Heartland’s Denialist Conference: the Australian connection.

Heartland’s International Conference on Climate Change is on again. I can’t help but be impressed by the number of Australian organizations co-sponsoring the conference. Sponsors don’t pay any money — instead they get free admission to all meals and sessions for up to 20 people. And with 58 sponsors and 800 people registered to attend, that means they are giving away more admissions than people registered to attend. It’s likely that almost everyone attending got free admission.

There are seven Australian organizations signed up as sponsors. As well as the obvious ones like Lavoisier and the IPA there are some unfamiliar ones, so let’s look at the whole list.

The Lavoisier Group. John Quiggin on Lavoisier:

This body is devoted to the proposition that basic principles of physics, discovered by among others, the famous French scientist Antoine Lavoisier, cease to apply when they come into conflict with the interests of the Australian coal industry.

The Institute of Public Affairs. Australia’s leading anti-science think tank, with staff including Alan Moran, Sinclair Davidson, Jennifer Marohasy and Tom Switzer (opinion editor at The Australian for much of their war on science).

The Institute for Private Enterprise. This seems to be a one-man operation by Des Moore.

Mannkal Economic Education Foundation. Their postal address is at “Hayek House”, so you can probably guess where they are coming from. Their global warming denial page is a bunch of links to other people’s stuff — they don’t seem to produce much on those lines themselves.

Climate Sceptics Party. Only launched last month. According to their platform:

We are ordinary but proud Australians who are gravely concerned with the unfounded environmental alarmism infiltrating all forms of Australian Government (Federal, State & Local), threatening our way of life and hard fought freedoms

I believe proud and ordinary cohenite is a member.

The Carbon Sense Coalition

is a voluntary group of people concerned about the extent to which carbon is wrongly vilified in Western societies, particularly in government, the media, and in business circles.

they seem to be focused on opposition to policies that reduce net emissions from agriculture (in Australia that refers mainly to land clearing in Queensland).

Australian Libertarian Society. Basically this is John Humphreys, whose response to any disagreement is to accuse you of lying. He announced his sponsorship with whoppers like this

In 2008 we have seen the coldest year since 1994 and the current temperature is nearly exactly the same as the average over the 1970s.

i-80019a093fdc112d2a043fd6f1393550-06.13.08.globalairtemp.png

True to form, when I commented on his post, Humphreys accused me of lying, though this time he also deleted most of my comments as well.

Update: Kevin Grandia:

what really strikes me so far is that it’s the same people attending and talking about the same things they did last year.

Comments

#1 sod
March 13, 2009

The problem with the “park-like” setting site is that the mesoenvironment is green–but the microsite environment is depressingly gray! The equipment appears to be sited directly under either concrete or crushed rock. That would make it at best a CRN4 station, and possibly a 5.

i see two very big problems here:

1. your analysis places those two stations in the same or similar classes. that is absurd.

2. you (and Anthony, btw) use the classification and its effect (error>=5°C) without knowing (or at least clarifying) the meaning of that term.

the meaning of the error, as i see it, is: some stations falling into this class have experienced a MAXIMUM error above 5°C.

it translates into: a class 5 station that is completely surrounded by concrete, with no shadow might show an error above 5°C on a very hot day.

this is an important information for meteorology. on an extreme day, this site may provide very false information. but it is pretty close to irrelevant for climate research.

using the message to scar people, and basing a huge project on information that isn t completely understood, makes me wonder about the honest purpose of those behind and supporting the project.
#2 Evan Jones
March 13, 2009

your analysis places those two stations in the same or similar classes. that is absurd.

I think you misunderstand me.

CRN rating is strictly microsite. The mesososite environment (more rural setting vs. more urban) is different and is a different calculation entirely.

The way the LeRoy paper reads is that it is an estimated or expected difference not a maximum difference. The Yilmaz paper tends to confirm this (an 8ºC+ difference during summer).

The LaDochy December 2007 study (not the one you cited) indicates the warming trend for California from 1980 – 2001 is overestimated by a factor of two.

My point is that more study is obviously required.
#3 Evan Jones
March 13, 2009

using the message to scar people, and basing a huge project on information that isn t completely understood, makes me wonder about the honest purpose of those behind and supporting the project.

I think that injunction would apply to both sides of the debate, no?
#4 dhogaza
March 13, 2009

I think that injunction would apply to both sides of the debate, no?

What “debate”? On the one hand we have science. On the other hand … you and Watts.

You’re saying scientists shouldn’t warn people of the consequences of their actions? Science should be silent about the dangers of smoking? Of global warming?
#5 sod
March 13, 2009

CRN rating is strictly microsite. The mesososite environment (more rural setting vs. more urban) is different and is a different calculation entirely.

i agree, there is some misunderstanding. both stations in the LaDochy paper. ["WILL THE REAL LOS ANGELES STAND UP"](http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/119064.pdf) are inside the LA city. one station is located in a park, the other one on a rooftop parking space.

The way the LeRoy paper reads is that it is an estimated or expected difference not a maximum difference.

this is obviously false. snow cover will remove most microsite effects. “error>=5°C” can not be an “expected” difference, it must be a maximum effect.

The Yilmaz paper tends to confirm this (an 8ºC+ difference during summer).

in [Turkey](http://www.ejournal.unam.mx/atm/Vol21-2/ATM002100202.pdf)., in summer. measured over a full concrete airport runway.

this are the most extreme conditions possible.

i am looking forward to a similar study, in Alaska, with a minor road close to the sensor and some tree shading on it.

The LaDochy December 2007 study (not the one you cited) indicates the warming trend for California from 1980 – 2001 is overestimated by a factor of two.

how do you come to that factor 2?
this LaDochy paper mentions a very important “meso” factor: irrigation might give a DOWNWARD trend to rural stations.

My point is that more study is obviously required.

my point is, that those most basic points, should have been the starting point of the surface stations project.
#6 Dave A
March 13, 2009

Hey,

Read between the lines of the recent NRC report from the US NAS and you will see that they don’t believe current climate observations are adequate.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12595
#7 Dave A
March 13, 2009

I should have added that the NRC comments relate to the US, which supposedly has the most sophisticated monitoring system in the world.

If that is not up to scratch how much reliability can be placed on a so-called GMST derived from ‘dodgy’ stations across the world?
#8 Eli Rabett
March 13, 2009

You can find as many stations with problems that might lower the temperature as those that might raise it
#9 Dano
March 13, 2009

You can find as many stations with problems that might lower the temperature as those that might raise it

Pfffft.

Not on denialist sites.

Wattscredulouswitdat?

Best,

D
#10 dhogaza
March 14, 2009

If that is not up to scratch how much reliability can be placed on a so-called GMST derived from ‘dodgy’ stations across the world?

Thank God we have satellite telemetry that tells the same story, and that ecological and geophysical data also tells the same story, eh?

We don’t really need the surface station record to understand what’s going on, but it’s comforting that it correlates well with our other data, don’t you think?
#11 bi -- IJI
March 14, 2009

The right-wing talking heads are unleashing their attack dogs on Andrew Revkin.
#12 Bernard J.
March 14, 2009

You can find as many stations with problems that might lower the temperature as those that might raise it.

Too true.

As I related to Radium Water Tim on another thread, I live in a rural region about a 15 minute drive from the CBD of our state capital. The daily city maxima that were reported each evening were so consistently 2-4°C below what neighbours were reporting for our area that I spent a few hundred on a weather station to get an accurate idea (+/- 0.1°C) of what our temperatures were.

And they are, almost without exception, 2-4°C below the city’s maxima.

Heat island indeed.
#13 Jeff Harvey
March 14, 2009

Evan writes, *I think that injunction would apply to both sides of the debate, no?*

The problem is that this isn’t a debate; its one extremely well funded side twisting, distorting and mangling science to promote a pre-determined worldview and political agenda, and the other side constantly having to defend a huge volume of empirical evidence.

The denialists are well-aware that science is not on their side, but they know they do not have to win the debate on these grounds. All they have to do is to shed enough doubt on the theory of AGW to render any meaningful action to tackle the problem mute. This is because the public and honest policymakers (not those bought-and-paid for by industry) will not push for regulations if the debate appears to be ‘stuck somewhere in the middle’.

I suggest you check how the denialists have shifted their goalposts over the past 20 years. First, AGW was a ‘doomsday myth’. Then, as evidence flowed in in support of climate change, the impetus shifted to ‘it’s natural, due to the sun and natural variability’. More recently, abusing long-term data sets and misunderstanding the concept of forces required to shift largely deterministic systems, they have shifted to the ‘it hasn’t warmed at all since 1998′ – an exceptional year by any standards that was much warmer by far than any preceding years due to a potent El Nino event.

Mark my words: in 10-15 years, as the evidence accrues still further, they will shift to their last argument: ‘Ok, humans are the primary culprit but it’s too late to do anything so we will just have to adapt’ (that is already being said in some denialist circles). Again, in every one of these scenarios there is a constant theme: *don’t change anything and by all means do not cap carbon emissions*.

The political right are hijacking the science that they hate to ensure that the song remains the same. It is profit maiximization for the privileged few.
#14 Stuart H
March 14, 2009

I am a Geologist who has had no formal training in climate science however have looked into the science behind the GW theory over the last 12 months and I have to say there are some issues that throw some doubt into my mind regarding the influence of human induced Co2 increases on global temperatures.

I do not have tunnel vision on either side of the debate however I do not want governments burdening economies with another tax on something that may not be real.

There is one question I have that you may be able to answer:

Why is it that the when Co2 vs temperature is plotted it shows a logrithmic relationship, that is most of the warming affect occurs for the first 20ppm and then tails off in a logrithmic plot. Going by this if Co2 is doubled or even tripled from current levels it will have a negligible effect on atmospheric temperatures. This is due to the fact that Co2 only absorbs certain wavelengths of energy so once it has done this adding more does nothing. Now to me this relationship seems feasible given that Co2 levels have been massivley higher in past geological times ie up 5000ppm but we didn’t have a runaway greenhouse effect. Also Al Gore may have also inadvertenly comfirmed this in his ice core graphic when he got on the scissor lift and showed Co2 levels rocketing up recently however temperatures were not going up at the same rate as they were in relation to Co2 levels in the previuos spikes on the ice core graphic. Also over the last 10 years no significant warming has occurred (satellite data)however the Co2 levels have continued to rise, dosen’t this cast doubt over the relationship between the two?
#15 cohenite
March 14, 2009

Ah, I wander over here looking for the dust-up with Tim Curtin about the Soloman et al travesty about emission rates and what do I find? Just the usual bloviators and some snideness about new political parties; so from this proud and ordinary citizen may I wish you all a Will Steffan reality. BTW, I thought the William Gray piece at the Heartland conference was pretty damn good; I wish I could think of an equivalent pro-AGW effort; perhaps the recent Steig et tu Mann revelations?
#16 Chris O'Neill
March 14, 2009

Stuart H:

I am a Geologist who has had no formal training in climate science however have looked into the science behind the GW theory over the last 12 months and I have to say there are some issues that throw some doubt into my mind regarding the influence of human induced Co2 increases on global temperatures.

Fair enough. It’s good to have an inquiring mind.

I do not have tunnel vision on either side of the debate

I don’t want to be told by anyone that they don’t have tunnel vision. You would be wise to leave that judgement up to people reading you.

There is one question I have that you may be able to answer:
Why is it that the when Co2 vs temperature is plotted it shows a logrithmic relationship, that is most of the warming affect occurs for the first 20ppm and then tails off in a logrithmic plot.

This is not how the logarithm function works. “Most” of the variation in the logarithm function does not occur over any finite range of input. The logarithm function varies from minus to plus infinity. Doubling the input causes the same increase in output for any original input, i.e. increasing the input from 2 units to 4 units causes the same increase in output as increasing the input from 1 unit to 2 units. Increasing the input from 4 units to 8 units causes the same increase in output again etc. Thus there is no such thing as an input range for which “most” of the variation in output occurs.
#17 Chris O'Neill
March 14, 2009

cohenite:

what do I find? Just the usual bloviators

What a hypocrite.
#18 Stuart H
March 14, 2009

Reply to Chris O’Neill

Your explanation doesn’t make much sense to me. Are you saying that from 300ppm Co2 to 600ppm Co2 will cause the same temperature increase as 20-40ppm Co2? If you think it does then the relationship is linear not logrithmic

Stuart
#19 Stuart H
March 14, 2009

Just to further explain myself, my understanding is that Co2 only absorbs certain wavelengths so once the existing Co2 does this then adding more has little effect, this physical property of Co2 causes the logrithmic relationship when plotted against atmospheric temperature changes, is this not the case?

Stuart
#20 bi -- IJI
March 14, 2009

> Your explanation doesn’t make much sense to me. Are you saying that from 300ppm Co2 to 600ppm Co2 will cause the same temperature increase as 20-40ppm Co2? If you think it does then the relationship is linear not logrithmic

Stuart H, you’re either a liar or an idiot or both. You can fool the mathematically uninitiated, but you can’t fool anyone who has at least a high school education in mathematics (and still remembers it).
#21 Stuart H
March 14, 2009

Why the hostility? do you not agree that the relationship between Co2 concentration and atmospheric temperature is logrithmic?

See my previuos comment after the one you quoted where I provided my understanding of the science, if it’s not correct then can you explain why the temperature increases 1.5 degrees within the first 20ppm and then only 0.3 degrees for the next 20ppm?

Stuart
#22 bi -- IJI
March 15, 2009

Stuart H, you’re still either a liar or an idiot or both. Now get out your calculator and compute the values of

ln 20.
ln 40.
ln 60.

This is the answer to your moronic question.

Can you find out the values by yourself? Or are you too busy waiting for your shillmasters to tell you what the answers are?
#23 Stuart H
March 15, 2009

bi-IJI

I am simply requesting an answer to my question on whether you agree that Co2 concentration forms a logrithmic relationship with temperature. I assume you know what a logrithmic relationship looks like!

I have read articles that state the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not saturated which doesn’t seem to fit the graphs showing the physical properties of Co2.

If temperature is modelled to continue to rise with further CO2 concentrations without stopping then why did we not have a runaway greenhouse effect when atmospheric CO2 was between 3000-5000ppm 65 million years ago?

Do you understand?
#24 bi -- IJI
March 15, 2009

I said:

> Stuart H, you’re still either a liar or an idiot or both. Now get out your calculator and compute the values of

> ln 20.
ln 40.
ln 60.

> This is the answer to your moronic question.

> Can you find out the values by yourself? Or are you too busy waiting for your shillmasters to tell you what the answers are?

I’m betting on the latter.
#25 bi -- IJI
March 15, 2009

So, Stuart H, have you yet figured out what the values of ln 20, ln 40, and ln 60 are?

Or are you trying to dodge the whole elitist venture of Actually Doing Sums, by throwing out yet another bunch of inactivist red herrings?
#26 Stuart H
March 15, 2009

What the point of sitting here calculating log values?

My point is that for each additional molecule of CO2 added to the atmoshpere the temperature increase is smaller than the last. Do you dispute this?

Also you are so typical of someone who is in the GW extremist group who prefer to attack the man instead of having a rational debate about the science, it’s pathetic really and doesn’t help your cause

Stuart
#27 bi -- IJI
March 15, 2009

> What the point of sitting here calculating log values?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Spoken like a true “geologist” all right.
#28 Lee
March 15, 2009

Someone introduce Stuart to Tim Curtin, please – it is clearly a preordained match.

Stuart, if you are going to claim that the logarithmic nature of heat absorption by [CO2] somehow casts doubt on the science of global temperature, you might bother not to speak utter idiocy about the nature of logarithmic relationships.
#29 cohenite
March 15, 2009

Hi Chris; it takes a thief to catch a thief, or bloviator as the case may be.

Stuart; stick around and gain a real education in human charity and kindness; in the meantime, before bi–IJI cracks what ever cyclinders he has left, here are the log values and an interesting graph; now I’ll go and do my penance;

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/1994/logwarmingillustratedeo8.png
#30 Stuart H
March 15, 2009

Well what is the point? You don’t seem willing or are unable to answer any of my questions

You do realise how stupid you sound by posting comments like the last one don’t you?

Ah well I guess I’m not going to get an intelligent debate out of you so it’s time to move on
#31 pough
March 15, 2009

I do not have tunnel vision on either side of the debate

Is there a person alive who thinks of themselves as having tunnel vision on either side of a debate? What an odd thing to say. It seems to be roughly equivalent to “hello everybody, I think more clearly than you do.”

Are you saying that from 300ppm Co2 to 600ppm Co2 will cause the same temperature increase as 20-40ppm Co2? If you think it does then the relationship is linear not logrithmic

Maybe we have different definitions of the word. Wouldn’t linear mean that 20-40ppm would be the same as 320-340ppm?

BTW, the hostility comes from people here having heard it all before. It’s kind of like whack-a-mole, but without the hope of a prize at the end. There is a non-stop stream of people like you who happen along, saying “a-ha! I’ve managed to figure out that thousands of people are wrong about their field of study!” When you combine the ennui with your initial “I am so well-thinked” and then the “isn’t logarithmic linear which makes it not logarithmic?”, you get snark.

In case we’re wrong about the relationship being logarithmic, what would a True Logarithmic look like? Does it have to be log 10 or can it be log 2?
#32 Tim Lambert
March 15, 2009

cohenite, your graph contains multiple errors. The relationship is not logarithmic all the way down to a concentration of 0 (since log of 0 is negative infinity). And climate sensitivity is the equilibrium response to a forcng, not the immediate response.
#33 Stuart H
March 15, 2009

Thanks cohenite

And Lee I am not saying I am right and since you have weighed in would you like to explain why I am so misguided about the effect of CO2 concentrations above 380ppm on climate, all I want is a rational explanation that is based in science and doesn’t involve personal attacks which are pointless.

Stuart
#34 Tim Curtin
March 15, 2009

As I am mentioned here I hope I can post this:
Stuart H and Chris O’Neill are spot on about the logarithmic nature of increases in temperature with respect to increases in [CO2] at the Monckton thread, and bi-ij is off the planet. Chris said: “Doubling the input causes the same increase in output for any original input, i.e. increasing the input from 2 units to 4 units causes the same increase in output as increasing the input from 1 unit to 2 units. Increasing the input from 4 units to 8 units causes the same increase in output again etc.” As my Quadrant article made the same point (citing Arrhenius), let me spell it out in Excel. It should be clear that for global mean temperature to reach the annual mean of 28oC in Dubai, atmospheric CO2 would have to rise from 385 ppm now by 52,428,800 ppm. To reach Brisbane’s present annual average it would still have to rise by 25,600 ppm, to 25,985 ppm. Plotting the logN of the increases CO2 in ppm produces a perfect linear line, which is exactly parallel to the linear plot of changes in temperature against changes in [CO2]. DIY in Excel.

Increase in [CO2] ppm Logs dCO2 Temp oC
100.00 4.60517 14.7
200.00 5.298317 15.4
400.00 5.991465 16.1
800.00 6.684612 16.8
1,600.00 7.377759 17.5
3,200.00 8.070906 18.2
6,400.00 8.764053 18.9
12,800.00 9.4572 19.6
25,600.00 10.15035 20.3
51,200.00 10.84349 21
102,400.00 11.53664 21.7
204,800.00 12.22979 22.4
409,600.00 12.92294 23.1
819,200.00 13.61608 23.8
1,638,400.00 14.30923 24.5
3,276,800.00 15.00238 25.2
6,553,600.00 15.69553 25.9
13,107,200.00 16.38867 26.6
26,214,400.00 17.08182 27.3
52,428,800.00 17.77497 28
104,857,600.00 18.46811 28.7
209,715,200.00 19.16126 29.4
419,430,400.00 19.85441 30.1
838,860,800.00 20.54756 30.8
#35 Innocent_Bystander
March 15, 2009

oh … good … grief.

TC you must have been a dire daily challenge for your teachers in school – are any of them known to have survived?
#36 bi -- IJI
March 15, 2009

Stuart H:

> all I want is a rational explanation that is based in science and doesn’t involve personal attacks which are pointless.

Why don’t you (horrors) actually start Doing Some Sums? Oh, I forgot that doing sums is beneath you, because you’re a “scientist”. Or is that “geologist”.

And what pough said:

> When you combine the ennui with your initial “I am so well-thinked” and then the “isn’t logarithmic linear which makes it not logarithmic?”, you get snark.

* * *

Tim Curtin:

> Increase in [CO2] ppm
Logs dCO2

It’s Δ(log CO₂), not log Δ(CO₂). You fail.
#37 bi -- IJI
March 15, 2009

To see why: suppose we have two variables X and Y such that Y varies logarithmically with X. Thus

> Y = m ln X + c

for constants m, c. If we have two pairs of values (x₁, y₁) and (x₂, y₂) following this relationship, then we have

> y₁ = m ln x₁ + c
y₂ = m ln x₂ + c

Subtracting the two equations gives

> y₂ – y₁ = m (ln x₂ – ln x₂)

Clearly, the change in Y as it goes from y₁ to y₂ is

> Δy = y₂ – y₁.

And as shown above, this change depends not on

> ~~ln Δx = ln (x₂ – x₁)~~;

instead it depends on

> Δ(ln x) = ln x₂ – ln x₁.

None of this requires graduate-level maths, Tim Curtin. Why did you have to make such a dumb error?
#38 bi -- IJI
March 15, 2009

(Erratum: 4th equation should be

> y₂ – y₁ = m (ln x₂ – ln x₁)

)
#39 cohenite
March 15, 2009

The y axis ‘o’ is 288K; and there is only an immediate response because the only ‘pipeline’ is in Hawaii;

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1994/to:2010/scale:0.1/mean:10/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1994/to:2010/scale:0.1/mean:10/plot/uah/from:1994/to:2010/scale:0.1/mean:10
#40 Tim Curtin
March 15, 2009

Bi: first, you attack me, instead of Chris O’Neill, whose spec. I followed absolutely faithfully (at #117: “Doubling the input causes the same increase in output for any original input, i.e. increasing the input from 2 units to 4 units causes the same increase in output as increasing the input from 1 unit to 2 units. Increasing the input from 4 units to 8 units causes the same increase in output again etc.”). He like the IPCC Stern & Garnaut proposed log Δ(CO2), and that is what I did, namely 0.7 observed change in T for each doubling of the INCREMENT in [CO2], i.e. observed 0.7 oC for 100 new ppm since 1900 and the same for the next 200 and then 0.7 again for the next 400. Chris O’Neill’s is the standard formulation. Your equation is your own until you specify m. For that you pays your money and makes your choice. I opt for Chris. Negotiate with him and only then get back to me.
#41 Chris O'Neill
March 15, 2009

Me:

The logarithm function varies from minus to plus infinity. Doubling the input causes the same increase in output for any original input, i.e. increasing the input from 2 units to 4 units causes the same increase in output as increasing the input from 1 unit to 2 units. Increasing the input from 4 units to 8 units causes the same increase in output again etc.

Stuart H:

Your explanation doesn’t make much sense to me. Are you saying that from 300ppm Co2 to 600ppm Co2 will cause the same temperature increase as 20-40ppm Co2? If you think it does then the relationship is linear not logrithmic

If you don’t believe me then get a calculator or a spreadsheet and find the difference between log 2 and log 1, between log 4 and log 2, and between log 8 and log 4. The differences are always the same.
#42 bi -- IJI
March 15, 2009

Tim Curtin:

> first, you attack me, instead of Chris O’Neill, whose spec. I followed absolutely faithfully

No.

You still fail.
#43 Barton Paul Levenson
March 15, 2009

Stuart H. posts:

Going by this if Co2 is doubled or even tripled from current levels it will have a negligible effect on atmospheric temperatures.

The radiative forcing from carbon dioxide on present-day Earth is estimated by Myrhe et al. (1998) as:

RF = 5.35 ln (C / Co)

where RF is in watts per square meter and carbon dioxide concentration C and reference concentration Co are in parts per million by volume. Clearly doubling CO2 results in a forcing of 3.7 W m^-2, and with a climate sensitivity of 0.75 K W^-2 m^-2, this would mean doubling CO2 raises the mean global annual surface temperature of the Earth by 2.8 K.

This is due to the fact that Co2 only absorbs certain wavelengths of energy so once it has done this adding more does nothing.

For the reasons this “saturation argument” is wrong see here:

http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Saturation.html

Now to me this relationship seems feasible given that Co2 levels have been massivley higher in past geological times ie up 5000ppm but we didn’t have a runaway greenhouse effect.

No one is predicting a “runaway greenhouse effect” on Earth. Global warming of a few degrees will be enough to massively disrupt our agriculture and economy.

Also over the last 10 years no significant warming has occurred (satellite data)however the Co2 levels have continued to rise, dosen’t this cast doubt over the relationship between the two?

Your information is wrong. Check here:

http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Ball.html

http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Reber.html
#44 Chris O'Neill
March 15, 2009

cohenite:

it takes a thief to catch a thief, or bloviator as the case may be.

There is only one person here that someone from both sides agrees is a bloviator.
#45 Tim Curtin
March 15, 2009

Bi: you said “To see why: suppose we have two variables X and Y such that Y[eg temp?] varies logarithmically with X [eg CO2?] Thus
Y = m ln X + c
for constants m, c. If we have two pairs of values (x1, y1) and (x2, y2) following this relationship, then we have
y1 = m ln x1 + c
y2 = m ln x2 + c
Subtracting the two equations gives
y2 – y1 = m (ln x2 – ln x2)” (1)

Fine, but that does not gives logs for y2 – y1
“Clearly, the change in Y as it goes from y1 to y2 is
Δy = y2 – y1.”

Amazing! Who would have thought?

“And as shown above, this change depends not on
ln Δx = ln (x2 – x1);
instead it depends on
Δ(ln x) = ln x2 – ln x1.” Amazing, a pure tautology. Hallelujuh!

“Clearly, the change in Y as it goes from y1 to y2 is
Δy = y2 – y1.”

More amazing. The same great truth repeated. Truly a new Einstein.

And as shown above, this change depends not on
ln Δx = ln (x2 – x1);
instead it depends on
Δ(ln x) = ln x2 – ln x1.

Another tautology.

Tim Lambert, if anyone deserves permanent banning it is bi for habitual unpleasantness and terminal nonsense not to mention complete math incompetence. He has his own largely unvisited blog, leave him there.
#46 bi -- IJI
March 15, 2009

Let’s see. Tim Curtin says,

> He [O'Neill] like the IPCC Stern & Garnaut proposed log Δ(CO2), and that is what I did,

and then when I show using mathematics that it’s really Δ(ln CO₂) and that he’s talking complete nonsense, he claims that, since I’m right, therefore I’m wrong.
#47 Chris O'Neill
March 15, 2009

He like the IPCC Stern & Garnaut proposed log Δ(CO2), and that is what I did, namely 0.7 observed change in T for each doubling of the INCREMENT in [CO2], i.e. observed 0.7 oC for 100 new ppm since 1900 and the same for the next 200 and then 0.7 again for the next 400.

The great Curtin is merely pointing out the correction he made to Myrhe et al.’s radiation forcing formula which by coincidence BPL posted above:

RF = 5.35 ln (C / Co)

As Curtin showed, the correct formula is actually:

RF = 5.35 ln ( 380 (C-280) / 28000)

or in terms of temperature:

ΔT = 0.7 ln (2 (C-280) / 100) / ln (2)

thus leading to Curtin’s progression above. This is Curtin’s second law of atmospheric physics, following on from his first law of atmospheric physics which is Curtin’s law of conservation of atmospheric mass. This was yet another great discovery by the genius physicist Curtin.
#48 luminous beauty
March 15, 2009

… and there is only an immediate response because the only ‘pipeline’ is in Hawaii…

Posted by: cohenite | March 15, 2009 5:27 AM

Interesting fact: In cohenite’s universe, water boils immediately upon putting the kettle on the stove.

“Book ‘im, Dano.”
#49 dhogaza
March 15, 2009

Your explanation doesn’t make much sense to me. Are you saying that from 300ppm Co2 to 600ppm Co2 will cause the same temperature increase as 20-40ppm Co2? If you think it does then the relationship is linear not logrithmic

Stuart H, it’s logarithmic. You’re going to have to brush up on your high school mathematics before you successfully overturn the work of a very large number of hard working climate scientists …

All of your arguments are just cut-and-paste denialist tripe, BTW. That’s why you’re being met with hostility. You can easily find out they’re wrong by doing a little scientific reading on the web. Why should people here do that work for you? (though Barton has kindly done so, you should read his links, thank him, and apologize for having posted crap).
#50 elspi
March 15, 2009

Chris O’Neill:
I am ashamed of you. You forgot his most important contribution to mathematics, namely Tim Curtin’s proof that polynomial = exponential, which of course implies the now trivial P=NP. I would imagine that even as we type, the Clay institute is cutting the check for our soon to be millionaire Curtin.
#51 Tim Curtin
March 15, 2009

What a lot of huffing and puffing. This is what Chris O’Neill said: “Doubling the input causes the same increase in output for any original input, i.e. increasing the input from 2 units to 4 units causes the same increase in output as increasing the input from 1 unit to 2 units. Increasing the input from 4 units to 8 units causes the same increase in output again etc.” This is what I did: I first took the observed increase in the “input”, 100 ppm of [CO2] from 1900 to 2000, and the resulting increase in “output”, a rise of 0.7 oC in global mean temperature over that period (GISS). Then I added more input, first doubling, so extra 100 ppm to get same output, 0.7 oC, exactly per Chris. Next doubling takes us from extra 200 ppm to extra 400 ppm for another 0.7 oC, and the next to extra 800 ppm (for cumulative from pre-industrial add 280 ppm) for another 0.7 oC, and so on, all exactly in line with the O’Neill formula.
Given starting global temp in 1900 of 13.9 oC, say 14, with the extra 800 ppm we have reached total [CO2] of 1180 ppm for a global temp of 16.8 oC. The next doubling to 1600 gives us 17.5 oC., which is 3.5 above 1900, but which the IPCC claims will arise from just 280 extra ppm (i.e. doubling from 280 ppm. to 560 ppm.). O’Neill is always right, so I hope he will convey his model to the IPCC.

Chris added: “Thus there is no such thing as an input range for which “most” of the variation in output occurs’”. Actually, if you fit an Excel log linear trend line you will see most of the variation does begin (the line is steepest) at the beginning of the input range. But then I suppose Excel must have it wrong, because O’Neill is without peer in being always right.
#52 P. Lewis
March 15, 2009

pough is correct on the snark; and, as inveterate blog watchers will know, the CO₂ angle being raised by you here, Stuart H, has recently been doing the rounds elsewhere. So I guess the snark threshold is currently set low. Also, much of the information you require/request has been talked about ad nauseum in blogs for nigh on 10 years (since the FAR (IIRC), and certainly since the TAR) and is easily available on the net. Consequently, if, as you say, you

have looked into the science behind the GW theory over the last 12 months

and have got to geology degree level or greater, it seems unlikely on the face of it that you can’t have come across this material (And if you have, then why ask here in the form you ask? And if you haven’t, then how, for example, did you manage to get a degree? …). Hence the snark that quickly developed after your early incredulity on the concentrations and logs.

As to theoretical underpinnings of the _C_/_C_₀ part, look here for _starters_.

Now

Δ_T__s = _λ_Δ_F_

and

Δ_F_ = _α_ ln(_C_/_C_₀) — not the only formula; see Table 6.2 in the TAR (and the e.g. linked below)

where

Δ_T__s (W m⁻²) = change in equilibrium surface temperature

_λ_ (K W⁻¹ m⁻²) = climate sensitivity

_α_ = constant (by experiment/observation/model, e.g.)

_C_ (ppmv) = current [CO₂]

_C_₀ (ppmv) = initial [CO₂]

Now do the logs and your incredulity should vanish.

And I dare say one of your supplementaries (from past experience) may well be answered by material such as this, this and this.
#53 Tim Lambert
March 15, 2009

Tim Curtin, you are only allowed to post to the “Windschuttle hoaxed” thread. If you post in the wrong thread again I will ban you.
#54 bi -- IJI
March 15, 2009

By the way: Tim Curtin: you still fail.
#55 Evan Jones
March 16, 2009

The problem is that this isn’t a debate; its one extremely well funded side twisting, distorting and mangling science to promote a pre-determined worldview and political agenda, and the other side constantly having to defend a huge volume of empirical evidence.

I don’t think you understand how poorly funded the “deinialist” side is.

The denialists are well-aware that science is not on their side, but they know they do not have to win the debate on these grounds.

If the “denialists” were well aware of any such thing, and were aware that curbing CO2 was the solution, what makes you think they would object to pulling out all stops to solve the problem?

I do not believe you are thinking this through if you can bring yourself to believe, much less publicly state such things. I urge you to reconsider the issue from the perspective that both sides genuinely believe in their positions and that both sides want a better world for future generations.

Likewise, I do not believe those who believe in CO2-feedback-based AGW are guilty of a “fraud” or perpetrating a “scam” or “power grab”. I think that that may be wrong in part or in full on any number of issues, but I believe they are sincere in their beliefs and their motives are not base.

I assume the motives of both sides are based on how they perceive the science and are oriented toward the good of mankind.
#56 Evan Jones
March 16, 2009

And remember Anthony Watts and surfacestations.org? They finally compiled a huge sample of “good” stations and “bad” stations, and… guess what? No significant difference in the trend. Gee, I guess the scientists knew what they were doing after all. Quelle surprise.

Yes, very much a surprise as the paper being written on the subject has not been released yet. I think we need to wait until it has been.

And it goes far deeper than trend in a constant environment. The environment is not constant.

It involves change of trend due to urban/suburban/exurban creep (the sort that would not result in a step change) and undocumented station moves, which causes severe discontinuities that are not factored out.

There is also an adjustment issue. I do not see how adjusting modern temperatures +0.3 C for USHCN1 or +0.4 for USHCN2 can be justified. And it makes far more sense that the SHAP adjustment would be negative rather than positive. Yet it is positive, and this makes no sense to me.
#57 bi -- IJI
March 16, 2009

Evan Jones:

> I assume the motives of both sides are based on how they perceive the science and are oriented toward the good of mankind.

Yeah, yeah. Also, lying for Jesus is good for you too.
#58 Evan Jones
March 16, 2009

this is obviously false. snow cover will remove most microsite effects. “error>=5°C” can not be an “expected” difference, it must be a maximum effect.

I can only go by the actual words in the paper.

As for Yilmaz, he reports the difference to be over 11C at ground level and over 7.5C at 2 m. (Surface stations are sited lower than 2 m.) Even snow can create a warming offset, esp if the station is buried in it (which came up in the recent Antarctica controversy). The measurements are in summer, but they are taken at high altitude.

I am not stating anything is obvious and I am not reading anything into Leroy except what he actually says. And he does not say “minimum”, or “maximum”. He says “estimated” and “expected”. If he were not using “greater than” symbols, one might assume he meant “average”. But I assume that if he meant “minimum” he would have used that word or words to that effect. he does not.

I don’t think anything is obvious other than that more study needs to be done under surface station conditions, year round. I don’t say LeRoy is right, I only say he says what he says. Maybe he is right, maybe wrong. So let’s find out.
#59 Evan Jones
March 16, 2009

Yeah, yeah. Also, lying for Jesus is good for you too.

Being an atheist, I’m sure I wouldn’t know.
#60 Evan Jones
March 16, 2009

You can find as many stations with problems that might lower the temperature as those that might raise it

Pfffft.

Not on denialist sites.

So go look at the pictures yourself, then. They are all online and open to public inspection. You could even rate them yourself, using NOAA’s own COOP or CRN published standards.

If you think it is cherrypicking, then go look and come to your own conclusions.
#61 bi -- IJI
March 16, 2009

Come on, Evans, why not embrace Holy Jesus’s Young Earth Creationism just this once? Yes, it’s full of lies, double standards, cries of persecution, bluffs, and sheer illogical garbage, it’s all for the greater good! Please consider their viewpoint!
#62 Evan Jones
March 16, 2009

Barton Paul Levenson:

Thank you for your reasonable discourse. All too rare.

Hanson, Reudy (2001) is concerned with UHI, not microsite. There are problems with the “nightlight” proxy. It is too variable, depending on level of development.

We prefer the “U/50″ method as this is an actual measurement of nearby population. But even this is problematic, because a denser suburban sprawl that features a lot of grassy or even forested areas is different from a small city.

Also Peterson (2003) is very early in the controversy. Peterson, Parker is more recent, and that has been vehemently disputed by more recent studies.

It is hard to know whom to believe. But “settled”, it ain’t.

NOAA/NCDC/USCHN2 does not even apply a UHI adjustment, but uses an homogeneity method and a step change “fixer-upper”. My own impression is that this merely spreads the problem around and overlooks gradual, continuing changes in mesoenvironment (or microenvironment, for that matter). Meanwhile, the US temperatures are adjusted over 0.4C from raw data. (Heck, I’d even like to see a revisiting of the TOBS issue.)

Eli Rabbet: You can find as many stations with problems that might lower the temperature as those that might raise it

Not as far as I can see. By their very nature, there appear to be more opportunities for warming bias than cooling. But, as you are a prominent scientist, I invite you to look at the pictures and come to your own conclusions on that issue.
#63 Evan Jones
March 16, 2009

Bernard J.: I live in a rural region about a 15 minute drive from the CBD of our state capital. The daily city maxima that were reported each evening were so consistently 2-4°C below what neighbours were reporting for our area that I spent a few hundred on a weather station to get an accurate idea (+/- 0.1°C) of what our temperatures were.

First: If you would photograph the site and post it at surfacestations.org, we would greatly appreciate it. (Check to see if it has not already been surveyed.

Second: How are your and your neighbors’ stations sited?

According to COOP standards, they must be at least 100′ from your residence or any paved surface (like a driveway), or any heat source (such as an AC, BBQ, pump, or parked car), should not be obscured by vegetation, and should not have shading to the south.

They must have the proper housing installed, of course (or you will get a serious warm bias at Tmax). And, of course anything mounted on the wall or roof of a house is not going to yield anywhere near proper results.
#64 Chris O'Neill
March 16, 2009

By their very nature, there appear to be more opportunities for warming bias than cooling.

Of course, we all know the warming biases ended in 1998.
#65 Evan Jones
March 16, 2009

BTW, before going to the trouble of photographing any site, please make sure it is a USHCN network site. These are listed in the gallery (check by state).

Anyone who wants can be part of this. We are especially interested in well sited stations, which is why I have been concentrating on rural surveys. (Not that a city site is necessarily poorly sited, but more of the better sites are rural.) So if you have a well sited USHCN station in your vicinity that has not been surveyed, we’d really, really like a survey done.
#66 Evan Jones
March 16, 2009

Of course, we all know the warming biases ended in 1998.
I expect you meant that ironically, but to some extent you may be right. Waste heat is a direct offset that will apply no matter what the prevailing trend.

But a heat sink is a whole ‘nother matter. Aside from the original (flexible) offset, a heat sink may well exaggerate a heating trend. But that presupposes that there is a heating trend for it to exaggerate. In fact, it would be equally likely to exaggerate a cooling trend, as the heat sink effect “undoes” itself on the way down. It seems likely that the cooling of the past two years may have been exaggerated in this manner.

Since 1998, there have been some ups and downs (El Nino ’98, followed by La Nina ’99-’00, followed by a mild “triple El Nino”, and then a severe La Nina beginning in ’07, now mostly spent). But temperatures have, on the whole, averaged rather flat.

So, yes, once you discount the direct offset (sic) of nearby exurbanization (etc.), the heat sink effect on trend (sic) may well have been a push since 1998, or even had a mild cooling effect.
#67 bi -- IJI
March 16, 2009

I said:

> Come on, Evan, why not embrace Holy Jesus’s Young Earth Creationism just this once? Yes, it’s full of lies, double standards, cries of persecution, bluffs, and sheer illogical garbage, it’s all for the greater good! Please consider their viewpoint!

By his own standards, Evan Jones should follow my advice.
#68 Gaz
March 16, 2009

Evan Jones #166: “But temperatures have, on the whole, averaged rather flat.”

Averaged rather flat? On the whole? What the heck is that supposed to mean?

No, don’t tell me. It’s a Law of Nature. Every time someone pops up here and starts bleating about some alleged “trend” in the past ten years what follows is bound to be drivel.

“..a heat sink may well exaggerate a heating trend..”

Someone shoot me.
#69 Eli Rabett
March 16, 2009

Once upon a time Eli looked at a bunch of photos, and to tell you the truth, Playbunny was more fun, but there were lots of sites that were close enough to tree lines and bushed that they were obviously going to be in the shadows part of the day, and obviously were in some of the photos. This, of course, does not even take into account those near enough significant transpiring veg that they would be cooled.

Now the whole thing misses the point that what is being measured is an anomaly, not a trend, so what counts is not whether a site is warmer or colder than neighboring sites, but whether the site has changed over the years in a way that would bias the trend, not the absolute temperature. Evan Jones is another idiot who needs to understand the concept, but would rather expose himself.
#70 dhogaza
March 16, 2009

Evan Jones sayeth:

Not on denialist sites.

Let’s give credit where credit is due. I find Evan Jones’ honesty refreshing, he admits he’s a denialist, not a skeptic.
#71 Former Skeptic
March 16, 2009

Evan Jones:

A quick question – among the many I have, but that will come in a later post. You mentioned “Parker is more recent, and that has been vehemently disputed by more recent studies.”
Are you referring to the Parker 2004 and 2006 papers? And which aspects of it are in dispute?
#72 sod
March 16, 2009

So, yes, once you discount the direct offset (sic) of nearby exurbanization (etc.), the heat sink effect on trend (sic) may well have been a push since 1998, or even had a mild cooling effect.

you don t start an analysis with an outlier. you simply, absolutely and always do NOT do that.

i read about a thousand denialist posts, looking at the last decade, when that decade included 1998.

i have read about ZERO denialist posts, looking at the “trend” over the last decade, simply because it is UPWARDS.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1999/plot/wti/from:1999/trend

cherrypicking is the main tool of denialist analysis.

I can only go by the actual words in the paper.

this is a serious problem. because you are using the stations for a different purpose.

assume that i am selling wood screws. i have a specification list of classes for their performance. now you use them for metal, but insist in using my specification, without fully understanding it. this is road to disaster!

I don’t think you understand how poorly funded the “deinialist” side is.

the denialist side is well funded. they don t have to bother with expensive real research. publishing nonsense on websites isn t expensive.
#73 dhogaza
March 16, 2009

the denialist side is well funded. they don t have to bother with expensive real research. publishing nonsense on websites isn t expensive.

And some of that “funding” comes in the form of donated services, such as Fox News giving people like Steven Milloy a bully pulpit with no equivalent being given to the reality-driven science side of the spectrum. Milloy and others appearing as “News Commentators” not only gives the denialist side cheap access to millions of homes, it also gives them faux credibility because, well, Fox would never lie, right?
#74 bi -- IJI
March 16, 2009

sod:

> the denialist side is well funded. they don t have to bother with expensive real research. publishing nonsense on websites isn’t expensive.

dhogaza:

> And some of that “funding” comes in the form of donated services,

Also, Marc Morano uses the taxpayer-funded server epw.senate.gov to spread his bollocks. (although he’s reportedly on his way out — thank goodness.)
#75 dhogaza
March 16, 2009

Yeah, Morano’s sort of a double whammy, using tax payer support to spread his lies, while his boss is kept in office by virtue of oil money.
#76 Evan Jones
March 16, 2009

sod: Whether or not it is an outlier remains to be seen. Bear in mind that several multidecadal oscillations went from cold to warm phase between 1976 and 2001. Now they are beginning to revert to cool phase. Also, solar cycle 24 is starting out very quiet. So we will have to observe.

Also, three of four metrics indicate mild cooling. GISS may possibly be the outlier here. One reason that it is reasonable to make the observation from 1998, despite the fact it was an El Nino is that it was followed immediately by a La Nina of lesser strength, but longer duration. So it seems reasonable to me that both phases must be “included IN” or both must be “included OUT”. So one must draw the line from either 1998 or from 2001 to get a non-jiggered trend.

Also, the heat sink effect may have exaggerated the warming prior to 1999, but it may also be exaggerating the current cooling trend as well.

The reason I don’t think the issue is settled is that climate in immensely complex. For example, as recently as 1998, ten years after the alarm was sounded, scientists were not even aware of multidecadal oscillations that affect El Nino/La Nina frequency.

Bear in mind, I do think there has been warming and I do think CO2 has a direct effect (quite apart from any feedback effects). But I do not think the case has been made that there is an imminent emergency that requires precipitous action.
#77 Evan Jones
March 16, 2009

they don t have to bother with expensive real research.

I think that is an unfair characterization. I have based my arguments exclusively on peer-reviewed papers and direct observations. I can’t say how expensive this was, but I am not relying on secondary media sources.
#78 Evan Jones
March 16, 2009

A quick question – among the many I have, but that will come in a later post. You mentioned “Parker is more recent, and that has been vehemently disputed by more recent studies.” Are you referring to the Parker 2004 and 2006 papers? And which aspects of it are in dispute?

Yes. What’s in dispute (in brief) is whether UHI is “gone with the wind” as Peterson asserts.

Pielke, Matsui (2005) and Pielke, et al (2007) dispute this, as does the LaDochy (December [sic!] 2007 paper on urbanization effect on California climate measurement from 1979 to 2001.

Note that I am not saying who will ultimately be proven correct (of if it’s a split), merely that there is dispute on the issue.

As it now stands, USHCN1 makes a mere -0.05C trend adjustment over the 20th century, while USHCN2 makes none at all.
#79 dhogaza
March 16, 2009

Also, three of four metrics indicate mild cooling.

Not with statistical significance. Which you know. Which is exactly the kind of crap that makes you a denialist, not a skeptic.
#80 dhogaza
March 16, 2009

Note that I am not saying who will ultimately be proven correct (of if it’s a split), merely that there is dispute on the issue.

Yeah, and there’s an active flat earth society, too. Big deal. I pay no attention to what they say, and I pay no attention to what denialists like Pielke say.
#81 Former Skeptic
March 16, 2009

Evan Jones:

What’s in dispute (in brief) is whether UHI is “gone with the wind” as Peterson asserts.

This is not in dispute given the vast empirical evidence from canopy-layer UHI studies. UHI intensities do decrease with increasing wind-speeds (e.g. see Souch and Grimmond 2006 Progress in Physical Geography for a review on p. 271). Peterson and Parker are both correct in this assertion.

OTOH, I’ve read Pielke’s papers and I have very grave misgivings about his analysis. His group does not appear to account for the influence of the urban canopy layer (re: Oke 1987, Boundary Layer Climates). The point is that the assumptions of Monin-Obukhov ST simply do not apply within the canopy layer, so his application of that to model heat content in the boundary layer is, well, moot.

The ’05 paper’s key conclusion IMO is that “…trends in temperature should be expected to be different at every height near the surface when the winds are light, as well as different between light wind and stronger wind nights.” I think P & M do not consider the correct scale; the surface layer as they define it is too large scale-wise when examining the near surface UHI, and one has to consider the influence of the urban canopy on lapse rates.

I also find it most peculiar that Pielke and Matsui did not reference a seminal study in urban climatology by Nakamura and Oke (1988, Atmospheric Environment) where they obtained temperature and wind data within an urban canyon that showed that in calm conditions, air temps from surface to roof height varied less than 1K for areas >0.5 m from wall and road surfaces – i.e the lapse rate is almost neutral, in contrast to what P&M assert.

Note that I am not saying who will ultimately be proven correct (of if it’s a split), merely that there is dispute on the issue.

Yes there is dispute, but I would not think that what RPSr. says makes much sense at all, given the empirical evidence on UHIs decreasing with increasing wind-speeds and his lack of understanding of urban climates. C’mon – only a single throwaway reference to Tim Oke’s work in his 3 UHI-related papers?! That’s very, very bad form.
#82 Lee
March 16, 2009

This is why Watts is a dishonest twit.

When JohnV’s preliminary analysis showed that siting made no difference, and apparently was adequately corrected in the surface analyses, Watts declared that there would be no more analyses until an adequate number of stations were covered. He later set that barrier at 75% – which has now been reached. And during the lengthy interval, he did not do any such analysis.

However, he continued to make claims. He made post after post after post after post about ‘badly sited’ stations. His readers have proclaimed widely that Watts work has discredited the surface analyses. Such claims have been made in the comments on Watts own blog, where they must first be approved by Watts. He sometimes disavows those claims – but then he feeds them byposing another bad site post, and approving another batch of garbage comments on his blog.

What he is doing is taking raw ‘data,’ and presenting it in a way to encourage certain conclusions, and allowing people to post on his blog that conclusions have been reached – WITHOUT ALLOWING ANALYSES TO SEE IF THOSE IMPLIED CONCLUSIONS ARE VALID.

This is fundamentally unscientific and dishonest.

It’s worse, even, than trying to hide the fact that he has failed his promises to revisit issues he was called on, by banning the person (me) who several months later asked politely when he was going to do so, and then going back and removing every post I had ever made, all of which he had previously approved.

He is simply not to be trusted.
#83 Evan Jones
March 17, 2009

Lee: The siting is improper because both of NOAA’s stiting specs say it’s improper. QED. What effect this has is being examined.

And what is this “not allow” thing? You want to do an analysis? Go to the gallery. Knock yourself out. Who’s gonna stop you?

The pictures are there and so are the survey reports. In the case of virtual surveys with only the measurement view, those are a WIP and have the pertinent information for analysis printed on the maps in any event. There are a few with insufficient info (not counted in the 75% total).

It’s only unscientific if you make claims based on data and methods that you won’t release until subpoenaed by congress, or threatened with an FoA lawsuit, hem-hem. (But maybe we’d better not go there.)

At any rate, the data is there. Watts makes no claim about trend (the effect on offset is well established).

I do understand that you are mad at him. My guess is that perhaps you made him a little mad, too, as he accorded you a singular honor, so far as I know. Perhaps “politeness” is in the eye of the beholder? #B^1

Former Skeptic: You make a good, rational, non-pejorative argument.

As I said, I don’t know who is right about UHI. I have looked at attacks on and defenses of both POVs and my mind isn’t yet made up. I would not argue that wind has no effect on UHI.

But the LaDochy paper shows both offset and trend to be significantly greater in cities. And that is an empirical study that disputes Peterson’s conclusions.

If you ask me, the effect on trend is probably more than 0.05C/century (The NOAA/USHCN-1 20th century adjustment), but that is only my guess.

I also read something about a Chinese station being relocated from upwind to downwind of a city (both rural settings)and showing significantly warmer results. But since there was no mention of microsite conditions I did not pay much attention to it at the time (and did not snag the link). I may come back to it later.

But what is equally important as simple effect is to what extent cities have grown around station sites, where station have been moved, and the effect this has on the trend and the ability to measure trend.

But bear in mind that all I said was that there was an ongoing dispute.

It’s all so new, former skeptic. Climatology is immensely complex and until the global warming issue happened by, it was considered a “non-sexy” science with relatively low enrollment. I don’t think you could even get a degree in climatology, as such, two decades ago. But now, it’s a hot topic and enrollment has skyrocketed (I’ve read that it’s 10X what it was a decade ago). So has study of the issue by both CO2-AGW advocates and skeptics, alike.

That means there is a lot of stuff, all contradictory, coming pouring out. But it’s such a complex system with so many uncertainties and plain old unknowns, I don’t think we have an answer yet. But it sure makes folks on both sides get very irrational, very quickly.

Aside from the data issues, what I think it comes down to more than anything, really, is whether the IPCC conclusions about CO2 positive feedback loops are correct. And there appear to be negative feedbacks not properly included in the IPCC AR4 calculations.

But that is all very speculative.

Station surveys I understand. If you include virtual surveys (which include a definitive satellite or birdseye spotting or curator interview for placement on satellite maps, or both), I may have made more of them than anyone else in the world, now that I think of it. 200, at last count.
#84 Chris O'Neill
March 17, 2009

Evan Jones:

Aside from the data issues, what I think it comes down to more than anything, really, is whether the IPCC conclusions about CO2 positive feedback loops are correct. And there appear to be negative feedbacks not properly included in the IPCC AR4 calculations.

Of course, for things like cloud feedback, the uncertainty is quite high and it could actually be negative. Because it is uncertain, the wise thing to do is to just assume that it is as negative as it could possibly be, much like the people at the casino who assume the numbers are always going to come up in their favor. That strategy works well for them and it will work well for us too.
#85 Evan Jones
March 17, 2009

Averaged rather flat? On the whole? What the heck is that supposed to mean?

That means that if you take the four major metrics (UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS) and average their trends from 1998 – 2008, the linear trend is about as flat as it gets.

“..a heat sink may well exaggerate a heating trend..”

Someone shoot me.

Hmmm. I think I shall torture you, instead.

A heat sink absorbs and reflects heat during the day, then at night it releases it. This shows up at both Tmax and Tmin. If you want to heat a greehnhouse and you want to be carbon-neutral about it, all you gotta do is place a (very big) rock in it, exposed to the sun. This spikes Tmax very nicely, and knocks the edge right off of Tmin.

In the Yilmaz experiment, we clearly see a steeper daily warming trend over concrete than over grass. Then, as it cools into nightfall, the downward trend is steeper.

Therefore, a warming trend is exaggerated by a heat sink, and a cooling trend is also exaggerated by a heat sink.
#86 Evan Jones
March 17, 2009

Of course, for things like cloud feedback, the uncertainty is quite high and it could actually be negative. Because it is uncertain, the wise thing to do is to just assume that it is as negative as it could possibly be, much like the people at the casino who assume the numbers are always going to come up in their favor. That strategy works well for them and it will work well for us too.

Cloud cover does seem to be the big question. The IPCC says we will see increasing humidity in the middle/upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, with increased high-level cloud cover.

But the AquaSat indicates that we instead have a significant increase in low-level clouds (which increases albedo)and a dessication of the middle/upper trop and lower strat, and no increase whatever of heat-trapping high-level clouds. This may have had a homeostasis effect over the last decade.

Pascal’s Wager works fine for seatbelts. Buckle up even though you don’t believe you are going to crash.

But I don’t think it applies here. Pascal’s Wager supposes that the cost of prevention is nothing, or near nothing. it also presupposes that what is being done will actually work if the danger is real. AGW-CO2 policy would seem to fall short of both these requirements.

Besides, why single out CO2? Why not also assume the worst for, say, particulates, population growth, plus every other environmental or demograpic factor? Why not call the cops and hospital every time you went out just in case you got robbed or hit by a car? Or contacted some dread disease? Or whatever? Should we triple the defense budget because we must “assume the worst” about being invaded? (Better be “safe” and quintuple it–we may have to fight a 7-ocean war.) Because if we did all that, we would be swamped with insurmountable “problems” requiring more wealth to “solve” than there is wealth on earth.

To say nothing of unintended consequences. (Ethanol springs to mind.)

But this is getting away from nice clean data integrity issues and into all those yucky policy issues . . .

So Pascal won’t do. What we need is a cost-benefit analysis with a continual inflow of data and information as it becomes available.
#87 Jeff Harvey
March 17, 2009

“But I do not think the case has been made that there is an imminent emergency that requires precipitous action”.

In other words, Evan, you are saying that humanity should continue experimenting with the atmosphere, as well as with terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems whose functioning we barely understand. Procrastinate. Procrastinate. Wait until ‘all the data are in’. Yup, that sure is sound strategy for managing the global commons. Forgetting, of course, that these systems permit human to exist and persist by generating a range of vital services.

I am afraid that your caution will just see us push ourselves further and further down the self-created bottleneck we are already in. In case you hadn’t noticed, every natural system across the biosphere is in decline; some rapidly, some more slowly. Climate change will probably be the final nail in the coffin. Estimates are that we have lost 30-40% of critical ecosystem services since about 1970.

Speaking as a senior scientist, your arguments are totally and utterly illogical with respect to policy. Science does not operate by consensus and never will. If you have the academic qualifications your purport to have, then you should understand this. There never will be 100% consensus on any environmental issue, not matter how much data are in. There will always be outliers. But public policy must be based on consensus. Otherwise nothing will ever change. There is certainly a strong enough consensus amongst the scientific community, and. most importantly, those doing the actual research on climate, to start making changes in ongoing policies. Yes there are some uncertainties, but if we continue to procrastinate as you are suggesting, then by the time the data are all in then it will be way, way, too late to do anything. Humanity already faces massive challenges just to ensure that our species will survive for the next 200 years, given the declining health of the biosphere. I think it is wholly irresponsible for those to argue that we must ‘stay the course’. That course is a cliff. The quotes Tim Lambert mined from the lectures presented at the Heartland denialist pseudoscience bash are a disgrace and should disqualify these people from being taken seriously. But, given the fact that our political systems are largely beholden to commercial elites who think only about the next fiscal quarter (or perhaps 2 years ahead at the very most), these people will always be given veritable megaphones to spread their contrarian nonsense. It is up to the scientific community to counter them.
#88 Chris O'Neill
March 17, 2009

This may have had a homeostasis effect over the last decade.

Assume away, Evan. It works well for the people at the casino. There is very little likelihood that cloud feedback is negative overall and the probability decreases rapidly the more negative you assume it to be. You’re not getting the point. The carbon emission choice is the high uncertainty, high risk choice with an average expectation that is quite undesirable.

Pascal’s Wager works fine for seatbelts. Buckle up even though you don’t believe you are going to crash.

What? You have obviously been misled but the expectation is that the earth is going to warm damagingly with continuing carbon emissions. i.e. we believe we are going to crash. Pascal’s wager is not particularly accurate in these circumstances because the risk is substantial.

it also presupposes that what is being done will actually work if the danger is real.

This is the bizarre idea that not generating carbon emissions might actually cause the same warming as generating carbon emissions. I never cease to be amazed by the bizarre ideas that some people come up with.

Besides, why single out CO2?

No-one is singling out CO2. Please spare us the strawmen.

What we need is a cost-benefit analysis

This has been done.

with a continual inflow of data and information as it becomes available.

Obviously you forgot to mention a continual output of action.
#89 dhogaza
March 17, 2009

Can we all just conclude that Evan Jones. like Anthony Watts, is an uneducated idiot and just ignore him?

He’s not interested in learning, there’s really no point. He’s making the same argument he made in the past on other blogs. Anyone who more or less worships Watts as being some sort of climate science guru as Evan does isn’t really worth your time.
#90 Lee
March 17, 2009

Evan,

I’m not mad at Anthony. Amused and somewhat disgusted that anyone takes him seriously. The honor Anthony accorded me is far from singular. I am far from the only person banned from WattSoup.

You might try to ask him when he plans to either retract or follow up on the following, as he said he would do. That’s what I did, asked when he was planning to do this, and it got me scrubbed from his site, all past posts included.
—————–
“UPDATE: We have had about half a dozen people replicate from HadCRUT data the signal shown in figure 4 using FFT and traditional filters, and we thank everyone for doing that. We are currently working on a new approach to the correlations shown in figure 5, which can yield different results using alternate statistical methods. A central issue is how to correctly identify the peak of the solar cycle, and we are looking at that more closely. As it stands now, while the Hodrick-Prescott filtering works well and those results in figures 2,3, and 4 have been replicated by others, but the correlation shown in figure 5 is in question when a Rayleigh method is applied, and thus figure 5 is likely incorrect since it does not hold up under that and other statistical tests. There is also an error in the data point for cycle 11. I thank Tamino for pointing these issues out to us.

We are continuing to look at different methods of demonstrating a correlation. Please watch for future posts on the subject.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/30/evidence-of-a-significant-solar-imprint-in-annual-globally-averaged-temperature-trends-part-2/
—–
and this:

“UPDATE1: I’ve decided to make this a 3 part series, as additional interest has been generated by commenters in looking at the data in more ways. Stay tuned for parts 2 and 3 and we’ll examine this is more detail.

UPDATE2: I had mentioned that I’d be looking at this in more detail in parts 2, and 3. However it appears many have missed seeing that portion of the original post and are saying that I’ve done an incomplete job of presenting all the information. I would agree for part1, but that is what parts 2 and 3 were to be about.

Since I’m currently unable to spend more time to put parts 2 and 3 together due to travel and other obligations, I’m putting the post back on the shelf (archived) to revisit again later when I can do more work on it, including show plots for adjusted base periods.

The post will be restored then along with the next part so that people have the benefit of seeing plots and histograms done on both ways. In part 3 I’ll summarize 1 and 2.

In the meantime, poster Basil has done some work on this of interest which you can see here.

UPDATE3: Part 2 is now online, please see it here.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/28/a-look-at-4-globaltemperature-anomalies/

BTW, part 2 has been taken down.
#91 Former Skeptic
March 17, 2009

Evan Jones:

Take it from someone who has done published UHI research – Pielke et al are categorically wrong about canopy-layer UHI and wind-speeds. Several of us have the opinion that if RPSr. attempted to publish his 2005 paper in a specialized journal e.g Boundary-Layer Meteorology, he would have been soundly rejected.

As I said, I don’t know who is right about UHI. I have looked at attacks on and defenses of both POVs and my mind isn’t yet made up. I would not argue that wind has no effect on UHI.

Then why argue from ignorance? If you really do want to learn and find the answer on wind and UHI, read Oke’s 1987 textbook and his chapter on urban environments, or the Souch and Grimmond (2006) article above, or the Mills (2009) article in Progress in Physical Geography as well. And look, you can’t say “it’s all speculative” and then throw in an opinion without attempting to understand the theory and published research beforehand, yeah?

But the LaDochy paper shows both offset and trend to be significantly greater in cities. And that is an empirical study that disputes Peterson’s conclusions.

I know Steve’s work pretty well, as a matter of fact. We bump into each other in conferences on a regular basis. Which LaDochy paper are you referring to? The 2007 Climate Research one? There’s nothing in there that says anything about UHI and wind-speed…unless you are now shifting to talk about Peterson’s (2003) paper? Similarly, I don’t think Steve’s paper explicitly “disputes” the previous conclusion; rather, they measure different things altogether (i.e. unadjusted vs. adjusted temperature time-series for one thing), yes?

I also read something about a Chinese station being relocated from upwind to downwind of a city (both rural settings)and showing significantly warmer results. But since there was no mention of microsite conditions I did not pay much attention to it at the time (and did not snag the link). I may come back to it later.

Please let me know the reference, if you don’t mind – I’m pretty keen to see what the paper actually mentions.

But what is equally important as simple effect is to what extent cities have grown around station sites, where station have been moved, and the effect this has on the trend and the ability to measure trend.

True, but as per the IPCC AR4, it appears that Parker’s 2006 paper is the final word on urban siting & trends for now, unless someone else has a radically better suggestion that makes sense.

Station surveys I understand. If you include virtual surveys (which include a definitive satellite or birdseye spotting or curator interview for placement on satellite maps, or both), I may have made more of them than anyone else in the world, now that I think of it. 200, at last count.

That’s pretty impressive actually. There is a need for these metadata that would help urban climate research. But how that data are used and interpreted is another thing altogether, no?

Another quick question – have you (or anyone at surfacestations.org) attempted estimating the source area of temperature sensors (either the old-fashioned ones in CRSs or the newer instruments) located in urban areas that are either sheltered or un-sheltered?
#92 Barton Paul Levenson
March 17, 2009

Evan:

There is no recent cooling trend:

http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Ball.html

http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Reber.html
#93 Barton Paul Levenson
March 17, 2009

Evan Jones writes:

if you take the four major metrics (UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS) and average their trends from 1998 – 2008, the linear trend is about as flat as it gets.

Please read this carefully: “Climate is defined as mean regional or global weather over a period of 30 years or more.” (World Meteorological Organization)

And then read my pages:

http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Ball.html

http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Reber.html
#94 dhogaza
March 17, 2009

Bart, the denialist Gold Standard is now 11 years, rather than 10. They believe the world was created 11 years ago – in 1998.
#95 Evan Jones
March 17, 2009

PBL: Sorry, but ten years is all we have since 1998.

I think it makes more sense to look at oscillations from low point to high point, and vice versa.

Therfore I have no problem with examining the warming phase from 1979 – 1998 in isolation, even though it is less than 30 years. I think that it makes more sense to do so, regardless of the “30-years-equals-a-trend” rule.

After all, Dr. Hansen had no problem with judging the future based on a trend from 1979 to 1988, and, for that matter, neither do I.

If you want to look at the last 30 year, we see a rise for the first 20 years, and a flat-to-slight-decline thereafter. This coincides with a half-dozen multidecadal trends going from cold to warm over the first 20, remaining in warm phase for 10 years, and now, as the PDO switches to cool phase (with other cycles possibly to follow). I am also perfectly willing to consider that CO2 has an underlying effect, the magnitude being uncertain owing to of uncertainties regarding positive vs. negative feedback).

We have wheels within wheels, here. Not all the wheels are well understood (or even discovered, as of yet). Consider that when Dr. Hansen sounded the alarm, the multidecadal ceanic-atmospheric cycles not only had not been discovered, but would not be discovered for a decade after that.

BTW, for clarification, I consider myself a “lukewarmer”. I believe there has been warming (though part of it may be an artifact of poor siting and poor adjustment). I do “deny”, or at least consider it very unlikely, that there is an imminent emergency requiring the expenditure of over a third of world economic growth on an ongoing basis.
#96 Ian Forrester
March 17, 2009

Evan Jones, people like you who insist on starting with 1998 are cherry pickers. That is completely junk science so you are a denier not a skeptic and not a “lukewarmer” but a dyed in the wool denier.

Go and learn some statistics and basic data handling.
#97 Evan Jones
March 17, 2009

Former Skeptic: I have to take it from both sides. My conclusion is that more study is required, to wit:

I am sure you have seen geographic graphs running over urban areas that show temperatures lower as they approach a UHI bubble, rise ‘way up as they go over it, then decline once they are past it. What i think is that this has to be done on a year-round basis on a city (or cities) that are windy vs. cities that are not, and on a year-round basis and taking prevailing wind direction into account.

Please let me know the reference, if you don’t mind – I’m pretty keen to see what the paper actually mentions.

Unfortunately I don’t have it. As best as I can recall, it came out of the flap that occurred around a year ago when the Chinese network was declared a-okay, but then it turned out it wasn’t. (You may recall the incident.)

But how that data are used and interpreted is another thing altogether, no?

Gosh, yes.

I also think the NOAA and Hadley adjustment methods should be made available for independent review so that the results can be examined and replicated. At least the USHCN-1 methods were broken down into their components. The USHCN-2 page has a lot of verbiage, but no breakdown, and the adjustment is a third higher than USHCN-1.

If I am not mistaken, USHCN-1 claims a 0.6C increase and USHCN-2 claims a 0.72C warming trend over the 20th century. That is a significant difference and I would like to now how that comes about.

Another quick question – have you (or anyone at surfacestations.org) attempted estimating the source area of temperature sensors (either the old-fashioned ones in CRSs or the newer instruments) located in urban areas that are either sheltered or un-sheltered?

We do have the “lights = ” and the “U/50″ versions from NOAA and GISS. We also have the dates when the stations were converted from CRS to MMTS. (That’s on a table somewhere on surfacestations.org, but I’m not sure where, as I work directly off a spreadsheet copy.)

Often, even usually, a CRS/MMTS involves a local station move, and based on my interviews with curators vs. MMS records, these moves are often not documented. This, of course, makes analysis somewhat difficult. Sometimes the conversion occurs when the curators are changed (“ingested” and “reactivated” in their quaint idiom).

But often, as at Stroudsburg, NOAA makes the conversion without a change of curators: No mention whatever is made of the localized site change either in the “updates” or the “Location” section of the NCDC/MMS database.
#98 dhogaza
March 17, 2009

Sorry, but ten years is all we have since 1998.

2008-1998 is eleven years.

I think it makes more sense to look at oscillations from low point to high point, and vice versa.

This is the very *definition* of cherry-picking.
#99 Evan Jones
March 17, 2009

Evan Jones, people like you who insist on starting with 1998 are cherry pickers. That is completely junk science so you are a denier not a skeptic and not a “lukewarmer” but a dyed in the wool denier.

I do not insist. I merely suggest that trends, regardless of length, be judged from low point to high, and from high point to low. As for labels, I am not afraid of words. I am the sum total of my arguments, whatever that is. Pick your terminology.

Go and learn some statistics and basic data handling.

. . . said Wegman to Mann . . .

(Not so well received by the latter.)
#100 Evan Jones
March 17, 2009

Which LaDochy paper are you referring to? The 2007 Climate Research one? There’s nothing in there that says anything about UHI and wind-speed

The December one. Recent California climate variability: spatial and temporal patterns in temperature trends (not the one sod cited). It doesn’t measure cause, but effect. He notes that urban areas have a significantly steeper trend (at Tmax and esp. at Tmin) when comparing urban vs. rural stations.

He does not appear to consider wind, per se, or microsite effects either, for that matter. He just looks at the data itself as compared with varying mesosite.