Latest facts
Latest...
Login
Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann, Oct 12, 2009:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Kevin Trenberth to Tom Wigley, Oct 14, 2009
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where
energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not
close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is
happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
Leo Tolstoy
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
Phil Jones
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” -
Phil Jones to Michael Mann Feb 21, 2005:
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
Tom Wigley to Phil Jones Sep 27, 2009:
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip".
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) — but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.
Tim Osborn to Michael Mann and Ian Macadam , Oct 5, 1999:
Dear Mike and Ian
Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy
reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are
attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually
stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that
is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven't put a 40-yr
smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure
the same filter was used for all curves.
Keith Briffa:
Briffa:
For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
>warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
>is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
>was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global
>mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of
>years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence
>for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that
>require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future
>background variability of our climate. I think the Venice meeting will be
>a good place to air these isssues.
Latest News (hidethedecline)
By Frank Lansner, Civil ingeneer, Biochemistry.
One of the classic discussions of the climate debate is: What does the recent global temperature trend?
And as always answers are many dependent on data source and years examined.
Lets take a look at the Hadcrutv3 global temperatures:
Fig1. I guess it would be natural to say: “Around 1998 temperatures took a huge jump, and after this not much has happened”. The super El Nino 1998 certainly is visible in Hadcrut global data.
But then, the GISS (LOTI) record actually says something rather different for the trend after 1998:
Fig2. The huge El Nino spike 1998 is totally buried in the average noise of data for GISS (LOTI). GISS appears as one long smooth curve, and without the high peak temperatures around 1998, then the flat plateau 1998-2011 has vanished.
On fig 2 I have added the ENSO index. Traditionally, the ENSO index (El Nino / La Nina) very well reflects global temperatures, but it is only in the Hadcrut data we see the expected response to El Nino 1998. And more odd, the GISS data has no problem reflecting the other smaller EL Ninos, its just the 1998 El Nino peak that GISS data happens to hide.
Lets take a closer look.
Fig3
The missing El Nino 1998 temperature peak in GISS-data results in a remarkable difference in trends for the last years since 1998. The missing EL Nino peak in GISS data is essential if you want to argue, that there is no ongoing temperature stagnation.
To make the differences after 1998 between GISS and hadcrut even more obvious, heres the difference from 1998:
Fig4,
It is now very clear, that a large temperature trend has been added to the GISS data after 1998 compared to Hadcrut. From 1998 and foreward GISS trend is around 0,17 K larger than Hadcrut.
More odd: The GISS data and the Hadcrut data uses ReynoldsV01 and HadSST2 for oceans:
Fig5.
But there is no significant difference in temperature trend since 1998 originating from the ocean part of the GISS and Hadcrut global temperature trends: These are almost identical.
This suggests, that the significant global difference between GISS and Hadcrut after 1998 should originate from differences in land data. For around 0,17 K in global trend difference to originate from the smaller land fraction alone, the difference in trend after 1998 should be at least 0,4 K?
So lets compare the land fractions of GISS LOTI vs HadcrutV3:
Fig 6: The land trend difference only amounts to around 0,1 K, no way near the 0,4K+ that would have explained the global differences between GISS and Hadcrut.
I have shown both GISS 1200 km radius and 250 km radius, but they are rather similar.
Perhaps I am not using the “correct” GISS land data? Maybe, so, but the trends above matches rather well the trend of the GISS “Land” here:
Fig 7.
This GISS land graph is no longer online.
So buttom line: Im not sure how the huge difference in trend between GISS and Hadcrut is explained.
But remember: Both land datasets are based on GHCN data, so we are witnessing very different interpretations of GHCN data from GISS and Hadcrut respectively.
But lets take a closer look at GHCN:
Fig 8. GHCN adjustments: Here we see that the very latest years – after 2005 – are adjusted around 0,1 K higher compared the the 1998-2005 data! (Source, see below article).
So, not only do we see huge differences in global GISS vs Hadcrut built on top of GHCN data after 1998, but the GHCN data themselves are adjusted too. So how big is the GHCN adjustment impact on the recent temperature trend after 1998?
Fig 9:
Removing the GHCN induced trend after 1998 cuts the GISS Land data trend in half.
Needless to say: The Hadcrutv3 roughly "unadjusted" for the GHCN post 1998 trend would lead to a negative trend in Hadcrut data 1998 - today.
So Ladies and gentlemen, what is the temperature trend after 1998? To what degree do we have a temperature stagnation after 1998?
Finally, take a look a Fig 8 again, the GHCN adjustments. When this graph hit the internet in 2009, then for a moment I naively thought that finally the climate debate was over.
Ig 8 is to me the mother of climate gate. Why?
Fig 10.
Temperature corrections are due to change in localities/altitude, faulty equipment, shift in time of observation etc. That is, a row of very different occurrences that sums up to the overall correction.
What are the statistical odds, that corrections from 1920 to 1975 summed up just happens to give a stunningly straight line? Is it likely that station moves in Peru and China and rest of the world happens to give something systematically as a straight line over the years?
When corrections shows to follow a straight line, it certainly looks as if corrections has been carried out from a central place to follow this straight line rather than a random process of changes that demands corrections.
GHCN Adjustments
http://statpad.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/ghcn-and-adjustment-trends/
http://savecapitalism.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/ghcn-database-adjustments/
GHCN data:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/
More writing by Frank Lansner:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/a-brief-overview-of-chosen-frank-lansner-articles-in-english-208.php
Last changed: 7th April, 2011 at 23:55:04
Back
Comments
Add Comment
Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann, Oct 12, 2009:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Kevin Trenberth to Tom Wigley, Oct 14, 2009
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where
energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not
close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is
happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
Leo Tolstoy
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
Phil Jones
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” -
Phil Jones to Michael Mann Feb 21, 2005:
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
Tom Wigley to Phil Jones Sep 27, 2009:
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip".
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) — but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.
Tim Osborn to Michael Mann and Ian Macadam , Oct 5, 1999:
Dear Mike and Ian
Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy
reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are
attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually
stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that
is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven't put a 40-yr
smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure
the same filter was used for all curves.
Keith Briffa:
Briffa:
> For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
>warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
>is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
>was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global
>mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of
>years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence
>for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that
>require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future
>background variability of our climate. I think the Venice meeting will be
>a good place to air these isssues.
