Thanks, but no thanks;
Both halves of the [Nobel Peace Prize] honor promoting the message that Earth’s temperature is rising due to human-based emissions of greenhouse gases. The Nobel committee praises Mr. Gore and the IPCC for alerting us to a potential catastrophe and for spurring us to a carbonless economy.
I’m sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never “proof”) and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.
There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why. As we build climate data sets from scratch and look into the guts of the climate system, however, we don’t find the alarmist theory matching observations. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite data we analyze at the University of Alabama in Huntsville does show modest warming — around 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century, if current warming trends of 0.25 degrees per decade continue.)
It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system’s behavior over the next five days.
[…]
Mr. Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a participant in the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-recipient of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.
b_nichol, I made the comment I did because of the inannity of your comment. You, a nameless person of no specific qualifications writing into a blog, derides the Director of Earth Sciences at a university for what you seem to think is a silly opinion. If you were another IPCC researcher dismissing his opinions, then fine…if you want to dismiss one of the other commentators comments, then fine.
Your comment was silly. The concerns of the SDA-ers is with the claims by the researchers that the “science is settled” and that there is a “consensus”, because science is NEVER settled and our understanding of science is NEVER complete or fully correct. So we will deride the researchers for saying THAT, not for publishing their educated opinions.
arthur a – no matter how much juice I stir into my cauldron, I’ll never, ever, create an ant from it. Correlation and causation can’t necessarily be linked.
So, saying that ant population and juice availability are correlated doesn’t mean that the one causes the other.
Saying that climate change and CO2 emissions are correlated doesn’t mean that one causes the other.
Basic logic and basic science.
Brian: OK, I see what you are saying. I misunderstood you before. Yes, if you calculate a trend over the last 5 years, you do get a negative slope. However when I did it I found the R2 value for the lower troposphere to be about 0.14! Thus it is not statistically significant.
However I did play around with the data a bit and I will note that there are at least 2 other regions of the graph where there is a 5 year cooling trend (warning I used the RSS data from their site). The first is starting in June of 1980 and it gives a 5 year cooling trend of -0.6C/decade with an R2 of 0.3 . The second starts in July of 1987 with a cooling rate of -0.16C/decade and an R2 of 0.02.
So I don’t think we can really draw too much from a 5 year trend. William Connolly has an (a href=”http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/upload/2007/05/5-year-trends.png”> excellent graphic showing the problem with 5 year trends. The top image shows the 5 year trends (black lines with the blue lines being the ones that are statistically significant. The middle one shows the 10 year trends that are statistically significant. And the last one shows the 15 year trends that are statistically significant.
Anyway, I shall keep an eye on the satellite measurements, but unless this keeps up for a couple of more years I will keep quoting the trend from 1979.
Regards,
John.
We are all going to die because Dion “Did’nt get it done”…And to think Citoyen declared himself Kyoto’s CEO…What a load of puffins! đ
The coming decade (2010~15) will prove that this was all hysterics and lots of the snake oil drinkers will then complain that it’s very cold, heating is too expensive, food is expensive, the poor are dying because of this and that Harper, now on his 3rd majority, will be blamed for all of this.
(My theory is based on data of peaks and valleys from the hottest 1930’s to the coldest 1970’s back to the hottest 1990’s)
“Oh how good we had it back when it was hotter”
Suzuki’s daughter, now married to Gore’s son will be making tons of money off a fresh batch of gullible fools with their “An inconvenient ice age cometh”.
Chip: re the GISS data, have you been following John V’s work? From his analysis it appears to actually be pretty good.
Regards,
John
Three questions for the AGW crowd. First, since their faith in the climate models of the IPCC seems so absolute, could they please identify the model which produces accurate predictions of the the course of the monsoon (arguably the most significant weather pattern affecting humanity, a subset of the total global climate, and a phenomenon which credible scientists have been attempting for years to model)?
Second, since AGW purports to be settled science, a corollary of a scientific theory is that it must in some way be falsifiable. What phenomena could we observe that would falsify the AGW theory?
Third, for about the hundredth time and still without an answer, (do I need therapy?) according to the IPCC scientific reports, did the “little ice age” occur or not occur?
John Cross:
Your analysis is forgetting something. The 2 earlier cooling trends you speak about are driven by major volcanic eruptions (El Chichon and Pinatubo). That is clearly not true for the recent cooling. What do think is driving it?
As for your use of R2 statistic, I can comment that on such noisy data (assuming you are using monthly data) you won’t find R2 meaningful. However, try this experiment. Take the annual data and attempt to get the correlation coefficient over various periods starting 5 years back. I think you’ll find the 5 year number is better than say the 8 year number. Makes no sense right. Unless you admit there was some kind of transition about 2002. Which is my point.
And by the way, it’s not just the troposphere data that show a non-warming trend developing, it’s the upper oceans and surface temperatures too.
Regards, BRK
John Cross:
Your analysis is forgetting something. The 2 earlier cooling trends you speak about are driven by major volcanic eruptions (El Chichon and Pinatubo). That is clearly not true for the recent cooling. What do think is driving it?
As for your use of R2 statistic, I can comment that on such noisy data (assuming you are using monthly data) you won’t find R2 meaningful. However, try this experiment. Take the annual data and attempt to get the correlation coefficient over various periods starting 5 years back. I think you’ll find the 5 year number is better than say the 8 year number. Makes no sense right. Unless you admit there was some kind of transition about 2002. Which is my point.
And by the way, it’s not just the troposphere data that show a non-warming trend developing, it’s the upper oceans and surface temperatures too.
Regards, BRK
Hi Brian: You are correct I did forget the volcanoes, however on checking the data, I am not sure of the effect of them.
Pinatubo took place in 1991 which is just at the end of the 5 year trend I looked at. If I exclude that year and only look at the 4 year trend I still see a negative slope. Less than before but still negative.
In regards to El Chichon, this took place early in my 5 year analysis (my analysis was based on June 1980 to May 1985) but it is hard to see any effect from it. The temperatures seemed to be decreasing before it and continued to decrease for about 8 months after it, then increased for over a year then fell back to even lower levels.
Your trend analysis is an interesting idea and I will play around with it.
In regards to the surface and ocean temperatures, do you have references for these (especially the oceans)? I do not think we are seeing a substantial cooling in the surface and I think this year will be a new record (you heard it here first).
Regards,
John
Dr. D: I am not too up on models so I am not sure about your first point. But I will address your other two.
In my opinion, one thing that could easily falsify AGW is if someone is able to show that the CO2 molecule does not absorb IR. That would take away the theoretical basis in one fell swoop.
In reagrds to the IPCC and ice age, of course it did. From Chapt 1 of AR4, pg 108:
This period of low solar activity, now
known as the Maunder Minimum, occurred during the climate
period now commonly referred to as the Little Ice Age (Eddy,
1976). There is no exact agreement as to which dates mark the
beginning and end of the Little Ice Age, but from about 1350 to
about 1850 is one reasonable estimate.
John Cross:
If you want to judge the effect of the volcanoes, take a look at the troposphere temperatures. You or I must be wrong about El Chichon. The troposphere effect peaks in early ’83 which is not at the beginning of your period as you assert. As for the later trend analysis, the SOI index shows strong la Nina conditions, the effect of which peaks in mid ’89. Without this “incident” I doubt you would have found a cooling trend in the period you discuss.
Finally, on your comment that SSTs+Surface temps will set a record for this year, you don’t have a hope in hell of making that. You had a little spike from the dying El Nino at the beginning of the year, but since it’s been down down down. Take a look at the current SST map. See a lot of “blue” out there?
Since you’re making predictions, I’ll make one myself. Based on the HADCRUv3 global dataset, 2007 will be beat by 2002,2003,2004,2005 and the all time champ 1998.
Regards, BRK
John Cross
Sorry, in my first sentence of the last post I meant stratosphere temperatures.
Regards BRK
John Cross:
The link for the subsurface ocean temperatures can be found
“http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf”
At one point there was an analysis of the data without the troublesome series X Argo floats, which also showed data into 2006, but I can’t find that particular addendum, which seems to have disappeared.
Regards, BRK
John Cross, please give it up.
Your tactics of polite obsfucation may work on other blogs and at University seminar and Suzuki Foundation meetings but it will not work at sda.
Just too many high quality commenters here who can see through the bafflegarb. They know a logrithim and and a solar constant and gaseous transparancy when they see it.
You are comtinually being diagnosed by Dr D and run over by Jet and klipped by Klapstein.
However, because you are polite and the discussion civil, it is useful that, everyday thousands of sda readers learn or have their knowledge reinforce —– The IPCC’s Kyoto Protocol is the biggest fraud the world has ever seen.
Look how long we were fooled by the claim that the Crude Oil being drilled for was originally a graveyard for Dinosaurs .
We now know that Oil is found not only at ground level in Alberta tar sands , but under the Ocean floor in areas where Dinosaurs never lived unless a Massive Ice-Comet hit the Earth and killed them off , AND Then it fully melted to create at least 6000 ft. of water that caused the lowland areas to fill up and leave the Continents above the water level.
But then again , that kills the Pan-gea theory taught in Universities which are never Wrong…Right? .
John
“In my opinion, one thing that could easily falsify AGW is if someone is able to show that the CO2 molecule does not absorb IR. That would take away the theoretical basis in one fell swoop. ”
Yes, and if anyone can falsify that the sun provides energy to the atmosphere, energy that the CO2 molecules will ultimately absorb (whether direct IR, blackbody IR, or molecular transition). That would take away the theoretical basis in one fell swoop.
I noticed on a different blog you quoted 1998 as the hottest year. Your posts were in May. Given your certainty in those posts to JMRSudbury and NASA’s recent change of heart, are you at least willing to soften your stance?
Hi Brian: No disagreement about the effect of volcanoes on the stratosphere. I am just saying that it doesn’t show up in the troposphere.
Re the 2007 temps, I am using the Global Land Ocean temps (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt)
I am willing to put my prediction up against yours. đ
Re the ocean temps. I have not seen a re-analysis since they made the two corrections. However I know both corrections significantly reduced the cooling rate.
However, while I may not agree with your points, I have enjoyed the civil and thought provoking discussion.
Regards,
John
John
“Does anyone care to ask Dr. Christy what could cause warming in the troposphere yet cooling in the stratosphere? After all that is what his research shows. ”
Decreased cloud formation?
8bEbgcBBi: I am not sure of the context for the post in may (was it in Back Seat Driving?) so I am not sure what softening would be required. The recent NASA correction was only for the lower 48 states so I don’t think that is significant.
However my opinion is always changing based on what I read.
Regards,
John
John
“The recent NASA correction was only for the lower 48 states so I don’t think that is significant. ”
Why not? The predominance of the data sets have been for the lower 48 states.
Besides, do you have any refutation to
“if anyone can falsify that the sun provides energy to the atmosphere, energy that the CO2 molecules will ultimately absorb (whether direct IR, blackbody IR, or molecular transition). That would take away the theoretical basis in one fell swoop.”
You asked this of others with regards to CO2 and I know that it can’t be done for CO2 in a laboratory. Can you refute the Sun’s contributions to IR and CO2 absorption?
John Cross:
There’s clear dips in the troposphere temps coincident with the stratosphere temperature rise of El Chichon and Pinatubo.
As for your prediction, I checked your preferred dataset and based on my calculations 2007 would have to have temperature anomalies of at least 0.7 for the last 3 months to beat the average for 2005 (the highest year in your dataset).
There’s no realistic way that’s going to happen given the current la Nina conditions. You haven’t had a monthly number above .6 since May. Even last years El Nino only gave December 2006 a 0.69.
Even if you were right, that wouldn’t be a good thing for the AGW cause. You can’t keep setting records with the surface temperatures, while the troposphere temperatures fall and say with a straight face the models are “robust”.
Regards, BRK
Brian: I still don’t see the dips that you talk about regarding El-Chichon. The eruption took place in March of 2002 – the anomaly for this month was -0.239. The temperature stayed at essentially the same level for the next 6 months. Then it shot up above 0 for essentially the next 11 months and then in mid-1984 reached the lows similar to the temperature at the eruption time.
In regards to my prediction, I wouldn’t put a lot of money on it but the chance is much more than a snowball’s chance in 2100 đ . First, I am looking at meteorological years, and I think you calculated based on calendar years. From my calculations I would need O and N to come in at +0.65 which is possible. However, no matter how you slice the data it will be exceptional if the year finished below second warmest thus beating the famed 1998! The October numbers should be out in about a week so we will see then!
In regards to whether a record year would be a good thing or not, I don’t see it as being either one or the other (hey, if the models are wrong, they are wrong). However it is a little premature to talk about this yet.
regards,
John
8bEbgcBBi: I missed this one last night Decreased cloud formation?
No, I don’t see how that would manage it. I might see increased cloud formation, but could you explain how decreased cloud formation could manage it?
In regards to the data sets, while the lower 48 are important, the effect on global temperatures from the very small change we saw in the “correction” is not enough to change any rankings.
You asked this of others with regards to CO2 and I know that it can’t be done for CO2 in a laboratory. Can you refute the Sun’s contributions to IR and CO2 absorption?
Just to be clear I was responding to Dr.D who was asking for something that could falsify AGW. what I supplied was 1 point. In regards to the sun’s contribution to IR, I am not sure what you mean, but the sun is obviously the source of 99.99999% of the earth’s energy so I can’t and don’t see a need to falsify it.
regards,
John
John Cross:
“…Hey if the model’s are wrong they’re wrong..” A pretty cavalier statement since there’s only really 2 trains of logic supporting AGW theory:
1. The models
2. climate history (as in: “this never happened before”)
So if the models are wrong it is a big deal. And yes I was using calender years. No biggy. The anomalies just won’t make your needed numbers in any case. And if I was you I’d switch to the HADCRUv3 dataset. Just friendly advice since the more the S&R GHCN/SST dataset deviates from the MSU data, the more suspect it becomes. And 2007 will not beat 1998 by any stretch of the fevered imagination in the HADCRU dataset, not even close.
“…However it is a little premature to talk about this yet…” I don’t think so at all. The models are failing in temperature projections at Antarctica, the lack of troposphere temperature growth, precipitation and GHG growth rates among other things. I sense the scientific community feels no need talk about these things since any year now the problematic trends will turn around.
But what if they don’t? How angry off do think the citizenry are going to be in 2012 after being loaded down with a bunch of new taxes and restrictions on lifestyle, on the basis it was a crisis, a crisis that never materialized? Especially when they find out that the “scary numbers” all kind of stopped happening around 2002?
As a final point, solar cycle 24 predictions are on the weak side (the longer 23 drags out the more the peak predictions for 24 seem revised downward), so if the sun has any effect, the likelihood of a turnaround soon is not good.
Regards, BRK
John Cross:
On final comment. Stand back and look at what you are doing with your 2007 prediction. You have chosen arguably the least relevant dataset, in terms of its coherence with other datasets. Not only that you’ve chosen the type of data most problematic in the objectivity department (surface stations). And you’re trying to pull a rabbit out of the hat with your prediction of another “record” year.
And what would that get you if you were right anyway? Another year of avoiding dealing with what the majority of the evidence says?
The psychological terms that describe what is going on in the pro-AGW camp right now are “rationalize, minimize, and deny”.
Regards, BRK
Brian: A pretty cavalier statement since there’s only really 2 trains of logic supporting AGW theory:
Of course there is also the physics of the CO2 molecule and the fact that we are responsible for all the recent increase in CO2.
I will probably stick to the GISS for now anyway. A quick question about the satellite observations, do they incorporate Fu’s correction into the results?
But what if they don’t?
I don’t like these “what if” scenarios. I could counter with But what if we don’t take action and things turn out worse than we thought? All we can do is act based on what we understand.
In regards to the solar cycles, again – good. It will provide a test of the influence of the sun. If temperatures continue to rise – or even stay the same – it will show that the sun’s influence is not as great as imagined by some.
Finally, about my prediction, all I can say is wait and see. I am not trying to pull rabbits out of anywhere or delay anything. It is just an off the cuff prediction by myself. I will note that I have not heard any expert say it will be a record year so I realize I am on a limb here.
Regards,
John
John Cross:
“…physics of the CO2 molecule..”. Perhaps you weren’t aware the level of CO2 currently in the atmosphere is enough to adsorb pretty much all outgoing infrared in the CO2 “bands”. Meaning more CO2 will only move the capture lower, since you can’t intercept more than 100%. Realclimate.org has an explanation of how the warming can continue even though this is so. By all means read up on it, but the physics of the atmosphere is not as clear cut as they would have you believe. And neither is the contribution of CO2 to ongoing warming. A good point to ponder is that CO2 has been way higher in the past then now, and so if CO2 has so much leverage, why didn’t the “runawawy” greenhouse effect make earth permanently like Venus? By the way you’re wrong about “us” being responsible for ALL the recent increase in CO2.
As for your question on the MSU data, some datasets incorporate Fu’s corrections, some don’t, but they all show a cooling trend over the last 5 years in any case.
You say you don’t like “what if” scenarios. That’s interesting since the whole AGW movement is based on a “what if” scenario.
A good idea to keep your eye on the sun, but you’re wrong (again) about the “…if it stays the same part…”. The theory states that global temperatures should peak on (or “about” considering lag) on solar sunspot peaks, which means even in a weak sunspot cycle you might still get some warming, just not near as much as the models would predict.
I’m surprised you haven’t heard any experts predict 2007 as a record year. Dr. Phil Jones of the CRU did that back in January. Regrettably for the reputation of climate science, he jumped the gun, probably counting on the then current El Nino lasting a little longer.
Regards, BRK
Brian:
“…physics of the CO2 molecule..”. Perhaps you weren’t aware the level of CO2 currently in the atmosphere is enough to adsorb pretty much all outgoing infrared in the CO2 “bands”.
I am not sure I follow you here. Some of the bands are saturated (and some arenât) which is why the increases are fairly small (compared to the current greenhouse effect of 35 â 38 C). I am fairly aware of the physics of CO2 and have read the post at RealClimate but prefer my own explanation which I have posted here several times. But I am a little confused, are you saying that CO2 will cause a little warming or no warming? There is a large difference between the two statements.
In regards to CO2 concentrations being higher in the past, I am also aware of that but I donât think it really tells us much due to two reasons. The first that the sun is the largest climate driver but its output varies over millions of years (it warms up as it gets older). Thus there was not as much solar radiation back then. The other is one that you are probably not aware of i.e. continental drift. While we can ignore this over 100âs of years, over millions this is very significant. So, I donât think we can tell as much as you believe we can from higher CO2 readings.
By the way you’re wrong about “us” being responsible for ALL the recent increase in CO2.
Why do you say I am wrong? I guess it depends on your definition of ârecentâ but there is no doubt that this is the case for the last say 40 years but probably at least another 40. That is one of the key points in the debate and there is no question of this.
In regards to Fu, can you point me to one that does incorporate his work? I am just curious. I looked at the stratospheric cooling and while it is continuing at a somewhat faster rate it is not significantly faster. Anyway, I was wondering if stratospheric contamination is part of the problem.
In regards to what if scenarios, I would differ a scientific case from a what if scenario. I can say, âwhat if the sun does not rise tomorrowâ but there is not much scientific evidence to back it up.
A good idea to keep your eye on the sun, but you’re wrong (again) Ouch!
In regards to Dr. Jones, thanks, I didnât know that. Although what he actually said that there was a 60% chance that this would be the warmest year which is a fairly weak prediction. None the less, I would agree that this year he is likely wrong.
Regards,
John