Crux Sancti Patris Benedicti

Christians, cows, SUV’s, “in cell” prison showers and Christmas dinners have all been blamed for contributing to global warming. However, the climategate scandal has forced a serious thermodynamic reassessment. In particular, recent research has shown that claims of livestock induced global warming are little more than junk science —more

According to the British Meteorological Office and the World Meteorological Association, the past decade was ‘by far’ the warmest since records began -a claim which totally ignores overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.

For example, in a supplement to the August 2008 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Dr Jeff Knight et al claim that that the mean global surface temperature has changed by the statistically insignificant amount 0.07 +/- 0.07 deg C from 1999 to 2008.

The dicrepancy between this finding and the Met Office claim likely arises from the averaging processes used. Three temperature sets are typically used in estimating temperature, one in the UK Met Office, and two in the US, maintained, respectively by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and by the US space agency NASA. These three agencies (who are all involved with the Climategate scandal) take raw data (which they refuse to make public) and ‘homogenise’ it to deal with the anomalies caused by local variations and discontinuities. The existing satellite data sets are calibrated against the earth data sets.

Temperature “homogenization” of this type can be physically meaningless, as explained here and more rigorously here. When non linear transformation are applied, the same data set can consistent with both warming and cooling (See pennance.us/?p=4).

As a simple example: Imagine a planet, call it X, that has only two weather stations. Suppose that for many centuries the two stations both record a constant temperature of 16°X. Suppose that in a certain year one station records an average temperature of 0°X and the other 36°X yielding a mean of 18°X. Suppose the temperature scale °X is related to another thermometric scale °Y by an order preserving transformation. Suppose for simplicity that under this change of scale: 0°X converts to 0°Y; 16°X converts to 4°Y; 36°X converts to 6°Y. When °X are used, the data from the two stations shows a rise of 2 °X in the mean. The same data when converted to °Y shows a fall of in the mean of 1°Y.

Thus whether we deduce warming or cooling depends very much on the scale used. Nonlinear averaging behaves exactly like a nonlinear change of scale in this respect.

References

1. A Fable of Global Warming by Philip Pennance
2. Global Warming I —On the non existence of a global mean surface temperature by Philip Pennance
3. Appendix to Global Warming I — The ordinality of temperature by Philip Pennance
4. Global Warming II—On the non existence of a global mean surface temperature by Philip Pennance

Continued from Part I

50. Matt Thompson wrote: Jim [43], I don’t need to go into any detailed answer of this one, ‘cause such an answer is already available on RealClimate (as of yesterday). Check it out. I should point out that Richard Lindzen is now admitting that the climate has warmed significantly over the last century, a position he opposed all too recently.

51. Matt Thompson wrote: Philip [44], you’re still not providing concrete examples of whether the problems you raise are actual problems, or just the kind of 0.001% error that we all ignore. At the risk of seeming repetitive in my last couple of responses, to answer the final question you pose in your comment please take a look at this RealClimate article posted in early July. In it you will get a sense for how these issues are dealt with.

52. Matt Thompson wrote: Jim [45], you keep claiming that debate does not exist. This is not correct. The debate has been going on for decades, and those you list have been part of it. And, no, this scientific debate should not be resolved by the public, since the public is not trained to resolve it. The science itself must remain science. We can have a public debate about policy (over which you and I will undoubtedly, yet honestly disagree), but a public debate over the science? This is a tact commonly used by those who know they are in a weak position (I might add, a tact that is very popular among creationists). “Let’s vote on it,” you say, thus abusing our sense of pride in the democratic process to inject doubt and dissension into a debate that has already consumed tens of millions of man-hours since the 1970s.

Science is full of debates with winner and losers. No matter what the subject, and no matter how low the stakes, the losers are always bitter. The feel misunderstood and slighted, even though they know there’s a solid chance that in just a few years their status will be elevated from just “probably wrong” to “dead wrong.” Every once in a while these dissenters are shown to be right. Einstein was one of those people. While everyone else was trying to find the “aether”, he was busy working on a field theory that made no such assumption. Recall, it wasn’t relativity that got him the Nobel—recognition for that work didn’t come until much later.

Those few exceptions aside, the dissenters are usually wrong. It’s in the nature of science to filter out the “wrong” and elevate the “right.” (Even if Einstein had been ignored, his work would have been eventually “rediscovered.”) What we as a people decide to do with the information provided by science is our choice. But that’s the difference between a debate on policy and a debate on science. Don’t confuse the two.

53. DonGander wrote: Matt:

In Wisconsin we have for weather history the high and low temperatures for the day and precipitation for the day for about 150 years. These items can be entered into a computer and processed by some program. More recently the inputs have included average dew point, cloud cover (percentage of sunshine), windspeed, and more. This is for the city that I live in. There are right now no such measurements for much of the earth. There definitely is no HISTORY of cloud cover at all. In 1956 it was very very hot in Wisconsin. Was this caused by the lack of cloud cover or for some other reason? If we can’t deduce that for 1956 how the beans are we supposed to get usable info into a computer to analyse long-term climate change?

The current usage of pictures from space are not, as far as I have been told at the U Wisconsin, usable at this time though they may shortly be usable (A satellite in Earth/Sun Synchronous orbit would solve the problem). I firmly believe that they should be made usable, one way or the other. But even if right now they are usable it is no help , once again, in proccessing the probabilities of long-term climate change.

By the way, I do believe that the climate IS changing but I do not know if it is a man-made change nor if such change has an overall harm or benefit to Man. I have no axe to grind. I am interested in the truth.

DonGander

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”

DonGander

54. Matt Thompson wrote: Don [53], I, too, am interested in the truth. But I think you’re making a mountain out of a molehill. Accurate estimates of cloud cover prior to the launch of viable imaging satellites in the 80s is not a critical component of our confidence in whether climate change is currently anthropogenic (the 90-95% confidence proposed by the IPCC this last round accounts for our uncertainty in this regard), but rather in our confidence in the degree of climate change in the future, as you point out. So, I come back to my earlier point [18]: the error bars on our current estimates of future climate change under any given carbon emissions and land use scenario is most dependent upon how we model cloud cover and how it turns out to change over time. No one is denying this, and everyone that I’m aware of is trying to accomodate our current uncertainty re: cloud cover in all respectable projections of climate change.

Also, as I said before, increased cloud cover in response to warming cannot possibly raise albedo enough to erase the warming itself (the math just isn’t there). As such, there is no projection that predicts a drop in the Earth’s mean surface temperature via a cloud-cover/increased-albedo effect. Instead, projections range from increased albedo ameliorating some temperature increases to there being no increased albedo, at all.

I understand that you still doubt the feasibility of anthropogenic climate change, but the argument is simple, and can be summarized in six easy steps without resulting to complex model calculations or difficult arguments about cloud cover (see RealClimate). The following is the so-called “party line” and is the most parsimonious explanation of the data:

(1) There is a natural greenhouse effect.

(2) Trace gases, like water vapor, CO2, CH4, ozone, etc., contribute to the natural greenhouse effect.

(3) Trace greenhouse gases have increased markedly in the atmosphere due to human activity.

(4) Radiative forcing is easily calculated from knowledge of atmospheric profiles in temperature, water vapor, trace gases and aerosols. Any perturbation to the radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere will lead to a consistent change in the temperature of the Earth’s surface. The total forcing for trace greenhouse gases is about 2.5 watts per meter-squared and net forcing since pre-industrial times (including the cooling impacts of aerosols and all other natural changes) is about 1.6 watts per meter-squared. Current growth in this forcing is mostly due to increased atmospheric CO2, with a potentially small role for aerosols and an increasing role for absorbing aerosols (like soot from biomass burning).

(5) Climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is around 3 deg Celsius, a finding that can be converted to a more useful number with different units, 0.75 deg C / (watts per meter-squared). This number corresponds to the last glacial period, when radiative forcing had dropped by about 7 watts / meter-squared, and temperature had dropped by about 5 deg C. The nature of the forcing doesn’t matter (it could be anything)—climate sensitivity is just the response of the Earth’s surface temperature at equilibrium to a change in the radiative balance at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere. The number is well constrained to within 10%.

(6) Radiative forcing times climate sensitivity is a significant number. Current forcing (1.6 watts / meter-squared times 0.75 deg C / (watts / meter-squared)) would lead to a 1.2 deg C temperature increase if we were already in equilibrium. But we’re not at equlibrium. The oceans take a long time to equilibrate, and currently only 0.7 deg C of that 1.2 deg C has been realized. The rest is in the pipeline. Business-as-usual emissions scenarios, in which the rate of emissions increases in proportion to projected economic growth, thus predict an additional 2 to 5 deg C warming at equilibrium. The error in this estimate corresponds to our uncertainty in how clouds will respond.

55. libraryjim wrote: Matt, As I’ve said before, I’ve heard your parroting before. I really don’t intend to be engaging YOU in the discussion, but the others here. The fact that some of my comments overlap and hit on some of your points is, well, a coincidence.

Your arguments don’t matter to me, as I don’t see you presenting anything but the anthropogenic propaganda side. When you are ready to discuss the FACTS and the ISSUES rather than attack the people (in spite of your assertions to the contrary) then perhaps I may change my mind about listening to your propaganda but I doubt it.

Jim

56. Matt Thompson wrote: Jim [55], here’s what you’re saying: “Your side is wrong, since it’s all propaganda. Instead, let me provide you with my arguments, which are correct since they are not propaganda.”

This doesn’t sound particularly logical to me. Besides, I’ve refrained from anything other than treating what you’ve said with the kind of respect that any argument deserves: a treatment on the basis of the facts and issues. Let’s take my response to your [39]. You cited an op-ed from a Canadian newspaper that provides what I considered to be a swiss cheese argument about geological and biogeochemical time scales (remember, I don’t have to parrot on this subject, since I have actual professional experience in the area). So I dealt with the argument on the merits. Turns out the argument made by Segalstad, a fine geologist I’m sure, fails to recognize that the Earth system is never actually in equilibrium, and that when talking about how long carbon will stay in the atmosphere, only certain pools in the ocean will be relevant, i.e., those pools with carbon residence times on the same order of magnitude or just longer than the atmosphere. Since these pools are near the surface, and because they aren’t that large, those parts of the ocean can more than allow a doubling of atmospheric CO2. In other words, in the long-view, Segalstad is absolutely correct, but his point is irrelevant, since we’re talking about the transient period before the “long-view” is even on the scene.

Jim, if you don’t feel prepared to have a public debate on the science then say so, but I beg of you please don’t accuse me of spewing propaganda. I’m working hard here.

57. Philip Pennance wrote: Matt Thompson said: “Philip [44], you’re still not providing concrete examples of whether the problems you raise are actual problems, or just the kind of 0.001% error that we all ignore.” Your request is again ambiguous and itself raises more questions. Problem for whom? Can a problem be a “non actual” problem? The answers to your request clearly vary according to the “problem”. For example, one concrete issue I raised was the “problem” of independent observers reconciling their respective data sets and the non uniqueness inherent in the treatment of the discrepancies. Is this an “actual” problem? Certainly. According to CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Report on Tropospheric temperature trends: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap6.pdf

“There remain differences between independently estimated temperature trends for the surface, troposphere and lower stratosphere, and differences between the observed changes and model simulations, that are, as yet, not fully understood…”

“…The main lesson learned from this Report is that great difficulties in identifying and removing non-climatic influences from upper-air observations have led to a very large spread in trend estimates… “

Is this an “ignorable” problem?

That will depend on much argumentation concerning the possible causes and magnitude of the discrepancy —a technical question for climatologists. One thing that cannot be applied in this context is the concept of percentage error. Temperature is an ordinal variable so talk of percentage errors, as in your comment, can be meaningless in this type of analysis.

I leave you with a “non actual” problem which has some features in common with an actual problem.

Imagine a spherical planet, which we shall call X, that has only two weather stations. Suppose that for many centuries the two stations both record a stable temperature of 16° X. Suppose that in a certain year one station records an average temperature of 0° X and the other 36° X yielding a mean of 18° X Do you consider this to be evidence of global warming on the planet X? Do you consider this to be evidence of an increase in mean global surface temperature on the planet X? If so, at what level of significance? What assumptions are needed to calculate a level of significance?

58. Matt Thompson wrote: Philip, I don’t want to imagine a spherical planet. I want to imagine a real planet, and I want to understand how a real planet works. You are looking for “mathematical proofs”, but I fear you are looking for something that no one in the debate considers important to the matter at hand. Climate science is necessarily empirical and guided by our physical understanding of how the world works. Hundreds of studies have been done to see how good local measurements of temperature actually are, and whether they provide a sufficient proxy for the spatial and temporal patterns of temperature that we can safely say are found not on Planet X, but on this planet.

Climate science does not employ the logic of pure mathematics (contrary to your wish), but the logic of engineering. An engineer does not look for absolute precision, but for metrics to fall within certain tolerances, often with a safety margin. Similarly, climate scientists look for effects that are large and of first order, and while they fuss with the 0.001% issues as a matter of thoroughness, the broad picture is painted with the colors of 30%, 40% and 50% issues. Since temperature trends are broadly smooth over the surface of the earth at the spatial scale of relevant climate processes (i.e., tens and hundreds of miles), your issues are ultimately of the 0.001% variety.

The bottom line is that, yes, not all is fully understood. But to claim from the outside that because some aspect of a process (such some of the observed anomalies in upper and lower atmospheric temperature trends) is not yet understood signifies a deep pathology in the discipline as a whole is the novice’s mistake. Grad students get swept up in such fancies, only to later realize that they’re fussing over 0.001% issues.

59. Philip Pennance wrote: Matt: For convenience my comments on your post 58 are in square brackets.

Philip, I don’t want to imagine a spherical planet. I want to imagine a real planet, and I want to understand how a real planet works. [Einstein often used such thought experiments to shed light upon complicated situations. ]

You are looking for “mathematical proofs” … [Did I ask you for a proof? No, I merely posed an interesting question and asked what could be meaningfully said.]

but I fear you are looking for something that no one in the debate considers important to the matter at hand. [In my experience, universally negative statements of this form are frequently false.]

Climate science is necessarily empirical and guided by our physical understanding of how the world works. [ All sciences are necessarily empirical. But most sciences like classical mechanics do not eschew mathematical proof when it is possible.]

Hundreds of studies have been done to see how good local measurements of temperature actually are, and whether they provide a sufficient proxy for the spatial and temporal patterns of temperature that we can safely say are found not on Planet X, but on this planet. [And as the reference in post 57 shows, there are many open issues.]

Climate science does not employ the logic of pure mathematics (contrary to your wish), but the logic of engineering. An engineer does not look for absolute precision, but for metrics to fall within certain tolerances, often with a safety margin. [Math, science and engineering are based on Aristotelian logic. I do hope that Climate Science has not abandoned the standard logic.]

Similarly, climate scientists look for effects that are large and of first order, and while they fuss with the 0.001% issues as a matter of thoroughness, the broad picture is painted with the colors of 30%, 40% and 50% issues. [It is physically meaningless to talk about percentages when talking about temperature. It is an ordinal variable.]

Since temperature trends are broadly smooth over the surface of the earth at the spatial scale of relevant climate processes (i.e., tens and hundreds of miles), your issues are ultimately of the 0.001% variety. [This seems tautological. They are smooth after considerable mathematical processing and filtering to make them smooth.].

The bottom line is that, yes, not all is fully understood. But to claim from the outside that because some aspect of a process (such some of the observed anomalies in upper and lower atmospheric temperature trends) is not yet understood signifies a deep pathology in the discipline as a whole is the novice’s mistake. Grad students get swept up in such fancies, only to later realize that they’re fussing over 0.001% issues. [But notice that I did not insult climatology by saying that there is a deep pathology in the discipline so your bottom line is both moot and unwarranted. ] August 12, 1:39 pm 60. libraryjim wrote: Philip, You responded to a post that said:

Grad students get swept up in such fancies, only to later realize that they’re fussing over 0.001% issues.

Which is interesting, because an earlier news post on T1:9 included this note about the basis of a policy change for an entire towship in Pennsylvania:

Global warming falls within the county’s general purview of health, safety and general welfare because the potential effects include increased rainfall and flooding, as well as extremely hot days, Nelson said. Armed with a graduate student’s thesis about changes Montgomery County can make, a task force appointed in January is expected to report back on its recommendations by the end of the year. It will set emissions targets for 2012, 2017 and 2025

So it appears that a Grad student’s research is much more inflential than that of respected scientists who hold for the natural cycle theories of climate change. And so it goes, politics trumps science in this (non-)debate.

Peace Jim Elliott

61. Matt Thompson wrote: Philip [59], I find it difficult to respond to “fisks” (i.e., point-by-point responses in serial form) so I’ll address a couple of your points and we’ll go from there.

First, one can talk of percentages when speaking of the causal components of a fixed effect. For instance, one could say that 25% of the increase in temperature over the last 100 years is due to an increase in incoming solar radiation, while the remaining 75% is due to increases in trace greenhouse gases. It is this kind of percentage I’m talking about. A 50% effect is a big one, while a 0.001% effect is indeed minor and can be left out (much as an engineer would hope that her built-in safety margin never be overcome by departures in the large effects, let alone the small ones).

Second, regarding “proof”, I think where we’re getting ourselves into trouble (me mostly) is in the fact that science never actually deals in proofs, only in the synthesis of evidence and analysis which leads to theory. So, I thought you were asking for some kind of abstract “proof” that discontinuities in temperature do not exist (they do), or that a small number of measurements can accurately represent trends in much larger areas (they can). If you did in fact mean “proof”, then I’m afraid I can’t help you, but if you want evidence, then …

Third, regarding tautology, there is good evidence supporting the use of small numbers of measurements to represent much larger ones. Temperature stations, both urban and non-urban, are present across the United States, as elsewhere. Across the spatial scales at which climate-level processes occur (that is, the scale at which vortices and eddies in the atmosphere are realized; for example, the hundreds of miles across the width of tropical storms), significant discontinuities in those temperature records exist but they are not important. For example, the temperature in the air passing over a ridge line will drop as its pressure drops on the leeward side, but this is discontinuity that is MUCH, MUCH smaller than the large-scale atmospheric mixing that drives long-term changes in climate. Hence, local discontinuities like that over a ridge line can be safely ignored. Does one monitor the contour of the Pacific coastline foot-by-foot to determine how to navigate from Los Angeles to San Francisco by sea, or how the Humboldt current moves from Antarctica to southern Peru? No. Conversely, is precise measurement of the coastline in local areas important for understanding how organisms live in the tidal zone? Yes. The level of spatial precision needs to match the scale of the process in question. Processes at other scales are provisionally ignored since one can calculate that they would be unimportant at the scale in question. This is Aristotelean logic as applied to the process of theoretical simplification, and is a perfectly valid and commonly applied tool in all sciences.

Getting back to temperature, it is well known that temperature gradients over the spatial scales relevant to climate processes are, in fact, quite smooth, in part because those very same climate processes integrate the effect of local variation in temperature. In other words, it’s not the computer that does the smoothing, but the climate itself.

Please let me know if I have failed to respond adequately to your points. I confess that much of what you have written I have found confusing, but it could just be your use of the word “proof.” Much of the applied sciences register little interest in such things, which is why I was hesitant to engage you on something that is not especially important (if at all) to the discipline. Again, apologies for any misunderstanding.

Jim [60], you’re talking sophistry: surely you can admit that a graduate student can get it right every once in a while. It seems to me that you’re deliberating misinterpreting or misrepresenting my point, and your inability or refusal to address my points directly (“You responded to a post that said”) is puerile and beneath the dignity of this forum, and represents a barely veiled contempt for a what I would hope you would consider a worthy opponent who has treated you and your arguments with nothing but respect throughout this thread. I hope that in the not-too-distant future we can treat argument with argument.

August 12, 6:23 pm 62. libraryjim wrote: philip, many people on the forum point to the diminishing polar ice caps on Mars to show the natural cycle theory has merits. Here’s an interesting link from National Geographic online:

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says Kate Ravilious for National Geographic News February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet’s recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist’s controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

“The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,” he said.

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun’s heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

“Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Of course, they can’t allow a report on just this opinion: The article goes on to cite the theory of human caused global warming, pointing out that Adbussamatov is a ‘rogue sceintist’ for his views, and then concludes:

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

“The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040,” Abdussamatov said. “It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years.”

If this were an article on a scientist ‘proving’ human cause, there would be no mention of contrary viewpoints. So while I appreciate that this has been mentioned AT ALL, it is further evidence that the debate is NOT being handled fairly and even-handedly.

Jim

64. libraryjim wrote: Also: In April of this year, 60 prominent scientists wrote to the Canadian Prime Minister declaring that “Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future…Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

and

Senator Inhofe then went on to quote an excerpt directly from the IPCC guidelines. The “Principles Governing IPCC Work” clearly states in its Appendix A that the scientific work will be altered to conform to the media-hyped Summary for Policymakers:

Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.

Senator Inhofe’s criticism has been echoed by the U.K.’s Lord Nigel Lawson – former Chancellor of the Exchequer and a Member of the House of Lords Committee that reviewed the IPCC process. Lawson has called for the abolishment of the U.N.’s IPCC.

“I believe the IPCC process is so flawed, and the institution, it has to be said, so closed to reason, that it would be far better to thank it for the work it has done, close it down, and transfer all future international collaboration on the issue of climate change…” Lawson said.

Link here (The site has links to other dissenters as well as video links of interviews with those quoted above and many other on the site)

65. Philip Pennance wrote: Matt Thompson [61] wrote: “First, one can talk of percentages when speaking of the causal components of a fixed effect. For instance, one could say that 25% of the increase in temperature over the last 100 years is due to an increase in incoming solar radiation.”

On the other hand, in a recent paper, Does a Global Temperature Exist? J. Non-Equil. Thermod. 32, 1-27 (2007), (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf), Essex, McKitrick, and Andresen: claim to show that the mean temperature is not physical, and that there may be many valid ways of computing a mean which will give different trends. If they are correct in this assertion, then trying to apportion percentage causes to, say, an increase in average global temperature, does not seem to make physical sense.

The above remark also applies to your later comment

“…it is well known that temperature gradients over the spatial scales relevant to climate processes are, in fact, quite smooth, in part because those very same climate processes integrate the effect of local variation in temperature. In other words, it’s not the computer that does the smoothing, but the climate itself.”

66. Matt Thompson wrote: Regarding Global Warming on Mars: not a new story, and long-since in the literature as a matter of debate. Again, there is a debate; it’s just a debate that some of us haven’t yet bothered to survey (apparently neither has Abdussamatov).

RealClimate had the story back in 2005. Too bad NatGeo couldn’t cover the reasons that Abdussamatov’s argument is not taken seriously. From RealClimate:

Recently, there have been some suggestions that “global warming” has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a “global” change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.

Guest-blogger Steinn Sigurdsson goes on to argue the following points. First, it is not correct to assume that changes in both Martian and Earth climate necessarily result from common external factors for the following reasons:

(1) Mars has very little thermal mass tied up in an atmosphere or in oceans so it is highly sensitive to the smallest external perturbations. (2) Mars and Earth have different orbital periods, different axial obliquities, and different orbital eccentricities. (3) Solar radiation from the Sun has been going down not up during the period when the Martian polar ice caps are shrinking.

Second, we actually know quite a bit about Mars’ climate. Relevant factors:

(1) Mean temperature of Mars is sensitive to the strength and duration of hemispheric dust storms. (2) Dust storms were at a maximum in the 1970s when temperature was at a minimum, while dust storms have declined significantly since then. (3) Variation in these dust storms from Martian year to Martian year can swing many degrees averaged over the Martian surface, and are strong factors in forcing changes in local climate as a function of position on the globe and topography of the surface. (4) The change in Martian polar ice cap extent is due to a local temperature increase compounded by the odd topography at the poles, which leads to a climate instability during the current period of climate transition (from high dust storms to minimum dust storms).

The RealClimate post has all the details and links. Explore them at your leisure. As Sigurdsson points out, it is odd that climate change critics should be so quick to accept that Martian ice caps are shrinking but so critical of their reduction on Earth.

August 12, 8:29 pm 67. libraryjim wrote: Philip, and speaking of doctoral students getting it right:

Check out the paper by Wm. Robert Johnston refuting the human cause theory.

he points out: Problems with the Hypothesis. The global warming hypothesis is not scientifically verified. Critics of the hypothesis argue:

*About 60% of the temperature increase mentioned above occurred before 1940, but only 33% of the increase in carbon dioxide concentration had occurred by then. This indicates that increased carbon dioxide was not the cause of the temperature increase.

*The observed temperature rise is not accelerating: temperatures increased from 1880 to 1940, dropped slightly from 1940 to 1980, and have by some reports increased since then.

*The reported increase since 1980 is not confirmed by satellites or air-borne measurements and may result from weather stations being close to urban areas. In fact, there is specific evidence that the reports of higher temperatures since 1980 by some sources reflect dishonest science.

*Changes in global temperature are better correlated with changes in solar activity. Solar magnetic flux shows trends similar to that for temperatures from 1880 to the present.

*Observations contradict the computer model predictions, indicating that the computer models are significantly exaggerating any potential warming. Also, the computer models are predicting smaller temperature increases than they did ten years ago, as they have become more sophisticated.

*The various predicted disastrous results of a temperature increase are doubtful, with different studies often making opposite predictions. Historically, however, civilizations have prospered in times of warmer climate. Various studies also indicate that plant life is prospering from the increased carbon dioxide levels. Dr. Johnstone goes on to post more papers on global warming here eacho of which goes into more detail on various aspects of the flaws of the anthropogenic theory.

Another site by John Daly points out that the medieval warming period had temperatures higher than ours today:

This graph asserts that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were higher than those of today (as suggested by the opening lines to the Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer), while it was much cooler during the Little Ice Age (as suggested by John King). Historical records from all over Europe, and Greenland attest to the reality of both events, and their profound impact on human society. For example, the colonisation of Greenland by the Vikings early in the millennium was only possible because of the medieval warmth. During the Little Ice Age, the Viking colonies in Greenland collapsed, while the River Thames in London often froze over, resulting in frequent `frost fairs’ being held on the river ice.

The dating of these two climatic events depends to some extent on what one regards as `warm’ and `cold’ in comparison with present temperatures, but the following dating approximates these events -

1) `Medieval Warm Period’ (AD 700 – 1300) 2) `Sporer Minimum’ cool period (AD 1300 – 1500) 3) Brief climatic warming (AD 1500 – 1560) 4) `Little Ice Age’ (`Maunder Minimum’) (AD 1560 – 1830) 5) Brief warmer period (AD 1830 – 1870) 6) Brief cool period (AD 1870 – 1910) 7) 20th century warm period (AD 1910 – 2000)

As to what caused these two major climatic events, the most probable candidate is the variable sun, particularly with respect to the Little Ice Age. This is because we have direct observations of sunspot counts going back to 1600 AD, which allows us to compare variations in the sun with variations to global climate. Fig.2 shows how the sun has changed over time, the radiation being greatest during a sunspot maximum and least during a sunspot minimum, both recurring on an 11-year cycle.(the figures are, of course, on the website)

August 12, 8:32 pm 68. libraryjim wrote: Matt, I was talking to Philip, if you don’t mind.

August 12, 8:36 pm 69. Matt Thompson wrote: Jim [64], if you want me to disagree with the following from those 60 prominent scientists …

Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

… don’t hold your breath. Policy debate is policy debate. Science debate is science debate. And Inhofe, though I have had reason to distrust his analysis of the science in the past, is at least partly correct to criticize the watering down of the IPCC science report by the policy wonks—though I fear he doesn’t realize that if the scientists had had their way, it would have been a much stronger statement than it already is. Recall that the 95-99% confidence of climate change since 1900 as being anthropogenic was reduced to 90-95%, not the other way around.

70. Matt Thompson wrote: Philip [65], not being completely up to speed on how temporal trends are calculated from spatial data, I can only say that I’m sure if I were working on it, I would be worrying about it.

But I think we’re confusing something important here—no one I know is saying that mean temperature is a “real” thing, something that everyone everywhere experiences the same at all times. I pointed this out back in [34] about average height. Mean temperature is a diagnostic, not a prognostic.

Perhaps what we’re waiting for is a time when no matter how you calculate the mean from spatial data, current mean temperature is inarguably higher than it has been since the pre-industrial era, and in a way consonant with the physics of the climate.

BTW, I found the link you posted to go to a nowhere place on the web, but that this link (pdf) gets you the paper. Also, as usual, actual climate scientists with actual climate science jobs have honest rebuttals with actual arguments to the paper here and here. As pointed out by Rasmus Benestad (and let me allow his words to reflect my own impressions of your points), “The paper doesn’t bring any new revelations – I thought that these aspects were already well-known.”

71. Matt Thompson wrote: Jim [67], as we’ve hashed out before on this blog, natural cycles exist. The question is whether those known and well-studied cycles can explain current trends. Temperature increases following the 1980s trend with the expected multi-decadal time-lag behind the onset in the 50s of massive trace greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, since 1980 or so, solar radiation has either plateaued or gone down (especially in the last several years).

While “cycles” do exist, it is incumbent upon you and others to stipulate which of these many cycles can generate recent warming trends (i.e., during the last decade). One can’t simply invoke “cycles” to explain away anthropogenic change; One must be specific and concrete.

A recent excellent article on the subject of solar forcing (which drives only the latest of a mass of nails into the coffin of the solar-forcing hypothesis) can be found here in the Proceedings of the Royal Society (2007).

72. Philip Pennance wrote: Matt Thompson [70] wrote: “But I think we’re confusing something important here—no one I know is saying that mean temperature is a “real” thing, something that everyone everywhere experiences the same at all times. I pointed this out back in [34] about average height. Mean temperature is a diagnostic, not a prognostic.” I never said (nor do I believe) “that mean temperature is a “real” thing, something that everyone everywhere experiences the same at all times.” Nor did Essex, McKitrick, and Andresen, nor indeed did anyone else that I know make such a claim. Indeed, I do not understand what you mean by “real” in this context. It does follow, from the axioms of mechanics (for a Galilean space time), that a mean height transforms to a mean height under the allowed changes of length scale. However, nothing in the axioms of classical thermodynamics permits us to prove the corresponding statement for temperature. This is the essence of the result by Essex et al. Whether or not “mean temperature is a diagnostic” is too vague and context laden a statement to assign a truth value. For example it is often false that mean temperature is a diagnostic of heating or cooling. Take ice at 0°C and heat it to form water at 0°C. There no change in the average temperature so the heating can not be diagnosed.

You say that “actual climate scientists with actual climate science jobs have honest rebuttals with actual arguments to the paper.

Actually, the blog sources you quote have more in common with a lynch mob than an appraisal by referees in a scientific journal. On the one hand you assert that the paper of Essex et al. has been rebutted and at the same time you quote Benestad who claims, providing no references, that “these aspects are well known.”. Thus the critics appear to contradict each other. There may well be non essential errors in the paper by Essex et al., but none that I can find which refutes their main thesis.

73. Philip Pennance wrote: Jim [67]. Thanks for providing the references. They make some very interesting observations.

74. libraryjim wrote: Philip, You might also want to look at the site Is Global Warming real? and follow the link at the end of this article to the article Global Warming: a Chilling Perspective.

Peace Jim Elliott

75. Matt Thompson wrote: Philip [72], you write:

On the one hand you assert that the paper of Essex et al. has been rebutted and at the same time you quote Benestad who claims, providing no references, that “these aspects are well known.”. Thus the critics appear to contradict each other. There may well be non essential errors in the paper by Essex et al., but none that I can find which refutes their main thesis.

There is no contradiction. Sometimes critics of an idea will raise criticisms that aren’t relevant. For instance, you point out that heating through a phase change doesn’t change the temperature. The proper response might be “duh” (with all respect). You present a well known fact that is already well incorporated in our understanding of climate physics. Likewise, if you’re a climate scientist and you read somewhere in a paper that how you calculate a mean will affect the mean value, you say “duh”. When you then hear from the same people that this is somehow a criticism of long-standing results, even though no actual analysis of the data itself was performed by the authors, you get a bit indignant. This was Benestad’s response. It is up to Essex et al. to show that calculating the mean values differently will actually affect the results, and they have to do this by actually calculating the means using real data. This is called constructive science, but like many critics (whether their criticism is of movies, books, evolutionary biology, or global warming) they fail to do little actual work themselves, much like the Scholastics did before Francis Bacon threw the book at Aristotle with his Novum Organum. The Essex paper was rebutted by showing that their points were either irrelevant to the discussion at hand or “well-known” and thus not really controversial. It is now on the shoulders of Essex et al. to go back through the data and show that a different mode of calculation will yield a different result. My guess, based on the kind of work they publish and on their preferred mode of criticism, is that they probably won’t bother to do that.

You may think the folks over at RealClimate to be a “lynch mob”, but if you would explore further you will see that they entertain all matter of criticism of their ideas, including criticism from folks like McKitrick and McIntyre (the authors of the “hockey-stick” critique and one of them a co-author of the Essex paper). For instance, please check out the comment section to the latest RealClimate post on the 1934 broohaha. You’ll see that Steve McIntyre (the author of the letter to the NASA GISS scientists regarding the error in the US data) gets involved in the comments at around comment 206. He is treated with respect, argument for argument.

76. Matt Thompson wrote: Philip, also, to directly respond to your criticism of temperature scales, I’m afraid you’re quite wrong. Small variations in temperature on an absolute scale (i.e., Kelvin) can be treated as linearly scalable, much as length scales can. This is done all the time in applied mathematics dealing with models of heat flux, and it has been done so for at least a hundred years. Also, as a matter of convenience, partitioning those small changes in terms of percentages is perfectly acceptable and is done all the time.

What do I mean by real? I will pose my definition in Essex et al.’s own words (p. 2):

While that statistic is nothing more than an average over temperatures, it is regarded as the temperature, as if an average over temperatures is actually a temperature itself, and as if the out-of-equilibrium climate system has only one temperature. But an average of temperature data sampled from a non-equilibrium field is not a temperature.

I completely agree with them, as would anyone working in the field. Global temperature is not a “real” thing because it isn’t experienced anywhere by anyone. It is a diagnostic of the state of globe’s temperature at any one time, and is never meant to represent temperature at all points, just as the mean height of Americans is not meant to represent the actual height of all Americans. (And, yet, we’re now the 2nd tallest country in the world, recently losing our 1st place status to the Netherlands. Does that mean that I’m shorter than all Dutch? Of course not.)

The bottom line is that the criticism presented by Essex et al. is trivial. Of course global temperature as a single number does not really exist. It’s an index. Anyone who might have thought otherwise would have to be considered mightily daft.

But here’s where I get pretty annoyed with Essex et al. (again, p. 2):

The resolution of this paradox is not through adoption of a convention. It is resolved by recognizing that it is an abuse of terminology to use the terms “warming” and “cooling” to denote upward or downward trends in averages of temperature data in such circumstances. Statistics might go up or down, but the system itself cannot be said to be warming or cooling based on what they do, outside of special circumstances.

… or (p. 3):

Debates as to which is the correct one are fundamentally false, with no correct resolution.

Welcome to the road to postmodernism. Hey man, whatever makes you feel good, but are they really trying to suggest that if the globe did become significantly and unequivocally warmer than it is now we wouldn’t be able to measure it because there would be a dispute about how to measure it? Gimme a break; these guys are the worst sort of armchair scientists. As someone who works hard in a lab all day, let me say that I feel completely justified in demanding that they get off their keesters and do some actual work.

77. Philip Pennance wrote: Matt Thompson [70] wrote: “Sometimes critics of an idea will raise criticisms that aren’t relevant. For instance, you point out that heating through a phase change doesn’t change the temperature.”

This does seem relevant in the context of your remark [70] that “mean temperature is a diagnostic, not a prognostic.” In fact, if you had not made a scientifically ambiguous claim, I would not have wasted your time and mine citing a simple counterexample. I was never under the delusion, as you assume, that climatologists were unaware of utterly trivial facts about the melting of ice. I did not even mention the concept of phase change. This was inserted by you to add credibility to your insinuation. I merely confined myself to providing a simple counterexample. Many other examples could have been given, but this would have been unnecessary. In any case, your error is not relevant to the discussion so let’s move on.

You also state that: “Essex paper has been rebutted by showing that their points were either irrelevant to the discussion at hand or “well-known” and thus not really controversial”. In fact, the crucial point for climatology seems to be the claim that, from a set of temperature readings alone, one can deduce neither an increase nor a decrease in mean global temperature. Has this point really been rebutted? If it has, then your next remark:

“it is up to Essex et al. to show that calculating the mean values differently will actually affect the results.” is redundant. After all, if Essex et al. do succeed in this task, would this not rebut the rebuttal?”

The following statements can be found in the references you cited in [70]

“When I first read this paper I thought it was a joke”

“I believe it is only by going to totally stupid definitions of “average” that they are going to see any significant differences in global temperature trends”

“Their fundamental error is that they wrote the paper.”

“You can find details of procedure in Ref 1 and 2 of the Essex, et al. paper. Let us examine why this is done”. Hey, who really cares why this is done?”

Do you really believe that scientific etiquette requires the authors of a published paper, or anyone, to pay attention to hostile criticism from blog posts such as the above? A natural way of handling an alleged scientific error is a polite letter to the editorial board of the journal outlining the problem and requesting either a correction, a refutation. or a retraction as the case warrants. Perhaps customs are different in Climatology.

Rather than waiting for Essex et al. to show that calculating the mean values differently will actually affect the results, let us consider a proof of an analogous result that is embedded in my question at the end of post [57]. In the light of your previously stated aversion to my thought experiment I will avoid discussing hypothetical spherical planets and alter the situation slightly.

Historians of science inform us that in the early days of “climatology”, a wide variety of different thermometric fluids were in use. Imagine that two early climatologists simultaneously measure the temperature at their respective locations and obtain an arithmetic mean of 16°X where X is the temperature scale defined by their common thermometric liquid. Suppose that at a given time later, both take new simultaneous measurements; one obtaining 0°X and the other 36°X for a mean of 18°X. In this case the arithmetic mean has increased by 2°X. Imagine that many years later, a third climatologist then transforms these measurements to °C. Suppose (temporarily) that the change of scale between °X and °C is given by the square root function which is continuous and strictly increasing. The initial average temperature reading of 16°X converts to 4°X. The final readings of 0°X and 36°X convert respectively to 0°C and 6°C yielding an arithmetic mean of 3°C —a drop of 1°C. This shows that the same data set can be compatible with an increase in the arithmetic mean on one temperature scale and a decrease on another. Moreover, there is nothing special here about the square root function. One can find infinitely many strictly increasing continuous functions, and compatible with the axioms of classical thermodynamics, which would illustrate the same behavior. Thus, to obtain the results of Essex at el., at least in classical thermodynamics, it is not even necessary to consider what the critics cited above call stupid definitions of “average”. Even the arithmetic mean is subject to this pathology when non affine changes of scale are considered. Thus, Essex et al.’s paper appears to be correct on this important point and the above example provides another refutation of the universality of your statement [70] that “mean temperature is a diagnostic”.

78. Matt Thompson wrote: Philip, regarding “scientific etiquette”, let me just say that blogs are blogs, and journals are journals. The bottom line is that Essex et al.’s paper is getting a hearing in public. They’re big boys, just like you. The other bottom line (yes, there are two bottom lines) is that I have no idea who might have reviewed their manuscript when it was delivered to the Journal of Nonlinear Thermodynamics, but I am quite sure that it was received with decorum and courtesy. Either way, taken together, both of the responses to the paper that I linked to raise all the important issues, including the one about the paper being an utterly trivial exercise, since everyone already knows what they’re writing about.

You were offended by my “insinuation” that you somehow weren’t aware of phase changes. I didn’t mean it that way, but I apologize anyway. The point of my quip was that Essex et al. never made the argument that you do about “warming” and “cooling” when you wrote:

For example it is often false that mean temperature is a diagnostic of heating or cooling. Take ice at 0°C and heat it to form water at 0°C. There no change in the average temperature so the heating can not be diagnosed.

They are basing their argument on the problems associated with generating an agreed upon method of calculating a mean global temperature, which I think you understand (see below). You were making a different point from what they were, and so I felt the need to swat it as not relevant to conversation. But enough with relevance! With them, I agree that no such temperature exists; it’s an index. But their error is to solipsistically “give up” on the idea of ever generating an index for change in global temperature. It’s almost as if they would balk if I told them the surface of Venus was hotter than the surface of the Earth: “But wait,” they would say, “you have no agreed upon method of measuring the mean temperatures of these two planets, therefore leave me in peace while I walk my dog and think about new ways to confound the public.”

Obviously, at some point, a difference in mean temperature between now and some point in the past will become so great that it won’t matter how you calculate the mean. And this is the kernel of Essex et al.’s difficulties: would it matter to what we know now if they calculated the Earth’s mean temperature in any one of the hundred or so possible ways that they allude to in their paper? The motto of constructive science is “go and see.” Instead, they sit and snipe. In fact, we really actually must wait “for Essex et al. to show that calculating the mean values differently will actually affect the results,” or at least for someone else to do so. Until then, they will have failed to meet the high standards of the “engineering” logic of climatology which requires that one do the work necessary to test one’s hypothesis. They present an hypothesis, that how one calculates the mean will matter to the result, but then they don’t test it. What kind of science is that?

Finally, you write:

Suppose (temporarily) that the change of scale between °X and °C is given by the square root function which is continuous and strictly increasing.

Whaaaa? Where could this possibly be leading. (Are you thinking of the square-dependence of mean free kinetic energy on temperature?) Wait, I will be patient … you go on:

Even the arithmetic mean is subject to this pathology when non affine changes of scale are considered.

Sorry, but since when has any temperature scale in the last 100 years been transformed by a square root function (and then not transformed back)? I call straw man.

79. Philip Pennance wrote: Matt: You say [78] that: “With them, I agree that no such temperature exists; it’s an index. But their error is to solipsistically “give up” on the idea of ever generating an index for change in global temperature.”

If one fixes a temperature scale (say Kelvin) for all time, then one certainly has an index of mean global surface ”“Kelvin temperature” average. As long as everyone sticks to that scale, or to scales in an affine relationship with that scale (as is done in practice), then no problems arise. On that point I agree with you. However, the fact that mean temperature does not behave the same way as mean length should not be dismissed as a “theoretical” irrelevance” It does impose the constraint that during non linear smoothing and filtering operations on temperature data, all transformations used must preserve the mean with respect to the chosen fixed scale. I will presume, for the sake of argument, that this issue is handled correctly. However, as I appointed out in [28], even if a scale is fixed an increase in average temperature can be consistent with cooling (net heat loss) in a non homogeneous body such as the earth. Thus our agreed upon fixed Kelvin index is not diagnostic of heating or cooling without supplementation from other data. The simple example in [72] is a case in point.

Let me address your point [76] that small variations in temperature on an absolute scale (i.e., Kelvin) can be treated as linearly scalable, much as length scales can. In the case of length, this fact follows from a continuity assumption and the fact that the length of a concatenation of two bodies is the sum of the lengths. In classical thermodynamics, there is no analogous concatenation operation for temperature and so there is no basis for this assumption. It is not an argument that “this has been done so for at least a hundred years”.

80. Philip Pennance wrote: Matt: Note that by the term “linearly scaleable” in my previous post I mean “necessarily linear scaleable” in the sense that scales of length must transform linearly, whereas, in the case of temperature, the class of allowable scale changes includes strictly increasing continuous functions which are non linear. There is no disagreement if you are merely saying that a linear or affine transformation is a valid change of temperature scale.

81. Matt Thompson wrote: Philip, if what you’re saying in [79] and [80] represents the entirety of your response, then I can’t imagine what we are still disagreeing about. To go further, I wonder if you are willing now to consider that the Essex et al. (2007) paper provides no non-trivial contribution to the question of whether we are experiencing a global warming trend, or that some index must be used (contrary to their point) lest we sink into a morass of solipsistic and anti-scientific thinking, or that science from the “armchair” on the subject of what is actually happening in the world is of little value unless it is put into practice. Essex et al. have much work yet to do. Who knows? Perhaps they’ll show that among a set of reasonable indices of global mean temperature, how the index is calculated makes a big difference. I look forward to their results.

82. libraryjim wrote: Interesting bit of news here:

The man behind the Web site Climateaudit has forced NASA to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record. Steve McIntyre had to reverse engineer NASA’s figures — because the agency refused to give him the formula it used to make the claim.

And McIntyre found out NASA had made a serious mistake. NASA eventually agreed, and now says 1934 was the hottest year — followed by 1998 — and 1921. In fact — five of the hottest 10 years on record occurred before World War II.

The New List: Year 1934 1998 1921 2006 1931 1999 1953 1990 1938 1939
Proceed to Part III