The Disinformation Cycle

Thanks to Drudge and Instapundit another round of “global warming stopped in 1998″ is making the rounds of the blogs.

It’s only been a few months since the last time and yet you only have to look at a graph of GISS temperatures to see that warming hasn’t stopped:

i-1b943873d017f8f464acd94b6e0e88aa-gisstemp.png

Falsehoods like this are able to survive and spread due to the efficiency of the disinformation cycle shown below. Notice that there is little chance of actual facts about the world getting in.

i-ab89faab5eada418172705842c8906d5-disnfocycle.png

What is particularly disappointing about this particular case was that one of the nodes in the cycle, Counterpoint was produced by Australia’s ABC and violates the ABC’s Code of Practice, which states:

5.3 Every reasonable effort must be made to ensure
that factual content is accurate and in context and
that content does not misrepresent other viewpoints.

And here is where mainstream climate science has been misrepresented:

Duffy asked Marohasy: “Is the Earth still warming?”

She replied: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you’d expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years.”

Duffy: “Is this a matter of any controversy?”

Marohasy: “Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. …

Duffy: “It’s not only that it’s not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there’s any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it’s put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary.”

Rather than present to listeners the opinions of a climate scientist, Duffy allowed Marohasy to misrepresent the science. This is particularly striking because in the immediately preceding segment he had no trouble in getting an expert on nutrition to rebut Gary Taubes’ rather unorthodox claims about diet and nutrition.

But wait, there’s more. Ken Parish criticised Marohasy for her misrepresentation of the temperature record. In her response, Marohasy pointed to this article to support her assertion that the claim that global warming had ended was not even controversial. The second paragraph of the article states:

“Global warming has not stopped,” said Amir Delju, senior scientific coordinator of the World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) climate program.

This seems to me to be both hard to miss and easy to understand. Marohasy surely knew that her assertion was false.

The ABC complaints page is here.

Comments

  1. #1 Tilo Reber
    March 26, 2008

    “What does Willis say?”

    You are talking about 2006. We are talking about measurements from this year, for which the errors from 2006 have been corrected. Please catch up.

  2. #2 Tilo Reber
    March 26, 2008

    cce:
    “Since sea level rise has continued during the supposed “cooling” of the ocean, and since thermal expansion is the biggest chuck,”

    First, you have no idea if thermal expansion is contributing anything at this time. You are simply making that up.

    Second, sea ice formation and melt have nothing to do with the global sea level.

    Third, the melting of certain land ice formations can continue even if surface temps cool. Land ice does not reach equilibrium with the temp in a year. It takes many, many years.

    Fourth, the trend in sea level rise is starting to go more sideways. You can see this if you look at the last couple of years on this sea level chart. Also note that the trend on that chart amounts to 13 inches per century. “Oh, oh, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.”

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

  3. #3 Tilo Reber
    March 26, 2008

    “Here is another error which was found, it too had a cooling bias:”

    Old news Ian. It’s already been corrected for. Do try to come up to date.

  4. #4 Tilo Reber
    March 26, 2008

    Getting back to the exchange that Lambert is crying about.

    Duffy asked Marohasy: “Is the Earth stillwarming?”

    She replied: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued.

    Concering Marohasy’s first statement, we have the records from RSS and HadCrut3 since 1998 here.

    http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/03/blog-post.html

    And we have the records since 2002 for RSS, HadCrut3, GISS, and UAH here.

    http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/search/label/6%20Year%20Temperature%20Anomolies

    The facts are before you Tim Lambert. If you have a shred of integrity you will apologize to Jennifer Marohasy.

  5. #5 Andrew W
    March 26, 2008

    “Fourth, the trend in sea level rise is starting to go more sideways. You can see this if you look at the last couple of years on this sea level chart.”

    Not satisfied ignoring the fact that the level of noise in global temperature measurements makes 10 years too short a period to claim a change in the trend, Tilo Reber goes for broke and ignores the fact that noise makes 2 years too short a period to claim a change in the trend for SL changes.

  6. #6 Frans
    March 26, 2008

    Some commenters are looking for missing heat. Perhaps it is hiding in the latent heat necessary for melting ice?

  7. #7 Tilo Reber
    March 26, 2008

    “Tilo Reber goes for broke and ignores the fact that noise makes 2 years too short a period to claim a change in the trend for SL changes.”

    It’s your guy who is making the claim that sea levels are currently still rising. If you want to say that we cannot know anything about what sea levels are doing now, tell it to cce.

    “Not satisfied ignoring the fact that the level of noise in global temperature measurements makes 10 years too short a period to claim a change in the trend,”

    There is no such thing as “noise” in the climate. Everything happens for a reason. The only issue is if we know the reasons or not. One thing we do know is that the CO2 level has continued to climb for that ten years. And we also know that AGW proponents claim that CO2 climate sensitivity will override all natural effects. So the question is, what natural effects are overriding CO2 now, and why isn’t CO2 stronger than those effects. La Nina is roughly a one year effect. The solar cycle has only been at a minimum for a little more than a year. So where is the problem? Why aren’t we warming?

  8. #8 cce
    March 26, 2008

    First, thermal expansion is the primary cause of sea level rise, with the remaining portion due to the melting of ice sheets and alpine glaciers. This is not in dispute. I also know that the claim is that the ocean has supposedly been cooling for over 4 years, not two years. Therefore, since we know sea level has continued to rise in the past 4 years, then either melting ice has accelerated dramatically to pick up the slack, or the heat has gone deeper into the ocean, or the measurements are wrong. Your choice.

    Second, I said nothing of sea ice.

    Third, if the ocean was cooling, the ocean would be contracting immediately.

    Fourth, 13 inches per century is about double the rate of the 20th century, and the current rate is over 4 times the rate at the beginning of the 20th century. That is called “acceleration.”

    Fifth, the AGW signal is about 0.02 degrees per year. Natural variability, ENSO in particular, far exceeds that, causing year to year changes as high as 1 degree, if you cherry pick your months correctly.

  9. #9 gator
    March 26, 2008

    Tilo: You are talking about 2006. We are talking about measurements from this year, for which the errors from 2006 have been corrected. Please catch up.

    OK, put up or shut up. Post a link to the damn paper already. Surely you are not talking about this:
    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/hc_bias_jtech_v2.pdf

    The corrected data shows no significant warming or cooling over … 2 years. I hope for your sake you are not trying to claim that this is a life changing result.

  10. #10 Tilo Reber
    March 26, 2008

    gator:

    Your link doesn’t work.

    Here is the story I’m talking about.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

  11. #11 Lance
    March 26, 2008

    Damn!

    Ian Forrester and luminous beauty got spanked by Tilo Reber and Patrick Hadley before I even got to see their desperate Google based rear guard actions. Nice shots boys.

    Alec Campbell and Franz,

    The latent heat of melting is not where the “missing” heat went. The net sea ice extent is essentially constant over the last ten years. There’s also no evidence for a net loss of either Greenland or Antarctic ice over the period.

  12. #12 sod
    March 26, 2008

    There’s also no evidence for a net loss of either Greenland or Antarctic ice over the period.

    you mean on denialist websites?

    because in the scientific literature, there is lots of this!

    Measurements of Time-Variable Gravity Show Mass Loss in Antarctica
    Isabella Velicogna1,2* and John Wahr1*

    Using measurements of time-variable gravity from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites, we determined mass variations of the Antarctic ice sheet during 2002-2005. We found that the mass of the ice sheet decreased significantly, at a rate of 152 ± 80 cubic kilometers of ice per year, which is equivalent to 0.4 ± 0.2 millimeters of global sea-level rise per year. Most of this mass loss came from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5768/1754

    Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets
    Andrew Shepherd1 and Duncan Wingham2*

    After a century of polar exploration, the past decade of satellite measurements has painted an altogether new picture of how Earth’s ice sheets are changing. As global temperatures have risen, so have rates of snowfall, ice melting, and glacier flow. Although the balance between these opposing processes has varied considerably on a regional scale, data show that Antarctica and Greenland are each losing mass overall.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;315/5818/1529

    don t let the facts hit you to hard…

  13. #13 jodyaberdein
    March 26, 2008

    Sorry? Did a request for a paper in a science forum just get a link to a newspaper article? Really? Is that it?

  14. #14 Ian Forrester
    March 26, 2008

    Tilo Reber said: “You are talking about 2006. We are talking about measurements from this year, for which the errors from 2006 have been corrected. Please catch up”.

    And just what catching up have you done? As far as I can find Willis has not published any new data since he admitted the errors in his 2006 paper. His 2007 Correction to “Recent cooling of the upper ocean” does not contain any data, just an admission that the original paper was in error.

    Surely you are not claiming the NPR link that you provided as “corrected data”?

    You and Lance and other deniers who frequent this site are so stupid that you think that people will not check up on the “facts” that you provide. Of course, you never check up on them your selves, just cut and paste from the denier sites you frequent.

    If all you can post is rubbish, then please put it in a proper garbage disposal system, not on a high quality site such as this.

  15. #15 Tilo Reber
    March 26, 2008

    “Therefore, since we know sea level has continued to rise in the past 4 years, then either melting ice has accelerated dramatically to pick up the slack, or the heat has gone deeper into the ocean, or the measurements are wrong. Your choice.”

    Argue with Andrew. He claims that you cannot say anything about a four year measurement period.

    I also want the evidence that thermal expansion is the primary cause of sea level rise.

    “Fourth, 13 inches per century is about double the rate of the 20th century”

    So what. 13 inches is still 13 inches. And there is no evidence that even that rate will be maintained.

    “Fifth, the AGW signal is about 0.02 degrees per year. Natural variability, ENSO in particular, far exceeds that, causing year to year changes as high as 1 degree, if you cherry pick your months correctly.”

    Where do you get the .02 per year?

    Your natural ENSO variability has been at work for less than a year. But you have a 10 year flat trend.

  16. #16 dhogaza
    March 26, 2008

    The latent heat of melting is not where the “missing” heat went. The net sea ice extent is essentially constant over the last ten years.

    Lance, Lance, such two-dimensional thinking is so inappropriate for a PhD physics dropout. Surely mass is the important quantity, which is somewhat more closely correlated to sea ice volume than sea ice extent …

  17. #17 dhogaza
    March 26, 2008

    Sorry? Did a request for a paper in a science forum just get a link to a newspaper article? Really? Is that it?

    No, of course not, how could you imagine such a thing?

    NPR is a radio network, not a newspaper. :)

  18. #18 Andrew W
    March 26, 2008

    “Argue with Andrew. He claims that you cannot say anything about a four year measurement period.”

    Tilo Reber, are you an idiot or a liar? Serious question.

    Just because you can’t exactly quantify the contribution of various factors to the noise, doesn’t mean you know nothing about them.

    “Your natural ENSO variability has been at work for less than a year. But you have a 10 year flat trend.”

    Ahh, a liar, you’re ignoring that you’re using an ENSO year that’s way above the trendline as your starting year. As I pointed out earlier, by deliberately picking a warmer starting year and a cooler finishing year there are several 10 year periods over the last couple of decades in which a dishonest person can claim GW ended, though it didn’t.

  19. #19 Cthulhu
    March 26, 2008

    Bob. B “So we must be in agreement that since 2002 there has been no warming.”

    Uh yea just like I am in agreement that there was no warming 1980-1987 and no warming 1988-1997. You skeptics never seem to grasp noise, you don’t seem to be able to relate the nature of past record with it’s noise with what we see in the last few years.

    “Basil has an analysis on Watts that shows a clear breakpoint at that time:
    http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/to-tell-the-truth-will-the-real-global-average-temperature-trend-please-rise-part-2/

    And how deceptive it is. Notice he doesn’t divide pre-1998 ino periods of several years or he would find OTHER flat/cooling periods too. No he makes one big trend through 1979-1998.

    Again just look at the graph for petes sake. You don’t have to do any calculations just eyeball the thing and you can see there have been multi-year cooling and flat periods before. The idea that you are trying to push that the flat/cooling period since 2002 is anomolous is a joke.

    “Answer me this? Why is the GISS records always changing? Look back over history and you will see a constant changing (cooling) of past temperature records.”

    The temp records are not simply produced from raw data, they are processed to remove biases.

    [QUOTE]Is there time travel involved? NO—Hansen keeps on splicing records of faulty stations (reads Watts analysis of on 10% stations complying with standards).[/QUOTE]

    It’s been shown that if you exclude the faulty stations and only use the good ones the trend is close to GISS. Ie GISS are correctly adjusting for the faulty stations.
    http://yaleclimatemediaforum.org/features/1007_surfacetemps.htm

    Im not suprised you might not have heard of this. Watts is obviously hesistant to go down the route of talking about this because of what it shows.

    [QUOTE]While he attempts to match satellite measurements, his spilicng is forcing the temps of the past to get colder—pure crap![/QUOTE]

    You skeptics always fail to see the forest from the trees. GISS matches up well with the HadCrut dataset and the noaa surface record. How can Hansen be making the GISS temps higher by fraudulently altering data and still produce a record that matches with HadCrut?
    See http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/#more-614

  20. #20 Cthulhu
    March 26, 2008

    Bob.B
    “How on earth can you measure temperature to tenths of a degree when your measurement tool is shown by data (fact) to not be accurate to within 5 degrees?”

    last post I make to you mr contrary

    How can we determine the average value of a die roll is 3.5 when a dice does’t go to 0.5 resolution?

    It’s something by something we like to call “averaging”. Look it up.

  21. #21 Cthulhu
    March 26, 2008

    Dear god another one

    Tilo: “One thing we do know is that the CO2 level has continued to climb for that ten years. And we also know that AGW proponents claim that CO2 climate sensitivity will override all natural effects.”

    Oh do we know that? No we don’t because it’s false. Your premise is false, your argument is false. On short timescales of course the co2 does not override all natural effects.

    Once again like Bob.B you don’t put the last 6 years into comparison with previous flat/cooling periods in the record. What’s so special about the current period that makes you able to say something about the theory being wrong, but which you weren’t able to say (and get it wrong) about the previous flat/cooling periods? ANd no if you give it any thought co2 has not risen enough since the late 80s/90s to suddenly override any natural variation.

  22. #22 FDB
    March 26, 2008

    “On short timescales of course the co2 does not override all natural effects.”

    On NO timescale will CO2 “override” ANY natural effects. They will all have an effect, some towards cooling, some warming.

    Anyone thick enough to write that “…we also know that AGW proponents claim that CO2 climate sensitivity will override all natural effects” is a jibbering retard who may be safely ignored to everyone’s benefit.

    Whoops, I didn’t!

  23. #23 Cthulhu
    March 26, 2008

    “Duffy asked Marohasy: “Is the Earth still warming?”

    She replied: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. ”

    The response is wrong and misleading. The “no” is not backed up by that form of cherrypicking analysis. If you take 2000 as your point of reference then the Earth is still warming. Enough said.

    Use a proper method and one that won’t give false negatives when applied to any period in the last 30 years of warming. I’ll eat my hat though if a skeptic actually verifies their crazy temperature analyses against past data though.

  24. #24 Tilo Reber
    March 26, 2008

    “Sorry? Did a request for a paper in a science forum just get a link to a newspaper article? Really? Is that it?”

    Does Hansen publish a paper every time he anounces the temperature for a year. This is an announcement about the results of ocean temperature measurements. Where did you get the idiotic idea that there should be a paper with it.

  25. #25 dhogaza
    March 26, 2008

    “How on earth can you measure temperature to tenths of a degree when your measurement tool is shown by data (fact) to not be accurate to within 5 degrees?”

    You don’t need a thermometer to be accurate within a few tenths of a degree, just to give results that are repeatable to within a few tenths of a degree, in order to measure a temperature TREND to within a few tenths of a degree.

    Just the typical denialist confused about the trend of a series of measurements vs. a single measurement.

  26. #26 Alan D. McIntire
    March 26, 2008

    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

    From UAH I plugged in the 12 month running averages for
    12/02, 12/03, 12/04, 12/05, 12/06,and 12/07- thus getting the yearly averages- to get a
    regression line 0f – 0.001286 and a regression coefficient of -0.0486, so over the last 6 years we have had an insignicant cooling trend of
    about -0.1286 degrees C per century – A. McIntire

  27. #27 Tilo Reber
    March 26, 2008

    Cthulhu:
    “If you take 2000 as your point of reference then the Earth is still warming. Enough said.”

    Who made you God? What makes you warmers think that you get to select the starting points? Marohasy was completey honest. She said what points she was using, and her statement was completely correct.

    Let me make this perfectly clear. AGW nuts do not get to cherry pick their own periods of significance. You can push 30 years as the one and only meaningful time period until you are blue in the face. No one is convinced.

  28. #28 Kav
    March 26, 2008

    Tim and all you other ‘alarmists’ you should check out this post at Ideonexus.

    Ryan convincingly shows that not only has it been cooling since 1998 but cooling has been the natural state of the globe for years. It is all in the data and a simple bit of analysis brings it out. All this crap about ’30 year trends’ is just a smokescreen. Fancy time-series analyses are just the scientists’ way of trying to pull the wall over our eyes. How many of us really understand all that babble they spew? None of us, so it can’t be true!! Plus it was cold where I lived today so clearly global warming is a myth!!!!

    How can you fail to be convinced by this?

  29. #29 Tilo Reber
    March 26, 2008

    FDB:
    “”Anyone thick enough to write that “…we also know that AGW proponents claim that CO2 climate sensitivity will override all natural effects” is a jibbering retard who may be safely ignored to everyone’s benefit.”

    Gee, FDB, that’s no way to talk about the Reverend Hansen. Given his 3C per CO2 doubling climate sensitivity and his knowledge of ENSO events, he should have had a model with a large enough error to accomodate a little old La Nina. But he didn’t. So he must have thought that the error bands that he used were large enough. And he must have thought that CO2 forcing was strong enough to keep him within his error range. But it is obvious that he is the retard – and so are you.

    Now, let me explain it to you retard. If the temperature had been rising according to the 3C prediction prior to this last brief La Nina, then the La Nina would not have been able to take the trend for the entire 10 year period to flat.

  30. #30 z
    March 26, 2008

    “I would speculate that it would be sensible to use some kind of window function other than a square function to get rid of any other high frequency signals, this might ultimately lead to something like a “proper” digital filter getting used – but this is beyond my expertise, except to observe that it would require even longer windows to get adequate results.”

    now you’ve touched on one of my bugaboos. moving window averaging is mathematically equivalent to a low pass filter; and like any such filter it has “ringing” or resonances at specific frequencies. it will overemphasize cyclic variations whose cycle length depends on the width of the average. although I can’t recreate the mathematical proof, at least I could follow it once upon a time. playing with random numbers in excel demonstrated it to my satisfaction.

    the “proper” way to do it is exponential averaging, where the influence of any data point on the average diminishes exponentially according to the number of data points which has passed. and, in an incredible stroke of luck, it’s trivial to program; for the initial point, point zero,
    Average(0)=Value(0)
    for all succeeding points
    Average(n)=((K)*Average(n-1)+Value(n))/(K+1)
    where K is any number >=0; greater K gives more smoothing, K=0 gives obviously no smoothing. All you need to do is keep a running total.
    No ringing!!!
    But do they listen to me? No. Bwahaha etc. (Actually, I did not “discover” this like some crackpot. I merely stole it like any good scientist. It’s pretty common in stock market technical analysis, where actual money rides on proper detection of cycles without false positives.)

  31. #31 Tilo Reber
    March 26, 2008

    “You skeptics never seem to grasp noise”

    The only noise that I hear is coming from the alarmists. There is no such thing as climate noise. Everything happens for a reason. Just because you don’t understand what that reason is doesn’t mean that it’s noise or that you can brush it off.

  32. #32 z
    March 26, 2008

    for whatever reason, the equations for the preceding post got swallowed?

    for point zero:
    avcerage(0)=value(0)

    for points > 0:
    average(n)=(k*(average(n-1)+value(n))/(k+1)

    where k >=0

  33. #33 John Mashey
    March 26, 2008

    re: #128 kav
    Great pointer, thanks…

    however, many may have ignored your post because irony isn’t always obvious, and your words unfortunately simulate the other view well enough I almost didn’t follow the link.

  34. #34 z
    March 26, 2008

    good lord, this thing must be trying to execute the equations. OK, then: for the first data point, the average is just that value, obviously. for each succeeding point, you average the previous average with the current data value; optionally, weighting the average by k and therefore dividing the sum of k times the previous average, plus the current point, by k plus 1. of course, in the trivial case where k equals 1, that’s just the average of the previous average and the current point.

    ha. let’s see it swallow that.

  35. #35 Tilo Reber
    March 26, 2008

    “Just because you can’t exactly quantify the contribution of various factors to the noise, doesn’t mean you know nothing about them.”

    Typical AGW hypocricy! “I can tell that the sea level has continued to rise as usual in the past four years because it suits my purpose. But you cannot tell that the rate of rise has slowed, because that doesn’t suit my purpose.”

    Take it elsewhere – I’m not interested.

  36. #36 Tilo Reber
    March 26, 2008

    “The temp records are not simply produced from raw data, they are processed to remove biases.”

    No, they are processed to produce biases. How else would the Reverend Hansen be able to puff himself up in front of government committees with pronouncements of “death trains” and “25 meters of sea level rise.”

  37. #37 z
    March 26, 2008

    “It’s the only period that the warmers can make a case out of. Longer or shorter and it all falls apart. Longer and you get inconvienient cooling phases, along with issues like coming out of a mini ice age”

    this of course, leads to the incredible corollary that not only animals, but also plants are capable of averaging; and only using the number 30! thus, they too have fallen for the AGW hoax, and have been erroneously moving their ranges northward in the northern hemisphere! if we could teach trees to average with a longer or shorter period, they would realize their error and return to their original range!

  38. #38 z
    March 26, 2008

    “CA has taken Hansen and Tamino to the woodshed several times and they keep on walking away with red faces

    What kind of perverted shenanigans are going on in that
    woodshed? ”

    “I saw something nasty in the woodshed!” -Ada Doom

  39. #39 Ian Forrester
    March 26, 2008

    Lance, before you get all excited and start spanking people do a little bit of reading and you will find that you are supporting lies and rubbish if you support TR, PH et al. You are supporting lyin’ denyin’ fools if you support them.

    Also you said (#111): “There’s also no evidence for a net loss of either Greenland or Antarctic ice over the period”.

    You may want to re-word that after you read up on the data produced by the GRACE satellites. No wonder you are a physics drop out. Are you sure you didn’t drop out shortly after kindergarten?

  40. #40 dhogaza
    March 26, 2008

    this of course, leads to the incredible corollary that not only animals, but also plants are capable of averaging; and only using the number 30! thus, they too have fallen for the AGW hoax

    No, no, no, they’ve not fallen for the hoax.

    They’re the leaders of the conspiracy!

  41. #41 Tilo Reber
    March 26, 2008

    “How can Hansen be making the GISS temps higher by fraudulently altering data and still produce a record that matches with HadCrut? ”

    Let’s wait until after we have taken a good look at the HadCrut methods before we decide on that.

  42. #42 z
    March 26, 2008

    “So we must be in agreement that since 2002 there has been no warming. ”

    in the sense that there is definitely no 30 year average since that time showing any warming, yes.

    but once again, my precision observations show us to be in the grip of an unusually strong cooling trend since 8 pm, just as observed yesterday.

  43. #43 Geoff Larsen
    March 26, 2008

    #108 cce says “First, thermal expansion is the primary cause of sea level rise, with the remaining portion due to the melting of ice sheets and alpine glaciers. This is not in dispute. I also know that the claim is that the ocean has supposedly been cooling for over 4 years, not two years. Therefore, since we know sea level has continued to rise in the past 4 years, then either melting ice has accelerated dramatically to pick up the slack, or the heat has gone deeper into the ocean, or the measurements are wrong. Your choice”.

    Scientists generally agree that thermal expansion makes up approx. 50% of sea level rise. However according to Willis, J. K., D. P. Chambers and R. Steven Nerem, 2008: Assessing the Globally Averaged Sea Level Budget on Seasonal and Interannual Time Scales. Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans (in press).

    “Despite the short period of the present analysis, these results have important implications for climate. First, from 2004 to the present, steric contributions to sea level rise appear to have been negligible. This is consistent with observations of ocean surface temperature, which show relatively little change in the global average between 2003 and 2006 [Smith and Reynolds, 2005, see NCDC global surface temperature anomalies]“.

    Steric means expansion/contraction in this context.

    This is taken from Roger Pielke Sr’s. blog, Feb 15,08:

    http://climatesci.org/2008/02/15/important-new-paper-by-willis-and-colleagues-on-sea-level-rise-and-ocean-heat-content-changes-published/

    Now tell me cce, why do you favour the correctness of one data series metric over another? If one assumes (reasonably in my opinion) that oceans down to 3,000 ft. (per Argo) have slightly cooled in the past 4-5 years, and we know from satellite readings (UAH & RSS) that the troposphere has slightly cooled over this period, then where has the heat gone from the IR adsorption relating to the 10.2 ppm of CO2 which have gone into the atmosphere over the past 5 years (Mauna Loa)?

    I doubt very much has gone into the deep ocean. From the NPR story:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

    “Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it’s probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet”.

    My O my, negative feedbacks! But that cannot be right, the models say so, only have positive feedbacks occur.

    Missing from this NPR story is the possibility of counteracting cooling over this period, from natural causes eg ex sun and/or “cooling” particulates.

  44. #44 z
    March 26, 2008

    “So I see no one answered my post. So we must be in agreement that since 2002 there has been no warming. Basil has an analysis on Watts that shows a clear breakpoint at that time:
    http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/to-tell-the-truth-will-the-real-global-average-temperature-trend-please-rise-part-2/

    which gives us

    “The Chow test involves fitting a regression to the sub parts, and comparing the sum of the mean square error (MSE) of the sub parts to the mean square error of a regression fitted to the entire time period. If the sub parts come from sufficiently different regimes or circumstances, splitting the time series into two parts will reduce the total MSE, compared to the MSE of a single regression fitted to the entire time period. The Chow test follows the F distribution, and is a test of the null hypothesis of no change, or difference.”

    isn’t that getting into hockey stick territory?

    “And Lucia shows the projected trajectories based off current fits:
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-overpredict-recent-warming/

    who in hell would look at this graph and decide the violet line was the most likely prediction? < http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/gmt_testnoextra.jpg>

  45. #45 bi
    March 26, 2008
    this of course, leads to the incredible corollary that not only animals, but also plants are capable of averaging; and only using the number 30! thus, they too have fallen for the AGW hoax

    No, no, no, they’ve not fallen for the hoax.

    They’re the leaders of the conspiracy!

    Which leads to the question: Who or what isn’t part of the great AGW hoax? If E&E is any guide, it’s not only the mainstream climatologists who are part of the conspiracy, but also mainstream journalists (unlike Gunter), mainstream doctors (unlike Schulte), mainstream economists (unlike Castle), mainstream politicians (unlike, uh um)… Now this must be a pretty big conspiracy indeed!

    In other news: Studies Show Your Dog May Well Be The Antichrist.

  46. #46 z
    March 26, 2008

    “Hey Tim, is there any way for you to fix that comment-posting bug in which urls containing underscores replace text with italics? It makes it very hard to follow people’s links. Or is this just scienceblogs’ bad code”

    stick the url in < and >
    no brackets http:\\www.not_a_real_link.com
    with brackets

  47. #47 cce
    March 26, 2008

    Tilo,

    The article that you cite says that there has been half an inch of sea level rise in the past 4 years despite measurements showing the ocean is cooling.

    AR4 WGI Chapter 5 attributes 1.6 mm per year of sea level rise to thermal expansion, more than half of the 3.1 mm per year observed.

    13 inches of sea level rise is enough to cause big problems for low lying coastal nations and unsurmountable problems for many island nations. All of the evidence tells us that it is accelerating, which we would expect given all this “physics” that tell us that the world is going to be warming up for the forseeable future.

    I got 0.02 degrees per year from the oft-stated IPCC generalization of 0.20 degrees of warming per decade. You start your “10 year trend” at the height of the 1998 El Nino.

    3 degrees of warming for doubled CO2. Do you think CO2 concentrations have doubled since 1998?

  48. #48 cce
    March 26, 2008

    Geoff,

    You can choose the following: 1) The energy has gone deeper. 2) Ice sheets and alpine glaciers have greatly accelerated melting. 3) The measurements are wrong. Those are the implications of sea-level rise of half an inch during the same period of time the ocean is supposedly cooling (or flat). I don’t really care which one you pick, but you have to pick one.

    And FYI, about half of the models in AR4 calculate negative cloud feedbacks.

  49. #49 cce
    March 26, 2008

    If anyone cares, here is the daily average global (NH+SH) sea ice extent from 1973 to 2006. The NASA GSFC analysis is current to 2006, but if it were to include 2007, the line would drop off the chart.
    http://cce.890m.com/extent-daily-average.jpg

    Data is here:
    http://polynya.gsfc.nasa.gov/seaice_datasets.html

  50. #50 Lance
    March 26, 2008

    “Lance, Lance, such two-dimensional thinking is so inappropriate for a PhD physics dropout. Surely mass is the important quantity, which is somewhat more closely correlated to sea ice volume than sea ice extent …”

    dhogaza,

    The volume of the oceans is approximately 1.37 X 10^9 km^3. How much ice do you think it would take to raise its temperature enough to offset the missing heat?

    Did you catch the exponent there it was a nine! That is one BILLION cubic KILOMETERS of water. Please tell me you don’t believe there is a big enough difference in the thickness of arctic sea ice over the last ten years to lower the average temperature of the oceans enough to offset the “missing” heat.

    Ian Forrester,

    “Lance, before you get all excited and start spanking people do a little bit of reading and you will find that you are supporting lies and rubbish if you support TR, PH et al. You are supporting lyin’ denyin’ fools if you support them.”

    OK, so I never heard of either of these guys before today but I haven’t caught them stretching the truth yet, which is more than I can say for you. Speaking of doing a little reading, do you remember when you claimed a certain study “proved” that the arctic had not been ice free for thousands of years and then I actually read the paper and it explicitly said it couldn’t address the issue? Well I do.

    Now, I’m not saying that makes you a liar just that you attacked me for being a “denialist idiot” and then when I called you on the paper that you claimed proved your point you fell silent and have yet to concede the point.

    When I get all puffed up and overstep my facts I fess up. Hey this is a heated, real time, discussion and there are few amongst us that haven’t overstated or misinterpreted a study or paper in our haste to answer some loud mouth on the other side.

    I’m not here to play “gotchca!” (well maybe a little), I really want to have a discussion based on the facts.

    To start to pick at the ARGO study based on errors already corrected has all the hallmarks of what you guys claim “denialists” do to climate research “pick at the edges to discredit findings they don’t like”. Seriously let’s try to look at the evidence and keep the jabs good natured.

  51. #51 Tilo Reber
    March 26, 2008

    “The article that you cite says that there has been half an inch of sea level rise in the past 4 years despite measurements showing the ocean is cooling.”

    Probably a trend based estimate. We don’t know if it is actual. The University of Colorado’s chart still looks like it’s slowing over the last four years. I need to find their raw data.

    “13 inches of sea level rise is enough to cause big problems for low lying coastal nations and unsurmountable problems for many island nations. ”

    We’ve had that kind of rise all along, only over slightly longer periods. It never has been a big deal.

    “All of the evidence tells us that it is accelerating, ”

    Looking at the UC chart, there is no acceleration.

    “I got 0.02 degrees per year from the oft-stated IPCC generalization of 0.20 degrees of warming per decade. ”

    It’s based upon models. There is no emperical evidence to support it. Even your cherry picked 30 year trend won’t support it. Beyond that, the forcing effect of CO2 is logarithmic. So more CO2 will get you progressively less forcing.

    “3 degrees of warming for doubled CO2. Do you think CO2 concentrations have doubled since 1998?”

    So far, the industrial era has given us about 40% of a doubling. Considering the logarithmic effect of CO2, it should have given us close to 1.5C temp rise – if the IPCC number is correct. It hasn’t come close. It has given us about .8C. And that includes coming out of a mini ice and a very active sun. Not to mention that there may still be .2 to .3C error in the surface records. Certainly the proxies that are current don’t show as much increase as the instrument records.

    The effect of El Nino and La Nina worked on less than two of the last ten years. All eight of those other years play into the trend line. La Nina is breaking up right now. We will see where things stand as it’s effect fades. My bet is that the trend continues flat to down for the next 25 years. And that is with, as Hansen likes to say, “business as usual”.

  52. #52 Tilo Reber
    March 27, 2008

    cce:
    “If anyone cares, here is the daily average global (NH+SH) sea ice extent from 1973 to 2006.”

    Your chart looks like garbage. Where are the seasonal cycles. If it’s “Daily”, why are there straight lines between years. Why did they stop updating it in 2006? Here – try a real chart.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

    We are currently about 1 million square kilometers above the average.

  53. #53 John Mashey
    March 27, 2008

    Naomi Oreske’s video has been discussed here. Myanna Lahsen has written a nice paper about the George C. Marshall “trio”:

    “Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse: A cultural analysis of a physicist ”trio” supporting the backlash against global warming”

    Overlaps with Oreskes.

  54. #54 Andrew W
    March 27, 2008

    Tilo: “My bet is that the trend continues flat to down for the next 25 years.”

    How much?

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/

  55. #55 cce
    March 27, 2008

    1) So four years of sea level rise is a “trend based estimate” but four years of ocean cooling is apparently a pretty little line of dots going straight down with no measurement uncertainty.

    2) The current sea level rise of 3+ mm per year is over 4 times that of the early 20th century.

    3) According to the RSS satellite temperature analysis, there is 0.18 degrees per decade of warming over the past 29 years, or 0.018 degree per year.

    4) The effect of CO2 is logarithmic, but CO2 concentration is increasing exponentially.

    5) The thermal inertia of the ocean implies an additional ~0.6 degrees of warming beyond what we have observed to date.

    6) The chart shows the average global daily sea ice extent for each year. It represents both minimum, maximums, and everything in between. There is 12% less ice on the average day in 2006 than there was on the average day in 1972. I have specifically removed the seasonal cycles so that people are not bamboozled by the weather. 2007 is not included because GSFC updates their data ever two years.

  56. #56 cce
    March 27, 2008

    Updated graph with title fixed:
    http://cce.890m.com/extent-annual-average.jpg

  57. #57 dhogaza
    March 27, 2008

    The volume of the oceans is approximately 1.37 X 10^9 km^3. How much ice do you think it would take to raise its temperature enough to offset the missing heat?

    Oh, dear, I pointed out that Lance’s Flatland comment was stupid, and he responds with a deflection.

    Lance, dear, if you don’t want people to think you’re stupid in the first place … learn to think to three, before you post. Extent is equal to 2.

  58. #58 s
    March 27, 2008

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
    We are currently about 1 million square kilometers above the average.

    we are, but only because you include the wild swings of the southern sea ice AND chose to cherry pick ONE specific moment.

    the downward trend in the graph you linked to is OBVIOUS. the straight line in the lower graph is the average, and we ve been above it over the last 4 years only during extremely short periods!

    basically each of your posts shows, that you have absolutely ZERO understanding of the topic. your link to a newspaper article, when the PDF of the REAL paper had been linked already, was the most telling part of it.

  59. #59 Gator
    March 27, 2008

    Tilo: “Does Hansen publish a paper every time he anounces the temperature for a year. This is an announcement about the results of ocean temperature measurements. Where did you get the idiotic idea that there should be a paper with it.”

    Jeevus, where would anyone get the idiotic idea that there should be a paper with it. Worth repeating.

    Where would anyone get the idiotic idea that an NPR story was a quantitative statement about the state of a very complicated measurement?
    Here’s the link I had previously. It is for a paper in submission, from Willis, from 2008.
    < http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/hc_bias_jtech_v2.pdf>

    Figure 4 shows that when you remove the bad data (yes, they are still talking about bad data) the measurement goes from cooling to slightly warming.

    Of course it is only for a span of 2 years, so the significance with respect to global warming is small at this time.

    You might want to actually follow the science instead of press releases if you are interested in more than just sneering at people. Yes, yes, I remember “auditing” doesn’t need to actually understand the science. Or does it?

  60. #60 P. Lewis
    March 27, 2008

    saurabh, … anyone.

    Underscores in URLs translate to italic because that is part of markdown syntax (which can be used here — see text and link above comment box).

    Making URLs linkable by putting in angle brackets is OK (a la z); it is quick and easy, but it’s a right royal pain when you get long links.

    Get into the habit of using markdown or HTML tags (hope the following formats correctly — it does in preview), since then the explicit URL, however long, is not displayed, just an appropriate piece of text.

    Markdown style: [Linkable text] (actual URL link), i.e. linkable text in square brackets and actual URL in parentheses

    HTML style: <a href = “actual URL link“>Linkable text</a>

  61. #61 Tim Curtin
    March 27, 2008

    I have yet to read a substantive response to my previous offering here. There is no doubt that almost all the contributors here would produce a delightful rendering of The Messiah (as I have done in Cairo, Lagos, and Port Moresby), this whole thread remains a furphy. First, there were no GISS temp stations anywhere in the tropics in 1885 or 1900, contrary to Lambert’s dishonest GISS graph. What were the measured temps in Panama, Kinshasha, Kampala, Port Moresby etc in 1885 and 1900? So the “globe” according to Jim Hansen, the world’s 2nd biggest liar after only our Al Gore and closely followed by Tim Lambert, was jolly cold in 1900, which produces that gratifing upward trend in the GISS graph. As Anthony Watt has shown again and again, 60% of the Hansen/NASA/GISS temp sites across the Americas, both N & S, are fraudulent. Check http://www.climateaudit.org and Anthony Watts’ own site). What is wrong with the Satellite data since 1980 except that it does not support Tim Lambert and his camp followers? Please do not respond to this post without displaying the satellite data (available from my website http://www.timcurtin.com).

  62. #62 Barton Paul Levenson
    March 27, 2008

    Bob B posts:

    [[guthrie, you try to fit simulations and models to data--right?. Don't you think it matters how you collect the data? Do you think measurement accuracy, resolution, repeatabilty matter? Do you think it matters that Hansen's GISS data set could be way off?]]

    You appear to be laboring under the misapprehension that global climate models are somehow tuned to GISS temperature data. They aren’t. The only climate data that goes into those models in average information for each grid square — elevation, albedo, water fraction. The rest is physics. GISS temperature data never enters into it. The RESULTS from running the models are checked AGAINST GISS temperature data, but that doesn’t mean the GISS temperature data is somehow going into the models.

  63. #63 Barton Paul Levenson
    March 27, 2008

    Bob B writes:

    [[CA made Hansen correct his GISS data set which showed 1934 as the warmest year in the US]]

    Yes, the temperature anomaly for 1934 was revised upward by 0.02 K and the anomaly for 1998 revised down by 0.01 K, changing their relative positions. Were you under the impression that that made some kind of difference as to the reality of global warming? 1934 and 1998 had already been within a hair’s breadth of each other; they still are. The overall shape of the temperature history is still the same.

  64. #64 Barton Paul Levenson
    March 27, 2008

    Tilo Reber posts:

    [[***"you find that we passed the peak of the interglacial 6,000 years ago and should now be in a prolonged period of cooling. But we aren't."***
    How do you know. On a longer time scale the 20th Century may well be noise.
    ]]

    What do you mean, how do I know? How do I know it’s warming? Are you serious?

    [[***"The MWP wasn't global."***
    Yes, it was.
    ]]

    Ooh, good counterargument there. I’m sure it convinced a lot of people.

    [[***"There is warming since 1998:"***
    No, there isn't.
    ]]

    Yes, there is:

    http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/Ball.html

    [[What part of "Warmers don't get to pick their own periods of significance" don't you understand?]]

    The part where you think “warmers” are “pick[ing] their own periods of significance.” 30 years is the WMO standard for climate. Do you understand what a standard is?

    [[***"You really don't get the sample size concept, do you?"***
    Yes I do. What part of "Warmers don't get to pick their own periods of signigicance" don't you understand?
    ]]

    See above. You really don’t get it. If you want p < 0.05 you need a sample size of 30 or greater. Don’t take my word for it, go look at a table of Student’s t statistics. This isn’t a question of opinions. You’re just wrong. Plain, flat-out, dumbass wrong, like if you were saying that 2 + 2 = 7. It doesn’t.

  65. #65 Barton Paul Levenson
    March 27, 2008

    Bob B posts:

    [[How on earth can you measure temperature to tenths of a degree when your measurement tool is shown by data (fact) to not be accurate to within 5 degrees?]]

    We couldn’t have gotten a clearer declaration of Bob’s statistical illiteracy if we asked for it.

    Bob, you can have a smaller error for many measurements than you have for one measurement, even if all the individual measurements have large errors. That’s kind of the point of using more than one measurement. In fact, that’s kind of the point of the whole mathematical discipline of statistics.

    Want the math?

  66. #66 guthrie
    March 27, 2008

    PArt of the fun of Bob B is that he seems to think we have a time machine with which climatologists hshould have gone back in time and carried out modern measuring validation techniques on the old equipment. And he also seems to think that trend is less important than the individual data points. He’s another one with engineers disease, unfortunately.

  67. #67 Ian Gould
    March 27, 2008

    “…Jim Hansen, the world’s 2nd biggest liar after only our Al and closely followed by Tim Lambert…” Tim Curtin

    tim is, of course, the dainty little flower who threatens law-suits at the slightest hint of a slur ot his oh-so-precious reputation.

  68. #68 Barton Paul Levenson
    March 27, 2008

    Dan Pangburn writes:

    [[Significant recent warming of planet earth ended in 1998.]]

    No, it did not. Warming is positive from 1998-2007. It is not statistically significant because 10 years is not a big enough sample size. Why did you pick 1998 as the starting year, Dan? Because it was an El Nino year and therefore abnormally hot? If you pick 1995 as the starting year, you have N = 13 instead of N = 10 and suddenly the warming is significant. And of course it’s even more significant if you pick 1978-2007. Do you understand the importance of sample size in determining whether a trend is statistically significant or not?

    [[ If it wasn't for the 22 year period from 1976 to 1998 when the atmospheric carbon dioxide level and average global temperature happened to increase at the same time, the term 'greenhouse gas' would be virtually unknown and Kyoto and the rest of the Global Warming Mistake would never have happened. ]]

    The theory of global warming dates from a paper by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. “Greenhouse gas” long predates 1976. Have you ever actually studied any climatology?

  69. #69 Patrick Hadley
    March 27, 2008

    Gator, thank you for the link to the Willis, Lyman, Johnson and Gilson paper. That paper accepts the important Gouretski and Koltermann (GK2007) findings which argued that for nearly 50 years before the Argo floats were launced the XBTs had been systematically exaggerating the rise in ocean temperatures. GK2007 said that their best estimate is that the increase in Ocean Heat Content Anomaly (OHCA) since 1957, which is described as “Hansen’s Global Warming Smoking Gun” should be reduced by a factor of 62%.

    Since the XBTs were falsely reporting warmer seas before the Argo floats found cooler temperatures this led to a false conclusion that a rapid cooling trend had been discovered. At the same time 8% of Argo floats were found to be faulty. After corrections the belief of Willis quoted in the recent NPR interview is that there has been a statistically insignificant reduction in OHCA over the past five years.

  70. #70 Barton Paul Levenson
    March 27, 2008

    Tilo Reber, still not getting it, posts:

    [[You can push 30 years as the one and only meaningful time period until you are blue in the face. No one is convinced.]]

    No one except the ones who have taken an introductory statistics class, that is. You know, the kind where the textbook has a table of t-statistics in the back?

    For the last time, Tilo:

    You need a sample size of 30 for p < 0.05.
    You need a sample size of 30 for p < 0.05.
    You need a sample size of 30 for p < 0.05.

    The p stands for “probability,” and refers to the chance that an apparent relationship is due to random chance and not to causation.

  71. #71 Barton Paul Levenson
    March 27, 2008

    Tilo posts:

    [[Now, let me explain it to you retard. If the temperature had been rising according to the 3C prediction prior to this last brief La Nina, then the La Nina would not have been able to take the trend for the entire 10 year period to flat.]]

    Tilo, you seem to be under the impression that global warming theory says carbon dioxide is the only thing that influences global temperatures. It isn’t. You won’t get a simple linear relationship between CO2 and temperature. You need to take other things into account, including:

    1. The influence of water vapor and other greenhouse gases including CH4, N2O, and O3.

    2. The influence of aerosols such as sulfates from industry and volcanoes and desert and industrial dust and sea spray.

    3. The influence of clouds and the Earth’s albedo.

    4. The influence of El Nino/La Nina cycles.

    5. The influence of cryosphere melting and its extent and location.

    Climatology isn’t simple. If you monotonically increase CO2 the surface temperature will increase over time, but it will not be a neat, smooth, simple curve. You have to model it including all the forcings and feedbacks.

  72. #72 Benny Lin
    March 27, 2008

    Tim Curtin said:
    “First, there were no GISS temp stations anywhere in the tropics in 1885 or 1900, contrary to Lambert’s dishonest GISS graph”.

    Can you explain this? The GISS temperature database has a record from, for example, Kandy in Sri Lanka (7.3 N) that dates from 1881. I am confused.

  73. #73 Boris
    March 27, 2008

    I see you guys have found out that Tilo Reber is a conspiracy theorist, a Climate Truther.

    My favorite was the “There is no noise in climate” line. lol.

  74. #74 Bernard J.
    March 27, 2008

    Tim Curtin.

    Please do not respond to this post without displaying the satellite data

    I’m not sure that requesting that we don’t respond to your posts unless we do it exactly your way is quite the way things work. Although I must say that the thought that such prohibitions might cut both ways is rather appealing… If you believe that you have a substantive, evidence-based and defendable, non-CA (?!) or other agenda-based (after all, you don’t like the AGW ‘agenda’) literature review that supports your impression of the temperature profile over the last several centuries, perhaps you should refer us and calm our warming hysterics for good.

    But why stop there? Whilst you are knocking us senseless with a similarly peer-reviewed cover article for Nature, detailing your incontrovertible evidence of how atmospheric CO2 concentrations will plummet through the floor if humanity does not maintain its current rate of emissions, you might also address how Beck’s electrocardiograph of atmospheric CO2 concentration over the last 200 years (with which you apparently found no significant problem) is somehow uncoupled from the rates of those human emissions that you deem so critical for the continuance of life on Earth. Oh, and I’m interested to see how those same CO2 fluctuations are reflected in the carbonate record for a similar period, or in the historic measures of oceanic pH.

    Please.

  75. #75 Bernard J.
    March 27, 2008

    Tim Curtin.

    Oh my gosh.

    I did not post without displaying the satellite data.

    I guess that there’s no hope now of the references I asked for?

    Deary me.

  76. #76 Harold Pierce Jr
    March 27, 2008

    RE: #171 Hello Barton Paul!

    “2. The influence of aerosols such as sulfates from industry and volcanoes and desert and industrial dust and sea spray.”

    I ask everbody this simple question: Since 1900, where has all of the billion (and billion and billion!) pounds of ultrafine particles of rubber, asphalt and brake dust gone?
    The simple answer is: Everywhere! To this add all of the soot from combustion of coal, liquid fossil fuels, wood, agricultral waste, BBQ’s, natural wildfires, etc.

    The amount of black “atmospheric sludge” I clean out of my gutters several times a year is absolutely amazing. This stuff looks and feels like fine asphalt, and when it dries out it is just about as hard.

    If you moisten your finger and swipe it on the top of your car or any exposed smooth horizonal surface, it pick up a mixture of bownish black particles

  77. #77 Harold Pierce Jr
    March 27, 2008

    RE: #171 Hello Barton Paul!

    “2. The influence of aerosols such as sulfates from industry and volcanoes and desert and industrial dust and sea spray.”

    I ask everbody this simple question: Since 1900, where has all of the billion (and billion and billion!) pounds of ultrafine particles of rubber, asphalt and brake dust gone?
    The simple answer is: Everywhere! To this add all of the soot from combustion of coal, liquid fossil fuels, firewood, agricultral and wood waste, BBQ’s, natural wildfires, etc.

    The amount of black “atmospheric sludge” I clean out of my gutters several times a year is absolutely amazing. This stuff looks and feels like fine asphalt, and when it dries out it is just about as hard.

    If you moisten your finger and swipe it on the top of your car or any exposed smooth horizonal surface in urban areas, it will pick up a mixture of gritty brownish, black particles which also includes highly-corrosive concrete dust. Check out the walls of car tires. These are coated with the fine reddish brown dust from brakes pads and rotors.

    High-speed motor vehicles on highways results in all this dust being thrown up into the air where it is blown anywhere and everywhere by the wind to e.g., the polar regions. Not good.

  78. #78 Jack
    March 27, 2008

    For Tim Curtin:

    Point 1: Went to your Web site. Couldn’t find the satellite data.

    Point 2: Here’s some satellite data.

    RSS MSU/AMSU data

    Point 3: I recently heard Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems “in concert”. He made the following points:

    1. Surface temperatures are rising.
    2. Tropospheric temperatures are rising.
    3. Atmospheric relative humidity is rising.

    Conclusion: (from his abstract, actually)
    “Satellite microwave observations show that water vapor, a natural greenhouse gas, has increased by 2.4% during the last 20 years. Satellites can also measure the temperature of the troposphere, and these measurements indicate the troposphere has warmed by 0.4oC during the last 20 years, which is in general agreement with surface thermometers. Thus the water vapor has increased at a rate of 6% per degree of global warming. Climate models predict a similar rise with temperature. There is no serious discrepancy between the satellite observations and the climate models with regards to the increases in water vapor and temperature.”

    So please take this as a “substantive response” to your posting here, which in light of Wentz’s statements, appears to be completely, utterly, and fabulously lacking in any factual value whatsoever.

  79. #79 Eli Rabett
    March 27, 2008

    Tim Curtin states:

    First, there were no GISS temp stations anywhere in the tropics in 1885 or 1900,

    Wanna bet? or you just gonna admit you were blowing smoke.

  80. #80 dhogaza
    March 27, 2008

    “And Lucia shows the projected trajectories based off current fits: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-overpredict-recent-warming/

    Lucia’s been fisked by a professional statistician here.

  81. #81 Gator
    March 27, 2008

    Patrick Hadley,
    I disagree with your assessment.
    The paper clearly states that XBT measurements are still based on a 1995 work. The paper then says like GK2007 “suggests” errors may remain in the XBT fall rate calculation. That is all. This paper very carefully states it’s conclusions that more study of the XBT sensors are needed, and that they don’t think the OHCA has changed much from 2004 – 2006. That’s it.

    If Willis thinks otherwise, it is not in this paper. And having seen how reporters often get things wrong, I’m unwilling to accept a news story as a bit of scientific evidence.

  82. #82 Max Lini
    March 27, 2008

    Satellites do not measure temperature, Jack. They measure electromagnetic radiation.

    You put up the wrong link dhogaza. That comment is a post by Tom C about falsification time frames regarding IPCC guesses. Or did you mean the entire topic itself? I thought the guy that runs the blog is an astronomer that programs text recognition software.

    ML

  83. #83 Harold Pierce Jr
    March 27, 2008

    RE:#180 Hello Eli!

    Tim C. should go the late John Daly’s website at http://www.John-Daly.com, and check-out the temperature-time plots in “Station Temperature Data”. There are lots of temperature records that start before 1900, especially in his neck of the woods (AU and NZ), and just about anywhere that was once part of the old colonial empires. And there probably are lots more that he didn’t included because these stations are now in or near big cities which all were once small towns and established thousands of years ago. And there is the CET.

  84. #84 dhogaza
    March 27, 2008

    Oh, sorry, yes, the post that starts the thread.

    The guy who runs the blog does time-series analysis professionally. I know that CA has claimed to have “outed” his true identity but 1) I have no idea if it’s true 2) I think it’s incredibly sleazy and rude to do so.

  85. #85 Patrick Hadley
    March 27, 2008

    Gator, my point about Gouretski and Koltermann’s paper being referred to by the paper you linked to was to show that it appears to have been accepted by the climate science community as a mainstream contribution. I have no idea how accurate its estimate of 62% over-reporting of heat accumulation in the oceans since 1957 will prove to be. GK themselves give a very wide margin of error on this figure. I agree with you that more research is needed.

    The reason I mention it is that if the GK2007 factor of 62% is correct then it would make a big difference to calculations of the amount of extra heat retained by the planet as a result of AGHG. And yet as far as I can see it has never been discussed on RealClimate, in the MSM, or in any other pro AGW blog that I can find.

  86. #86 Max Lini
    March 27, 2008

    If somebody wants to remain anonymous then people should respect that. Why care who he is or if he wrote TS and WWZ or not? He seems to know what he’s talking about, maybe it’s just the details of the statistics. I don’t know who’s right or wrong or if anyone is either.

    The comments tamino makes to fred are good. 7 nears is too noisy yes.

    ‘Response: All of which again underscores how little we can determine from such a short time span, given the noise level.’

    But everyone is just trying to falsify things. tamino says as much to TCO also.

    [Response: I see that post is based on analysis of annual data since 1998: 10 data points. Annual data show less autocorrelation that monthly, but it's still not zero. However, *estimating* autocorrelation coefficients using just 10 data points is next to impossible. In that case, it would be better to estimate the autocorrelation using a longer time span of data, and apply those estimates to analysis of the 10 data points.

    It appears that her more recent attempts to falsify IPCC projections is based on monthly data, but in that case the AR(1) model isn't really good enough to do the job.]

  87. #87 Jack
    March 27, 2008

    ML stated:

    Satellites do not measure temperature, Jack. They measure electromagnetic radiation.

    D’oh! Then I guess everything published on the MSU/AMSU lower tropospheric temperature measurements is useless, eh?

    For anyone wondering about the actual method, MSU/AMSU measure nadir brightness temperatures. Quoting the National Academy Press, “The intensity of radiation observed in these [MSU] channels is directly proportional to the temperature of the air; hence, MSU can be used as a satellite “thermometer” for measuring air temperature.”

    I expect that you were just testing me. You weren’t trying to make it look like Mr. Wentz didn’t know what he was talking about, were you? Perish the thought.

  88. #88 Chris O'Neill
    March 27, 2008

    Tilo Reber:

    Now, let me explain it to you retard. If the temperature had been rising according to the 3C prediction prior to this last brief La Nina, then the La Nina would not have been able to take the trend for the entire 10 year period to flat

    WITHOUT the El Nino right at the beginning of the 10 year period.

    Cherry-picking extraordinaire. Start at the El Nino and finish at the the La Nina. I think I know who the retard is.

  89. #89 Max Lini
    March 27, 2008

    No I was not testing you Jack. Proportional to the top part of the air being read at the time. The word I used is measure and they measure IR from micrometers around 4-7 for water vapor and around 9-13 for thermal imaging. The temperatures are calculated from the measured information. As far as I know only the top layer of it also. Some data is used to determine temperature to some extent but it is not temperature itself being read.

    Oh dhogaza I should mention that the reason I said at Open Mind he is an astronomer, there are quite a few links to astronomy and I have seen things about VSTAR before and I assumed.

    AAVSO: American Association of Variable Star Observers
    AFOEV: Association Francaise des Observateurs d’Etoiles Variables
    CBA: Center for Backyard Astrophysics
    Sky & Telescope Magazine
    Space Telescope Science Institute
    VSOLJ: Variable Star Observers League in Japan

  90. #90 dhogaza
    March 27, 2008

    Oh dhogaza I should mention that the reason I said at Open Mind he is an astronomer, there are quite a few links to astronomy and I have seen things about VSTAR before and I assumed.

    Yes, true, there are, and I suspect that field is very likely where he’s done his analysis work professionally.

    Sorry to have lumped you with those who’ve outed him, it really annoys me as I said above, and you appear to agree so …

  91. #91 Tilo Reber
    March 27, 2008

    “My favorite was the “There is no noise in climate” line. lol.”

    So you must be a believer in the idea that things happen for no reason Boris. Do you also sacrifice chickens to the gods?

  92. #92 dhogaza
    March 27, 2008

    So you must be a believer in the idea that things happen for no reason Boris. Do you also sacrifice chickens to the gods?

    Noise happens for a reason. Do you think that noise in an electrical signal just happens for no reason? You have no idea what is meant by “noise”. Clearly.

  93. #93 Tilo Reber
    March 27, 2008

    “Tilo, you seem to be under the impression that global warming theory says carbon dioxide is the only thing that influences global temperatures.”

    No, I’m under the impression that global warming theory says that CO2 is the dominant factor influencing global temperature. And I’m under the impression that the IPCC climate sensitivity number for CO2 forcing is about 3 times too high. Ten year flat spells and emperical evidence don’t support the IPCC number.

  94. #94 Max Lini
    March 27, 2008

    I was under the impression it was a hypothesis.

  95. #95 Boris
    March 27, 2008

    So you must be a believer in the idea that things happen for no reason Boris.

    When you’re done making an idiot of yourself on the internets, look up unforced variability sometime.

    Oh, nevermind. The only place you’ll learn about it is the fraudulent scientific literature. Chickens, indeed.

  96. #96 z
    March 27, 2008

    “Dammit you kids, I’m trying to sleep, will you stop that sound which happens for a reason, the reason for which I do not know.”

  97. #97 Chris O'Neill
    March 27, 2008

    Tilo Reber:

    And I’m under the impression that the IPCC climate sensitivity number for CO2 forcing is about 3 times too high. Ten year flat spells and emperical evidence don’t support the IPCC number.

    This is absolute garbage. Papers giving empirical estimates for climate sensitivity are listed here, as well as estimates based on models. The Annan paper also has an empirical estimate.

    BTW, can you fix the broken record about “ten year flat spells” not supporting sensitivity estimates. We already know that they don’t confirm or deny the IPCC sensitivity estimate. “Ten year flat spells” don’t mean anything significant to climate sensitivity. Annan’s paper points out that many studies “using the overall warming trend of the last several decades or century” .. “have generally shown that the recent warming does not provide a useful constraint when compared to the long-established (albeit subjective) estimate of 1.5-4.5 ◦C.” Your cherry-picking extraordinaire doesn’t impress many people.

  98. #98 Bernard J.
    March 28, 2008

    At #193 Tilo Reber posted this gem:

    I’m under the impression that global warming theory says that CO2 is the dominant factor influencing global temperature.

    Erm, I think all of the ‘crank warmers’ would start by saying that the sun is the dominant factor that influences global temperature.

    And then they would continue by stating clearly the effect that water vapour has in a greenhouse context – without it the planet woud be an iceypole colder than any of the Denialist Ice-age nightmares.

    Tilo, all of your much-loathed ‘warmers’ recognise and understand that a so-called greenhouse effect is absolutely necessary for life to exist on this planet. However, the global warming that is being considered in current times, whilst being a fracion of the total greenhouse effect, represents a significant shift of the temperatures to which global ecosystems have adapted (very much so in terms of the idea of ‘bioclimatic envelope’) and the rate of temperature change is especially problematic in biological terms. And it is principly the increasing concentration of CO2 that is mediating this climate change.

    As you seem to be a bit thick when it comes to assimilating this concept, consider yourself travelling down your local highway at 55mph. If you get the speed-woodies and decide to go 60mph, your friendly constabulary officer will pull you over and book you, despite all of your crying, leg-flashing, and protestations that 5mph more is such a tiny bit extra, what difference does it make? And Officer Plod will tell you rightly what kinetic physics knows – that that little bit extra makes a hell of a difference.

    Stop misrepresenting the gist of the structure of the globabl warming theory, and stop deluding yourself that you are cleverly going to paint the so-called ‘warmers’ into a corner by doing so.

    Either that, or you truly are under the misapprehension that you stated above. In which case, go get a basic education.

  99. #99 Bernard J.
    March 28, 2008

    Boy oh boy.

    It seems the drover took a dump right next to the carcass of a festy ‘roo, given the way his bum was covered in flies as soon as his duds were down around his ankles.

    That’s the best way that I can describe how the oiks have flown in. I’m not sure which Secret Squirrel network it actually was that brought them out of the woodwork, but our esteemed host Tim has tapped a rich vein of Deniers with this thread.

    I’d be hard-pressed to be convinced that there hadn’t been a call to arms somewhere on the ‘sceptics’ circuit to jump onto this thread and push their cause. Perhaps a few of them could stop playing cherry-picking games over which year to select in order to show that “the world is cooling Jim”, and address some of the real-world integrators of climate change, as I suggested at #57. I really am curious to see how they explain away the undeniable evidence that sits accusing right before their eyes.

    Come on gentlemen, step to the plate.

  100. #100 dhogaza
    March 28, 2008

    I’d be hard-pressed to be convinced that there hadn’t been a call to arms somewhere on the ‘sceptics’ circuit to jump onto this thread and push their cause.

    Well, this is certainly true at Climate Audit. However there standards are a bit (not much) higher than wherever this flood of posts has come from.

    But CA is organized towards bringing the troops to bear on science sites when they’re in disagreement, and they cackle and cheer and pot-shot with comments that aren’t allowed on the target site, continuously accuse scientists of scientific misconduct and fraud, etc etc.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.