
%% abs(z(6,i))>=0.195 / abs(z(7,i))>=0.602 (screening over 1896-1995)
%--

This means that if a proxy has a strong inverted correlation to the (two-pick?) local temperature, it gets picked – no matter what the physical interpretation is! Since RegEM doesn’t care about the sign, it is now really so that the sign does not matter to them anymore. Anything goes!

I’m speechless.

At least Mann has released enough of the code for some forensics to be done, though not all of the proxy data. Perhaps he has confidentiality agreements.

There are some things in the paper which are a step forward in my view. Even though he can't bring himself to call it the Medieval Warm Period, at least his 'Medieval Climate Anomaly' is recognisable as a period warmer than the little ice age and dark ages, even if the magnitude of the MWP looks a little suspect relative to the instrumental record he tacks onto the end of the proxy (hiding the decline in true style as usual).

Also, he does acknowledge the role of the sun in earlier times, though he doesn't explain why he thinks it's suddenly stopped affecting climate and asked co2 to do it's job instead.

In any case, I don't need Michael Mann to suddenly discover the medieval warm period. I know it has always been there, and have done for years, despite various attempts to smoothe it away by Mann and his colleagues at the CRU in order to bolster the co2 driven global warming myth.

Nereid

2009-Dec-28, 10:10 PM

The list, in Stroller's post, is a long-distance answer to my question (http://www.bautforum.com/1646421-post3034.html) "I don't think I've seen this before; can you point me to any published papers on it please?", and the "this" is Stroller's point: "Sceptics contend that: [...] 5) The solar variability has had it's effect on climate variation underestimated due to it's supposed non correlation with temperature since 1980. If this is understood as largely an effect of (2), then the sun comes back into play as a more dominant climate influence. This will further diminish co2's role in (4).".

Here you go.

[...]

Earth's Heat Source - The Sun (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 131-144, January 2009)
- Oliver K. Manuel

[...]

Superfluidity in the Solar Interior: Implications for Solar Eruptions and Climate (PDF)
(Journal of Fusion Energy, Volume 21, Numbers 3-4, pp. 193-198, December 2002)
- Oliver K. Manuel, Barry W. Ninham, Stig E. Friberg

[...]
I'm puzzled; how do either of these Manuel papers relate to 5)?

Also, each of these papers is based on Manuel's own ideas concerning solar structure and stellar evolution, ideas that are radically ATM. What role do you think thoroughly discredited astrophysics ideas (on the Sun) should play wrt the extent to which the Sun might "play as a more dominant climate influence"?

Note to reader who are unfamiliar with Manuel's ideas: in astrophysics, they have about the same standing as any 'Einstein woz rong' anti-relativity nonsense you'll find on the internet.

captain swoop

2009-Dec-28, 10:23 PM

I'm puzzled; how do either of these Manuel papers relate to 5)?

Also, each of these papers is based on Manuel's own ideas concerning solar structure and stellar evolution, ideas that are radically ATM. What role do you think thoroughly discredited astrophysics ideas (on the Sun) should play wrt the extent to which the Sun might "play as a more dominant climate influence"?
.

Same as ever they support his case and as this isn't in the ATM Forum he isn't bound by the more strict rules of that Forum.

Stroller

2009-Dec-28, 10:25 PM

As an outcome, I have, reluctantly, begun to conclude that you are right. I must say it has been quite an eye-opener ... to conclude that, wrt the scope of the post I quoted, there is no scientific basis (to "the skeptics' case").
As I said, due to uncertainty, those on both sides of the argument are engaged in climate analysis, with precious little genuinely useful science going on wrt attribution.

However, the sceptics recognise and admit the uncertainty as the true state of affairs, whereas the AGW hypothesis proponents try to convince us that the climate and it's myriad chaotically intertwined subsystems and the terrestrial and extra terrestrial factors, feedbacks and forcings can all be pinned down with sufficient certainty to finger a trace gas making up 0.03% of the atmosphere as the culprit.

So in my view, the sceptic position that natural climate change is the correct de facto explanation for the 1980-2005 global warming is the scientifically correct position.

The AGW hypothesis proponents go well beyond the data in claiming to be able to state with 90% certainty that co2 is causing global temperature increase.

We don't even know with 90% certainty whether the trend in temperature since 1995 is up or down.

To my next, general, question then: how should uncertainty be handled (in climate studies)?

By admitting it is there to start with. Admitting the problem is halfway to dealing with it.

Stroller

2009-Dec-28, 10:30 PM

Same as ever they suppoer his case and as this isn't in the ATM Forum he isn't bound by the more strict rules of that Forum.

Oliver Manuel has some whacky ideas about the sun as well as some interesting and valid observations about the solar system.

I didn't vet or edit the list, I just posted it for Nereid to pick and choose from after Nereid asked me specifically for references to solar related papers which went against the current orthodoxy.

The views expressed in the papers on the list are not necessarily ones I agree with and I have no intention of answering for them.

For you to start trying to twist that into me trying to sneak ATM ideas onto this forum is incorrect and unfair.

captain swoop

2009-Dec-28, 10:47 PM

If you introduce them to support your position then you have to answer for them.

Stroller

2009-Dec-28, 10:55 PM

If you introduce them to support your position then you have to answer for them.

I didn't introduce them to support my position. I posted the list in response to Nereid's request and then made no further reference to them or any of their contents.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Dec-29, 08:16 AM

According to Jean S:

I had a quick look at the paper, SI, and the code. What seems to be done this time is that the proxy network of Mann et al (2008) is processed with a slightly modified screening of Mann et al (2008), and then the reconstruction is done with a slightly modified RegEM CFR of Mann et al (2007)! Now to answer the question that seems to be on everyone’s lips: yes, Tiljander series are still used as inverted. This can be seen from the positive screening correlation values reported in the file 1209proxynames.xls. In fact, going quickly through the screening code, it seemed to me that they have really “moved on” from the screening employed in Mann et al (2008): only “two-sided test” is used!

%------------------------------------------------------------------
%% below is for selecting full/screened/1856-1925 screened/1926-1995 screened proxy-network
%% replacing "abs(z(4,i))>=0.165"/"abs(z(5,i))>=0.513" in line 75/84 with the followings for your expected proxy-network
%% abs(z(4,i))>=0 / abs(z(5,i))>=0 (full proxy-network)
%% abs(z(4,i))>=0.162 / abs(z(5,i))>=0.496 (screening over 1850-1995)
%% abs(z(6,i))>=0.195 / abs(z(7,i))>=0.602 (screening over 1896-1995)
%--

This means that if a proxy has a strong inverted correlation to the (two-pick?) local temperature, it gets picked – no matter what the physical interpretation is! Since RegEM doesn’t care about the sign, it is now really so that the sign does not matter to them anymore. Anything goes!

I’m speechless.

This seems to be from a yet another blog post reference:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/told-ya-so-more-upside-down-mann-in-his-latest-paper/

captain swoop

2009-Dec-29, 01:03 PM

It does indeed. Any comment Stroller?

Stroller

2009-Dec-29, 01:19 PM

nauthiz

2009-Dec-29, 03:41 PM

I'm not even sure I understand the criticism. It seems to be that the team isn't burning everything down and starting from scratch with each successive paper.

That and some commented instructions about how to toy around with the code (with examples) is being quoted as if it were the production code. I'm not sure I understand how that comment has any bearing on the paper or its results.

nauthiz

2009-Dec-29, 03:44 PM

why does he advertise the address of his blog on every post he makes?

Same reason as everyone else who puts a link to their blog in their signature: It's a convenient way to advertise your blog.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Dec-29, 03:53 PM

If Ari disapproves of this and thinks the debate should be limited to paper journals, what is he doing here? and why does he advertise the address of his blog on every post he makes?
What does my astronomy blog has to do with this?

orionjim

2009-Dec-29, 05:12 PM

This is the type of distortion that is all too common in much of your presented perspective on this issue.

Please produce cite and reference to any authoritative PSU statement confirming that Mann is under investigation for scientific fraud or acknowledge and admit your distortions.

NAS found Mann's statistical analysis proper and appropriate.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

First, thanks for the link to the NAS report. It should be mandatory reading for anyone posting to this thread.

I have read most of the report and I must say my interpretation is considerably different than what you are suggesting. And the report seems to go against some of the main points in some of your recent posts.

NAS did find problems with Mann’s statistical techniques and reported his analysis would underestimate the amount of uncertainty and highlighted the problems shown by McIntyre and McKitrick. (See chapter 9 and 11).

Your contentions and assertions are unsupported by thorough and official mainstream peer scientifc analysis and assessment, as conducted by the appropriate and acknowledged relevent mainstream scientific organizations, and in response by the authors themselves.

… links removed …

Wegman's analysis was not a peer-reviewed critique, nor was it published in a science or mathematical journal, it was a largely personal and biased opinion which he then ran past a handful of personally selected colleagues. If you have any peer-reviewed (applicable) publication analysis, which indicates Mann's work was substantially improper and incorrect, and present issues that are not already addressed in the above references, please present it or retract and withdraw your unsupported statements.

If you'd like we can go much more into the flaws and problems with the Wegman analysis, but as you seem to be leading in a broad spiral away from the original discussion (first to MWP, now to the Mann temp. reconstruction, next...?) perhaps we can stick with and resolve previous issues first.

Of course the NAS report wasn’t peer reviewed either. Their report left me questioning if any of the peer review links you provided used the same methods Mann did. Of course one wouldn’t be able to know this unless they had full access to the raw data and all of the methods used.

This brings up the point of access to the data. You say:

All of the data is available to all people willing to pay for it and demonstrate their ability to meet the requirements and stipulations placed upon that data by those who own the raw data, just as the mainstream researchers had to do to gain access to the raw data. It is a free market economy that demands payment and respects the private ownership and control of such information. Most public institutions are willing to share what information they have, but they are not allowed to freely dispense data and processes that are privately owned and controlled.

And what does the NAS report suggest?

WHAT COMMENTS CAN BE MADE ON THE VALUE OF EXCHANGING INFORMATION AND DATA?

The collection, compilation, and calibration of paleoclimatic data represent a substantial investment of time and resources, often by large teams of researchers. The committee recognizes that access to research data is a complicated, discipline-dependent issue and that access to computer models and methods is especially challenging because intellectual property rights must be considered. Our view is that all research benefits from full and open access to published datasets and that a clear explanation of analytical methods is mandatory. Peers should have access to the information needed to reproduce published results, so that increased confidence in the outcome of the study can be generated inside and outside the scientific community. Other committees and organizations have produced an extensive body of literature on the importance of open access to scientific data and on the related guidelines for data archiving and data access (e.g., NRC 1995). Paleoclimate research would benefit if individual researchers, professional societies, journal editors, and funding agencies continued to improve their efforts to ensure that these existing open-access practices are followed.

Tree ring researchers have recognized the importance of data archiving since 1974, when the International Tree Ring Data Bank was established to serve as a permanent repository for tree ring data (measurements, chronologies, and derived reconstructions). Its holdings are available online via the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, as are a number of other proxy data from ice cores, corals, boreholes, lake and ocean sediments, caves, and biological indicators. As proxy datasets become increasingly available on the Web, all researchers are given the opportunity to analyze data, test methods, and provide their own interpretation of the existing evidence via recognized, peer-reviewed scientific outlets.

Am I off base???

Trakar

2009-Dec-29, 08:04 PM

... (hiding the decline in true style as usual)...

Which as you know and accept, has nothing to do with a decline in temperature or "hiding" in the sense you seem to be trying to employ the terms.

Trakar

2009-Dec-29, 09:09 PM

We don't even know with 90% certainty whether the trend in temperature since 1995 is up or down.

Please support this assertion with cite or reference to the official statements to that effect from any major, recognized national or international scientific organization.

You may not know with 90% certainty, but it is established and accepted (with much greater than 90% certainty) that such is the case by mainstream climate science, national and global meteorological groups, national/international geophysical organizations as well as a number of other related and more general national and international science organizations, among them:

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Key-Scientific-Developments-Since-IPCC-4th-Assessment.pdf

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf)

http://www.inqua.tcd.ie/documents/iscc.pdf (http://www.inqua.tcd.ie/documents/iscc.pdf)

captain swoop

2009-Dec-29, 09:10 PM

I told Nauthiz we would wait before passing comment on Mann et al 2009, too recently published for criticism to have appeared in the literature.

Nauthiz then pushed for more info, so I cut'n'pasted Jean S' comments, without linking to a blog, as this has been prohibited.

The internet is a great medium for being able to communicate knowledge.

If Ari disapproves of this and thinks the debate should be limited to paper journals, what is he doing here? and why does he advertise the address of his blog on every post he makes?

Stroller, It seems that you have circumvented the restriction on linking to Blogs by cutting and pasting a Blog. This is obviously against the spirit and intention of the restriction. Please don't do it again or Mod action will be a result.

Ari Jokimaki, In future report rather than posting in thread. It's for Mods to take any action.

buzgz

2009-Dec-29, 09:11 PM

If you'd like we can go much more into the flaws and problems with the Wegman analysis, ...

I'd very much like to do just that. I've read the report, and the flaws aren't obvious to me.

So, exactly what are the flaws and problems with Wegman ?

Stroller

2009-Dec-29, 09:32 PM

Please support this assertion with cite or reference to the official statements to that effect from any major, recognized national or international scientific organization.

Why would I need to refer to anyone else to determine that we don't know with 90% certainty whether the temperature trend from 1995 is up or down?

Anyone who can drive Matlab can easily determine it for themselves with a dozen lines of code.

It has been done recently by a well known and respected mathematician, but I can't refer you to his proof or reproduce the dozen lines of code here because new rules on this thread ban communication with the rest of the internet.

By the way, argumentum ad verecundiam is a logical fallacy.

lomiller1

2009-Dec-29, 09:42 PM

After much consideration and internal debate, I feel compelled to comment. While it is important to note and distinguish between rigorous scientific journals and journals/magazines whose primary purpose is not the vetting and presentation of substantial scientific research and consideration for the review of specific peer elements, we have to be careful not to apply a more general stigmatism to people, or even necessarily the science and consideration of the published works in those lessor standard publications.

It is one thing to say that an article has not been thoroughly vetted and is unlikely to gain appropriate peer-review because it has been published in such a venue, it is an entirely different matter to automatically reject or deny that such an article has any merit at all, merely because it was accepted for publication in such a magazine.

Likewise, we must be careful not to impune the reviewed and respected professional work of a particular individual, or especially the work of an entire research institute merely because we find the personal statements of an individual researcher to be concerning, disconcerting or otherwise suspect.

The only issue that should matter when it comes to looking at a particular researcher or piece of research, is the content of that work, whether or not it is accurate in its data, application and methodology, whether or not its findings are supported by its own processes and whether or not it is congruent with previous and subsequent similar researches.

All of these issues deserve much fuller discussion and explanation, and I would be happy to expand upon my perspective of them but they are somewhat ancilliary to the overall subject matter.

While I certainly acknowledge your point that it’s still possible for valid content to be published in E&E, the greater issue is that no one is going to bother doing peer reviewed papers to refute the contents of and advocacy journal, and even if they did it’s unlikely a more serious journal would publish it.

Without this back and forth dialogue between people who do climate science as their life’s work, the rest of us have little or no context to properly evaluate a paper and it becomes no different then what the author may write on a blog.

Trakar

2009-Dec-29, 10:58 PM

First, thanks for the link to the NAS report. It should be mandatory reading for anyone posting to this thread.

I have read most of the report and I must say my interpretation is considerably different than what you are suggesting. And the report seems to go against some of the main points in some of your recent posts.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your own reading perceptions, both in regards to the NAS report and with respect to my comments here on this board, but my perceptions and understandings are different.

NAS did find problems with Mann’s statistical techniques and reported his analysis would underestimate the amount of uncertainty and highlighted the problems shown by McIntyre and McKitrick. (See chapter 9 and 11).

And when these issues are addressed and corrected, did they substantively change or alter either the "hockey stick" graph or the basic data assessment and projections?

I, personally, don't see any damning remarks or criticism in chapter 9. There is some questioning of methodological preferences, but at the same time there is acknowledgement that the chosen methods are common, widespread and appropriate in application. They do not seem to amount to an issue of significance with regards to Mann's paper. I, likewise, see little in chapter 11's conclusions that are of any serious consequence to Mann's methodology or findings. In fact they seem to verify and confirm all of his findings while only offering a few suggestions on how his methodology might have been improved or changed.

The two main points of the NAS report remain, it reviewed Mann's 1999 and found that its methods and findings were appropriate and without undue of fatal flaw, and it found that though there may be some questions about a few of Mann's choices in his original study, that the findings (which Mann, himself, in the original work only placed a little better than 50% certainty -"Likely") have since been largely and compellingly supported and verified by subsequent independent proxy studies relying upon a large and diverse variety of proxies and analysis methodologies. The evidences since the NAS report dwarf what was available to them at the time and all, overwhelmingly refine and support Mann's original work.

Of course the NAS report wasn’t peer reviewed either.

The NAS report was an analysis by Mann's Peers, but I'll grant you that it wasn't subject to response and revision at the hands of climate scientists,...unfortunately. However, there is a big difference between a report of this type and the individual review of a researchers work by someone who is not familiar with the field and its practices and methods by a single individual. Of course, his review was supposed to be extremely narrow, and on the one aspect in which he was an expert. His finding was that how you applied statistical analysis did make a big difference, and that Mann's application was not the most appropraite method to use. That's where most of the skeptic crowd stop. Following through, however, and you find that while such makes a big difference in terms of statical analysis, it makes very little difference in terms of the graph produced http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/recon/WEB_figure5.jpg (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/recon/WEB_figure5.jpg)
(via Wahl and Ammann (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/CODES_MBH.html))

Their report left me questioning if any of the peer review links you provided used the same methods Mann did. Of course one wouldn’t be able to know this unless they had full access to the raw data and all of the methods used.

I'm really not sure if any do, there is a large diversity of published, peer-reviewed scientific proxy studies using a variety of analysis methodologies, this (the process Mann used) is a validated and verified methodology, so I would be a bit surprised if none used it, though it is a bit dated and I'm sure most of the more recent studies have moved on to other methods.

This brings up the point of access to the data. You say:

And what does the NAS report suggest?

Am I off base???

I see no contradictions, NAS is saying that in their perfect world model, all data and access to methods should be freely available to climate research peers, I heartily agree, I personally object to professional journal pay walls and most of the information that ends up classified and/or cut-off behind government paranoia and bureaucracy, but just because this NAS panel, you, and me would rather have virtually all information freely available to any and all who had a need or desire for it, doesn't relieve anyone of their current proprietary obligations and responsibilities.

Start a pettition, I'd sign it, how much are you willing to raise taxes to acquire, compensate and maintain such data!

Trakar

2009-Dec-29, 11:03 PM

While I certainly acknowledge your point that it’s still possible for valid content to be published in E&E, the greater issue is that no one is going to bother doing peer reviewed papers to refute the contents of and advocacy journal, and even if they did it’s unlikely a more serious journal would publish it.

Without this back and forth dialogue between people who do climate science as their life’s work, the rest of us have little or no context to properly evaluate a paper and it becomes no different then what the author may write on a blog.

Agreed, its more of a perceptual issue than a significance of reaction issue, and the analogy you imply between rags like E&E and a blog (even the fairly reputable blogs) is spot on! Perhaps a place to occassionally find general discussions of topics of interest and reference links to supporting science, but not someplace to expect or accept *as* Science.

Trakar

2009-Dec-29, 11:09 PM

Why would I need to refer to anyone else to determine that we don't know with 90% certainty whether the temperature trend from 1995 is up or down?

Anyone who can drive Matlab can easily determine it for themselves with a dozen lines of code.

It has been done recently by a well known and respected mathematician, but I can't refer you to his proof or reproduce the dozen lines of code here because new rules on this thread ban communication with the rest of the internet.

By the way, argumentum ad verecundiam is a logical fallacy.

The type of false appeal to authority that you employed (through employing the latin phrasing rather than the common language of our discussion) indeed fallacious, however, as noted:

...arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Trakar

2009-Dec-30, 12:26 AM

I'd very much like to do just that. I've read the report, and the flaws aren't obvious to me.

So, exactly what are the flaws and problems with Wegman ?

Soitenly!

The primary issue isn't one of technicality, but rather application and community established practices. Most of my objections to, and problems with, the Wegman report, are in how it is most typically interpretted and portrayed, rather than so much in what it actually finds, as its technical findings are minor with respect to how they actually impact the results and findings of Mann's research.

Most of these sciences are fairly heavily grounded in statistical mathematics and analysis, but very few individual researchers in paleoclimatology (atmospheric physics, etc.,) are also field recognized experts in pure statistical derivation and analysis. Many of the specific weaknesses and corrections he suggests, would, in some cases, have made the Mann analysis more robust, especially in the face of just this type of extra-professional scrutiny. Unfortunately, on many of those same points, we are at a level of mathematical evaluation that there are legitimate issues on both sides of question which could have been raised had he chosen more in accord with Wegman's expert opinion, in his (Mann's) statistical analyses methodologies.

In the end, either methodology produces greatly similar results. Which is the point that is most often overlooked.

nauthiz

2009-Dec-30, 12:33 AM

Didn't Mann produce a subsequent paper which implemented the statistical methodology changes that the Wegman report proposed?

Trakar

2009-Dec-30, 01:02 AM

Didn't Mann produce a subsequent paper which implemented the statistical methodology changes that the Wegman report proposed?

This really hasn't been a major issue of concern or serious investigation for me before this particular discussion. I mean I have read and been through the main documents several times over the last few years, but the science has moved so far beyond Mann's graph and original work over the last decade that it was just never a really big issue. The general temperature graph(s) of the last the last (several, hundred) thousand years has been verified and duplicated by so many different proxies using so many different types of analysis, even by 2006, yet alone today, that I really wasn't that concerned with the issue.

I want to say that he has, and I seem to recall it in conjunction with other authors and in a letter of rebuttal to McIntyre in how he actually misapplied Wegman's suggested process, but I may be confusing that with one of the many other research papers which have demonstrated this "difference that makes little, or no, difference." I list a few of these in recent posts, but can pull up some more references if you would like to read through their efforts and results?

William

2009-Dec-30, 01:32 AM

What is the Hockey Stick problem?

It is alleged that a couple of scientists have in the past cherry picked data to remove the Medieval warm period and to make the Little Ice age go away. The same scientists have now resubmitted data that they state proves ????.

Does anyone want to argue that the Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age did not happen?

Note there are hundred of papers written confirming that there has been cyclic warming and cooling of the planet.

An abrupt Solar Magnetic Cycle change is currently underway. Solar wind speed is not picking up. The sunspots that are being produced are weaker and weaker magnetically. (See solar cycle 24 for details. Next Livingston solar spot magnetic measurements is scheduled for January 24th.)

What has happened in the past when there was an abrupt solar magnetic cycle change? Abrupt cooling of the planet.

There is a smoking gun. Past abrupt climate changes correlate with Solar magnetic cycle changes.

Let's scientifically compare the possible mechanisms that can cause abrupt climate change of the planet.

Each time there has been an abrupt climate change of the planet there is a change in cosmogenic isotopes deposited on the ice sheets and in the ocean sediments.

List of suspects that are known to have been at the scene of the crime and that are capable of causing past abrupt climate changes.

1) Sun. This hypotheses requires a periodic special change to the sun that indirectly causes the planet to abruptly cool. (i.e. The sun indirectly causes the cycle cooling of the planet. It has been shown that solar total irradiation changes are not the cause of the cooling. Sun does not produce less energy which cools the planet for the period of time.)

Please Ari and the other AWG proponents, can you provide an alternative to 1)?

http://www.gg.rhul.ac.uk/elias/teaching/Bond.pdf

Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene

Surface winds and surface ocean hydrography in the subpolar North Atlantic appear to have been influenced by variations in solar output through the entire Holocene. The evidence comes from a close correlation between inferred changes in production rates of the cosmogenic nuclides carbon-14 and beryllium-10 and centennial to millennial time scale changes in proxies of drift ice measured in deep-sea sediment cores. A solar forcing mechanism therefore may underlie at least the Holocene segment of the North Atlantics approximately 1500-year cycle. The surface hydrographic changes may have affected production of North Atlantic Deep Water, potentially providing an additional mechanism for amplifying the
solar signals and transmitting them globally.

The last drift-ice cycle is broadly correlative with the so-called Little Ice Age (LIA) and Medieval Warm Period (MWP) (Fig. 2). Although the regional extent and exact age of those two events are still under debate, our records support previous suggestions that both may have been partly or entirely linked to changes in solar irradiance (25). The large 2s errors in calibrated ages (typically between 6100 and 6150 years) (Web table 1), however, preclude any direct comparison of our drift-ice indices or the subtropical North Atlantic temperature records with the distinct decades-long Wolfe, Spo¨rer, Maunder, and Dalton solar minima (26). However, the solar-climate links implied by our record are so dominant over the last 12,000 years that it seems almost certain that the well-documented connection between the Maunder solar minimum and cold decades of the LIA could not have been a coincidence.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml

Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock

Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.

nauthiz

2009-Dec-30, 01:42 AM

I list a few of these in recent posts, but can pull up some more references if you would like to read through their efforts and results?Nah, it's no worry. I just thought I had heard that somewhere and wasn't turning it up when I tried to search again. For me, it's enough to know that subsequent independent reconstructions which did not use principal component analysis have produced similar results (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf) to those of the original MBH paper. To me that makes it seem pretty clear that McIntyre and McKittrick's criticism may be technically valid, but does not invalidate the gist of the idea.

As far as the medival warm period centered criticisms, I find them to be weak simply because the paper (http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper/publications/Science_2002.pdf) which produces the most salient spike I've seen (and the only strong indication of a warmer-than-present MWP I've looked closely at) shows clear evidence that the spike which is the locus of contention is likely to be a largely regional phenomenon. The authors also comment that the method they use seems to produce annual figures that are biased toward the summer months (though the authors also don't believe this is a big deal for their purposes), and they assign a relatively wide confidence interval to their reconstruction.

William

2009-Dec-30, 03:08 AM

The Douglas, Christy, Pearson, Singer paper does no such thing. What it does attempt to do is demonstrate a flaw between several GCM predictions and observational data. An attempt that is deemed faulty and without merit by mainstream climatology and exposed in numerous published letters and subsequent papers and studies, among them:

"Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds" Robert J. Allen, and Steven C. Sherwood, 25 May 2008; doi:10.1038/ngeo208 - http://lubos.motl.googlepages.com/sherwood-allen-ngeo-2008.pdf

"Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere" - https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2008/NR-08-10-05-article.pdf

If you really wish to discuss the science in a serious manner, you would be well advised to forego the blogosphere, and pick up with the texts and published papers.

Trakar,

What do you allege the papers you link to say?

Douglass et al, showed that the tropical troposphere should warm more than the surface. It appears everyone is in agreement that statement is correct.

The papers you link to do not show Douglass et al's findings are in correct and the tropical troposphere warmed more than the surface.

The paper using wind speeds asserts that the tropical troposphere must have been colder in the past even though measurements show it was not based on wind speeds. Now it is possible the direct measurement of the atmospheric temperature were correct.

The second paper does no resolve the issue. Santer et al, in addition does not use all of the available satellite data. Santer et al, choose to truncate their analysis and did not use all of the available satellite data which was available to Santer et al when they published their paper.

Santer et al's conclusion is: "a partial resolution of the long-standing ‘differential warming’ problem has now been achieved" that is as long as one does not use the satellite data 2005 to 2008.

Perhaps you can clarify what these papers are alleged to have proved.

It does appear something is fundamental incorrect with the set of AGW hypotheses.

i.e. A hint that something is fundamental incorrect with the set of AGW hypotheses is the fact the planet has not warmed in the last 8 years and has based on the ocean temperature cooled 2003 to 2008.

http://lubos.motl.googlepages.com/sherwood-allen-ngeo-2008.pdf

Despite these attempts, most analyses of radiosondes continue to show less warming of the tropical troposphere since 1979 than reported at the surface1. At least one satellite dataset also implies this7. By contrast, theoretical and model expectations7,8 indicate that the troposphere should warm somewhat faster than the surface.

Recently, time-varying biases were shown to remain in the radiosonde temperature data, including a daytime cooling bias related to solar heating of the instrument (especially in the stratosphere)9. They were significantly larger than the average adjustments that had previously been made, and comparable to the above discrepancies, calling into question whether the adjustments had been adequate. A similar cooling bias was also found in night-time soundings10,11. Subsequent attempts to produce better homogenized records have yielded more warming than before5,12,13, but only one has produced upper-tropospheric warming close to that expected13.

Tropical warming rates shown by satellite data have similar problems. Although two research groups—Remote Sensing Systems and University of Maryland—found more tropical tropospheric warming than shown by radiosondes, a third group (University of Alabama in Huntsville) found little warming1.

https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2008/NR-08-10-05-article.pdf

In the tropics, however, important differences remained between the simulated and observed ‘differential warming’. In climate models, the tropical lower troposphere warmed by more than the surface. This amplification of surface warming was timescale-invariant, consistent across a range of models, and in accord with basic theoretical considerations (Santer et al., 2005, 2006; Thorne et al., 2007). For month-to-month and year-to-year temperature changes, all satellite and radiosonde datasets showed amplification behaviour consistent with model results and basic theory. For multi-decadal changes, however, only two of the then-available satellite datasets (and none of the then-available radiosonde datasets) indicated warming of the troposphere exceeding that of the surface (Karl et al., 2006).

We may never completely reconcile the divergent observational estimates of temperature changes in the tropical troposphere. We lack the unimpeachable observational records necessary for this task. The large structural uncertainties in observations hamper our ability to determine how well models simulate the tropospheric temperature changes that actually occurred over the satellite era. A truly definitive answer to this question may be difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, if structural uncertainties in observations and models are fully accounted for, a partial resolution of the long-standing ‘differential warming’ problem has now been achieved. The lessons learned from studying this problem can and should be applied towards the improvement of existing climate monitoring systems, so that future model evaluation studies are less sensitive to observational ambiguity.

William

2009-Dec-30, 03:36 AM

As it appears the sun is entering a deep solar magnetic minimum we may based on what has happened before (The planet abruptly cooled 23 times at 1470 year intervals, that coincide with an abrupt change in the solar magnetic cycle.). The cooling for the 1470 year event is the strongest. There also cycles at 80 years and 180 years. There is also three to four times more sever cooling for "Heinrich Events" that occur at multiples of the 1470 year cooling events.

Let's keep an open mind to see what the new data shows.

How will planetary temperature change? Any early indications of changes? Recorded cold weather?

http://www.gg.rhul.ac.uk/elias/teaching/Bond.pdf

Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene

The last drift-ice cycle is broadly correlative with the so-called Little Ice Age (LIA) and Medieval Warm Period (MWP) (Fig. 2). Although the regional extent and exact age of those two events are still under debate, our records support previous suggestions that both may have been partly or entirely linked to changes in solar irradiance (25). The large 2s errors in calibrated ages (typically between 6100 and 6150 years) (Web table 1), however, preclude any direct comparison of our drift-ice indices or the subtropical North Atlantic temperature records with the distinct decades-long Wolfe, Spo¨rer, Maunder, and Dalton solar minima (26). However, the solar-climate links implied by our record are so dominant over the last 12,000 years that it seems almost certain that the well-documented connection between the Maunder solar minimum and cold decades of the LIA could not have been a coincidence.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml

Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock

Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.

David Hathoway’s comments. October 31, 2009

http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2009/10/31/david-hathaway-mea-culpa/

What Happened to 2006 Predictions of Huge Solar Cycle 24?
Isn’t it especially strange for you because three years ago, all the physics of the sun that you and NASA and everyone else was using were anticipating that this could (Solar cycle 24) be the biggest solar maximum on record?

….. The conditions now – using even that same technique from 2006 – says that the next sunspot cycle is going to be half what we thought it was back in 2006.

Another big prediction in 2006 was based on a dynamo model – a model for how the sun produces magnetic fields – and it suggested a huge cycle.
But there also were people back at that time saying otherwise. A group of colleagues led by Leif Svalgaard, Ph.D., were looking at the sun’s polar fields and saying even at that point, the sun’s polar fields were significantly weaker than they had been before and those scientists back then predicted it was going to be a small cycle....

How Small Will Solar Cycle 24 Be?
…I’ve come around to that view now. I think there is little doubt in my mind now that we’re in for a small cycle. The big question now is how small? I think most of us are predicting small cycles. I think even the techniques I’m using now are suggesting half the size of the last three or four solar cycles, but my fear is that even that might be too big just from the fact that it’s taken so long for this Solar Cycle 24 to really get off the ground and start producing sunspots.

I have no doubt at this point that it’s going to be a little cycle. My current prediction is that it’s going to be about half of what we’ve seen in the last four solar cycles or so. But in my gut, I feel it’s going to be smaller than that! It’s just so slow in taking off and the indicators that we see – both the polar fields and the geomagnetic indicators are lower than anything we’ve seen before.

lomiller1

2009-Dec-30, 05:08 AM

I'd very much like to do just that. I've read the report, and the flaws aren't obvious to me.

So, exactly what are the flaws and problems with Wegman ?

I have two main complaints about the Wegman report.

First he abjectly refused to even attempt to find out if the problems he was concerned with did anything to change the papers findings, we now know they really didn’t. As a matter of pure statistics critiquing the technique is fine, but it adds nothing to the larger discussion on global warming.

Second while drew largely from M&M’s paper and endorsed the points where they were correct, he refused to discuss any of the error they made. This leaves the impression that MBH paper was flawed and M&M was sound when in fact both papers had flaws but MBH actually got the correct result in spite of the flaws.

A third complaint I have, not directly related to it’s content, is that it was politically sponsored. Wegman wrote the report at the behest of two Republican Congressman with heavy energy industry ties. IOW it wasn’t an apolitical or even bipartisan report by any means.

William

2009-Dec-30, 05:43 AM

The criticism of Svensmark and colleagues' search for a solar forcing mechanism is perhaps unfair, as there is significant Palaeoclimatic proxy data that links concurrent changes in cosmogenic isotopes (solar forcing evidence) with ice core and other proxy evidence of rapid climatic changes. There is a smoking gun, so to speak. If the smoking gun data is accepted, the question then becomes how the sun likely causes rapid climatic change events, not if the sun causes rapid climatic change events.

For example the paper: "The role of solar forcing upon climate change" Published 1999.

http://www.gg.rhul.ac.uk/elias/teaching/VanGeel.pdf

Evidence for millennial-scale climate changes during the last 60,000 years has been found in Greenland ice cores and North Atlantic ocean cores. Until now, the cause of these climate changes remained a matter of debate. We argue that variations in solar activity may have played a signiÞcant role in forcing these climate changes. We review the coincidence of variations in cosmogenic isotopes (14C and 10Be) with climate changes during the Holocene and the upper part of the last Glacial, and present two possible mechanisms (involving the role of solar UV variations and solar wind/cosmic rays) that may explain how small variations in solar activity are amplified to cause significant climate changes. Accepting the idea of solar forcing of Holocene and Glacial climatic shifts has major implications for our view of present and future climate. It implies that the climate system is far more sensitive to small variations in solar activity than generally believed.

"A number of those Holocene climate cooling phases... most likely of a global nature (eg Magney, 1993; van Geel et al, 1996; Alley et al 1997; Stager & Mayewski, 1997) ... the cooling phases seem to be part of a millennial-scale climatic cycle operating independent of the glacial-interglacial cycles (which are) forced (perhaps paced) by orbit variations."

"... we show here evidence that the variation in solar activity is a cause for the millennial scale climate change."

Last 40 kyrs

Figure 2 in paper. (From data last 40 kyrs)... "conclude that solar forcing of climate, as indicated by high BE10 values, coincided with cold phases of Dansgaar-Oeschger events as shown in O16 records"

Recent Solar Event

"Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) "...coincides with one of the coldest phases of the Little Ice Age... (van Geel et al 1998b)

Periodicity

"Mayewski et al (1997) showed a 1450 yr periodicity in C14 ... from tree rings and ...from glaciochemicial series (NaCl & Dust) from the GISP2 ice core ... believed to reflect changes in polar atmospheric circulation.."

William

2009-Dec-30, 06:00 AM

This is the paper Ari quoted which he said proved the 20th century warming was not caused by changes in planetary cloud cover.

What the paper actually states is that observational data does indicated that planetary cloud cover was reduced for the period in question.

Other papers show planetary temperature also tracks the change in planetary cloud cover.

What this paper offers is an alternative explanation which is that satellite viewing angle effects the amount of clouds viewed. This paper does not prove that the satellite viewing angle is the cause of the observed change in planetary cloud cover.

I think it is fair to say that it is very possible there is something fundamentally incorrect with the special set of AGW hypotheses that were used to make the IPCC predictions. (i.e. The IPCC predicted massive amounts of warming which are only possible if there is a very strong direct warming due to the current 38% increase in CO2 and if there is massive positive rather than negative feedback to increased any forcing change that tries to warm the planet.

The CO2 direct warming effect is logarithmic not linear. The first 25% increase in atmospheric CO2 has the majority of the theoretical direct effect in CO2.

The set of AGW hypotheses were assumed to be correct as the planet was warming. If it now abruptly cools the set of AGW hypotheses will have been proved to be incorrect.

http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~dvimont/Papers/Evan_etal_GL028083.pdf

Arguments against a physical long-term trend in global ISCCP cloud amounts

[2] The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) data set of cloud amounts and other products [Rossow and Schiffer, 1999] is a more than 20 year archive of daily global observations. Recently, this record has been used to study long-term trends in surface solar radiation [Pinker et al., 2005], with studies concluding that changes in cloudiness seen in the ISCCP record are evidence for a widespread increase in surface solar heating [Hatzianastassiou et al., 2005] and a decrease in planetary albedo [Palle´ et al., 2004; Palle´ et al., 2005], having implications for global climate models [Palle´ et al., 2006]. Still others have used the ISCCP multi-decadal trends to suggest that long-term changes in cloudiness are causing widespread changes in outgoing longwave radiation [Cess and Udelhofen, 2003], are evidence of recent global brightening [Wild et al., 2005], and result from feedbacks associated with global warming [Ding et al., 2004].

All three time series show low frequency variability that is characterized by a 1% increase in clouds from the beginning of the record until about 1987, followed by a 4% decrease in cloud amounts for the next 13 years, and again a 1% increase from late 2000 until the end of the record.

William

2009-Dec-30, 06:38 AM

This is the last paper concerning the possibility that a significant portion of the late twentieth century warming could have been caused by a reduction in planetary cloud cover.

Comment: Satellite measurements indicate planetary cloud cover was reduced, however, there is a counter argument that the satellite observations are incorrect (not real) as the change could be due to viewing angles of the satellites. The other possibility is planetary clouds cover did actually change.

The period when the satellite data indicates there is a reduction in planetary cloud cover also correlates with a period when there is an increase in solar wind bursts. The solar wind bursts create a space charge in the ionosphere. The space charge difference creates a potential voltage difference from the ionosphere and the planet's surface which removes cloud forming ions. (The mechanism is called electroscavenging.)

The solar wind burst intensity can be measured by how it effects the geomagnetic field parameter Ak. There is very close correlation of the increases and decreases of planetary temperature with Ak for the entire period.

The gentlemen who wrote this paper are solar physicists. They have presented another paper that discusses the solar changes that created the solar wind bursts.

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

Once again about global warming and solar activity
K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi and B. Kirov

Solar activity, together with human activity, is considered a possible factor for the global warming observed in the last century. However, in the last decades solar activity has remained more or less constant while surface air temperature has continued to increase, which is interpreted as an evidence that in this period human activity is the main factor for global warming. We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.

The geomagnetic activity reflects the impact of solar activity originating from both closed and open magnetic field regions, so it is a better indicator of solar activity than the sunspot number which is related to only closed magnetic field regions. It has been noted that in the last century the correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity has been steadily decreasing from - 0.76 in the period 1868- 1890, to 0.35 in the period 1960-1982, while the lag has increased from 0 to 3 years (Vieira et al. 2001). According to Echer et al. (2004), the probable cause seems to be related to the double peak structure of geomagnetic activity.

The second peak, related to high speed solar wind from coronal holes, seems to have increased relative to the first one, related to sunspots (CMEs) but, as already mentioned, this type of solar activity is not accounted for by the sunspot number. In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

What I find interesting is that the sun is currently in a deep magnetic cycle minimum, so it will likely be possible to determine which hypotheses are correct and incorrect. I am currently following the data and looking for any new papers concerning this subject.

Stroller

2009-Dec-30, 11:27 AM

Didn't Mann produce a subsequent paper which implemented the statistical methodology changes that the Wegman report proposed?

He adapted his flawed ones, and continued to use the discredited Graybill bristlecone pine tree ring series Wegmen said should never be used again.

Here is Mann's Corrigendum to MBH98 for those interested.

http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/MBH98-corrigendum04.pdf

Stroller

2009-Dec-30, 11:36 AM

Nah, it's no worry. I just thought I had heard that somewhere and wasn't turning it up when I tried to search again. For me, it's enough to know that subsequent independent reconstructions which did not use principal component analysis have produced similar results (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf) to those of the original MBH paper. To me that makes it seem pretty clear that McIntyre and McKittrick's criticism may be technically valid, but does not invalidate the gist of the idea.

As far as the medival warm period centered criticisms, I find them to be weak simply because the paper (http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper/publications/Science_2002.pdf) which produces the most salient spike I've seen (and the only strong indication of a warmer-than-present MWP I've looked closely at) shows clear evidence that the spike which is the locus of contention is likely to be a largely regional phenomenon. The authors also comment that the method they use seems to produce annual figures that are biased toward the summer months (though the authors also don't believe this is a big deal for their purposes), and they assign a relatively wide confidence interval to their reconstruction.

Both of your links are to papers by members of the mutually peer reviewing circle identified as a clique in the Wegman report, which devoted a large section to identifying and criticising the mutually supportive way these scientists had been using the peer review process. An observation supported and confirmed by an examination of the social network apparent in the climategate emails released from the UEA/CRU.

Esper failed to archive his data. Amman and Wahl got their paper published even though it relied on another paper which was rejected and not successfully resubmitted until after their original paper was included in IPCC AR4. A scandalous abuse of both the peer review process and the IPCC's own rules.

There are plenty more reviewed studies from around the world which attest to the reality of the medieval warm period as a global phenomenon and I will resume publishing the references to them as I find time.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Dec-30, 12:07 PM

This is the paper Ari quoted which he said proved the 20th century warming was not caused by changes in planetary cloud cover.

What the paper actually states is that observational data does indicated that planetary cloud cover was reduced for the period in question.
William is mispresenting my position. I said: "According to our current body of observations, there has not been global cloud cover changes that could explain the whole of the warming (Warrent et al., 2007; Evan et al., 2007)." Whole being the keyword there. William then provided a quote from Evan et al. where William had bolded a few selected sentences:

Arguments against a physical long-term trend in global ISCCP cloud amounts

[2] The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) data set of cloud amounts and other products [Rossow and Schiffer, 1999] is a more than 20 year archive of daily global observations. Recently, this record has been used to study long-term trends in surface solar radiation [Pinker et al., 2005], with studies concluding that changes in cloudiness seen in the ISCCP record are evidence for a widespread increase in surface solar heating [Hatzianastassiou et al., 2005] and a decrease in planetary albedo [Palle´ et al., 2004; Palle´ et al., 2005], having implications for global climate models [Palle´ et al., 2006]. Still others have used the ISCCP multi-decadal trends to suggest that long-term changes in cloudiness are causing widespread changes in outgoing longwave radiation [Cess and Udelhofen, 2003], are evidence of recent global brightening [Wild et al., 2005], and result from feedbacks associated with global warming [Ding et al., 2004].
What William didn't mention is that this quote was from the introduction of Evan et al. where they outline the problem. Right after William's selected section, Evan et al. said this:

However, these trends in total cloudiness have not been observed in surface [Norris, 2005] and other satellite [Jacobowitz et al., 2003; Wylie et al., 2005] cloud records. While a lack of corroboration with other data sets does not imply a deficiency in the ISCCP data, it has been suggested that the ISCCP cloud amounts may be affected by satellite related artifacts [Campbell, 2004; Norris, 2000].
The second quote William had selected from Evan et al. was also from their introduction where they show the problem. Later they proceed to show how the apparent cloud trends discussed in the William's highlighted parts are due to satellite viewing angle artifacts in the ISCCP data. Here William tries to make it look like as if Evan et al. would be in fact showing that there are cloud trends after all when they specifically argue that the trends might not be real. As you can see from the above quotes, Evan et al. are not the only ones who have noticed the problem. Campbell and Norris have noticed it too. Here's Norris (2008) (http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/NorrisGwattRevised.pdf) discussing the problem. Just look at Norris' figure 2 upper panel. There you will see that if you wish to claim the cloud trends are real, then you need to start claiming that the trends just accidentally match the fields of view of the satellites.

I also note that we have been through this cloud cover and Evan et al. thing before with William, here (http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/88208-sun-not-affecting-global-warming-3.html#post1493502) and here (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/70431-general-agw-discussion-thread-67.html#post1571427). I fail to see the point of us having to go through that again, as William's arguments seem to be largely unchanged.