What Is Causing The Warming ?

[VillagePlank]

Hello Captain Bobski,

I was always a bit hazy on the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, but now that I look, hypo means below, thesis is obvious, so hypothesis means "sub-theory"....ish. So it hasn't even made theory yet?

Blimey

That's why, and I mean this quite generously, there is consensus, and not scientific certainty. No one as far as I can see is claiming that the current consensus has it all correct and ready to roll. Politicians aside, of course.

That said, there is still woolly thought in all areas (IMHO) regarding the state of what is going on. For sure it's warmer, and, according to the LI, it's due to stay with above anomaly global temperature returns for a few years, yet - indeed I expect a record hot year at some point in the very near future.(add positive natural variance onto already warm system)

Indeed preliminary extrapolations lead me to believe that unless this solar minima is (even more) protracted, we will have to wait until the next one (2020?) until the median is zero. (median means just as many positives as negatives)

However, we should still post a negative anomaly before, say, 2012/2013, for the LI to hold any water, if you'll excuse the leaky bucket pun.

Edited December 9, 2009 by VillagePlank

[noggin]

BTW I am still waiting for the global temperature graph from any source that shows cooling from the start to the end of the decade !.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CRUMSUCO2June.jpg

The blue line is temperature anomoly. It looks to me like it shows temperature being lower in 2009 than it was in 2002. Is this any good?

I had a quick look around and found it. Will see if I can dig up anything else.

Anyone feel free to pick my post and the graph to bits......I'm used to it now!

[noggin]

http://algorelied.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ait-index-5_09.png

Can someone advise whether or not this graph fits the bill? I am not too good at interpreting graphs and would genuinely appreciate polite commentary.

Thank you!

Peace and love to all! :unsure:

[VillagePlank]

http://algorelied.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ait-index-5_09.png

That graph is criminal.

At an extreme example of such a strategy to demonstrate something that is statistically invalid, I could claim that Rochester is cooling since it will be colder tomorrow night, than it was last night (since we are heading into winter)

You need to have more than one decade of data to have any chance of validity since there is inter-decadel variance. This is why climate averages are based on 30 years of data - to try and smooth out seasons, ENSO, and whole host of variable data.

(It is also why most meterologists look at the 850hPa temperature charts - they don't include diurnal (day and night) variations)

Edited December 9, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Methuselah]

Yup, I've read it, and the idea makes sense to me.

It's far better than Watts's (journalistic) lazy-minded nonsense about 'homogenization,' IMO...Most of what I've seen of the man's blogs, suggests (to me) that he knows little or nothing about climate science, how it works, or what it involves?? Either that, or his paymasters prefer red herrings and denial to science??

What I like about the LI (I was hugely sceptical, at first!) is that it clearly demonstrates the poinlessness of denial...IMO, denial is the lazy-man's alternative to explanation?? :unsure:

The LI has the potential to explain!!

[Dartmoor_Matt]

It's far better than Watts's (journalistic) lazy-minded nonsense about 'homogenization,' IMO...Most of what I've seen of the man's blogs, suggests (to me) that he knows little or nothing about climate science, how it works, or what it involves?? Either that, or his paymasters prefer red herrings and denial to science??

What I like about the LI (I was hugely sceptical, at first!) is that it clearly demonstrates the poinlessness of denial...IMO, denial is the lazy-man's alternative to explanation??

The LI has the potential to explain!!

First off I agree regarding the LI.

However, Watt's didn't write the post on homogenization and it was imo a good piece of work, looking into the reasons why it is done and then applying it to the specific location. Please explain how it could be less 'lazy'? I don't think it was denying anything and then just stopping, it looked at it, and then disected it. Which I think is science, no?

Anyways, thats besides the point. As the author says it is just one station (albeit the first on the list) and may not apply to all the stations (although we will know soon enough) and I have already said that I think its obvious we have warmed, based on the evidence (not being alive 160 years ago n all) albeit not massively and I don't think it ties in with the increase in CO2... I mean if we doubled the concentration should we not see a linked rise almost straight away? Or does it need to have a couple of conferences before it starts bouncing heat back to Earth?

[Devonian]

Well, I don't know about you, but I find the sea in Cornwall in January as cold at the moment as it was 10 years ago, so not sure about that one :winky: and I've only been to two glaciers, and they were both advancing.[/quote}

Which two have you been lucky enough to see?

As for the Darwin experiment... as it says, about 2C.

Well, if 'they' are adding 2C to the record that means the real temperature of the globe has declined by (at least: +.7C -2C or -1.3C) which is a nonsensical thing to suggest.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Devonian

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Which two have you been lucky enough to see?

Well, if 'they' are adding 2C to the record that means the real temperature of the globe has declined by (at least: +.7C -2C or -1.3C) which is a nonsensical thing to suggest.

Fox and Franz Josef back in 2007.

And NO, No, No. It does not imply that at all because it quite clearly says that this is for Darwin only. Jeez. Wheres that brickwall again?

[Devonian]

First off I agree regarding the LI.

However, Watt's didn't write the post on homogenization and it was imo a good piece of work, looking into the reasons why it is done and then applying it to the specific location. Please explain how it could be less 'lazy'? I don't think it was denying anything and then just stopping, it looked at it, and then disected it. Which I think is science, no?

Actually, if you read the comments there are questions being asked the haven't been answered. But, hey, you just accept uncritically what Willis Eschenbach tells you :winky:

Anyways, thats besides the point. As the author says it is just one station (albeit the first on the list) and may not apply to all the stations (although we will know soon enough) and I have already said that I think its obvious we have warmed, based on the evidence (not being alive 160 years ago n all) albeit not massively and I don't think it ties in with the increase in CO2... I mean if we doubled the concentration should we not see a linked rise almost straight away? Or does it need to have a couple of conferences before it starts bouncing heat back to Earth?

We shouldn't see an instant rise, because of the thermal inertial of the oceans.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Those are the graphs we all want to see, I think.

The cynic in me adds, "because they don't show any warming trend over the course of the 20th century"...

I've had a look through that article (btw WhatsUpWithThat is hardly an unbiased site!). Firstly, using raw unadjusted data is often not the best way to assess a temperature record because some sites move over time, urbanisation occurs around some sites, and instrument exposure can change depending on where the instrument is sited and what type of instrument is used. For example, when compiling my own weather records going back to 1993, I calibrated readings for the earlier years because my old instruments consistently read up to 1C higher than my current AWS, particularly by night. Had I not done this, the Cleadon record would have shown a sudden step-cooling around 2004/2005.

Then, to be fair, they go into an analysis on how the temperature data are homogenised, and discuss the methods used. This is a good way to set about determining the reliability of the homogenisation. But they then refer to the Darwin record (which shows no warming trend), say that the record is homogenised using 5 nearby stations, and conclude that an imaginary warming trend has been added in order to support AGW. But they don't actually say whether or not the 5 nearby stations showed any warming trend, it's just taken as given that they don't. I'm not going to dismiss their analysis out of hand here, but there may well be more to the story than the WUWT article makes out... Of course, the conclusion "the data are adjusted in order to support AGW" is exactly the conclusion they want to support (that's the whole agenda of the site), so that makes me a little suspicious.

[VillagePlank]

We shouldn't see an instant rise, because of the thermal inertial of the oceans.

Nor an instant drop for the very same reason :winky:

[Devonian]

Fox and Franz Josef back in 2007.

Ahh, very fast southern hemisphere glaciers.

And NO, No, No. It does not imply that at all because it quite clearly says that this is for Darwin only. Jeez. Wheres that brickwall again?

YOu REALLY need to read the comments because the galery there are convince (yet again) that it's the final nail in the coffin (again) - an no one (Willis, or Anthony) is disagreeing with the,. Face it WUWT is about as credible as Denail Depot...

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Ahh, very fast southern hemisphere glaciers.

Your point being?

Didn't someone say some of the ones in Nepal were advancing to? Or has the equator swung north recently?

[Methuselah]

The cynic in me adds, "because they don't show any warming trend over the course of the 20th century"...

I've had a look through that article (btw WhatsUpWithThat is hardly an unbiased site!). Firstly, using raw unadjusted data is often not the best way to assess a temperature record because some sites move over time, urbanisation occurs around some sites, and instrument exposure can change depending on where the instrument is sited and what type of instrument is used. For example, when compiling my own weather records going back to 1993, I calibrated readings for the earlier years because my old instruments consistently read up to 1C higher than my current AWS, particularly by night. Had I not done this, the Cleadon record would have shown a sudden step-cooling around 2004/2005.

Then, to be fair, they go into an analysis on how the temperature data are homogenised, and discuss the methods used. This is a good way to set about determining the reliability of the homogenisation. But they then refer to the Darwin record (which shows no warming trend), say that the record is homogenised using 5 nearby stations, and conclude that an imaginary warming trend has been added in order to support AGW. But they don't actually say whether or not the 5 nearby stations showed any warming trend, it's just taken as given that they don't. I'm not going to dismiss their analysis out of hand here, but there may well be more to the story than the WUWT article makes out... Of course, the conclusion "the data are adjusted in order to support AGW" is exactly the conclusion they want to support (that's the whole agenda of the site), so that makes me a little suspicious.

Another question, Ian...Why must there be a 'warming' everywhere? Should it not be places south/north of the tropics that exhibit warming? Afterall, the tropics have room for expansion, the poles do not... :winky:

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think that's one of the reasons why more warming is projected to happen at the poles than at the tropics. It's completely true that a warmer world does not necessarily mean that all parts of the world will become warmer, at least in the relatively short term. For example the Arctic, and the Antarctic Peninsula, have warmed dramatically over the last 50 years, but the Antarctic interior, while poorly modelled and represented, has shown little sign of any warming.

Similarly north-west Europe appears to have warmed a lot more than the USA. Also noteworthy is that the Northern Hemisphere has warmed at roughly twice the rate of the Southern Hemisphere, probably a consequence of more land masses and a strengthening of the mid-latitude wintertime westerlies.

[Iceberg]

How much of the warming do you think is due to 'homogenisation'?

Doesn't the other evidence (sea temps, sea ice amounts, glaciers, change to animal migrations and breeding, the satellite record) back up the warming found in the surface record?

Not to mention the total support from the sat data, which is very very not homogenised.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Not to mention the total support from the sat data, which is very very not homogenised.

Can you get me the satelite data for temperature records in Darwin over the last century please?

Didn't think so.

[Devonian]

Nor an instant drop for the very same reason

Well, of course. So we need to look at trends?

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Well, of course. So we need to look at trends?

Does the phrase, 'past performance is no guarantee of furture growth' mean anything to you?

Edited December 9, 2009 by Dartmoor_Matt

[Iceberg]

Noggin, Sorry I don't want to rip those graphs to bits. Sorry the second graph has a URL filter block on it for me at work, the first graph is from a very skeptic, controversial US republican site. However putting that aside.

How on earth can they have the second half of 2009 without any warm anomaly showing ?

No data that I am aware about has any negative anomaly as shown by this graph ?.

Why start in 2002 ? and not 2000 ?

Tbh the data just doesn't look like any instrumental or sat data I've ever seen before (this includes Christy's work).

I will post up a graph of Christy temperature dataset from 2000 to the end of 2009 a little later for comparision.

Pete, I have been following VP's work (I think VP knows this), but am waiting for his released paper, correlation etc before drawing any firm conclusions as I want to view it fairly.

However as yet nothing has been produced with the LI to give me any full confidence that it does account for the warming, but I know that VP is working hard to get it out there and I appreciate it.

Can you get me the satelite data for temperature records in Darwin over the last century please?

Didn't think so.

No but we can get the sat data for the southern hemisphere and for Australia in particular. As to Darwin, what on earth has the temperature in a single town in Australia got to do with global temperatures (apart from in WATTS cherry picked world)

There is ample proof using everything that Dev and myself have described that show that homogen isn't happening.

[edveasey]

The understanding of past global climatic trends is excellent and critical for the prediction for future global climatic trends. To fully understand the future consequences of adding greenhouse gasses such as CO2 to the atmosphere we absolutely have to look at the earths climate history and all the realtionships that lie behind it.

In doing so we can accurately predict the effect that man made industrial emmissions are having http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610154453.htm

[Dartmoor_Matt]

No but we can get the sat data for the southern hemisphere and for Australia in particular. As to Darwin, what on earth has the temperature in a single town in Australia got to do with global temperatures (apart from in WATTS cherry picked world)

There is ample proof using everything that Dev and myself have described that show that homogen isn't happening.

I think it was picked simply for being first on the list. Hardly a controversial place to start...

And I can absolutely say you will not find satelite data for the last century. Anywhere.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Dartmoor_Matt

[Iceberg]

I think it was picked simply for being first on the list. Hardly a controversial place to start...

And I can absolutely say you will not find satelite data for the last century. Anywhere.

That might be the reason, I might be a women called Wilma.....

No we won't, but feel free to explain to me, why if they match 20/30 years of sat data, should they suddenly start differing ?

[Dartmoor_Matt]

That might be the reason, I might be a women called Wilma.....

No we won't, but feel free to explain to me, why if they match 20/30 years of sat data, should they suddenly start differing ?

Well, this is the intermawebby so you just never can be sure...

[Devonian]

http://algorelied.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ait-index-5_09.png

Can someone advise whether or not this graph fits the bill? I am not too good at interpreting graphs and would genuinely appreciate polite commentary.

Thank you!

Peace and love to all!

Noggin, you can't expect some site called 'algoreLIED.com' (no message or insult or prejudice there then...) to be objective, or indeed taken seriously?

'objective' it isn't, look how the graph you link to ends with the second coldest month this year...Anyway, below is the graph updated to November and using the 'algoreLIED.com' method I've added the recent trend to it

Edited December 9, 2009 by Devonian