The latest story exciting the denialosphere is being put about by novelist James Delingpole and is based on an analysis (translated here) by a right-wing Russian think tank. Delingpole quotes from a news story:

On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

Delingpole adds:

What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.

The problem here is the IEA report does not support the claims made in the news story. I’ve reproduced the final graph from the report below. The red curve is the temperature trend using the 121 Russian stations that CRU has released data for, while the blue hockey stick is from a larger set of 476 stations. I’ve put them on top of the CRU temperatures for northern extratropics. The red and blue curves agree very well in the period after 1950, thus confirming the CRU temperatures. Well done, IEA!

i-7151784fb35ffa013f2706b6a1319379-crutem3+russia.png

The red and blue curves do diverge in the 19th century, but the one that provides more support for anthropogenic global warming is the blue hockey stick. The red curve shows warming in the 19th century before there were significant CO2 emissions, so it weakens the case that global warming is man-made. If CRU (not HAdley as claimed in the Russian news story) have “tampered” with the data, it would seem that they must have been trying to make a case against AGW.

The IEA analysis is, in any case, misguided. CRU has not released all the station data they use, so the red curve is not the CRU temperature trend for Russia at all. If you want that, all you have to do is download the gridded data and average all the grid cells in Russia. You have to wonder why the IEA did not do this.

Since Russia is a pretty fair chunk of the land north of 30 degrees north, the CRU graph above is a rough approximation of the what the CRUTEM3 trends for Russia is, and you can see that it looks like the blue curve and not the red one.

Steve McIntyre will no doubt be demanding the IEA’s data and code for their study. No doubt.

Comments

  1. #1 dhogaza
    January 1, 2010

    Is it true that CRU is still using FORTRAN? Must be a bunch of amateurs.

    Yes, they are, as do those writing most scientific and engineering models.

    Here’s a hint: don’t fly.

  2. #2 P. Lewis
    January 1, 2010

    A = {Hugh Janus}

    B = {D-K deficient, denier, septic, denidiot, denialosaur, …}

    C = {Heidi D. Cline, …}

    A ⊃ B

    C ∈ B

    ⇒ B ∈ A

  3. #3 truth
    January 2, 2010

    There is no travesty.

    There is [global cooling until 2030](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52), according to the data.

    Who is the denier???

  4. #4 Bernard J.
    January 2, 2010

    Whose [sockpuppet](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2177022) is repeating Girma Orssengo’s “remove-the-warming-trend-so-that-there-is-no-visible-warming” nonsense?

    Does this ninny even understand why his/her mishandling of the data is so egregious?!

  5. #5 TrueSceptic
    January 2, 2010

    303 truth,

    There is global cooling until 2030?

    Can borrow your time machine? I’d like to win a few lotteries (I’m not greedy: a few will do).

  6. #6 cohenite
    January 2, 2010

    BJ, why don’t you take a new year’s vow to be less pompous and condescending; detrending has its uses as this paper demonstrates;

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1986583/

    Note the conclusion:

    “Finally, it is noted that the global temperature anomalies with respect to the sum of the overall EMD trend and the multidecadal variability appear to be quite stationary in the whole data span, indicating that the higher frequency part of the record in recent years is not more variable than that in the 1800s. The extreme temperature records in the 1990s stand out mainly because the general global warming trend over the whole data length coincides with the warming phase of the 65-year cycle.”

    Sounds like what McLean, de Freitas and Carter were on about; which David Stockwell extrapolated from;

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.1828v1.pdf

  7. #7 P. Lewis
    January 2, 2010

    Oh grrr!

    I got the $%&*! last line wrong.

    Should have been ⇒ C ∈ A (or C = A).

    Moral (one anyway): use preview.

  8. #8 Michael Ralston
    January 2, 2010

    Cohenite: Removing the trend so you can analyze cylical variations independant of the trend is legitimate and sane – that is what was done in the paper you cite. They say that climate variation has not increased. That is useful to know!

    Removing the trend so that you can claim there is no tred is … uhh … crazy.

  9. #9 jakerman
    January 3, 2010

    Detreding has its uses, but Dr O’s method is the poorest method to fit a trend that has accelerated over the period.

    >*In [Fig. 3](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1986583/figure/F3/), a comparison among the different fittings also is illustrated. The linear trend is no doubt the poorest one, the intrinsically determined overall adaptive trend is a major improvement over the linear fitting, and the multidecadal trend catches essentially the meaningful variability and change associated with the annual GSTA, showing even greater improvement.*

    If you use a linear trend greater variability is seen over decades (with a major divergence in the last 2 decades). Only by using an accelerating trend in an overall adaptive trend can the variablity be maitained relatively consistent. That is on point were McLean, de Freitas and Carter nor Stockwell differed from Zhaohua et al.

  10. #10 cohenite
    January 3, 2010

    No, the EMD analysis of Wu et al does not distinguish an oscillation or stationary factor and an asymmetrical component of the stationary factor from the non-stationary trend over the data period [the adaptive trend]. A linear trend is even worse in that it does not distinguish the variation from the trend let alone any asymmetry in variation.

  11. #11 jakerman
    January 3, 2010

    Cohnite writes:

    >*No, the EMD analysis of Wu et al does not distinguish an oscillation or stationary factor and an asymmetrical component of the stationary factor from the non-stationary trend over the data period [the adaptive trend].*

    Now would you like to respond to my statement rather than your strawman?

    The variance is stable because they found an [appropriate trend](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1986583/figure/F3/) (adaptive trend, with accelerating warming over the period). That’s the appropriate trend (adaptive trend with accelerating warming over 150 years) that neither McLean, de Freitas and Carter nor Stockwell are on about.

  12. #12 cohenite
    January 3, 2010
  13. #13 jakerman
    January 3, 2010

    >*Asymmetry in stationary factors is not a strawman*

    ENSO effect on temperature are either part of the consistant variance or captured in the adaptive temperature trend, with along with muti-decadal trends.

    Thus in the context of you saying:

    >*”No, the EMD analysis of Wu et al does not distinguish an oscillation or stationary factor and an asymmetrical component of the stationary factor…*

    ..this is a strawman if you are trying to use it as evidence against the accelerating warming over the period.

    [This analysis](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1986583/) is smack down for “W” theory (employed by a bunch of denialist hacks) and it shows the relative size of muti-decadal oscillation compared to the underlying [adaptive trend](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1986583/figure/F3/).

    This paper is also a smack-down for those projecting 40 years of temperature plato, like you Anthony. (40 years is from memory without checking your draft paper).

  14. #14 cohenite
    January 3, 2010

    The linear trend is 0.5K per century; the adaptive trend shows a current trend of ~0.8K per century; the paper has one proviso to that; that trend was exceeded by the multidecadal trend in the 1860s, 1930s and 1980s, all +ve PDO periods; my proviso is that the adaptive trend, as calculated by Wu et al DOES NOT distinguish between a trend component based on accumulative stationary asymmetry and a non-stationary trend; this problem of the difficulty of distinguishing between a stationary asymmetry trend factor and a non-stationary trend is discussed in the Stockwell paper linked to earlier.

  15. #15 WhatIsTheOptimalTemperatureOfThePlanet
    January 3, 2010

    What is the optimal temperature of the planet?

  16. #16 Bernard J.
    January 3, 2010

    What is the optimal temperature of the planet

    How long is a piece of string?

  17. #17 jakerman
    January 3, 2010

    The paper [distinguishes between](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1986583/figure/F2/) the overall warming trend (C6) and the multi-decadal ocillation (C5).

    cohnite writes:
    >*the paper has one proviso to that; that trend was exceeded by the multidecadal trend in the 1860s, 1930s and 1980s*

    Hardly a “proviso”. That total warming is fastest when both are working in the [same direction](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1986583/figure/F3/) (when C5 is positive) is logical. But with only two down dips it is not clear that this is a regular cycle. It is hypothesized that the 1910s dip was contributed to by volcanic aerosols, and the 1950s from industrial aerosols. The contribution of ocean cycles in the C5 oscillation is not yet well established.

    >*The time scale [of C5] certainly is not a constant, but it varies from 50 to 80 years and has a mean value slightly higher than 65 years [...] Judging from the statistical significance test, we decided not to pursue the trend to any finer scale, because the IMF with a time scale <65 years may not significantly differ from white noise*

    I’ll be more convinced by the reliability of the C5 contribution (amplitude of 0.2 deg C cycle length 60 years) if temperature is held flat over the next decade (trend currently in the order of 0.8 C/century or 1.5 C/centry if the C5 component is an artifact of noise and anomalous aerosols).

  18. #18 WhatIsTheOptimalTemperatureOfThePlanet
    January 3, 2010

    How do you explain the Medieval Warming Period?

  19. #19 Bernard J.
    January 3, 2010

    How do you explain the Medieval Warming Period?

    How long is a piece of string?

  20. #20 jakerman
    January 3, 2010

    >*What is the optimal temperature of the planet?*

    What climate did human’s exploit to establish 6.7 billion in population? In what climate did agriculture develop? In what climate did we build most of of our cities and infrastructure on the coast?

    In terms of humans, for current infrastructure, and current population this climate is optimal. But large reptiles would likely prosper if we handed them back another Greenhouse planet.

    >*How do you explain the Medieval Warming Period?*

    A [warm period](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Was-there-a-Medieval-Warm-Period.html) in various regions (not always synchronous) any where from 900 to 1250 AD. Believed to be the result of an unusually long period with low volcanic activity resulting in lower planetary albedo.

  21. #21 WhatIsTheOptimalTemperatureOfThePlanet
    January 3, 2010

    Why can’t warm-mongers answer simple questions?

  22. #22 WhatIsTheOptimalTemperatureOfThePlanet
    January 3, 2010

    I thought it was because of those European SUVs that were so popular in the Middle Ages.

  23. #23 jakerman
    January 3, 2010

    >*Why can’t warm-mongers answer simple questions?*

    They get jaded and cynical of trolling.

    >*I thought it was because of those European SUVs that were so popular in the Middle Ages.*

    No you’ve be immersed in too much denialist clap trap. In the mean time scientist have be studying the data.

  24. #24 cohenite
    January 3, 2010

    Well, BJ is tying himself in knots as usual; areosols, either from volcanic sources or from industry, are problematic in explaining the dips in temperature which ended in 1910 and 1976; the volcanic areosol OD shows higher than average OD after 1910 and after 1980 when warming was occuring;

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-2-18.html

    Human emissions continued at high levels after 1976 when warming began;

    http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14537.pdf

    However, PDO phase shift is a better fit;

    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/18/pdo.gif

    In the Wu et al paper at C5 [Fig 2] it is plain that the 65 year cycle is not even between its troughs and peaks; I don’t know why the concept of asymmetry in the natural cycle is so hard to accept.

  25. #25 jakerman
    January 4, 2010

    >*areosols, either from volcanic sources or from industry, are problematic in explaining the dips in temperature which ended in 1910 and 1976; the volcanic areosol OD shows higher than average OD after 1910 and after 1980 when warming was occuring*

    looking at [the temperature](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1986583/figure/F3/), the temperature dip bottoming at approx 1910 is entirely consistent with the stratospheric OD peak of 1905 from the [volcanic contribution](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-2-18.html).

    Warming continued though the 70s-90s eruptions because of the higher forcing from 1) increasing GHGs and 2) halting the growth of [tropospheric aerosols](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/trop.aer/).

  26. #26 jakerman
    January 4, 2010

    cohenite,

    Compare [this chart](hhttp://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:180/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:180/trend/plot/uah/mean:180/plot/uah), with [your chart](http://www.climate-skeptic.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/18/pdo.gif). The purple line is the mean for UAH, the green the mean for HadCRUT.

    Then consider that HadCRUT and UAH are measuring different things. And then explain what is going on!

  27. #27 cohenite
    January 4, 2010

    Your link doesn’t work; since 1998 all temperature indices except GISS have shown flat or declining temperature while CO2 is increasing;

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/offset:-347/scale:0.008/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

    Volcanic OD is low but anthropogenic aerosol emissions are still high but the rate of increase is negligible; where is the 0.8K or 1.5K per century trend?

  28. #28 jakerman
    January 4, 2010

    Hopefully fixed,
    Compare [this chart](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:180/plot/uah/plot/uah/mean:180), with [your chart](http://www.climate-skeptic.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/18/pdo.gif). The purple line is the mean for UAH, the green the mean for HadCRUT.

    Then consider that HadCRUT and UAH are measuring different things. And then explain what is going on!

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:180/plot/uah/plot/uah/mean:180

  29. #29 jakerman
    January 4, 2010

    >*since 1998 all temperature indices except GISS have shown flat or declining temperature while CO2 is increasing*

    1) GISS measure Arctic Warming, others do not. 2) it takes [longer than 12 years](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/) of data to separate the noise from the signal. CO2 forcing is small over short time periods, but unlike cyclic forcing, CO2 forcing accumulates and dominates the noise, variability, and cycles over 20-30 year periods.

    >*where is the 0.8K or 1.5K per century trend?*

    See either [figure 7](http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html), or [this chart](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:180/plot/uah/last:180/trend/plot/uah/mean:180/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:180/trend).

  30. #30 llewelly
    January 4, 2010

    cohenite | January 4, 2010 2:11 AM:

    Your link doesn’t work; since 1998 all temperature indices except GISS have shown flat or declining temperature while CO2 is increasing;

    Funny how if I start your graph 1 year earlier, none trend down. And if I start the graph 1 year later, they all trend up. For further fun, try starting in 1996 or 1995.

    Now here’s a challenge for the reader: You’re allowed to start the graph with any year between 1900 and 2000 (inclusive). Can you find any starting year other than 1998 which results in any one of the 5 trends being downward? You’ve got an entire century worth of starting points to cherry pick from. Should be pretty easy, right?

  31. #31 llewelly
    January 4, 2010

    Why can’t warm-mongers answer simple questions?

    Your questions have been answered hundreds of times on dozens of blogs. You pretend otherwise because you are dishonest.

  32. #32 cohenite
    January 4, 2010

    332; lubos has an interesting take on 1995;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/26/no-statistically-significant-warming-since-1995-a-quick-mathematical-proof/#comment-273759

    1998 is not cherry-picking; a phase shift in PDO contemperanous with major oceanographic events occurred then. Anyway I’m not saying temperature didn’t go up during the 20thC just disagreeing with what caused it.

    As to GISS and UAH and indeed the ground vs satellites generally; they show similarity on a smoothed basis without adjustment for their different base periods;

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12

    But reduced to a linear trend that base period difference produces this;

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/offset:-347/scale:0.008/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

    The point llewelly misses is not only the trend outlier of GISS but the difference between the temperatures of GISS at the beginning and end of the trend period; in the other years, which are cherry-picked because they are not supported by relevant climate phenomena, that gap is also similar.

  33. #33 jakerman
    January 4, 2010

    >*The point llewelly misses is not only the trend outlier of GISS but the difference between the temperatures of GISS at the beginning and end of the trend period; in the other years, which are cherry-picked because they are not supported by relevant climate phenomena, that gap is also similar.*

    The point cohnite missed is that GISS measure Arctic warming, the others do not.

    1998 is a juicy fat cherry pick cohnite, you can put 1998 in your outlier box as an incredible extreme, way above the trend warming. There is no phase shift its an artefact of an economics statistic (you havn’t justified its use in this context). Your climate shift fancy is also smacked down by the [analysis](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1986583/) you linked to.

    And what is going on with that [pap temperature fabrication](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2180821) you linked to. You still havn’t justified it your explained how they created it, nor why they use it.

  34. #34 llewelly
    January 4, 2010

    The point llewelly misses is not only the trend outlier of GISS but the difference between the temperatures of GISS at the beginning and end of the trend period; in the other years, which are cherry-picked because they are not supported by relevant climate phenomena, that gap is also similar.

    My other starting years are not cherry-picked; they show the same upward trend shown by every other starting year that can be selected from that century, except 1998. Your year is cherry-picked because it is the only year which can be made to appear to show what you wish to show.

  35. #35 Sim
    January 4, 2010

    Cohnite,

    I can [smell fudge](http://www.climate-skeptic.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/18/pdo.gif). Is this from a trusted source? How did they homogenise the data sets?

  36. #36 cohenite
    January 4, 2010

    Sim; you can do your PDO history at wft; Stewart Franks is an expert on IPO, the southern pacific equivalent of the PDO; here is his take;

    http://www.clw.csiro.au/conferences/GICC/franks.pdf

    The idea that GISS is the more reliable temperature indice because it measures the Arctic and the satellites don’t is based on what?

  37. #37 Sim
    January 4, 2010

    Cohnite, I can smell fudge and I know when I read bluster and distraction. Do you trust the temperature data that [you linked to](http://www.climate-skeptic.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/18/pdo.gif)?

  38. #38 cohenite
    January 4, 2010

    You mean HadCrut;

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from1850/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:2010

    And what is this fudge you keep going on about?

  39. #39 jakerman
    January 4, 2010

    >*The idea that GISS is the more reliable temperature indice because it measures the Arctic and the satellites don’t is based on what?*

    Its based on GISS not excluding the region of [most rapid warming](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/cdrar/do_LTmapE.py) on the planet, while Hadley do leave this out. And [so do MSU](http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html) (70S to 82.5N).

    A [recent study](http://www.skepticalscience.com/1998-is-not-the-hottest-year-on-record.html) by the ECMWF “*found recent warming has been higher than that shown by HadCRUT. This is because HadCRUT is sampling regions that have exhibited less change*”.

  40. #40 cohenite
    January 4, 2010

    A fairly detailed comparison between GISS and UAH is here

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-2-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html

    The base period of GISS accounts for the difference in the temperature range at particular times between the 2 indices, and indeed between GISS and all other indices; as I said that range is responsible for the difference in trend post 1998 with GISS being an outlier against the other indices. The idea that GISS covers the polar regions better is problematic; the interpolation that occurs from sparse and widely seperated surface locations is what got Steig et al into difficulties at the South pole. IMO the PCA methodology based on interpolation combined with the distinct base period of GISS makes it unreliable and unsuitable as the definitive temperature indice.

    Also problematic is the idea that the current Arctic warming is exceptional;

    http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf

  41. #41 jakerman
    January 4, 2010

    >*the interpolation that occurs from sparse and widely seperated surface locations is what got Steig et al into difficulties at the South pole.*

    1)NASAs sampling and protocol just received [confirmation from the ECMWF study](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2180995).

    2) Failing to include the most rapidly warming region biases the temperature records.

    >*Also problematic is the idea that the current Arctic warming is exceptional*

    That may or may not be, but on this question (of global temperature anomalies) it is a straw-man cohnite. The Arctic is where GISS above all others records has best coverage. And the Arctic is region of greatest warming, As Chylek found:

    >*Arctic warming is proceeding at a faster pace at the latitudes north of 70!N compared to the 64–70!N belt. [...] The ratio of the high to low Arctic temperature trends is 1.4–1.5 for all three time periods*.

    Hence GISS is best positioned to capture this observed anomaly.

  42. #42 dhogaza
    January 4, 2010

    The base period of GISS accounts for the difference in the temperature range at particular times between the 2 indices, and indeed between GISS and all other indices

    Choice of base period doesn’t effect trend analysis.

    You can show this using elementary school arithmetic.

    Cohenite, he who hath slayed climae science, can’t even add and subtract numbers …

  43. #43 Bernard J.
    January 4, 2010

    Incoherenite [said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2181043):

    The base period of GISS accounts for the difference in the temperature range at particular times between the 2 indices, and indeed between GISS and all other indices; as I said that range is responsible for the difference in trend post 1998 with GISS being an outlier against the other indices.

    If I may, could you clear up a few of the ambiguities in your statement?

    1) By “base period”, I assume that you are trivially referring to the period used to derive the reference temperatures with which to subsequently obtain anomaly values?

    2) By “temperature range at particular times” I assume that you are referring to the numerical differences in the anomalies for GISS vs UAH for any particular date?

    3) By “trend post 1998″, do you mean the linear trends in the respective anomaly datasets?

    4) If the answers to 1), 2) and 3) are all “yes”, then how is it that “that range is responsible for the difference in trend post 1998″? Different baseline values will only shift the positions of the linear trends in terms of the constant values (Y-axis intercepts) – there would be no “difference” in the trend (= x-term coefficient/slope) post 1998 no matter the baseline selected.

    That is, of course, unless you are referring to a ‘trend’ that is a derivative of more than one of the datasets to which you refer, but then you are opening many more analytical cans of worms than you have to date.

    Oh, and for the record, it was not I who raised the issue of aerosols, so I am puzzled about the [knots](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2180633) that you believe I am tying myself in.

    If anyone in this discussion has a history of autoknotogenesis, it is yourself…

  44. #44 Someone
    January 4, 2010

    How do you explain the Medieval Warming Period?

    Why are there still monkeys?

  45. #45 cohenite
    January 4, 2010

    DR sesquipedalianism and angry man are avoiding the issue; the major indices are in accord as the smoothed history shows;

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12

    And the trends over that period since 1979 are fairly coherent;

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/trend

    But as I argue, and I haven’t heard a convincing rebuttal, the key date is ~1998 and the trends from there [now 12 years] are this;

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

  46. #46 MartinM
    January 4, 2010

    But as I argue, and I haven’t heard a convincing rebuttal, the key date is ~1998

    You haven’t argued that, so much as baldly asserted it. The rebuttal is that you’re cheating by picking the one start date that produces the results you want. If you haven’t heard that, you haven’t been paying attention.

  47. #47 Michael
    January 4, 2010

    What will they do when 1998 is surpassed?…….proabably the same all over again.

  48. #48 jakerman
    January 4, 2010

    Cohnite writes:

    >*I haven’t heard a convincing rebuttal, the key date is ~1998 and the trends from there [now 12 years] are this;*

    Conveniently ignoring the point that [it takes longer than 12 year if data](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2180884) to separate the signal from the noise.

    1998 was an outlier, well above the warming trend. 0.4K above the TLT trend. With warming of 0.15K/decade you would expect a decade or two before the warming trend catches up to such an outlier.

    1998 is ‘*the key date* for people who what to compare outliers with the warming trend. It’s *the key date* for people who don’t understand statistics or don’t want to understand them.

  49. #49 TrueSceptic
    January 4, 2010

    345 cohenite,

    We all know that 1998 was exceptional. Here is your WFT, but changed to [from 1997](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/trend) and [from 1999](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1999/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/trend).

    Should we do the same with every other starting point? Can you honestly not see the point?

  50. #50 Steve Chamberlain
    January 4, 2010

    Janet (348):
    “1998 is ‘the key date for people who what to compare outliers with the warming trend. It’s the key date for people who don’t understand statistics or don’t want to understand them”

    And if I wanted someone who does understand how to apply stats properly, I’d go see Tamino. Coincidentally, one of Tamino’s latest posts (on exogenous factors) gives GISS data adjusted for volcanic activity & ENSO. The last graph for adjusted annual averages is particularly interesting, as Tamino notes: “The interesting thing is that, using the adjusted data, the warmest year on record is 2009!” And as Slioch comments, “Not only that, but every year from 2001 to 2009 is warmer than 1998″.

  51. #51 cohenite
    January 4, 2010

    There is support for the concept of a climate ‘break’;

    https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf

    Swanson and Tsonis argue for a break at 2001-2002 instead of 1998 which I stress for the umpteenth time was supported by verified, major oceanographic and atmospheric changes, that is, it is not a cherry pick as argued here;

    http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/09071650v2.pdf

    For those of you who can be bothered Seidel and Lanzante [2004, JGR] and Lindzen and Giannitsis [2002 GRL] also advocate ‘breaks’; all of the above confirm the 1976 break in climate but there is varying opinion about the date of the subsequent break ranging from 1997-8 to 2001-2. But I guess if you cannot accept that climate can ‘break’ then focusing on a date such as 1998 will always register ‘cherry-pick’.

  52. #52 dhogaza
    January 4, 2010

    What will they do when 1998 is surpassed?…….proabably the same all over again.

    Been there, done that, GISTEMP 2005 beat 1998.

    Of course, they just say “oh but GISTEMP is unreliable, gotta use HadCRUT”, and then they say, “CRU has cooked all the data, can’t use that, then they go, “oh, Roy Spencer is a creationist, and the UAH satellite temps show the lowest trend of all, we’ll use that!”

    Swanson and Tsonis argue for a break at 2001-2002 instead of 1998 which I stress for the umpteenth time was supported by verified, major oceanographic and atmospheric changes

    Yes, Swanson argues that warming is somewhat episodic, and that this “break”, if real, will be followed by another “break” AFTER WHICH WARMING WILL ACCELERATE BEYOND PROJECTIONS.

    Swanson and Tsonis’s paper is BUILT AROUND THE ACCEPTED TREND LINE. They simply argue that the variability around that trend line takes a different form than mainstream climate scientists would argue.

    NOTHING in their paper argues against global warming, or against the commonly accepted 3C (+/-) climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2.

    In Swanson’s own words:

    What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf.

    He’s speaking of you, cohenite, contrary to claims that people like YOU make that THEY DO NOT CONCLUDE.

  53. #53 cohenite
    January 4, 2010

    Yes, Swanson is speaking to me; and Tsonis is speaking to you angry man:

    “Imagine that you have four synchronized swimmers and they are not holding hands and they do their program and everything is fine; now, if they begin to hold hands and hold hands tightly, most likely a slight error will destroy the synchronization. Well, we applied the same analogy to climate,” researcher Dr. Anastasios Tsonis said.

    “In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. This way we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century,” Tsonis said. “The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001.”

    “But if we don’t understand what is natural, I don’t think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand — first the natural variability of climate — and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,” Tsonis said.

  54. #54 Sim
    January 4, 2010

    No link cohnite? Is Tsonis not published in credible journals on this topic?

  55. #55 Michael
    January 4, 2010

    Sim,

    cohenites qoutes come from excerpts from the usual places.
    And given their well-known propensity for creative quote-mining, it’s advisable to take the stated inferences with a tonne of salt.

    Here are S&T’s conclusions on the matter in relation to AGW,

    Finally, it is vital to note that there is no comfort to be gained by having a climate with a significant degree of internal variability, even if it results in a near-term cessation of global warming. It is straightforward to argue that a climate with significant internal variability is a climate that is very sensitive to applied anthropogenic radiative anomalies (c.f. Roe [2009]). If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability

  56. #56 Bernard J.
    January 4, 2010

    Is it really so hard to answer the [questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2181216) Incoherenite?

  57. #57 Michael
    January 4, 2010

    Well BJ, he does have considerable form with that.

  58. #58 WhatIsTheOptimalTemperatureOfThePlanet
    January 4, 2010

    Your questions have been answered hundreds of times

    When?

    on dozens of blogs.

    Where?

    You pretend otherwise because you are dishonest.

    I haven’t asked these questions on “dozens” of blogs, unless you are using a creative definition of the term “dozen”. Oh, wait, you are a Warmista True BelieverTM. Never mind.

    Speaking of pretending, why do warm-mongers like to pretend that increases in CO2 levels are followed by increases in temperature when everyone knows it’s the other way around?

  59. #59 jakerman
    January 4, 2010

    WhatsNotReading responds to this:

    >>Your questions have been answered hundreds of times

    >*When?*

    January 3rd 2010, at 10:35 pm (GMT or what ever time this blog keeps).

    >>on dozens of blogs.

    >*Where?*

    [Here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2180565).

  60. #60 cohenite
    January 5, 2010

    You ask the wrong questions BJ; and the rest of the smug patrol is here so I’ll be brief; this seems to be the point of contention;

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/trend

    The slopes and therefore the trends, over that period, are essentially the same; the different base periods determines the different starting points; the Y axis represents the base period anomalies. 2 questions for you BJ:
    1 Does a movement from +0.1C to +0.2C on the GISS slope put as much energy into the system as a movement from-0.15C to -0.05C on the RSS slope?

    2 All the literature says there was break at ’76; why is the green slope at Fig 1(a) here not a true representation of temperature trend;

    http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/09071650v2.pdf

    I’ve always thought a certain lack of irony was prevalent here and Michael’s wholehearted endorsement of this certainly proves that impression;

    “If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability”

  61. #61 dhogaza
    January 5, 2010

    Speaking of pretending, why do warm-mongers like to pretend that increases in CO2 levels are followed by increases in temperature when everyone knows it’s the other way around?

    Everyone except scientists, and everyone knows that scientists are wrong about everything, right?

    That’s why you can type on the internet using your solid-state computer. Because scientists are wrong.

  62. #62 Michael
    January 5, 2010

    “all the literature” cohers??

    This really seems to just about you linking to your little paper as often as possible.

  63. #63 Bernard J.
    January 6, 2010

    [Incoherenite](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2183085).

    The slopes and therefore the trends, over that period, are essentially the same; the different base periods determines [sic] the different starting points; the Y axis represents the base period anomalies.

    Is this guff supposed to represent your answers to [my questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2181216)? Waffle and [laywerism](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2158923), more like.

    Try again.

    Does a movement from +0.1C to +0.2C on the GISS slope put as much energy into the system as a movement from-0.15C to -0.05C on the RSS slope?

    That depends on at least three things:

    1) that a particular value for temperature, as given by each of the respective reporting systems, represents equivalent values for heat content, as described by each of the reporting systems

    2) that an increase in temperature in each of the reporting systems describes a linear relationship with increasing heat content

    3) that start/end temperatures in one system can be validly compared with start/end temperatures of different values in another system.

    Of course, the answer to your question, whatever the validity of my points, is irrelevant as the discussion, prior to your posting of your question, was about whether the mean global temperature has increased, and about what the significance of the 1998 value is. The fact is that increasing temperatures in any reporting system indicate warming, whether or not they are reporting identical values for increase in heat content.

    Your question is a deliberate and a blatant red herring.

    It is also indicative of your unfamiliarity with the basic science. Someone acquainted with the parameters involved would not refer to “movement… on the GISS [or RSS] slope”, they would simply mention the start and end temperatures – the trendlines (slopes) are irrelevant in considering changes from any one temperature to another, in the context that you raised. Informed folk probably wouldn’t refer to “movement” either, nor would they speak of that ‘movement’ “put[ting] energy into the system”.

    Of course, one should probably expect nothing more than such a naïve expression of science if it’s coming from a divorce lawyer, especially if said lawyer [has political interests in the subject](http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/). Conversely, one can almost certainly expect prevarication, obfuscation, and jingoistic mutilation of scientific concepts where it suits a lawyer’s (or a laywer’s) purpose.

    As Michael has [already noted](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2183121), your second question is a nonsense because “all the literature” certainly does not say that there was a ‘break’ at 1976 – particularly in the context that you are implying that such a ‘break’ occurred. You linking to the pdf is simply an attempt to promote your own foray into pseudoscientific pretence, which, if I am recalling the correct document, was [picked apart last year](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/ahh_mclean_youve_done_it_again.php).

    Nevertheless, I did try to read it myself in order to address the specifics, but as my own computer is being repaired I am on an old, borrowed computer with no pdf reader, a dinosaur version of Explorer (yikes), and a USB1 port trying to handle a wireless modem, all I managed to do was to lose the more detailed version of this reply that I’d originally typed. I have no inclination to waste any more time on this, and I’ll leave it to others, who might have more stomach to wrestle with your nonsense, to pull the wings of that fly if they feel it warrants the effort.

  64. #64 Someone
    January 6, 2010

    Speaking of pretending, why do warm-mongers like to pretend that increases in CO2 levels are followed by increases in temperature when everyone knows it’s the other way around?

    How do you explain PYGMIES + DWARFS?

  65. #65 cohenite
    January 6, 2010

    Hopeless BJ; just what I expected from a bloviating snob; the topic was whether the respective indices and their different base periods were nonetheless in accord and showing the same trend; as I pointed out they are indeed showing the same trend but that is irrelevant if obstensibly equivalent movements on the respective trends have different energy/heat/whatever is the current AGW buzzword, values. The point I’m making is well summed up by this paper but to get it one would need some mental flexibility and an open mind, both sadly lacking in you;

    http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf

    I’m sure you would not have thought of this but a spurious objection to this paper’s application of Stefan-Boltzmann’s law on the grounds of commutivity has been rebutted by Lucia.

  66. #66 Bernard J.
    January 8, 2010

    Cohenite proclaims:

    the topic was whether the respective indices and their different base periods were nonetheless in accord and showing the same trend.

    Erm, the topic was originally about the fact that the Russian data confirm the ‘hockey stick’, and the increase in rate of warming over the last several decades. When [you joined](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2152387) the discussion you tried to imply that there had been selectivity of the Russian data, and that such selectivity would change the shape of the temperature curve.

    Your [next contribution](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2152454) was, as [sod immediately noted](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2152459), irrelevant to the discussion; and the [one after that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2152496) seemed to imply that localised deviations from a global trend somehow repudiate said global trend.

    Your [next post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2154293) of any length sought affirmations of legitimacy for discredited ‘disprovings’ of AGW. After a few trivial posts, including a [nit-picking one](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2158858) where you permitted me to add to the English lexicon, and a stop-over at [right-wing-nuttery](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682_Comments.html), you [rabbit on about outgoing longwave radiation](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2159169) (comments that [Eli had tpo put into correct context](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2160401)), although you [promised to leave](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2160270) after “the charming TrueSceptic and Dano… arrived”.

    As a Christmas present you threw in the red herring of [cosmic rays](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2165154), followed by an excursion to [Climate Audit [sic]](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2165212) to mention “comparison between the IPCC report’s handling of MBH and solar forcing”.

    Come the New Year and you managed to [drag the McLean, de Freitas and Carter nonsense into the mix](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2178132). After that followed a bit more [technobabble about asymmetries in trends and variance](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2178883). Thence we come to [the post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2180633) where you mis-ascribe the raising of the matter of volcanic and other aerosols to me, and then we arrive at a post from you where the issue of post-1998 temperatures and emissions is covered. It was after this that (on 4 January) you finally [raised the issue of trend comparisons](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2180932).

    In all of this you have been called out many times to justify, prove, or otherwise provide evidence to substantiate claims that you have made, or you have simply had the floor wiped with your face. And you have (true to form) assiduously avoided answering most questions put to you – and where you actually did deign to answer, it was in the aforementioned technobabble prose of a [laywer](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2158923) who manages to take up lots of space but not actually convey anything sensible.

    The original instigation of this snark exchange started with your [waffle](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2181043):

    The base period of GISS accounts for the difference in the temperature range at particular times between the 2 indices, and indeed between GISS and all other indices; as I said that range is responsible for the difference in trend post 1998 with GISS being an outlier against the other indices

    to which [I asked three questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2181216) in an attempt to have you clearly elucidate your meaning about anomaly ‘baseline’ reference points versus the slopes of lines of best fit through data points.

    Thereafter followed more waffle from you, and further raising of temperature trend ‘breaks’ that have no basis or support in parsimony, but in all of this there was no coherent answer to my questions… Which were apparently the “wrong” questions (at least [according to you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2183085)), and I was then presented with a question from you about temperature-reporting methodologies and about energy being “put” into the “system”. Trouble is, this question was so unqualified as to be essentially meaningless, and when [I pointed this out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2186098) you respond with:

    topic was whether the respective indices and their different base periods were nonetheless in accord and showing the same trend.

    So “the topic” of this thread is rather more broad that you would have us believe, and the topics to which I have referred are topics that you yourself have raised during the thread’s evolution. Forgive me if I appear harsh, but if you were as proficient in presenting a case in a divorce court as you are in presenting your case in discussions of human-impacted climate science, it is no wonder that you are a former divorce lawyer.

    As to your comment about the pdf that you linked to in your last post, you seem to have missed, either through carelessness or through deliberate disregard, my [statement](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2186098) that I am currently using an old ‘lender’ computer and cannot access pdf files. It seems that the one with mental flexibility issues here is not me, but rather your own good – or otherwise – self.

    It’s a shame though that I am not able to access it, because I am interested in seeing what walk in the park you took with respect to it, and especially how its subject matter relates to the meandering path that you have already described in your stagger through this thread. Perhaps someone else will take up this cudgel on my behalf.

    Whether or not this happens, I suspect that I can rest assured that there will be no concise, validly-referenced, factually-based and on-topic comment, nor any answering of the many questions already posed, forthcoming from you. Perhaps this low opinion of you does make me a “bloviating snob”, but I will simply leave it to the record of the threads on Deltoid to decide which of us is the more “hopeless” in addressing the issues put to him – especially when those issues arise from unsubstantiated statements made by the person in the first place.

  67. #67 Lee
    January 8, 2010

    @ Bernard J. 366:

    I am not a conspicuously religious man, but in response to that I can only say “amen, brother!”

  68. #68 dhogaza
    January 8, 2010

    Yeah, that was one comprehensive slap-down.

  69. #69 Brian D
    January 8, 2010

    And all it’s missing is the signature.

    You win.

  70. #70 cohenite
    January 8, 2010

    BJ, you are a marvel; I’m truly flattered to be the subject of such recherche rodomontade; even your pedantry about my alleged straying from the subject is done with such extravagent overkill as to be enjoyable. However, as usual, you allow your hyperbole to lead you from the path; the subject of the thread is a rebuttal of this:

    “What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.”

    My discussion of a comparison of the various indices is a legitimate part of that discussion; but let’s not quibble, you’re a martinet prone to outbursts of florid prose and condescension; I’m here to learn. The issue restated as unambiguously as I can: the indices show superficially similar trends:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/trend

    The question is; does an equivalent rise in RSS put as much heat into the atmosphere as a rise in GISS? Come on BJ, don’t let your adoring fans down!

  71. #71 Bernard J.
    January 8, 2010

    The question is; does an equivalent rise in RSS put as much heat into the atmosphere as a rise in GISS?

    Given that the computer I am currently borrowing has no application other than an old version of Explorer and a few of my nephew’s games, and insufficient memory for me to install anything, I am unable to perform a statistical analysis of the datasets about which you have such a bee in your bonnet.

    However, given also the [variation in the GISS and the RSS datasets](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/every/plot/rss/from:1979/every/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/trend), and the fact that visually the slopes of the respective lines of best fit appear to be very similar, one might say that from 1979 to date (or at least, to the limits of the plotted data) the apparently equivalent rises in the two indices indicate the same amount of heat being added to the global planetary system. To the current limits of my capacity to deconstruct the data this is a trivially apparent result.

    This is not to say that the increases in heat content in the surface station milieu measured by GISS is the same as the heat content in the lower tropospheric milieu. All it means is that the current measurements as expressed by the two indices are coupled to the extent that they both currently reflect a similar overall increase in global temperature.

    The caveats that are implicit in my [previous qualifications](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2186098) remain. The fact that the two indices represent different methods of measurement means that they cannot be taken to always indicate the same contents of heat (especially locally), even if at times it appears that they do(/have) indicate(d) the same trends in temperature increase; they certainly might not indicate such beyond the current period of comparison.

    It is quite conceivable that there might be a divergence of the slopes of the LoBF in the future: this does not mean that there is a problem with either index indicating the warming of the planet. Further, either index might be used to imply the magnitude of increase in heat content within their respective milieux, or within the planetary system overall, with appropriate calibration.

    So, cohenite, there’s my initial thought on the matter given that I am unable to access the pdf to which you linked, or to perform any sort of numerical analysis of the data.

    Now, will you finally make a substantive point about the trajectory of global warming in the last century and a half – or at the least, go back through the threads on Deltoid and provide some straight answers to the many questions that you have left lingering for so long?

    … you’re a martinet prone to outbursts of florid prose and condescension…

    [!](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/happy_new_year_1.php#comment-2190554)

  72. #72 Sim
    January 9, 2010

    BJ @366:

    >*In all of this you have been called out many times to justify, prove, or otherwise provide evidence to substantiate claims that you have made [...] And you have (true to form) assiduously avoided answering most questions put to you – and where you actually did deign to answer, it was in the aforementioned technobabble prose of a laywer who manages to take up lots of space but not actually convey anything sensible.*

    To which cohenite conspires to prove BJ correct with [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2192121):

    >*BJ, you are a marvel; I’m truly flattered to be the subject of such recherche rodomontade; even your pedantry about my alleged straying from the subject is done with such extravagent overkill as to be enjoyable. [...]
    My discussion of a comparison of the various indices is a legitimate part of that discussion; but let’s not quibble, you’re a martinet prone to outbursts of florid prose and condescension; I’m here to learn[...]*

  73. #73 cohenite
    January 9, 2010

    BJ, the simple point is that energy from a lower temperature base will be less than from a higher temperature base; it is true, as you say, that RSS measures troposphere temperature while GISS measures the surface; the connection is that AGW theory says that the tropical troposphere should warm at a faster rate than the surface because the surface warming will release extra water into the atmosphere; clearly the troposphere isn’t warming quicker so the next question is, what is happening to the extra energy being put out from the surface into the atmosphere; some obviously is causing some extra, slight warming but it is less than it should be according to AGW; the Stefan-Boltzman differential between the 2 indices tells us that; that leaves 3 options; firstly, the radiation window must be bigger than the K&T schematic suggests which would tend to confirm Miskolczi; and/or there must be more radiation generally leaving from the TOA, which would tend to confirm Lindzen; and/or thirdly, the extra SH must be located at atmospheric levels inconsistent with what is required for troposphere warming which would tend to confirm Paltridge.

  74. #74 zoot
    January 9, 2010

    … you’re a martinet prone to outbursts of florid prose and condescension; I’m here to learn.

    Here to learn?? Sorry grasshopper – does not compute.

  75. #75 Bernard J.
    January 9, 2010

    Incoherenite.

    Pause, and take a deep breath…

    … the connection is that AGW theory says that the tropical troposphere should warm at a faster rate than the surface because the surface warming will release extra water into the atmosphere…

    Erm, you seem to have mucked up your understanding of physics yet again. Permit me to correct your statement:

    … the connection is that AGW [any] theory [of global warming, whether human-induced or natural], says that the tropical troposphere should warm at a faster rate than the surface because the surface warming will release extra water into the atmosphere…

    There, that’s better.

    Now, go away and think about it for a day or so, and consider why what you have posted is a big load of boy-cow poo.

  76. #76 cohenite
    January 9, 2010

    “boy-cow poo” ?! Pretty ordinary BJ; Fig 9.1, p 675 AR4 makes is plain the IPCC considers AGW to be the dominant factor in any theoretical tropical troposphere heating; the respective indices by virtue of their trend similarity, which you argue for, make it plain there is no THS; so which is it; trend similarity or a THS?

  77. #77 Bernard J.
    January 9, 2010

    Cohenite.

    Ahhh… so it’s the tropical tropospheric hotspot now, is it? That’s not even “ordinary”, I’m afraid…

    Firstly, you really need to work on your basic reading and comprehension skills. Figure 9.1 shows the modelled temperature changes from the actual forcings resulting from solar, from volcanoes, from “well-mixed greenhouse gases“, from tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, from sulphate aerosols, and from all factors combined, over the plotted period. There is no theoretical setting of the various forcings in this figure.

    This is important to grasp, because it simply means that the other forcings were operating at lower ‘levels’ than were greenhouse gases in the period 1890-1999. If, say, solar forcing was such that the same amount of surface temperature increase was observed as has been observed with anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, then the modelled tropical tropospheric hot spot would be very similar.

    The same holds for any forcing that produces a surface temperature increase of a particular amount.

    The IPCC does not “consider AGW to be the dominant factor in any theoretical tropical troposphere heating”, it simply shows, given the conditions experienced during the analysis period, that over the plotted period most forcing away from the the baseline is expected to arise from GHGs. Any other factor could just as easily act to heat the tropical troposphere to the same extent as GHGs, and the physics of the moist-adiabatic lapse rate for most of these forcings would be the same, as would be the surface and trophosphere signatures.

    That a hot spot has not been observed in some datasets simply means that the datasets used are inadequate to the task: the fact that the globe has warmed, and the fact of the physics of the moist-adiabatic lapse rate, are rock-solid. Or are you saying that “because there is no hot spot, there has been no warming”, or “because there is no hot spot, the currrently-understood physics of moist-adiabatic lapse rates is wrong”? As a bit of an aside, I seem to remember that Arthur Smith and John V wiped the floor with Lucia’s dignity over this, when she and her cheer-squad should have called uncle far earlier in her thread on the issue.

    And finally, if you have read [Santer ](http://www.realclimate.org/docs/santer_etal_IJoC_08_fact_sheet.pdf) you would know that it just grows worse for your argument, as datasets now are showing trop trop warming.

    But of course you should know this already, because it was all discussed [several years ago](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/). If it’s all just too hard for you to understand, perhaps you might like to read a potted version such as might be found at [#15 here](http://www.ecohuddle.com/wiki/global-warming-myths).

    So, what’s your next duck and weave going to involve? Do you have a strategic plan with the order of the recycling your Denialist myths, or do you just spin a chocolate wheel to randomly come up with you next canard, and hope that you can dazzle the unsuspecting Joe and Jane Publics long enough to make it appear that you actually have a clue, or a point?

    I must say, to anyone who has half a clue about the science, it is obvious that you have the understanding – and the consistency in sticking with a point – of a red setter.

    Really, if you are going to make any substantive point, you need to carefully and clearly research it, comprehend it, state it, and reference it.

    To date I see no evidence that you are capable of even the most basic capacity to do any of this.

  78. #78 Bernard J.
    January 9, 2010

    Just a note to all in general, that I will probably be absent for a few days due to my computer issues. I hope that others might take up cudgels against cohenite in my place, if he persists in his scattergun nonsense on this thread.

    As the secretary of the Australian Climate Denialist Party, he is one mole who deserves to be shown up for the inadequately-scienced obfuscator that he is.

    Whack away.

  79. #79 cohenite
    January 9, 2010

    BJ; so its the Santer paper [with the usual names, Thorne, Wigley, Jones, Schmidt, Sherwood,etc]? That is not even ordinary; I don’t see Arthur or John V wiping the floor with Lucia over this;

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/lets-apply-the-method-in-santer17-to-gmst-part-1/#comments

    Still Santer has been published in the Int. J. Climatol.[now why does that name and the authors ring a bell? Anyway, I'm sure a few emails amongst friends doesn't matter.] and Lucia and SM have not but you don’t need to be published to realise that Santer et al made a fundamental error; the UAH and RSS data went from 1979 to 1999 only. Why was that? But anyway none of this changes the validity of my query at 373 and 376, or are you saying the trends in GISS and RSS are wrong?

  80. #80 Lee
    January 9, 2010

    cohenite, what the fuck is your point?

    “BJ, the simple point is that energy from a lower temperature base will be less than from a higher temperature base; ”
    All the temperature series are sampling the same single real world. The change in heat content in the real world is what it is – each series samples temperatures, which stands in for heat content in a very rough way.

    However, each temperature series samples different parts of the world using different methods, and they have confidence intervals. I can guarantee you that any slight differences in calculated heat content delta between the temperature series are contained way, way inside the overlap in their confidence intervals. Your point here, whatever it is, is simply incoherent and meaningless.

    The Trop Trop datasets suck. There are huge issues with sparse and discontinuous sampling, with sonde calibration drift over time, and on and on. The errors in the derived temperature dta form this series are huge, and yet you guys are willing to accept that analysis as definitive. If you liek this data so much that you argue that it falsifies “AGW theory”, then y’all need to shut the fuck up about the various temperature series, which are way, way better supported.

    And then when people reduce the Trop-Trop uncertainty and get results you don’t like, you argue that the analyses are suspect. Gee.

  81. #81 Sim
    January 9, 2010

    >*cohenite, what the fuck is your point?*

    cohnite’s point is to start dropping allusions and innuendo when the science gets in the way of his argument.

  82. #82 Bernard J.
    January 9, 2010

    Whilst I still have even a spit-and-rubber-bands computer with which to connect to the Interweb…

    [John V, Arthur Smith, Marcus, and sundry others kicking Lucia's arse](http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/who-expects-a-tropical-tropospheric-hot-spot-from-any-and-all-sources-of-warming/). In my opinion Lucia really let this go on too long for her own good – she came away looking ever more slippery and [laywerish](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2158923) with each comment. What especially fascinated me is that neither she nor her ra-ra club seemed to understand the untenability of her stance.

    For giggles catch Mike C’s fawning interjections that manage to completely miss every substantive point.

    More questions for you Coxenite:

    1. are you saying that you trust the datasets that seem to indicate no tropical tropospheric hot spot, but that you don’t trust the various surface station datasets?
    2. are you saying that the planet has not warmed over the last century?
    3. are you saying that warming of the magnitude observed over the last century (presupposing that you acknowledged such warming, above) will only produce a tropical tropospheric hot spot if said warming occurs as a result of greenhouse gas forcing?
    4. are you saying that the absence (in your opinion) of a tropical tropospheric hot spot indicates that there is no GHG forcing?

    ‘Yes’ or ‘no’ answers will suffice.

    And just to keep you on the straight and narrow, and to remind you of your drunken butterfly stagger through the hackneyed list of distractions with which you continually change the subject, I will turn you attention back to your ENSO/PDO ‘theories’ – I note that Tamino has [had something to say](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/cyclical-not/) about cycles, and that you have been conspicuously quiet about his shooting down of your little pet notion.

    Perhaps you should visit Open Mind and set him straight. If not, you could at least justify to us here why you choose not to do so…

  83. #83 WhatIsTheOptimalTemperatureOfThePlanet
    January 9, 2010

    everyone knows that scientists are wrong about everything, right?

    No, scientists are always right. Just like when they were shrieking about global cooling and the coming ice age in the 1970s. Just ask them.

  84. #84 dhogaza
    January 9, 2010

    No, scientists are always right. Just like when they were shrieking about global cooling and the coming ice age in the 1970s. Just ask them.

    Sigh … idiocy parading in public … such a shame.

  85. #85 Bernard J.
    January 9, 2010

    [WhatIsTheOptimalTemperature...](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2193782)

    It should humiliate you to know that you have not the slightest [clue](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/0/XB3S0fnOr0M).

  86. #86 cohenite
    January 9, 2010

    Arthur Smith argues at the Lucia link that the IPCC never formally predicted a THS/fingerprint/signature/pattern/big red [the issue for Arthur is that such terminology was not used by the IPCC] and that such an event, or lack thereof, was:

    “not something of great concern to the analysis or models. The prediction of enhanced tropical mid-tropospheric warming is unequivocal,”[comment 7402]

    About the Tropo warming I refer you my comment at 373. As to John V’s comments; he says:

    “However, Figure 9.1 shows the response to *actual* forcing and the RealClimate images were due to a hypothetical 2% increase in solar forcing.” [comment 7356]

    This comment is both incorrect and astounding. It is incorrect because Fig 9.1 shows the:

    “Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings.”

    Key words, “as simulated by the PCM model”; that is not “actual forcing”. The PCM model clearly shows that warming from well mixed GHGs is a dominant cause of tropical troposphere zonal warming in the AGW lexicon. John V’s comment is astounding because it refers to RC’s comparison between the forcing effect of a doubling of CO2 and an equivalent solar forcing; this was discussed at RC here;

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

    That article says this:

    “The basis of the issue is that models produce an enhanced warming in the tropical troposphere when there is warming at the surface. This is true enough. Whether the warming is from greenhouse gases, El Nino’s, or solar forcing, trends aloft are enhanced. For instance, the GISS model equilibrium runs with 2xCO2 or a 2% increase in solar forcing both show a maximum around 20N to 20S around 300mb (10 km)”

    That is astounding because the average variation in solar output during cycle 23 was 0.1%. What RC is saying that solar variation would have to increase 200% to be equal to 2xA[in effect]CO2. Getting back to GISS and RSS; clearly there is no THS [so-called despite Arthur's strawman arguments about terminology] despite there being some warming; this shown by RSS which is trending with GISS; which is right, GISS or RSS? Your red-herring questions;
    1 More so.
    2 No
    3 A difficult one; as I have mentioned Paltridge’s work shows that while there has been an increase in total SH, at key locations [for AGW] there have been declines; the work of Spencer and others about negative feedbacks from clouds also make it arguable that increasing GHGs, especially water, may not produce an enhanced greenhouse effect necessary for a THS
    4 See 3.

    Now, you answer my question BJ.

  87. #87 Bernard J.
    January 10, 2010

    Incoherenite.

    I despair that there is any solution to what is either your recalcitrant ignorance and misunderstanding of basic principles of physics, or is a wilful intent to misrepresent the mainstream understanding of that science.

    Nevertheless, once more unto the breach…

    About the Tropo warming I refer you my comment at 373.

    which was:

    AGW theory says that the tropical troposphere should warm at a faster rate than the surface because the surface warming will release extra water into the atmosphere; clearly the troposphere isn’t warming quicker so the next question is, what is happening to the extra energy being put out from the surface into the atmosphere; some obviously is causing some extra, slight warming but it is less than it should be according to AGW.

    Where to start (yet again)…?

    1. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not “say” that “the tropical troposphere should warm at a faster rate than the surface”. The appearance of a tropical tropospheric hot spot is implied by basic moist-adiabatic lapse rate physics pertaining to global warming that might result from a number of different forcings. It is a furphy, and either incompetence or mendaciousness, to attribute it to AGW specifically.
    2. “[C]learly the troposphere isn’t warming quicker [sic]” is not a factual statement. As has been repeatedly explained, the tropospheric temperature datasets are fraught with problems, and the best (by objective scientific standards) datasets are actually showing that there is enhanced tropospheric warming.
    3. Your apparently rhetorical question “what is happening to the extra energy being put out from the surface into the atmosphere; some obviously is causing some extra, slight warming but it is less than it should be according to AGW”, repeats your misunderstanding/misrepresentation in point 1, that the TTHS is predicted by anthropogenic global warming theory. Some estimations of the expected TTHS magnitude are less than might be expected according to any global warming theory, but in these cases the integrity of the tropospheric measurements and the analytical methods of some workers are much more suspect than is the basic physics of moist-adiabatic lapse rate physics, and it has nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming theory specifically.

    Why do you persist in repeating these misrepresentations of the physics? Is it because you are, as I noted at the beginning, recalcitrantly ignorant of basic science, or is it a wilful intent to misrepresent the understanding of the science?

    As I noted myself in an earlier post, figure 9.1 states:

    Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings.

    to which you respond:

    Key words, “as simulated by the PCM model”; that is not “actual forcing”.

    Put your brain into gear before opening your mouth, matey. It is the tropospheric/stratospheric temperatures that are being simulated, not the forcings. The forcings themselves are those acknowledged for the various parameters listed in the caption. The forcings are inputs: the PCM model is not simulating the forcings!

    Read the caption again. Perhaps it will help if you consider it thus:

    …temperature change … as simulated by the PCM model from [the input of these a priori] established forcings…

    Think about it, carefully.

    John V is correct in referring to actual forcings: they are not what the model is simulating. This really is a trivial point, and yet you profess astonishment over it.

    You are also apparently astounded at the comparison of the modelled atmospheric temperature profile for GHG forcing compared with such a profile for a 2% increased solar output forcing:

    That is astounding because the average variation in solar output during cycle 23 was 0.1%. What RC is saying that solar variation would have to increase 200% [sic] to be equal to 2xA[in effect]CO2.

    Yes, and so what?

    All this simply means is that a 2% solar forcing would give a similar atmospheric temperature anomaly profile to a doubling of CO2-equivalent forcing. It says nothing about the putative absence of a TTHS – such a hotspot would occur whatever GHG/El Niño/solar irradiance forcing was operating to produce the ground station warming observed.

    It does say that there is a cloud (boom-tish) over much of the non-ground station data – unless of course one is prepared to say that the physics is wrong in the first place. It also says that there is a piss-weak case for ascribing observed global warming to solar irradiance changes, and it indicates just how significant the addition of so much CO2 to the atmosphere would be, in comparison with an increase in solar irradiance.

    Oh, and 0.1%->2.0% (increase in solar forcing) is a 2000% increase, not a 200% increase.

    Getting back to GISS and RSS; clearly there is no THS [so-called despite Arthur's strawman arguments about terminology] despite there being some warming; this shown by RSS which is trending with GISS; which is right, GISS or RSS?

    Cohenite, cohenite, cohenite…

    The RSS data are processes from [MSU and AMSU microwave sounders](http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#rss_msu_data_analysis). The data are separated into [a number of categories](http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#channels), but the RSS data doesn’t usually come presented as tropical temperature; rather, it is simply planetary tropospheric and stratospheric data collected between +/-82.5° latitude.

    For you to make the statements about RSS versus GISS that you do, you need to be focussing specifically on the tropical tropospheric results. Any other comparison is spurious, and if you do not understand why then I am not about to give you the extensive statistical basic-training that you would obviously require – and, I strongly suspect (as your wife [apparently does your homework for you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/whoosh.php#comment-1664738)), that you do require.

    Now, in response to my questions, you say:

    1) are you saying that you trust the datasets that seem to indicate no tropical tropospheric hot spot, but that you don’t trust the various surface station datasets?
    More so.

    I assume that you are attempting to say that you “trust the datasets that seem to indicate no tropical tropospheric hot spot, more so“.

    Riiiggghhhttt…

    Given the previously indicated problems with the radiosond data, in how many ways do you think that your response might be completely bizarre?!

    2) are you saying that the planet has not warmed over the last century?
    No.

    Good. One for the record.

    3) are you saying that warming of the magnitude observed over the last century (presupposing that you acknowledged such warming, above) will only produce a tropical tropospheric hot spot if said warming occurs as a result of greenhouse gas forcing?>
    A difficult one…

    Back to kindergarten with you.

    4) are you saying that the absence (in your opinion) of a tropical tropospheric hot spot indicates that there is no GHG forcing?>
    See 3.

    Sheesh… What is it about you and straight answers? Did you have a bad experience with one in your childhood?

    And to wrap up – given that I have promptly answered your question, will you now go back over all of the threads where you have previously avoided answering questions, and address the backlog?

    Or are you simply going to duck and weave yet again?

  88. #88 https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk8VcTSPyM3S1oPFBPbKvIeNynyhq9s0IY
    January 10, 2010

    cohenite:

    As Gavin said in a response at RC recently the Santer et. al. analysis was stopped in 1999 at the request of a comment received during the review process. The original analysis went to 2006 and was reported in the supplementary material for the article.

    You are just wrong when you imply that Santer et. al. was hiding something. They were not but you do need to learn to read a bit more if SI is included.

  89. #89 Lee
    January 10, 2010

    @ Bernard J., 387, to cohenite:

    “Or are you simply going to duck and weave yet again?”

    That’s where my money is.

  90. #90 cohenite
    January 10, 2010

    Without question you are a distinguished member of the laywer club BJ; your post devotes a lot of time [point 3] to denigrating the satellites and radiosondes and by inference the Douglass paper; about this John Christy says this:

    “The key thing about Douglass et al. is that we specifically designed the experiment as a hypothesis test – meaning we needed model surface trends which matched the observed surface trend so we could compare upper air temperatures in an apples to apples comparison with observations. Many critics (i.e. RC) seem to have failed to grasp this conditional requirement. In other words we asked a very simple question, “If models had the same tropical SURFACE trend as is observed, then how would the UPPER AIR model trends compare with observations?” As it turned out, models show a very robust, repeatable temperature profile … that is significantly different from observations.

    What I’ve found almost humorous is trying to be scientific about all of this. If rapid human induced warming is claimed as a hypothesis (in models) then how can it be stated in such a way as allowing for the possibility of it being falsified? The possibility of falsification is required for any hypothesis. However, as soon as we construct a test, (i.e. comparing upper air tropical temperatures, where the clearest GHG signal occurs, with observations) many cry fowl and object. How do you create a test to check the falsification possibility for assertions (hypotheses) of rapid, GHG-induced warming? If there is no possible falsification test, there is no science. As my colleague Roy Spencer likes to say, “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperatures changes are a consequence of natural variability.” (Let me add that I think there should be some warming due to the enhanced radiative forcing – just not catastrophic.)”

    About this the question is, if the THS is not a distinct and essential part of AGW how then is AGW falsifiable?

    At point 1 you say the THS is implied by “moist adiabatic lapse rate physics”; that may well be but it is explicitly predicted by AGW theory which postulates an enhanced greenhouse [EG] effect based on increased water vapor in the atmosphere [FAQ 3.1, AR4]. This is problematic as Paltridge’s paper shows. But it is on the basis of the EG that Fig 9.1 shows that the troposphere must warm faster than the surface [which is conceded at pp 271 and 699 and elsewhere in AR4]; how could it be otherwise if increased evaporation is transferring water and latent heat from the surface to the atmosphere? This is how the moist lapse rate works, isn’t it?!

    I could really write a book about the inconsistencies in your statement but I’ll finish with John V’s point about simulated, sorry, actual forcings; you say:

    “The forcings themselves are those acknowledged for the various parameters listed in the caption.”

    Acknowledged by who? Even the IPCC admits that all forcings including well mixed GHGs have varying levels of confidence, and climate sensitivity equilibrium and transient sensitivity are only settled in certain closed minds. So, the values of the forcings for each of the factors in Fig 9.1 are estimated, simulated. Fig 9.1 shows that the estimated forcing for GHGs is greater than the other factors; in the case of solar greater by 2000% [thank you for the correction]. You wonder why I find that astounding; here’s what a 25% reduction in insolation variation can produce and you want me to believe 2xCO2= a 2000% increase in insolation variation; as the guy said, you’re dreaming:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_06/

  91. #91 Lee
    January 10, 2010

    re my post, @ 389:

    I win.

  92. #92 jakerman
    January 10, 2010

    Christy writes:

    >*If rapid human induced warming is claimed as a hypothesis (in models) then how can it be stated in such a way as allowing for the possibility of it being falsified? The possibility of falsification is required for any hypothesis.*

    AGW is not a hypothesis, its a theory. I’m surprised Christy is so wrong on this fundamental.

    Christy Continues:

    >*However, as soon as we construct a test, (i.e. comparing upper air tropical temperatures, where the clearest GHG signal occurs, with observations) many cry fowl and object. How do you create a test to check the falsification possibility for assertions (hypotheses) of rapid, GHG-induced warming? If there is no possible falsification test, there is no science.*

    The problem is with the construction of the test. How should we incorporate the sometimes [conflicting results](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/tropical-tropopshere-ii/) of [highly problematic](http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/papers-on-tropical-troposphere-hotspot/) test into the theory of the enhanced greenhouse warming?

  93. #93 el gordo
    January 12, 2010

    Isolating the AGW signal from natural variability over the next 30 years will be difficult, but I haven’t given up on finding the ‘hot spot’.

  94. #94 luminous beauty
    January 12, 2010
  95. #95 123456789
    January 14, 2010

    Sigh … idiocy parading in public … such a shame.

    You know you’ve won the argument when all the other side has to offer is ad hominem and insults not worthy of a third-grader.

  96. #96 dhogaza
    January 15, 2010

    You know you’ve won the argument when all the other side has to offer is ad hominem and insults not worthy of a third-grader.

    Oh, yes, all we have is ad hom attacks.

    We have no observational data, no physics, no theory, nothing.

    Just ad hom attacks.

    Going back 150 years.

    You win!

  97. #97 Bernard J.
    January 15, 2010

    Thanks to the fellow who managed to count nearly all of the digits on both of his hands, and thereby moved this thread back onto the recent postings list, I see that cohenite had left [a reply](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2195120) several days ago.

    If only it had been worth reading…

    Commencing as it does with a line of exquisite irony, our intrepid former divorce lawyer cum Climate Denial Part secretary opines that I devoted a lot of time “denigrating the satellites and radiosondes and by inference the Douglass paper”.

    Ahem… a “lot” of time?!

    Reading my last post I see two sentences that point out the shortcomings of radiosond data (satellites were not at any time mentioned):

    Some estimations of the expected TTHS magnitude are less than might be expected according to any global warming theory, but in these cases the integrity of the tropospheric measurements
    and the analytical methods of some workers are much more suspect than is the basic physics of moist-adiabatic lapse rate physics, and it has nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming theory specifically.

    and

    … there is a cloud (boom-tish) over much of the non-ground station data – unless of course one is prepared to say that the physics is wrong in the first place.

    Note that the second quote is not in “point 3″, so I’m generously padding out the evidence for my spending a “lot” of time on this apparent denigration.

    Except that it is not “denigration”; it is simply a factual repetition of the opinions of experts in the discipline (follow the links provided cohenite), and it is a mere few sentences of typing.

    As to the Douglas et al papers, I gave no explicit opinion; although I am happy to concur with the observations in the commentary of the [Tropical tropospheric trends](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/) link to RealCLimate.

    Cohenite continues:

    What I’ve found almost humorous is trying to be scientific about all of this. If rapid human induced warming is claimed as a hypothesis (in models) then how can it be stated in such a way as allowing for the possibility of it being falsified?

    Well, besides the fact that I too find it humorous that you’ve “tried” to be scientific, I disagree with the rest of your statement.

    I note that [jakerman](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2195205) has already attempted to disabuse you of your confusion over an hypothesis versus a theory. Aside from this point, I would add that it is a simple matter to support or to falsify the science of radiation physics, to support or to falsify the increase in global temperature of the last century (after all, much of your efforts and of your Denialist friends is devoted to such an endeavour!), and to support or to falsify the increase in CO2 since the commencement of the Industrial Revolution.

    And ultimately time will support or falsify the validity of the science behind anthropogenic global warming. The trouble is, by then it will be too late to say “oh, those climatologists were right after all”, because the damage will have been done.

    Personally, I reckon that much damage has already been done, after climatic inertia is included, and after taking into account the lack of action that is inevitable for years to come.

    Your quote of Christy:

    As my colleague Roy Spencer likes to say, “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperatures changes are a consequence of natural variability.”

    is a stretch at best, certainly in a short-term context, and indeed [the conservative IPCC consensus](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf) would seem to disagree.

    About this the question is, if the THS is not a distinct and essential part of AGW how then is AGW falsifiable?

    Oh gawd, do you understand in how many ways this is a stupid question?!

    Have you not been able to comprehend what I and others have been trying to drive into your thick cranium? A hot spot is a characteristic of many types of warming – not just of AGW. It is a predicted consequence of the warming that we see now, whatever the cause, and the fact that some datasets, and dubious ones at that, do not show a hot spot does not mean that AGW cannot “be falsified”. It means that the tropospheric data are inadequate, or that basic physics, far removed from global warming, and even from climatology and from meteorology, is wrong.

    You have to argue either that the data are adequate (please, be my guest), or that the physics is wrong (again, I beg you to be my guest). You cannot salami-slice a general warming prediction and attribute it only to an anthropogenically-caused warming.

    Why is this so hard for you to understand?

    At point 1 you say the THS is implied by “moist adiabatic lapse rate physics”; that may well be but it is explicitly predicted by AGW theory which postulates an enhanced greenhouse [EG] effect based on increased water vapor in the atmosphere [FAQ 3.1, AR4]

    “[E]xplicity”? I’ve read the AR4 FAQ, and the closest I see is this:

    In addition to the surface data described above, measurements of temperature above the surface have been made with weather balloons, with reasonable coverage over land since 1958, and from satellite data since 1979. All data are adjusted for changes in instruments and observing practices where necessary. Microwave satellite data have been used to create a ‘satellite temperature record’ for thick layers of the atmosphere including the troposphere (from the surface up to about 10 km) and the lower stratosphere (about 10 to 30 km). Despite several new analyses with improved cross-calibration of the 13 instruments on different satellites used since 1979 and compensation for changes in observing time and satellite altitude, some uncertainties remain in trends.

    For global observations since the late 1950s, the most recent versions of all available data sets show that the troposphere has warmed at a slightly greater rate than the surface, while the stratosphere has cooled markedly since 1979. This is in accord with physical expectations and most model results, which demonstrate the role of increasing greenhouse gases in tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling; ozone depletion also contributes substantially to stratospheric cooling.

    If you can indicate where the IPCC say that a hot spot is “explicitly predicted by AGW theory which postulates an enhanced greenhouse [EG] effect based on increased water vapor in the atmosphere [FAQ 3.1, AR4]“, please, once again, be my guest.

    I could really write a book about the inconsistencies in your statement…

    Yet again… be my guest.

    “The forcings themselves are those acknowledged for the various parameters listed in the caption.”

    Acknowledged by who [sic]? Even the IPCC admits that all forcings including well mixed GHGs have varying levels of confidence, and climate sensitivity equilibrium and transient sensitivity are only settled in certain closed minds.

    Erm, acknowledged by scientific consensus.

    The point being that the forcings are derived from best evidence, whether you believe it or not, and not “as simulated by the PCM model”, as you [attempted to promote](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2193898).

    Fig 9.1 shows that the estimated forcing for GHGs is greater than the other factors; in the case of solar greater by 2000% [thank you for the correction]. You wonder why I find that astounding; here’s what a 25% reduction in insolation variation can produce and you want me to believe 2xCO2= a 2000% increase in insolation variation; as the guy said, you’re dreaming:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_06/

    Cohenite, your attempted riposte helps you not at all. Aside from the fact that your assumption that x amount of total solar insolation reduction should give the same amount of cooling as x amount of TSI increase should give in warming, you conveniently omitted a very salient observation from the link that you provided:

    Based on climate modeling, we have proposed a solution to the apparent paradox of extreme cold with only a marginally dimmer Sun. In our simulations, we find that the reduced brightness of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum causes global average surface temperature changes of only a few tenths of a degree, in line with the small change in solar output. However, regional cooling over Europe and North America is 5-10 times larger due to a shift in atmospheric winds. [Emphases mine]

    The following paragraphs only serve to further illuminate your mangling of the science.

    Let me ask you a question… Do you understand why your take on the matter is flawed?!

    I’ll give you a clue – apples and oranges and watermelons…

    Lee, at [#391](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2195176), confirms his prescience at [#389](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2194572): you duck and weave as if you were a fox in the sights of a gaggle of Monckton’s tally ho-ing hunting chums.

    Such cunning might work in a divorce court, but it ain’t gonna change the facts of science. Facts that you would do well to acquaint yourself with – for a change…

  98. #98 Bernard J.
    January 22, 2010

    I see that when he has his arse whipped cohenite retreats to the sanctuary of The Bog, and the to comfort of like-mindless Denialists.

    One would think that after the issues with Lindzen and Choi had been pointed out to him, he’d pull his head; but no, he’s [still at it](http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=6540&cp=47#comment-163808), claiming:

    Lindzen and Choi’s paper showing a drastically reduced climate sensitivity with ocean and atmosphere heating being balanced by increased OLR and negative SWR feedback is, if validated, a death-blow to AGW.

    Thing is, the L&C paper has been [roundly criticised](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lc-grl-comments-on-peer-review-and-peer-reviewed-comments/), but cohenite is apparently ignoring these inconvenient facts.

    How many times must he be told that his promotion of particular ideas is simply wrong?

    More to the point, when will he go over the opus of discredited claims that he has put forth, and accept that he is selling snake oil, and not a plausible alternative to mainstream science?

  99. #99 Bernard J.
    January 22, 2010

    I’ve just noticed another [pronouncement by cohenite](http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=6540&cp=47#comment-163995):

    … the use of adjusted data referenced to a base period to generate anomalies has in my opinion been one of the most controversial and contentious aspects of AGW; personally I do not see why data has to be anomalised at all; the main excuse for doing it is that it allows a global mean standard temperature to be generated

    To me there is no reason why particular location temperature histories based on raw data cannot tell their story unaffected by manipulation; if comparisons between locations and even regions are to be done that can simply be done on an averaged basis without resorting to the fable of a GMST.

    [Emphasis mine]

    Where does one start with twaddle such as this?!

  100. #100 jakerman
    January 22, 2010

    >*To me there is no reason why particular location temperature histories based on raw data cannot tell their story unaffected by manipulation*

    How would cohnite reconcile this with Watts’ UHI project? cohnite is now [repeating el gordisms](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/open_thread_38.php#comment-2214888). My response is:

    >*How can one calculate global temperature continously for for more than 100 years without quality control, homogenisation and correction of known bias/errors?*

    cohnite’s apparent restort to the bazaar argument that we should not measure global temperature is a surely that last refuge of the denialist. Similar to [Wattsup's guest](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/open_thread_38.php#comment-2218870) arguing that global warming makes not difference.