At Climate Audit, it’s candy day for geeks. Hansen has released his temperature analysis source code and documentation – finally;
Hansen says resentfully that they would have liked a “week or two” to make a “simplified version” of the program and that it is this version that “people interested in science” will want, as opposed to the version that actually generated their results. […]
In recent posts, I’ve observed that long rural stations in South America and Africa do not show the pronounced ROW trend (Where’s Waldo?) that is distinct from the U.S. temperature history as well as the total lack of long records from Antarctica covering the 1930s. Without mentioning climateaudit.org or myself by name, Hansen addresses the “lack of quality data from South America and Africa, a legitimate concern”, concluding this lack does not “matter” to the results. […]
So United States shows no material change since the 1930s, but this doesn’t matter, South America doesn’t matter, Africa doesn’t matter and Antarctica has no records relevant to the 1930s. Europe and northern Asia would seem to be plausible candidates for locating Waldo. (BTW we are also told that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon confined to Europe and northern Asia – go figure.]
As is the norm for McIntyre’s site, the comments are a must read. He adds –
I’m sure that one other consideration in freeing the code were the [Climate Audit] threads patiently reverse engineering what he did plus the fact that we were having some success in pinning down the steps. In combination with the “Y2K” publicity, I can’t imagine that NASA was pleased with the prospect of this playing out on the internet over the next few months and simply decided to cut their losses, regardless of Hansen’s views on the matter.
Click here to download the code.
Humm, my last post got censored – possible due to too many links in it. Where necessary I will just use LPUR (link provided upon request). Anyway,
RicardoVerde:
I agree that policy should come from good science. However I disagree with your statement ”The problem is there is not much resembling science involved. The very basic science of AGW is the physics of the CO2 molecule and the chemistry of burning fossil fuels. These are always overlooked in their importance and how rock solid they are.
Stephen:
You said there were significant other theories challenging AGW. What ones did you have in mind? I try to keep up with the science but I am not aware of any. As you might gather from above I would strongly disagree with your comment about what facts are agreed upon. I would modify your second point to be that CO2 levels are increasing and the source is anthropogenic. Also, I would add a third that adding CO2 will cause warming. Those, I would agree that those are solid facts.
Nathan:
Dr. Pilkey Sr. does agree with the basics of global warming but he tends to think that land use effects are larger than generally accepted. (Aside, I think it is ashame that he shut down his blog. He had some interesting thoughts.)
However, to get back to the topic of this post, great that NASA has made public the codes, I am all for open work. I tend to agree with Steve McIntyre when he says that we are currently warmer than it has been in the past, but good of him to check it out.
However in response to a couple of posts above, I will say that I find the number of items that “disprove AGW” over the last month is amusing. Remember this one ? (As Kate said, this is one to share and recommend.) Or perhaps this one (LPUR). We are continuing to check his work over at Deltoid, but it is not looking good for Dr. Schulte right now. Or maybe this one (LPUR) regarding climate sensitivity. Or even this one (LPUR) talking about a DOS attack on Steve McIntyer when it now seems that it was listeners to Rush. (And someone please bring up 1934).
So if I have not changed my position, perhaps you can forgive me based on the above.
Regards,
John
John Cross, as a professional engineer myself, I find it difficult to believe that YOU are a professional engineer. Though you are polite, you seem to feign open-mindedness…you’re willing to discuss but seemingly not to change your mind. This is typically NOT a characteristic of professional engineers.
When I see the BS regarding the measuring stations, I immediately throw my hands up and say “I cannot trust the data that is coming from those measuring stations and, since in part this is what the science of AGW is based on, I am concerned about the veracity of the AGW claim”.
Can you not even muster up an “I’m seriously concerned about the accuracy of the temperature readings and how this impacts the AGW debate”?
Just how many peer-reviewed scientific articles were there about any number of scientific issues before a discovery was made that “radically changed our understanding of the issue”. Remember, dinosaurs were once considered cold-blooded reptiles, while now they are considered the forerunners of birds…how many peer-reviewed articles were there that agreed with the cold-blooded reptile conclusion?
As an engineer, I will remain skeptical about AGW until the claims are exhaustively reviewed and tested with predictions that are proved in the real world.
For some reason these sceptics trust the climate scientists enough to parrot them about past climate, yet refuse to recognise their expertise predicting future climate.
Huh, that’s like saying historians are qualified to predict the future.
Eeyore: I think your comment about being a skeptic is valid. I would say that in fact I came from a skeptical background. Just a little while ago, I actually wrote of my “journey” which you can read here if you are interested.
In regards to temperature readings, I am interested in seeing where things are going. However, there are so many different bits of evidence that says we are warming that I am not going to change my mind about that yet. For example, ocean heat content, glaciers retreating, polar ice, frost free days, traditional ecological knowledge, accelerating ice flows in Greenland, MSU records, Stratospheric temperatures, etc. Just one or two of these by themselves does not present a very strong case, but taken together they are quite strong (recall the Bayesian post from a while ago).
So let Steve McIntyre audit them and see what comes out. Then I will consider what he has done.
I would disagree with your point about paradigme shifts (I believe this is what you are talking about). While we can never rule them out, we can not make a decision based on the chance that one will take place. From an engineering point of view, if I went to my client and said that we should go with plan B since there may be a paradigme shift in fluid mechanics next year, I would not last long.
I consider myself openminded in that there are true areas of the science that are important and not well understood. In these areas I will continue to read and try to understand, but if I may quote Fermi: Whatever nature has in store for mankind, unpleasant as it may be, men must accept, for ignorance is never better than knowledge. . My second favourite Fermi quote.
Regards,
John
John,
Agreed that the some of the recent increase in CO2 is anthroprogenic. SOme of it comes from Oceans as they warm….nobody has an exact measure yet.
Also agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, along with water vapour and methane and ahost of others
Those are definite facts
The measured effect of an increase in CO2 is not an agreed item, there is lots of debate over whether it is additive or if there is a saturation point.
Competing theories….solar output one theory is direct the other is indirect (reduced shielding effect from lower sunspot activity)
Of course the biggest theory is that this is just part of a cycle, probably caused by the sun. We still havent been able to adequately explain previous warm and cold periods adequately, so it makes one wonder why we are ascribing an apparent correlation (churches and liquor stores are also correlated)to a cause.
Lets look at the popular evidence for a second
1) Kilimanjaro’s ice cap disappearing…..sublimation is the cause
2) Glaciers retreating…depends on where you look, I bleieve most are increasing with some shrinking. And they have been smaller in the past, the recently discovered Silver Mine in the Alps is a good example
3) Polar Ice shrinking….well northern polar ice has been at a low point but is highly variable. This year the section north of the Bering straight is significantly smaller than last year, but 2006 was bigger than 2005. The southern cap is stable and bigger this year than last and apparently thickening…..so much for the Global part of global warming
4) Polar bear pop shrinking….not true see Kate’s post
5) More hurricanes….ooops wrong again…fewer recently and there have been more and worse ones in the past
6) Sea Surface Temperatures increasing…..ooops they have dropped after an high in 2005, likely part of a cycle…but the point being they are lower, where is the runaway?
7) Increasing temperatures….at rural stations this seems to not be the case….the primary data used to drive the models is under pretty significant question right now based on the use of urban stations
8) CO2 correlated with temp increases….the timing was off, Vostok shows CO2 following temp increases….due largely to warmer seas being unable to absorb as much CO2 and in fact gassing off CO2
So I am not saying there isnt a problem, we are adding to the gases in the atmosphere….I just dont think we (humanity) has shown that it is really a big issue that requires massive changes in behaviour and costs…especially when those costs either hold back wealth creation in Wetsrn countries without imposing the same limits on developing countries or not allowing developing countries to build wealth which comes from having infrastructure like an electricity grid.
Everywhere the wealthier a country the cleaner the environment (from a pollution perspective)
Dont destroy wealth creation and productivity in the quest to bring about pastoral bliss.
@John Cross (7:02 AM):
Try previewing your comments before sending them in: you’ll see, inside the anchor tag in any link you provide, an added snippet of code that says “nofollow.” That means you can only have one link per post without it being diverted for editor approval.
It’s standard operating procedure at SDA, designed to trap linkdumps. Since I’m a high-strung fellow at times, I had thought that Kate had something against LewRockwell.com when I first bumped into it. I later figured out, though, that it’s – well, standard operating procedure.
Daniel: Thanks – most useful! I guess I will just use my LPUR.
Stephen: Thank your for your comments. I will post a result shortly (damn day job for taking away posting time).
I read that antarctica is getting colder. Maybe its becuase AL GORE and GREENPEACE are not there
Stephen:
You covered a lot of ground in the last post, but lets start by takeing a look at your first statement. You say that “some of the recent increase in CO2 is anthroprogenic.” Accepting any reasonable definition of some, that is not correct. You can prove it by calculating the amount of fossil fuels burned each day and then comparing this to what shows up in the atmosphere. In fact less shows up than is produced so we know that we are responsible for all the increase. You can also use isotopes to look at the C14 ratio which shows that the carbon introduced into the atmosphere is much older than 15,000 years.
In regards to CO2, there is no argument about the fact that it will act to warm. Lindzen, Pilkey, Christy and most of the other scientific skeptics accept this. But I can go into it if you wish. One of the things that makes posting about this topic so interesting is that on another thread last week I responded to a comment by Hans Erren (a well known skeptic) who was saying that no-one was using the old saturation argument anymore.
You gave two examples of Competing theories….solar output one theory is direct the other is indirect (reduced shielding effect from lower sunspot activity)
In fact, there are no measurements that show solar output in increasing (beyond what would be expected in a sunspot cycle)(LPUR). In regards to your shielding, I assume you are talking about cosmic rays making clouds? If so, there is a lot of work to do on this hypothesis before it should be taken seriously. (LPUR)
In regards to your numbered points, a couple of comments.
1) Kilimanjaro – I don’t think anyone is certain what is going on here. Anyone who uses it as evidence of global warming is not correct as is anyone who uses it to counter AGW. (LPUR)
2) Glaciers retreating… Please see Tamino’s blog – Open Mind and his post Glaciers (Al Gore got it right)(LPUR)
3) In regards to the thickening of the Antarctic, lets see. Warmer air will transport more moisture. Thus we would expect more snow to fall. The average elevation of the Antarctic is over 2 km and the air temperature is fairly cool up there so I would not expect much melting. Thus there is nothing inconsistent about the Antarctic ice thickening.
4) Polar bears? Don’t know one way or another. I am happy to accept increasing populations for now.
5) In regards to hurricanes, I am not sure about your terms (i.e. more, worse, etc.) If you can provide a reference I would appreciate it.
6) Sea Surface Temperatures – This is an interesting one in that the authors of the paper published a correction in July 2007. To quote from the abstract Two systematic biases have been discovered in the ocean temperature data used by Lyman et al. [2006]. These biases are both substantially larger than sampling errors estimated in Lyman et al. [2006], and appear to be the cause of the rapid cooling reported in that work. (LPUR).
7) As you point out the surface temperature readings are under question right now so I will reserve comment until the analysis is finished
8) In fact the lag is in question as I have posted here before (LPUR). However even if we accept the lag, it still does not provide evidence against the link between CO2 and Temperatures (look up Milankovitch cycles – LPUR).
I agree with you that a wealthier a country makes for a cleaner the environment (from a pollution perspective). That is the key – from a pollution perspective. Greenhouse gas production does not fall under this category. I think that there are lots of things that we should be looking at to reduce oil consumption now while the cost to the economy is low.
You finish by saying “Dont destroy wealth creation and productivity in the quest to bring about pastoral bliss.” That is something we can both agree on (although we may disagree about some of the interpretation).
Regards,
John
Alby says I’m full of it, and he never said nuttin’ about sterilizing Africa.
M’kay, lets see Alby.
//www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006800.html#c186
Oopsie, looks like your trollery was worse than usual that day, bad enough that Kate deleted it. Bad Alby!
But that’s ok, I saved some of it at Jeff Davidson’s blog. Bwahaha!!! Check it out:
//www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=31964437&postID=4055738766673430998
Quoth Alby:
“For many [African and Asian] nations with the fastest growing populations there tends to be a high demand for male children. Imagine if you could sell to those nations a drug that allowed couples to have only male children by encouraging just the production of sperm carrying the “Y” chromosome.”
Yeah, just imagine how great that would be. This section of the quote doesn’t contain the word “sterilize”, but this is arguably worse.
Back to your bridge Alby, your white hood and robes need a cleanin’.
Alby says I’m full of it, and he never said nuttin’ about sterilizing Africa.
M’kay, lets see Alby.
smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006800.html#c186
Oopsie, looks like your trollery was worse than usual that day, bad enough that Kate deleted it. Bad Alby!
But that’s ok, I saved some of it at Jeff Davidson’s blog. Bwahaha!!! Check it out:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=31964437&postID=4055738766673430998
Quoth Alby:
“For many [African and Asian] nations with the fastest growing populations there tends to be a high demand for male children. Imagine if you could sell to those nations a drug that allowed couples to have only male children by encouraging just the production of sperm carrying the “Y” chromosome.”
Yeah, just imagine how great that would be. This section of the quote doesn’t contain the word “sterilize”, but this is arguably worse.
Back to your bridge Alby, your white hood and robes need a cleanin’.
John,
I will dig for a couple of the links
On Antartica, we arent just talking about lack of evidence based on high elevation glaciers…..the essence of that argument is, if it melts it is hot, if it grows it is hot, hardly convincing, but yes it is not inconsistent with a warming world, nor is it inconsitent with a cooling world.
However lets got to Sea Ice, which isnt affected by what high elevations and should be reflective of general temperatures…..from the IPCC report
“Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region”
So the ice at the south pole isnt shrinking, which would be consistent with AGW or even GW
Speaking of A versus non A….yes most of the increase in CO2 is A….I just wouldnt say all. Not trying to drive a point just saying that not all of the increase is A driven.
Hurricanes….one example that we really are just sitting in the middle of normal
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/07/03/lessons-from-a-5000-year-hurricane-record/#more-252
Regarding solar irrandiance….agreed much work needs to be done but this is an interesting little article that says there is more than meets the eye, including some AGW
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/08/17/climate-change-chaos/#more-259
Finally, lets try some glacier stuff….oops some unfortuante data from South America http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/21/actual-south-american-snow-cover-data-show-no-climate-change/#more-242
and the classic Kilimanjaro
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/06/12/a-kilimanjaro-we-told-you-so/#more-248
Glad you agree that Klmanjaro cant be used for AGW, Gore does, and I am not saying it can be used for non AGW.
My whole point is that it is not proven, and in fact isnt near being proven. Is there an GW effect from CO2…of course there is. Is it saturation or additive, I dont know and I dont think others know. That is one of the key questions that need to be looked at.
As well, then there are all the other effects, the sun, clouds moistrure etc. Some effects wash others out.
GW exists due to GHG, if it didnt the earth would be about -35 degrees on a regular basis I believe.
The real questions surround runaway effects, cumulative nature of changes and the weighting of different forcings.
In the absence of these questions being clearly answered or largely answered, they arent, then at best we should be engaging in simple low cost mitgation measures to buy some more time while we figure it all out.
The mania that surrounds this is ridiculous and quite frankly will do more harm to the movement if it is true but takes longer to show its effects. Schemes like international carbon trading are hokum, till we work out the human stuff (rule of law across the planet)
There are too many questions, I would rather there be research done and a simple 5 cent per ton of carbon tax put in place, just so we can get used to it and then raise it as more or lower it as the eveidence clarifies the issue.
I just dont react well to the its all over but the crying arguments from the more radical AGW crowd. It just isnt that straightforward.
Yes Phantom you are indeed full of it. Now where does it say anything about sterilizing Africa? Funny how you decided not to include the rest of that post so it could be put into it’s intended context.
Now be gone little fruitcake and back to the topic.
Stephen: Sorry, I misunderstood your Antarctic ice comment. Yes, I can accept that the sea ice around most of the Antarctic is stable. That is actually a worthwhile discussion if you wish to pursue it (whether it is consistent with GW or not). The exception is of course the peninsula. But I disagree with your comment about it not being inconsistent with global cooling. Can you produce a mechanism that would cause an increase in Antarctica ice in a cooling world?
Regarding the CO2 being A or non-A I am afraid I still disagree with you on this. The recent increases are all – 100% – A. Again, if we produce X, but the increase in the atmosphere is X-Y, then can you envision any mechanism where if we didn’t produce X, something else would produce Y?
The Donnelly and Woodruff paper is interesting but only looks at data from one specific geographic point. It would be hard to draw general conclusions from that. In addition it does not actually show that increased SSTs do not drive hurricanes but that there are other possible mechanism that can drive hurricanes as well.
The Tsonis paper is unusual. They seem to be rejecting observations and physics in favor of mathematical models.
In regards to glaciers, I will note that your link does not mention glaciers at all, only the maximum snow water equivalent.
I am not sure what you mean when you say .” Is it saturation or additive, I dont know and I dont think others know.” It is of course both. The main bands are saturated, but some of the side bands are not. However this is well known.
I can agree with and share your aversion to the “its all over but the crying” crowd. However I also am averse to those who blindly repeat scientific arguments without trying to dig in and understand the details as I am sure you do as well.
Regards,
John
Stephen I took a look at the source document in “Climate Journal” that “World Climate Report” was referencing in their blog and I can tell you the facts have indeed been distorted. Where “World Climate Report” does indeed focus on the increased snow pack, it leaves out some key details. One, that the increased snow pack is a result of increased incidence of el Nino events attributed to climate change and second, that the increases is only seasonal, meaning that through increased temperatures melting of that snow pack results in a net loss of snow pack 0n the glaciers. There is a distinct difference between glacial ice and snow pack. The article does indeed talk of glacial reductions in the Andes due to increased melt, but the main focus is the potential threatened water supply to the 10 million people who depend on the melt water. The souce document does not disagree in any way with the conclusions of the IPCC.
The blog “World Climate Report” has once again cherry picked the information and misrepresented the science.
Kilimanjaro can not by itself be used to prove global warming, but what is being seen on the mountain does indeed fit within climate models as indicated in the IPCC AR4..
“Antarctic. The the IPCC does indicate a net loss of ice on the Antarctic ice sheet.
IPCC from Page 364, Para 4.6.2.2.2
“Zwally et al. (2006) obtained SRALT coverage for about
80% of the ice sheet, including some portions of the Antarctic
Peninsula, and interpolated to the rest of the ice sheet. The
resulting balance included West Antarctic loss of 47 ± 4 Gt yr–1,
East Antarctic gain of 17 ± 11 Gt yr–1 and overall loss of 30
± 12 Gt yr–1. If all the ice thickness changes were low-density
firn rather than ice, the loss would be smaller (14 ± 5 Gt yr–1).”
Albatros39a: Thanks for tracking down the journal article from the world climate. I had the Donnelly and Woodruff paper on hand but didn’t go searching for the other World Climate Report references.
If I may ask (and if you have the time), just to be clear, what specifically does the article state about glaciers? Would it be fair to say that they think some (the ones they looked at/have knowledge of) are melting? Does it say anything about any growing? Thanks,
Regards,
John
And Alby remains silent about climate forcings other than CO2…
For the IPCC’s take on other forcings, check out Figure SPM.2 in the Summary for Policymakers (http://www.ipcc.ch/WG1_SPM_17Apr07.pdf). Make special note of the column labelled “LOSU” or “Level of Scientific Understanding”, and you’ll see how much they *really* know about these forcings. I especially like the note below the table that states “Additional forcing factors not included here are considered to have a very low LOSU.”
Yes, really, the science is settled.
John sorry to take so long to get back to you but, the article refers to
Casassa, G., 1995: Glacier inventory in Chile: Current status and
recent glacier variations. Ann. Glaciol., 21, 317–322.
which looked at seven glaciers between 32° and 35°S and states that they have lost 16% of their mass in the second half of the twentieth century. This he attributes to-
Direct quote- “Mean annual, summer, and winter temperatures show significant positive trends (>0.3°C decade1) west of the cordillera centered at around 33°S.”
Nathan Schmidt at September 11, 2007 11:24 AM
What would you like me to comment on, methane? Perhaps you wish me to comment on the solar irradiance that has increased, contributing to global warming. Solar irradiance has in fact increased by +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30] W m–2, an increases that is extremely insignificant.
The motion of the planet around the sun is an ellipse, the plant wobbles and combined it’s known as Milankovitch mechanism, which has been the primary driver of past climate change. We are presently in an interglacial period and at this point in the interglacial we should be cooling to an eventual ice age. The problem is we are warming, not cooling and either way you look at it, the sun is not the problem, it’s greenhouse gases.
Alby,
My, you’ve got a short memory. You previously wrote:
“Ask yourself where the scientists are that have gone through the peer-reviewed process explaining global warming with explanations other than greenhouse gases. Don’t give me names such as Tim Ball because he hasn’t published anything on the subject. You will find people spouting off ridiculous claims like “mars is warming” or volcanoes spewing CO2, but none of those people are backing up these explanations through the recognised scientific process. All they end up doing is displaying their ignorance of the problem. Sure you will find people like McIntyre nitpicking the odd minor details, but that is all they are, minor details that get headlines, but have no effect on the science. The problem is the sceptics are not burdened with backing up their claims through the peer-reviewed process.”
I don’t require a comment from you other than a deserved acknowledgement that there exists a great deal of solid research regarding climate forcings other than CO2.
In Dr. Pielke Sr.’s wrap-up summary at his Climate Science blog (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/09/02/summary-conclusions-of-climate-science/), he stated:
“Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur.”
This conclusion is supported by his own research and review of a multitude of peer-reviewed papers. The link I provided previously documents the IPCC’s own acknowledgement that their level of scientific understanding is low or very low for many of the potential forcings. This is consistent with Dr. Pielke’s conclusions. It is counter to the high level of certainty (“settled science”) with which climate predictions are presented by the IPCC, our loyal opposition parties, Al Gore, David Suzuki, the CBC, et al.
Nathan Schmidt, it’s well known that the IPCC is a conservative view of climate change in order to take into account any unknown variables. What this means is it is likely that the IPCC assessment of climate change understates the problem.
Of course there are other factors affecting climate besides CO2, I don’t believe I stated anything to the contrary. The problem is, other than that +0.12 W/m2 increase in solar irradiance, which is clearly stated in AR4, the greatest factors are anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
Albatros39a: Thanks. I would guess that one of the glaciers that they looked at was Echaurren Norte (lat 33.5 S). This one is part of the world glacial monitoring service and as of 2004 (the latest year available) it was still showing a large negative mass balance.
Regards,
John
John if you don’t mind me asking, what is your connection with climate science?
Echaurren Norte (lat 33.5 S)? The article is on my laptop and right now I’m not. I’ll take a look when I fire the thing up tomorrow and let you know.
Albatros39a: No connection – in spite of the fact that few on here seem to accept it I am an engineer with a background in fluid mechanics. You are welcome to e-mail me (as is anyone here) at john dot croix at hotmail dot com with the dot and at replaced.
Regards,
John