Temperatures and Projections

Alden Griffiths has another excellent presentation, this time dissecting Christopher Monckton’s claim that temperatures are below the IPCC’s projections.

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    September 15, 2010

    Recent reports claim that there is a record cold around the world, but it seems to fly in the face of reports that the year is the warmest on record.

    (insert link to goatse here)

  2. #2 MFS
    September 15, 2010

    >”(insert link to goatse here)

    LOL!

    Sorry, I giggled like an idiot for about 5 minutes…

    sunspot, have you ever stopped to think for a moment that weather and climate might not be the same thing?

  3. #3 Lotharsson
    September 15, 2010

    > sunspot, have you ever stopped to think for a moment that weather and climate might not be the same thing?

    He’s never stopped to think how “global average” differs from “some regional reports” either. If he did it would destroy his favourite beliefs, and he can’t have that, can he?

  4. #4 P. Lewis
    September 15, 2010
    sunspot, have you ever stopped to think for a moment that weather and climate might not be the same thing?

    He’s never stopped to think how “global average” differs from “some regional reports” either. If he did it would destroy his favourite beliefs, and he can’t have that, can he?

    He’s never stopped to think.

    There, that’s better.

  5. #5 sunspot
    September 16, 2010

    New Paper “What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends Since 1979″ By Christy Et Al 2010

    abstract

    “Updated tropical lower tropospheric temperature datasets covering the period 1979–2009 are presented and assessed for accuracy based upon recent publications and several analyses conducted here. We conclude that the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) trend over these 31 years is +0.09 ± 0.03 °C decade−1. Given that the surface temperature (Tsfc) trends from three different groups agree extremely closely among themselves (~ +0.12 °C decade−1) this indicates that the “scaling ratio” (SR, or ratio of atmospheric trend to surface trend: TLT/Tsfc) of the observations is ~0.8 ± 0.3. This is significantly different from the average SR calculated from the IPCC AR4 model simulations which is ~1.4. This result indicates the majority of AR4 simulations tend to portray significantly greater warming in the troposphere relative to the surface than is found in observations. The SR, as an internal, normalized metric of model behavior, largely avoids the confounding influence of short-term fluctuations such as El Niños which make direct comparison of trend magnitudes less confident, even over multi-decadal periods.”

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/s7h

  6. #6 Wow
    September 16, 2010

    > “Updated tropical lower tropospheric temperature datasets covering the period 1979–2009

    So sunspot believes in [computer models](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements) after all!

  7. #7 Lotharsson
    September 16, 2010

    One wonders if Christy et al corrected for the fact that most historical (tropical, if not global) observations are over land rather than water – and at least one main model, if you bother to ask, predicts significantly greater ratios of atmospheric-to-ground-level warming over water than over land.

  8. #8 Chris S.
    September 16, 2010

    Well sunspot has evidently read & understood the paper (otherwise he wouldn’t have posted it right?) so perhaps (s)he can tell us?

  9. #9 sunspot
    September 21, 2010

    Candid Admissions On Shortcomings In The Land Surface Temperature Data [GHCN and USHCN] At The September Exeter Meeting

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/sdf

    there were several candid admissions with respect to the robustness of the global and USA surface temperature record that are being used for multidecadal surface temperature trend assessments (such as for the 2007 IPCC report).

  10. #10 MFS
    September 21, 2010

    sunspot,

    Pielke???

    Pray, tell us what the linkspam has to do with Monckton’s claim that temperatures do not measure up to IPCC projections.

  11. #11 chek
    September 21, 2010

    MFS @ 92, of course Pielke!

    If you want to instill a doubt without being specific, then Pielke is da man! Then you just leave it to his less-than-sane Watts site to build that up to ludicrous levels.

    Pielke’s getting old, as is his technique.

  12. #12 Wow
    September 21, 2010

    Maybe Spots and Bent ought to duke it out to decide what country should be the world.

    Bent: Central England
    Spots: USA, USA, USA!

    ‘course the SANE people are wondering why these numbnuts are worrying about a tiny fraction of the planet… (yet strangely enough, they care nothing for “a few lousy degrees” temperature rise).

    All their “skepticism” leans one way.

  13. #14 J Bowers
    September 21, 2010

    Re. 95 Holly Stick

    It’s new. The document can be read via ScribD

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2010/sep/21/climate-scientists-respond-lord-monckton

    The discussion thread at the Guardian could be a long one. There’s a UKIP member there already trying to defend the pseudo-science.

  14. #15 Ian Forrester
    September 21, 2010

    It is interesting to note that he is referred to as
    “Mr. Monckton” throughout the report. It is time this vain and arrogant person is brought down to earth.

  15. #16 Johanus
    September 28, 2010

    A new reconstruction of past 2000 years temperature has been published by Ljungqvist, which seems to corroroborate Loehle’s reconstruction. (Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010. “A New Reconstruction of Temperature Variability in the Extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere during the Last Two Millenia”. Geografiska Annaler 92A(3):339-351)

    Watts and crew are making much to do about this.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/loehle-vindication/#more-25461

    If true, it does seem to put the recent warming in a different perspective: it’s happened before, on a cyclic basis, with no real man-made impetus (except for the Social Fascist hype).

  16. #17 Marco
    September 28, 2010

    Johanus, care to tell us the mechanism of those “cycles”? Remember, you’d have to come with a mechanism that increases and decreases energy storage in the earth’s atmosphere. If any of those mechanisms include the sun, you’re in trouble: we KNOW the sun has not increased its output in the last 30 years. If it’s GHGs (and that includes water vapor), you’re in trouble, too: we know GHGs are increasing. If it’s Milankovitch: oops, also there we know that that can’t be the cause of recent warming. Well, maybe ocean oscillations then? Problem, too: where’s the energy coming from?

    Yes, we all know global temperatures can change without anthropogenic input. There are many factors that can have an effect. But are we really to hope they all point downward while we are increasing GHG concentrations? Think about what happens if several actually point upward…

    So, what cycles are you talking about? (note that we KNOW and expect the Roman Warm Period to be warm).

  17. #18 luminous beauty
    September 28, 2010

    Johanus,

    >A new reconstruction … which seems to corroroborate[sic] … If true, it does seem …

    All that seems is not necessarily [true.](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/vindication/)

    Oops!

  18. #19 Johanus
    September 28, 2010

    Yes, we all know global temperatures can change without anthropogenic input. There are many factors that can have an effect. But are we really to _hope_ they all point downward while we are increasing GHG concentrations? Think about what happens if several actually point upward…

    That’s an acceptable attitude to take. But “hoping” is no substitute for science (and I sincerely believe the Social Fascists are _hoping_ AGW is true so they can continue their wealth-distribution machinations). But let’s stick to science, not politics, OK? :-]

    you’d have to come with a mechanism that increases and decreases energy storage in the earth’s atmosphere.

    Why the atmosphere? Its heat capacity is minuscule compared to the oceans.

    If any of those mechanisms include the sun, you’re in trouble: we KNOW the sun has not increased its output in the last 30 years.

    Methinks you’re too quick to dismiss plausible solar mechanisms. Yes, there may not be any solar TSI trend over decades, but TSI fluctuates almost 7% on an annual basis because of the inverse square law.

    http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.ppt

    That’s almost a hundred watts difference per square meter per year!

    Could you make money on the stock market if there were no long term trends? Of course, you could. “Buy low, sell high” creates wealth for clever investors, even when the market wealth is falling overall.

    I confess I’m no solar expert, but doesn’t it make sense that a similar ‘stock-market’ mechanism might assert a modulation on climate sensitivity which could affect the net balance of heat trapped vs heat released (heat “profit/loss”)?
    :-]

  19. #20 Johanus
    September 28, 2010

    Hi luminous beauty! You said:

    All that seems is not necessarily true.

    Oops!

    I left a comment on Tamino’s blog (before your post) but he seems to be blocking it. Here it is:


    Johanus | September 28, 2010 at 1:24 pm | Reply
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Open Mind said:
    “Make the Ljungqvist reconstruction a lot hotter — then compare.”

    What is your justification for making it hotter? Recall that we are examining a record of temperature _anomalies_, not absolute temps.

    absolute_temp = mean_temp +/- temp_anomaly

    So we must align both plots on their mean value before we can compare the anomalies. No rescaling needed because the anomalies already have the same units.

    So (quoting Loehle) this is exactly how he did his comparison:
    “I centered both on their respective long-term mean values (I did NOT rescale) and got the following.”

    Again, how do you justify making one scale hotter? Perhaps to prevent the falsification of your alarmist AGW theory?
    :-/

  20. #21 Wow
    September 28, 2010

    > But “hoping” is no substitute for science

    Johanus, that is what Marco is asking YOU not to do.

    YOU are the one hoping that all the uncertainties are in the direction of “CO2 is not a problem”.

    How about trying science and going “in all likelihood, the average is the best bet, given we have one number to work with” and in that case, it’s CO2 doing it, not any form of “oscillatory thingy”.

    > and I sincerely believe the Social Fascists are hoping AGW is true so they can continue their wealth-distribution machinations

    Why do you sincerely believe they exist?

    This is a repeat of the “Reds under the bed” scare of McCarthyism.

    THEY DO NOT EXIST.

    And the few that could be said to do, exist in such few numbers that they cannot be heard, unlike the Rush Limbaugh’s and the other shock jocks whipping you into a terrified frenzy about Social Facists.

    Try science instead of hysteria.

    > Methinks you’re too quick to dismiss plausible solar mechanisms.

    Because you HOPE it is so.

    > Yes, there may not be any solar TSI trend over decades, but TSI fluctuates almost 7% on an annual basis because of the inverse square law.

    And TSI hasn’t shown any such large variation over decades, therefore it cannot accumulate change.

    It’s not like we can’t *see* the sun.

    And, TSI varies 100% over a 24 hour period for most of the planet (some parts see a 100% variation over a year).

    Proof that there is no climate at the poles?

    > I confess I’m no solar expert

    You seem able to dismiss those who are and say that this doesn’t have much of an effect: [The IPCC](http://www.ipcc.ch).

    > but doesn’t it make sense that a similar ‘stock-market’ mechanism might assert a modulation on climate sensitivity

    Except the stock market has an accumulation effect: the sun cannot decide when to go up and when to go down and cannot park away unwanted excess for leverage later.

    So they aren’t the same.

  21. #22 Wow
    September 28, 2010

    > Again, how do you justify making one scale hotter? Perhaps to prevent the falsification of your alarmist AGW theory? :-/
    > Posted by: Johanus

    By the simple expedient of not making one scale hotter but by comparing equivalents rather than unequal elements as you have proposed.

    And isn’t

    > your alarmist AGW theory?

    a rather alarmist and unscientific thing to say?

  22. #23 Marco
    September 28, 2010

    Johanus, it’s the TREND that matters. And that includes any potential TREND in the annual modulation, which isn’t different now from what it was 100 years ago. Your economical example does not make sense, but I’m not surprised if someone is paranoid about supposed “social fascists” trying to steal his money.

    Note that the atmosphere mimicks what happens in the oceans and thus is a fine proxy.

    Oh, and do you have any comment on Loehle’s apparent dishonesty?

  23. #24 Ian Forrester
    September 28, 2010

    Johanus said:

    I confess I’m no solar expert

    Very true.

    He also said:

    but doesn’t it make sense that a similar ‘stock-market’ mechanism might assert a modulation on climate sensitivity which could affect the net balance of heat trapped vs heat released (heat “profit/loss”)?

    Anyone who tries to equate stock market graphs to actual science results should refrain from discussing or giving advice on either. To do so only shows how ignorant of science they are or they are obfuscators and deniers.

  24. #25 Johanus
    September 28, 2010

    > By the simple expedient of not making one scale hotter but
    > by comparing equivalents rather than unequal elements as
    > you have proposed.

    Nonsense. You have to convert to absolute scale to make equality comparisons feasible. What you’re saying (based on comparing anomalies) is this:

    “Joe got a two-dollar raise but Sam got a ten-dollar raise. Therefore Sam makes more money than Joe”

    >> your alarmist AGW theory?

    > a rather alarmist and unscientific thing to say?

    No more than Tamino’s website logo: “Lies, Damned Lies, and _Denial_ of Global Warming”

    > it’s the TREND that matters. And that includes any
    > potential TREND in the annual modulation, which isn’t
    > different now from what it was 100 years ago. Your
    > economical example does not make sense…

    So I was wrong? No one can make money on the stock market if it’s not rising? :-] If you ‘save’ the extra solar heat in the winter (when it’s strongest) and release it in the summer (when it’s weakest) then you’ve gained 100 watts per square meter (up to the efficiency of the storage mechanism).

    >> I confess I’m no solar expert

    > Very true.

    The only thing I said that you all agree with? :-]

    But everything you said was nonsense or ‘ad hominem’ attacks. Tim, can you call in your real experts? [Gotta run. Will be back this evening]
    Thanks,
    Johanus

  25. #26 Wow
    September 28, 2010

    > Nonsense. You have to convert to absolute scale to make equality comparisons feasible.

    No you don’t.

    Why else isn’t anyone using Kelvin and Kelvin alone for measuring temperature differences, what with Celsius and Farenheit being relative scales and all…

    Seems you missed out on junior school physics too.

    > No more than Tamino’s website logo

    Which has WHAT to do with your hypocrisy?

    Nothing.

    > So I was wrong?

    Yes, in various and novel ways.

    > No one can make money on the stock market if it’s not rising

    Uh, the Sun doesn’t have a bank account to put extra output in.

    The stock market is not the sun.

    > If you ‘save’ the extra solar heat in the winter

    Yes. I’ve got some shocking news for you. THE EARTH IS ROUND.

    That means there are TWO poles and when one side has winter, the other has summer.

    And anyway, where do you put this extra solar heat? Abbey National?

    > But everything you said was nonsense or ‘ad hominem’ attacks

    And SOP #90434: Misrepresent ad hominem whilst vigorously enacting it yourself.

    No, it wasn’t an ad hom.

    Who has said “He’s wrong because he’s an idiot”?

    Nobody.

  26. #27 luminous beauty
    September 28, 2010

    Johanus,

    Let us give Loehle the benefit of the doubt and assume his 2000 year mean comparison to Ljungqvist is correct. If true, this would give Loehle’s reconstruction a much better fit when calibrated against the instrumental record than his prior attempts, and closely in line with Ljundqvist’s calibration.

    When that is done, the 2000-2009 decadal mean of NH land anomalies from Crutemp3v, as suggested by Zeke Hausfather in the Open Mind thread, is 0.830C above the 1961-1990 climatology. Quite a bit off the chart, and leaving Loehle’s peak Medieval anomaly at a measly 0.3C above the same climatology. Quite in line with constructions of Mann and Moberg, as is clearly stated in the abstract of [Ljundqvist](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0459.2010.00399.x/abstract)

  27. #28 Johanus
    September 28, 2010

    Luminous B.
    > this would give Loehle’s reconstruction a much better fit
    > when calibrated against the instrumental record than his
    > prior attempts …

    Help me out here. I don’t understand what you mean by ‘instrumental record’ in this context. I thought Loehle was using a bunch of proxies (leaving out trees), so what instrument are we talking about?

    Wouldn’t this be a weighted mixture of several proxy models? Where each proxy has a different calibration model. I remember that in his paper he commented that the proxies were so different that his initial fittings looked like tangled strings or such.

    So he fiddled with the weights and voila! his now famous curve with MWP hump (not much different from Mann’s first estimate).

    The ‘hard part’ , in developing these models, is to make results independent of the methodology used to create them.

    Do we agree so far?
    :-]

  28. #29 Johanus Dagius
    September 28, 2010

    Luminous B.
    > this would give Loehle’s reconstruction a much better fit
    > when calibrated against the instrumental record than his
    > prior attempts …

    Help me out here. I don’t understand what you mean by ‘instrumental record’ in this context. I thought Loehle was using a bunch of proxies (but leaving out trees), so what ‘instrument’ are we talking about?

    Wouldn’t this be a weighted mixture of several proxy models? Where each proxy has a different calibration model. I remember that in his paper Lohle commented that the proxies were so different that his initial fittings looked like tangled strings or such.

    So he fiddled with the weights and voila! his now famous curve with MWP hump (actually not much different from Mann’s first estimate).

    The ‘hard part’, in developing these models, is to make results independent of the methodology used to create them. So you have to test the fitting by using different subsets of proxies to find the most robust combining weights.

    Do we agree so far?
    :-]

  29. #30 Dave R
    September 28, 2010

    [Johanus Dagius](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/gerlich_and_tscheuschner_oh_my.php#comment-1717126):
    >I also have a degree in Physics and see nothing stupid at all in the Gerlich/Tscheuschner paper.

    Quoted in case anyone thinks this one can be reasoned with.

  30. #31 Johanus
    September 28, 2010

    [Hmm, sorry for the double post, but the blog machine informed me that it was ‘too busy’ to accept my first post. I guess it accepted it anyway].

    I wanted to add: some of you view me quite harshly. Lighten up. My views are probaby not that far from Marco, if I’m reading his open-ness to constrasting viewpoints correctly. I can’t deny the _plausibilty_ of AGW, I just don’t think the science behind it is ‘settled’. No one really knows the true climate sensitivity to radiative forcings (because it’s so bloody complex)

    Several issues:
    1. Warming. I think the recent warming trend stopped around 2004. Oceans are cooling. Lot of heat capacity there, atmosphere is more volatile but will soon follow.

    2. Solar influence. You don’t have to take my ‘pump and dump’ analogy seriously, but I am curious why no one is concerned about the 7% annual TSI variance. That’s a _huge_ variance in wattage spread over the earth.

    3. Livingston&Penn. They claim sunspots have already started to fade out, probably the beginning of another Maunder Minimum (the Eddy Minimum). Don’t see much discussion about that on the AGW blogs. Why is that?

  31. #32 Bernard J.
    September 28, 2010

    [Dave R](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/temperatures_and_projections.php#comment-2825475).

    It’s true, what the aphorism states…

    One may [lead a horse to water](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/gerlich_and_tscheuschner_oh_my.php#comment-1717126), but one cannot make it drink.

  32. #33 Johanus
    September 28, 2010

    DaveR said:
    “Quoted in case anyone thinks this one can be reasoned with.”

    You took my remarks somewhat out of context, see below. I felt compelled [perhaps trollishly] to defend them because of Tim’s charge of ‘stupidity’ [peer-reviewed paper no less]. Hey, I liked the paper and learned from it. In retrospect I would say they were wrong about some stuff. But how many papers get everything right? Lighten up, I think I’m as ‘reasonable’ as the rest of you.
    :-|

    >> Gerlich and Tscheuschner managed to get their stupidity
    >> published in the International Journal of Modern

    >> Physics , which is embarrassing for the editors of that
    >> journal.

    > I also have a degree in Physics and see nothing stupid at
    > all in the Gerlich/Tscheuschner paper. Where’s
    > the “stupidity” you speak of?
    >
    > It’s a brilliant work, IMHO. The section on the Wood
    > Experiment, for example, completely demolishes the notion
    > that selective absorption causes the so-called “Greenhouse
    > Effect”. It’s clearly a matter of trapped air, not
    > reflected ‘longwaves’ that heats up your car when you park
    > it in the direct sunlight.

    >So bring on the CO2, and we’ll make the world a greener >place to live! :-) Johanus

  33. #34 luminous beauty
    September 28, 2010

    Johanus,

    I explictly named the ‘instrumental record’ of which I spoke. I can’t help you out much if your reading skills are that poor.

    I see that your comment has made it through moderation at Open Mind along with a stern but reasonable hand slap from tamino. So much for your paranoia.

    >Solar influence. You don’t have to take my ‘pump and dump’ analogy seriously, but I am curious why no one is concerned about the 7% annual TSI variance. That’s a huge variance in wattage spread over the earth.

    It’s an annual variability, due to the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit. It doesn’t change much until one starts looking at scales of tens of thousands of years. It’s one of the ‘Milankovich Cycles’ you might have heard some discussion of on paleo related threads. Or not. It’s hard to tell if your ignorance is real or feigned. We get so much of that from self-described ‘skeptics’.

    >Livingston&Penn. They claim sunspots have already started to fade out, probably the beginning of another Maunder Minimum (the Eddy Minimum). Don’t see much discussion about that on the AGW blogs. Why is that?

    Au contraire. It has been widely noted that global temperatures have continued to rise in spite of the current slightly extended solar minimum.

  34. #35 Bernard J.
    September 28, 2010

    [Johanus](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/temperatures_and_projections.php#comment-2825523).,

    It’s better to keep one’s mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

  35. #36 Lotharsson
    September 28, 2010

    > No one really knows the true climate sensitivity to radiative forcings…

    Argument by red herring.

    We’ve don’t need to know the one true value to be concerned; we’ve got a lower bound that it’s very unlikely to be below that is concerning, and a likely range that’s even more concerning, and we can’t rule out as very unlikely even higher ranges which are very very concerning.

  36. #37 Lotharsson
    September 28, 2010

    > I think the recent warming trend stopped around 2004.

    You just demonstrated you have no climate science competence.

    Climate trends cannot be detected in 6 year periods. It often takes 30, sometimes down to 20 or so if you’re lucky with the particular noise vs signal characteristics.

  37. #38 Lotharsson
    September 28, 2010

    > I am curious why no one is concerned about the 7% annual TSI variance…

    Perhaps because you don’t know what you’re talking about?

    – a one year timeframe is not climate.

    – Because what you’ve cited is **not** a “TSI” variance. What does the “T” and the “I” stand for and how and *where* is TSI measured?

  38. #39 Marco
    September 29, 2010

    Johanus: Anyone who believes G&T contains something useful is seriously deluded. The Wood experiment is long known as NOT a proper experiment to explain the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere. At best, it shows why the greenhouse effect can be considered to have a slightly unfortunate name, because the mechanism by which a greenhouse retains heat is different from the atmosphere. G&T wrote nonsense on specifically those areas that they tried to criticise. The rest was a load of hot air (pun intended).

    And no, you are not closer to me than ‘we’ think.

  39. #40 Wow
    September 29, 2010

    > No one really knows the true climate sensitivity to radiative forcings…

    However, we have our own climate here and now where the earth is 33C warmer than it “ought” to be, 1/4 of that is CO2, and that is the dominant driver of GHG warming (since water rains out).

    This would give a sensitivity of 4x the direct CO2 effect as a rought finger-in-the-air calculation and solid science (not models, just maths) gives 1C per doubling of CO2.

    Therefore we have a good idea that the forcings come to 4C per doubling of CO2.

    This isn’t “correct”, since the calculations are simplified, but it’s a LONG way from “no idea”.

  40. #41 Wow
    September 29, 2010

    > I wanted to add: some of you view me quite harshly

    Shall I quote you?

    > and I sincerely believe the Social Fascists are hoping AGW is true so they can continue their wealth-distribution machinations

    Lighten up, indeed. We Social Facists don’t give a fig for your money, you’re pissing it up a tree as it is.

    We just don’t want you pissing on a tree in a public garden.

    Plus when someone with that attitude ignores everyone and states they are wrong, isn’t that likewise uncouth, arrogant, self-opinionated and boorish?

    You started the mental fist-fight, and now you’re crying because you came unarmed…

  41. #42 Wow
    September 29, 2010

    > Solar influence. You don’t have to take my ‘pump and dump’ analogy seriously,

    Why did you demand we do, then? Why get pissy when we don’t? Why not ignore your pump and dump analogy because it is a false one?

    > but I am curious why no one is concerned about the 7% annual TSI variance. That’s a huge variance in wattage spread over the earth.

    The diurnal TSI variance is 100%. Why aren’t you concerned about that? It’s a MASSIVE wattage spread over the earth.

    My prediction is that this is another Tim Curtains sock puppet.

  42. #43 MFS
    September 29, 2010

    >My prediction is that this is another Tim Curtains sock puppet.

    Could be. But we’ve also heard Brent harp on about this stuff ad nauseum, almost more so than Tim Curtin… and Brent’s thread seems to have gone quiet… he might be getting bored…

  43. #44 jakerman
    September 29, 2010

    Johanas writes:

    >*Again, how do you justify making one scale hotter? Perhaps to prevent the falsification of your alarmist AGW theory? :-/*

    But Johans you’ve just a hole in Loehle’s comparison.

    This was Tamion’s critique of Loehle’s slight of hand:

    >For those who are a little unclear (and for WUWT readers who are a lot unclear), let me translate **his** [Loehle’s] procedure for you: “Make the Ljungqvist reconstruction a lot hotter — then compare.”

    You must be (as Tamino anticipated) a WUWT reader?

  44. #45 Wow
    September 29, 2010

    Well, Monckton too, as we’ve previously discovered on deltoid in another thread…

    So we could BOTH be right (and anyone else who wants to surmise it’s Lord Monkey this time)!

  45. #46 Bernard J.
    September 29, 2010

    Ah, but that Craig Loehle is an imaginitive boy, isn’t he?

    [He says](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/loehle-vindication/#comment-493458):

    “Warm” posts an overlay of the new recon with Mann 08 EIV. The most recent alarming rise in the two graphs is only possible with the new recon if you splice the instrumental record on, which I did not do in my overlay.

    Does my parsing let me down, or is he saying that if one leaves off the modern (rising) temperature record, there is no alarming increase in the proxies to be frightened by?

    Riiight…

    He says in the next breath:

    Steve at 3:51 attributes the 300 yr run up to industrialization. My dear boy, CO2 did not become elevated until the 1940s.

    Erm, is my parsing bone actually broken, or did someone forget to tell Lolly about [the Law Dome](http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif)? Perhaps he thinks that CO2 only started to increase after Keeling commenced measurements at Mauna Loa… just as [Ernie Beck thinks that atmospheric CO2 stopped hiccupping like a butterfly on a pogo-stick](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/remember_eg_becks_dodgy.php) just when Keeling had the temerity to Schrödinger the atmosphere.

    Lolly’s post ends with a non sequitur:

    Causation has a time direction. For much of the early industrial revolution the power was wood and water in any case.

    Seriously, I’d consider actually smacking my undergrads for such as that.

  46. #47 ligne
    September 29, 2010

    > I think the recent warming trend stopped around 2004.

    you’re a physics grad, but you don’t understand statistical significance? there’s no way in hell you’re going to detect a change in a mere 6 years when working with data as noisy as that.

  47. #48 Wow
    September 29, 2010

    Looks like MFS was right in No. 125.

    Darn.

  48. #49 Bernard J.
    October 2, 2010

    Over on Craig Loehle’s amusing thread at WTFUWT Tilo Reber says [at 8:05 am on 30 September 2010](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/loehle-vindication/#comment-495349):

    John Finn:

    “The ‘nature trick ‘ has nothing to do with a decline in thermometer readings. It’s due to an apparent temperature decline in the proxy data (tree-rings) in the mid to late 20th century. ”

    Yes, and the question that the divergence brings out is – how do we know that this is only a phenomena [sic] of the mid to late 20th century?

    Beyond that, I’m still waiting for someone to point to a proxy of any type that consistently reflects the magnitude of the gain that is shown by the instrument record for the last 50 or so years.

    Well, Reber is obviously not acquainted with the Aono proxy which, even though it is merely a Japanese regional one, does exactly what Reber’s been waiting for.

    Similarly, when Loehle says in the post immediately following Reber’s:

    None of these reconstructions in my opinion is a “temperature” history.

    he is obviously not including the cherry blossom data, which is both strongly correlated with temperature, and is meticulously dated for over a millennium. Oh, and the data do not suffer from any issue of divergence.

    [Anna v](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/loehle-vindication/#comment-495042) also appears to doubt the existence of the ‘hockey stick’, and further, that pre-instrumental data can be calibrated. Again, she appears to be ignorant of the Aono data and it’s direct capacity for calibration with instrumental data.

    There are many other posters on that display of wishful thinking who would join the chorus of denial, so out of a perverse curiosity I decided to [compare the Aono data with the Ljungqvist and the Loehle reconstructions](http://i56.tinypic.com/i4qql3.jpg). It was an interesting exercise…

    Many of the disparities between the Ljungqvist reconstruction and Loehle’s attempt have already been discussed, and it’s of little benefit to repeat the comparisons here. For now I will simply point out that there is a curious coincidence between the times where the Ljungqvist reconstruction crosses the GISS NH anomaly baseline and when the Aono cherry blossom trajectory does so – both trajectories do so in the early 1960s and previously in the early 10th century. Further, both trajectories show a maximum temperature peak in the mediæval period in almost exactly the same year, rather knocking Loehle’s estimation of such a peak almost a century earlier on the head… Of course, if Loehle is not really reconstructing the same information (his is global, after all), then the point may be a moot one – but then, that makes a mockery of his claim of “validation”.

    There appears to be a distinct similarity in the directionality of both the Ljungqvist and the Aono trends. The numerical values of the anomaly trends do not seem to be quite so correlated, but one would not really expect them to be so because they reflect temperatures at different scales. Keep in mind that both this and the preceding observation are only eyeballings, and hardly the definitive comment. I’ll enumerate both the qualitative and quantitative trends for the comparison of Aonon with both Ljungqvist and with Loehle later this week if I can find a spare few minutes.

    As I have just noted, the Aono data show (trivially) that local Kyoto March temperature anomalies fluctuate more over time than do the annual global anomalies. More interestingly, the data show that since the early 1960s the Kyoto mean March temperature, as indicated by the start of the Cherry Blossom Festival, has consistently tracked over the mean annual Northern Hemisphere temperature, whether referring to the Ljungqvist reconstruction or to the NH GISS data. A comparison with the Ljungqvist reconstruction shows that prior to the 1960s, this over-tracking only occurred in about four or so years out of the last one thousand. Thus, cherry blossoms and the Ljungqvist reconstruction would seem to indicate that Kyoto is one place that is being noticeably affected by AGW.

    The latest warming trend in the Aono data is by far the longest period of consistent warming, and it also demonstrates by far the largest increment of warming since commencement. It’s a hockey stick no matter how one slices and dices it.

    Now, many of the WTFUWT crowd will probably argue that because the Aono data pertain only to the Japanese regional context, it is no proof that there is a global hockey stick. Fine. How then do they escape the parsimony inherent in the fact that this little regional dataset reflects the instrumental record, other proxy reconstructions, and the empirical evidence of the biosphere and the lithosphere?

    The parsimonious conclusion is that it’s warming, and it’s a hockey stick.

    Just as an understanding of basic physics predicts.

  49. #50 Bernard J.
    October 2, 2010

    Lest some folk become querulous because I used GISS, [here’s a comparison](http://i53.tinypic.com/2d6wmjo.jpg) with CRUTEM NH as well, and Mann 2008 thrown in for good measure.

    Reference to the CRUTEM NH data does not materially change the nature of the cherry blossom data.

  50. #51 Bernard J.
    October 2, 2010

    If anyone is in any doubt about what I meant [above](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/temperatures_and_projections.php#comment-2832670), I should have said “…but one would not really expect them to be so because they reflect temperatures at different spatial scales”.

    One day I’ll learn to proof my own material.

Current ye@r *