Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Climate Hustle

Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?)

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate

Surface temperature measurements are affected by short-term climate variability, and recent warming of deep oceans

Climate Myth...

There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
"Twentieth century global warming did not start until 1910. By that time CO2 emissions had already risen from the expanded use of coal that had powered the industrial revolution, and emissions only increased slowly from 3.5gigatonnes in 1910 to under 4gigatonnes by the end of the Second World War. 

It was the post war industrialization that caused the rapid rise in global CO2 emissions, but by 1945 when this began, the Earth was already in a cooling phase that started around 1942 and continued until 1975. With 32 years of rapidly increasing global temperatures and only a minor increase in global CO2 emissions, followed by 33 years of slowly cooling global temperatures with rapid increases in global CO2 emissions, it was deceitful for the IPCC to make any claim that CO2 emissions were primarily responsible for observed 20th century global warming."
(Norm Kalmanovitch).

Why doesn’t the temperature rise at the same rate that CO2 increases?

The amount of CO2 is increasing all the time - we just passed a landmark 400 parts per million concentration of atmospheric CO2, up from around 280ppm before the industrial revolution. That’s a 42.8% increase.

A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2 but that doesn't mean the temperature will go up by 42% too.

There are several reasons why. Doubling the amount of CO2 does not double the greenhouse effect. The way the climate reacts is also complex, and it is difficult to separate the effects of natural changes from man-made ones over short periods of time.

As the amount of man-made CO2 goes up, temperatures do not rise at the same rate. In fact, although estimates vary - climate sensitivity is a hot topic in climate science, if you’ll forgive the pun - the last IPCC report (AR4) described the likely range as between 2 and 4.5 degrees C, for double the amount of CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels.

So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4 F).

"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."

Source: NASA Earth Observatory

The speed of the increase is worth noting too. Unfortunately, as this quote from NASA demonstrates, anthropogenic climate change is happening very quickly compared to changes that occurred in the past (text emboldened for emphasis):

"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."

Source: NASA Earth Observatory

Small increases in temperature can be hard to measure over short periods, because they can be masked by natural variation. For example, cycles of warming and cooling in the oceans cause temperature changes, but they are hard to separate from small changes in temperature caused by CO2 emissions which occur at the same time.

Tiny particle emissions from burning coal or wood are also being researched, because they may be having a cooling effect. Scientists like to measure changes over long periods so that the effects of short natural variations can be distinguished from the effects of man-made CO2.

The rate of surface warming has slowed in the past decade. Yet the physical properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases cannot change. The same energy they were re-radiating back to Earth during previous decades must be evident now, subject only to changes in the amount of energy arriving from the sun - and we know that has changed very little. But if that’s true, where is this heat going?

The answer is into the deep oceans. Here is a graphic showing where the heat is currently going:

 

The oceans absorb most of the heat from global warming 

From Nuccitelli et.al (2012)

The way heat moves in the deep oceans is not well understood. Improvements in measurement techniques have allowed scientists to more accurately gauge the amount of energy the oceans are absorbing.

The Earth’s climate is a complex system, acting in ways we can’t always predict. The energy that man-made CO2 is adding to the climate is not currently showing up as surface warming, because most of the heat is going into the oceans. Currently, the heat is moving downwards from the ocean surface to deeper waters. The surface gets cooler, humidity reduces (water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas), and air temperatures go down.

The rate at which surface temperatures go up is not proportional to the rate of CO2 emissions, but to the total amount of atmospheric CO2 added since the start of the industrial revolution. Only by looking at long-term trends - 30 years is the standard period in climate science - can we measure surface temperature increases accurately, and distinguish them from short-term natural variation.

Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne


Update July 2015:

Here is a related lecture-video from Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

 

Last updated on 17 July 2015 by MichaelK. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Prev  1  2  3  4  Next

Comments 101 to 150 out of 180:

  1. #99  "..but Victor seems to have suggested that he also posts at RealClimate. If he is indeed the same Victor, then over at RealClimate he has a long history of adding links to his posts that do not support what he says. From his short appearance here, I would say that the behaviour here matches. Whether his Morton's Demon prevents him from realizing they do not support his case, or he doesn't care and hopes that nobody will follow the links and therefore providing links will bamboozle people, I can't tell. Either way, if Victor claims that a reference says one thing, it wil almost certainly say something else."

    Ad hominem. And by your definition also sloganeering. Please remove. Thank you.

    Response:

    [JH] Since you have reposted the text of the final paragraph of Bob Loblaw's comment, deleting his original text would accomplish little.    

  2. Also not ad hominem. That Victor's references rarely support what he claims they say is simply an observation, and pointing it out legitimately "relates to the credibility of statements of fact" that Victor purports to demonstrate. (Follow the WIkipedia link to see the full quote in context.) It serves as a warning to all readers: follow Victor's links and read them carefully before accepting anything he says about them.

    In fact, the bulk of my comment does not say "Victor's links are usually wrong, so this one is also wrong" (which would be ad hominem), I specifically stated why that particular link does not show what Victor claims it shows. He has not (yet?) made any attempt to argue that the link does support his original claim, so it seems that he is using the "ad hominem" claim as a means to distract from the substantive issue.

    [For some reason, comment #100 seems to be a duplicate of comment #98.]

  3. New model by Poppick et al. using human and natural forcings. Amazing fit to observations. In press, but Variable Variability has a preview.

  4. victorag @100:

    1)  "many" means "a large number of", and "large", like "big" and "small", is always specified relative to the population under consideration.  Thus even while "a large x" is always larger than "a small x", for any given value of x, we cannot infer that a large mouse is larger than a small elephant, and large mountains (such as Everest) fit very comfortably on the surface of small planets (such as Earth).  "Great" is a superlative, that amplifies the meaning of the term qualifed.  Thus "a great many" is a larger quantity than "many".  It follows from this that "a great many leprosy sufferers" will be a much smaller number than "a great many South Americans" and "a great many AGW skeptics" is almost certainly a larger grouping than "all climate scientists"

    If we do not want to take this standard view on the use of the English language, we would have to say that a great many people live in Fordwich,  even though its population is just 0.004% of that of Greater London, and it is "the smallest community by population in Britain with a town council".

    This is just basic English, understood by any native speaker; and understandable by anybody competent in English.  Yet you want to maintain your rhetorical point against these basic facts of grammar, even though to do so you point to a list of scientists (the majority of whom are not climate scientists) whose population is about a sixth that of Fordwich, and which represents and about a 12th of the number of "skeptical" climate scientists I indicated to exist based on statistical data.

    As I said, this is really basic English.  Let us put that aside, however.  Based on statistical evidence, there are about 720 "skeptical" climate scientists from among a population of about 30,000.  That in itself is strong evidence that those 720 odd "skeptical" climate scientists maintain their position because of non-scientific biases (something of which we have independent evidence), and that the consensus position therefore can reasonably be characterized as the position of climate science.

    2)  "While many skeptics have very obvious biases, if their arguments are sound, their bias can safely be ignored."

    The presumption that their arguments are sound is hardly warranted.  Nils Axel-Morner for example (who is on your list) has doctored the photograph of a tree to use as evidence against sea level rise.  This, of course, does not mean that all of their arguments are unsound.  Each must be judged on its own merits, but you are not entitled to assume the soundness of any of their arguments just from their existence as you have done.

    3)   "". . . logically, the claim that "GMST did not follow the predicted path given AGW" is also a theory." Again: no, not at all."

    Actually, yes.  In fact, true by definition of "theory":

    "theory
    A theory T is a set of all sentences in some language K that are implied by T itself [Boolos+Jeffrey1989-cl p.106].
    A theory always contains all valid sentences of K, as these are implied by any set of sentences of K. Thus, for example, every theory contains ∀x (x=x) as this is valid in every language. These sentences can be thought of as the basis of the theory, and that the theory, which by definition is closed under the operation of implication, can be constructed by applying implication successively using the sentences already in the theory.

    Note that in general there are true sentences in K that are not in a particular theory T. In particular, for every theory of any language that includes the language of arithmetic, there are true statements that are not in the theory"

    You may want to insist that there is a distinction between "theories" in logic, and those in science, but given that science accepts logical implication and requires that their theories not be inconsistent, scientific theories are just a subset of logical theories - specifically, that subset of scientific theories whose proof is established by a certain rigorous empirical process.  If, then, that "GMST did not follow the predicted path given AGW" is not also a scientific theory, you need to insist that its truth is not established by scientific empirical methods (in which case it is irrelevant to science).  Alternatively you need to assert a very strong observation sentence/theory distinction, which strong claim has been multiply refuted (see the Duhem Quine Thesis)

    4)  "The passages I quoted are statements regarding basic principles of science that are universally applicable."

    I doubt you would get any philosopher of science to agree with that, and you would certainly not get a consensus agreeing with it.  For a start we are talking about burden of proof, and "proof" is a very slippery word.  Presumably you (and Minhinnick) do not mean logical proof, for if you did not empirical claim can satisfy the burden of proof, and therefore all ontology must be rejected, including the claim that there exists an external world, or indeed any claim that your self exists (unless "self" is taken to mean "a locus of thought").  If we allow it as proof on balance of probabilities, we face similar intractable difficulties because in the end all probabilities are relative, as Popper is at great pains to point out in Logic of Scientific Discovery.  Further, if you mean "provide cogent evidence that" then the assymetry between proof of existence and disproof of existence disappears; and with it any justification for the different burdens of proof.

  5. Victor @ #97 . . thank you for your reply - but you are wrong once more.

    You referred me to the paper Fyfe, Meehl et al., 2016, in Nature Climate Change ( published online 24th February 2016 ).

    The snippet of abstract you quoted, does not support your contentions.

    The paper is paywalled (and so it was impractical for me to check it in detail) , but I do notice that one of the editors of the journal [Jeff Tollefson] has stated that:

    'Fyfe uses the term "slowdown" rather than "hiatus" and stresses that it does not in any way undermine global warming theory.' [unquote]

    Presumably the editor has read the paper - but Victor, it appears that you have either not read the paper, or have failed to understand it.

    Victor, your argumentation (sic) seems to be a leg-pull, rather than anything scientifically serious.

  6. #104 Tom, I'm sorry, but this post strikes me as extremely literal minded and even a bit pedantic. With respect to the designation "climate scientist," if you look at this list of "climate scientists" you'll see a great many names not specifically identified as "climate scientists." And if you look again at the list I linked to, you'll see that none of these people are specifically identified as "climate scientists" per se. If you take a look at the Wikipedia article for James Hansen, you'll see that he has degrees in physics, mathematics and astronomy — no degree in "climate science." Nowhere in the article is he identified specifically as a "climate scientist" or "climatologist." Obviously he is, but the writer of this article saw no reason to explicitly identify him as such.

    The credentials of most of those in the list I provided include people with backgrounds in fields such as meteorology, physics, astrophysics, earth science, geography, geology, atmospheric science, environmental science, chemistry, etc. We can argue forever as to whether each can "truly" be regarded as a climate scientist or not. I think the point I was making was clear enough, but if you want to insist that this is not a true listing of actual climate scientists I won't argue with you. The larger point is that "climate scientist" vs. "climate skeptic" is not a meaningful opposition. It reflects bias, but clearly you are not willing to recognize your own bias, which is unfortunate.

  7. victorag @100, I have reserved discussion of this quote to a seperate post because it is directly germain to the topic of the OP (ie, what we are supposed to be discussing in this thread), and because it directly demonstrates the strength of your own bias.  In the discussion, I will refer to certain results regarding the correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature.  I have used the BEST LOTI monthly data for temperature, and the Mauna Loa monthly index converted to an anomaly value for CO2 concentration.  By converting to an anomaly value, I eliminate the seasonal cycle from the CO2 data, just as it is eliminated from the temperature data (also an anomaly).  As a result, I was also able interpolate missing months as the average anomaly of the all months with observed data within three months of the missing value.  This is an effective method with the anomaly data because the seasonal cycle has been eliminated.

    Turning to your position:

    "All that's required is to demonstrate the lack of continuity between the strong upward trend so evident from the late seventies to ca. 1998 and what followed during the following 15 years or so. If the first period appeared to demonstrate a correlation between CO2 and warming, the second period demonstrated the falsity of that assumption. CO2 levels continued to soar while the increase in temperatures slowed considerably. If the relationship is exponential, as has been asserted, then why wouldn't that relationship continue even more convincingly into the 21st century?"

    I take this to be a clear claim that the correlation between temperature and CO2 between Jan 1975 and Dec 1997 is substantially larger than it is between Jan 1998 and July 2016 ("the first period appeared to demonstrate a correlation between CO2 and warming, the second period demonstrated the falsity of that assumption").  I also take it to claim that the correlation between Jan 1975 and July 2016 is less than the correlation between Jan 1975 and Dec 1997 ("why wouldn't that relationship continue even more convincingly into the 21st century?", a quetion that presuposes the relationship has not continued more convincingly).

    As it happens, the correlation between Jan 1975 and Dec 1997 is 0.592, while that between Jan 1998 and July 2016 is 0.507.  It is less, but not substantially less.  More importantly, the correlation between Jan 1975 and July 2016 is 0.832.  That is, the correlation over the full period since Jan 1975 is substantially larger than either of its two subparts, and increased greatly relative to the correlation of the first period even though the correlation of the second subperiod was less.

    In short, your confident assumptions about what the evidence showed with regard to the correlation of CO2 and temperature are simply false.

    There is a reason for that, which should be transparent to anybody truly familiar with AGW theory.  Specifically, the short term temperature response (TCR) to a change in CO2 concentration approximates to 2.17 x ln(CO2/CO2o) where CO2 is the CO2 concentration, and CO2o is the original CO2 concentration.  Thus, the expected change in temperature from the average annual increase in CO2 concentration over the period Jan 1981-Dec 2010 was 0.01 C, which is negligible compared to the temperature fluctuations induced by ENSO and volcanic activity.  Therefore, over subdecadal time spans we expect the influence of CO2 to be indistinguishable from the temperature sequence in the absence of any change in the CO2 forcing.  Over a decade, the influence rises to 0.11 C, which is still small relative to ENSO and volcanic fluctuations, but large enough to influence the trend.  Over multiple decades, of course, the ENSO and volcanic fluctuations do not accumulate while the influence of CO2 changes does; so that in the long term the influence of CO2 forcing dominates.  Therefore, as a direct prediction of AGW, we expect correlations between CO2 and temperature to be small over short intervals, but to increase with longer intervals:

     Graphed above are the correlations of a running series of intervals approximately 15, 20, 25, and 30 years long.  As can be seen, in general, the longer the interval the higher the correlation, as also the higher the mean correlation and lower the standard deviation of the correlations.  That is exactly what we expect from the theory of AGW, given our knowledge of the small difference in year to year change in CO2 forcing.

    It also gives some idea how the fake "skeptics" have persuaded people that the data from 1998 on "demonstrated the falsity of that assumption".  They show graphs of CO2 vs temperature over just that interval (where due to the short duration, we do not expect a strong correlation) but do not calculate or show the actual correlation values.  They exempt themselves from the burden of proof so that they can employ simple rhetorical tricks rather than cogently discussing the issue.  When you instead look at the change in correlation from the additional years of data, you plainly see the evidence in favour of CO2s substantial influence on temperature has improved.  Or alternatively, when you compare the correlation of the 1998 forwards period with the correlations of past intervals of similar lenght, you see that the correlation is not unusually low for intervals of that length, and therefore not evidence against the theory.

    For what it is worth, the correlation over the full available data is 0.855.

    Further, and obviously, AGW does not consider CO2 to be the only forcing, and not always the dominant forcing so that restricting the discussion to CO2 itself represents a distortion, or at best an oversimplification of the theory.

  8. #105 Hi Eclectic. The Fyfe paper can be accessed from here. And yes, I've read it. And yes, they specifically refer to the terms "hiatus" and "slowdown" as equivalent. This is an important and also highly contentious paper that deserves more attention than it seems to be getting in both the media and online forums such as this. 

    Some excerpts:


    The last notable decadal slowdown during the modern era occurred during the big hiatus. [referring to the cooldown from 1940 on] The recent decadal slowdown, on the other hand, is unique in having occurred during a time of strongly increasing anthropogenic radiative forcing of the climate system. This raises interesting science questions: are we living in a world less sensitive to GHG forcing than previously thought, or are negative forcings playing a larger role than expected? . . . 

    Newly identified observational errors [ref. to Karl et al.] do not, however, negate the existence of a real reduction in the surface warming rate in the early twenty-first century relative to the 1970s–1990s. . . 

    In summary, climate models did not (on average) reproduce the observed temperature trend over the early twenty-first century6, in spite of the continued increase in anthropogenic forcing. This mismatch focused attention on a compelling science problem — a problem deserving of scientific scrutiny. Based on our analysis, which relies on physical understanding of the key processes and forcings involved, we find that the rate of warming over the early twenty-first century is slower than that of the previous few decades. This slowdown is evident in time series of GMST and in the global mean temperature of the lower troposphere. The magnitude and statistical significance of observed trends (and the magnitude and significance of their differences relative to model expectations) depends on the start and end dates of the intervals considered23.Research into the nature and causes of the slowdown has triggered improved understanding of observational biases, radiative forcing and internal variability. This has led to widespread recognition that modulation by internal variability is large enough to produce a significantly reduced rate of surface temperature increase for a decade or even more — particularly if internal variability is augmented by the externally driven cooling caused by a succession of volcanic eruptions. The legacy of this new understanding will certainly outlive the recent warming slowdown. This is particularly true in the embryonic field of decadal climate prediction, where the challenge is to simulate how the combined effects of external forcing and internal variability produce the time-evolving regional climate we will experience over the next ten years.


    Tollefson's contention that the paper "does not in any way undermine global warming theory" is accurate in the sense that the authors do not claim that their findings undermine the mainstream global warming view. In fact, like so many others before them, they offer reasons for the slowdown based on the usual invocation of natural forcings, internal variability, etc.:


    This reduction arises through the combined effects of internal decadal variability11–18, volcanic19,23 and solar activity, and decadal changes in anthropogenic aerosol forcing32. The warming slowdown has motivated substantial research into decadal climate variability and uncertainties in key external forcings. As a result, the scientific community is now better able to explain temperature variations such as those experienced during the early twenty-first century33, and perhaps even to make skilful predictions of such fluctuations in the future.


    Regardless of the reasons they suggest for the slowdown, which resemble so many other reasons offered in the past, they provide ample evidence that it is real and that climate scientists need to deal with it rather than simply dismiss it. An unusually candid and honest study, I must say.

    Response:

    [JH] Your spin on reality as expressed in your final paragraph is absurd. Climate scientists have been rigorously investigating and deliberating about the "slowdown" for over a decade now.  If you pesist in your false and blatant sloganeering, you will forfeit your privilege of posting comments on this site.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

  9. I think to get to the nub of this laborious interchange with Victor Gauer there are some fundamentals Victor has failed to provide.

    We have an SkS thread on the topic of why GMST wobbes don't match CO2 wobbles. The OP explains why such a mismatch would be expected under AGW, It provides "the burden of proof" but Victor's position is that this proof is not provided because of apparent "contradictory evidence." As Victor insists @100:-

    "The burden of proof is on the person insisting that the correlation (ΔGSMT v ΔCO2) is real in the face of what looks like contradictory evidence."

    Victor hold great store by such "contradictory evidence", to the point that he suggests there is no difference evidentially in the existance of AGW than there is in existence of leprechauns!!

    There are perhaps two fundamental aspects of Victor's position that remain poorly described. Firstly, while he objects strongly to the OP (& thus the science presented by the IPCC), the size of the gulf between Victor's position & the IPCC's is not truly know. While it appears to be that Victor sees no or very little role for CO2 (along with other AGHGs) as a force in AGW, Victor has failed to set out how much of the science that supports AGW he refutes.

    The second fundamental omission is that Victor has failed to set out the extent of his "contradictory evidence." This I will do here. Victor's initial enquiry up-thread was to find a comprehensive attribution of GMST since 1900. Victor refused to accept any of the studies offered as fitting the bill (studies which included IPCC AR5) and it is the absence of such a comprehensive attribution that was the first piece of Victor's "contradictory evidence" presented here. We have also been treated to a description of the alleged 'dodgy' nature of many of these attribution studies, this presented also as evidence, and to the bold assertion that many climatologists support Victor's "skeptical" stance. Further evidence from Victor comprises two of the wobbles in the GMST record that are not immediately matched by wobbles in CO2 levels. These are firstly the warming prior to 1940 bring too big to be forced by the CO2 of the time, and secondly the post-1998 GMST which is too small.

    If this is the sum of the "contradictory evidence" Victor has to offer, assertions pretty-much debunked already up-thread, there is (with just the one exception) nothing further to discuss.

    That exception is the full paper Fyfe et al (2016) 'Making sense of the early- 2000s warming slowdown' whose abstract Victor has been waving so vigorously recently.

    Victor states @108 that Fyfe el al, by "specifically refer to the terms "hiatus" and "slowdown" as equivalent" but this is untrue. Fyfe et al say that some others refer to the 'slowdown' as a hiatus. Perhaps more tellingly, the paper says "A point of agreement we have with Lewandowsky et al. concerns the unfortunate way in which the recent changes have been framed in terms of GMST having "‘stalled’, ‘stopped’, ‘paused’, or entered a ‘hiatus’"."

    In Victor-speak, the main message presented by Fyfe et al (2015) is that "A warming slowdown is thus clear in observations" but that they make sure to add "it is also clear that it has been a ‘slowdown’, not a ‘stop’."

  10. Bob Loblaw @99.

    The 'victorag@verison.net' here and the 'victor' @Realclimate are indeed the same Victor Grauer. On top of the unmistakable argumentation, he first appeared as a commenter on both sites in October 2014 with word-for-word identical comments. To quote Victor "There is only one Victor Grauer."

    Response:

    [JH] Please note that Victor is no on the cusp of relinquishing his privilege of posting comments on this site. He has been cited multiple times for multiple violations (modertion complaint, sloganeering and excessive repetition) of the SkS Comments Policy. Our patience is not infinite.

  11. Please once again excuse me. The formatting got lost when I posted this last time, so I need to fix that and post again. Note to moderator: please remove my post #111.

    #104 Tom Curtis:

    1) See my previous post.

    2)

    "While many skeptics have very obvious biases, if their arguments are sound, their bias can safely be ignored."

    The presumption that their arguments are sound is hardly warranted.

    Where did I say that? I presumed no such thing. IF their arguments are sound, then bias doesn't matter.

    3)

    "". . . logically, the claim that "GMST did not follow the predicted path given AGW" is also a theory." Again: no, not at all."

    Actually, yes. In fact, true by definition of "theory":


    You've provided a definition of theory from the realm of formal logic, which is very different from the logic used in ordinary discourse — or scientific discourse either. Look, I'll make it easy for you. Have you ever submitted a paper for peer review? I have. Many times. Have you ever written a peer review? I have. And would you expect someone reviewing a paper that presents a theory to produce a theory of his own if he sees some problem? A theory by any definition of that word?

    You claim that, according to your research, fireflies generate a significant amount of heat, threatening the future of the civilized world. I examine your argument and find a flaw. Fireflies do not generate a significant amount of heat — or any heat at all. Is it necessary then for me to produce an alternative theory explaining why the earth seems to be heating up nonetheless? You tell me.

    4.

    "The passages I quoted are statements regarding basic principles of science that are universally applicable."


    I doubt you would get any philosopher of science to agree with that, and you would certainly not get a consensus agreeing with it. For a start we are talking about burden of proof, and "proof" is a very slippery word.

    Yes, if we take this phrase literally you have a point. "Proof" is not expected in science. In math, yes, but not science, because any valid scientific theory can always be disproved or modified over time. So strictly speaking "burden of proof" is a misnomer. But once again as I see it you are being overly literal. What's implied by this phrase is that the one offering a theory has a responsibility to back it up with convincing evidence, while the person critiqueing that theory has no such responsibility and need only find flaws. If for example you offer a math formula to support your theory and I discover an error in that formula, I need not back my observation up with evidence, or a theory of my own, but simply point out the flaw.

    Here's another discussion of essentially the same issue that should help you understand what's at stake: The reversed responsibility response
    Some excerpts:

    When anyone makes a claim that a certain entity or relationship exists, they have the responsibility of supplying supporting evidence. Without such evidence, the claim is worthless. The fact that you know of no falsifying evidence is irrelevant. Those who claim that an entity or relationship does not exist do not need to supply evidence.

    In science, the default position about any relationship is that it does not exist. This position is called the “null hypothesis“. For a claim to be accepted, the proposer must present sufficient real-world evidence for the null hypothesis to be rejected. . .

    Reversing the burden of proof is a form of the argument from ignorance fallacy, in which it is argued that a claim must be taken as true if it hasn’t been shown to be false.

  12. Here's the link to the web page cited above, which got lost when I repasted my comment: The reversed responsibility response

  13. victorag @106&111:

    1)   I excluded the majority of the list of "skeptical" climate scientists as climate scientists not based on their initial discipline, but their singular failure to have written even one peer reviewed paper on climate science, or in a few cases (Rob Carter comes to mind) the fact that their primary discipline and professional activity has been unrelated to climate science and the very few directly related peer reviewed articles they have written have suffered from rooky mistakes.  Regardless even if we accept everybody on the list, you have completely ignored the primary thrust of my comment @104, unless your suggestion that "this post strikes me as extremely literal minded and even a bit pedantic" is a tacit acknowledgement that my explanation of the basics of English is correct, and that my orriginal charge that your claim that "a great many skeptics are climate scientists" is therefore literally false on any interpretation, but that you don't want to admit it.

    2)  Pay attention to the quotation marks.  I quoted what you said.  The second sentence in your quotation is my comment, and you have not responded to it.

    3)  Mathematics is a branch of logic (see Russell and Whitehead, Principia Mathematica, and also the Church-Turing thesis).  It follows from this that all theories stated in mathematical form are theories by the logical definition.  In fact, to not be a theory by the logical definition, a "scientific theory" would have to hold to be false at least some of the logical implications of its axioms/thesis.

    I am beginning to note that indeed the "logic" you use in formal discourse is very different from formal logic.  Formal logic remains, however, the fundamental principle underlying any rigorous proof; and by underlying probability theory, also any statistical "proof".

    4)  I don't see any point in going further on this.  You are insisting that those "disproving at theory" need not provide any evidence for the positive claims they make in that disproof; and nor need they show that the theory they purport to falsify actually predicts the opposite of their purported falsifying index.  Such a claim is nonsense, pure and simple.

  14. In post #106, Victor doubles down on his original list that he claims to support his statement that a "great many skeptics are in fact climate scientists" . In #106, he provides an additional list, this time of simply "climate scientists", and argues that many of those are also not "specifically identified as "climate scientists" per se". He seems to feel that this new list represents the same sort of qualifications as his original list.

    What do the two Wikipedia pages say when you read them? Victor's original list starts with:

    "This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies.

    whereas the new list starts with:

    "This list of climate scientists contains famous or otherwise notable persons who have contributed to the study of climate science.

    So, Victor's first list doesn't even claim itself that it lists "climate scientists", and his second list only covers "famous or otherwise notable persons who have contributed to climate science". [Note that some of the "skeptic" list names do appear on the second list.]

    No wonder that Victor does not want to argue about who can "truly be regarded as a climate scientist". Again, the two links Victor provides do not say what he is implying they say.

    The new link also has, near its bottom, a link to a List of Authors of Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. That Wikipedia entry begins with:

    "This is a list of the 620 authors contributing to Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, which was the 996 page contribution of Working Group I to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

    So, just the IPCC report has 620 authors, compared to Victor's original list of 61 (living) skeptics. I think we can safely say that the IPCC report authors can be considered "climate scientists". I think we could also consider the list of authors contained in the references to that IPCC report to be "climate scientists", too, and the number will be far higher than Victor's list of "a great many skeptics".

    In fact, we could decide to look at the peer-reviewed scientific literature to find out what "climate scientists" are saying about anthropogenic global warming - but we need not, as this has been done (and published). Skeptical Science has several posts describing such studies:

    Consensus on consensus

    Consensus confirmed: over 90% of climate scientists believe we're causing global warming

    The 97% consensus on global warming

    If Victor wishes to argue against the existence of the overwhelming scientific consensus, as described in any of the above posts, then he should continue this discussion on one of those pages. (After reading the posts, of course.) This is increasingly off-topic on this page.

  15. I have responded to victorag @108 on a more appropriate thread.

  16. MARodger: "Victor states @108 that Fyfe el al, by "specifically refer to the terms "hiatus" and "slowdown" as equivalent" but this is untrue."

    See the abstract:

    "It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, . . " etc.

    As for the rest, I won't be responding further until I am assured that my comments will not be deleted or censored. 

    Response:

    [JH] All commenters on this site are required to abide by the SkS Comments Policy.

  17. victorag - WRT your links to "The reversed responsibility response", i.e. the reversal of the burden of proof - you have it backwards:

    The correlation of CO2 to warming (as one of many forcings, both natural and anthropogenic) has been well established over the last 150 years, starting with Tyndall, Fourier, and Arrhenius and basic spectroscopy, and continuing through theory, observations, and simple empirical evidence to today. That evidence has been accumulated and collated, the case regarding AGW has been made. The burden of proof now rests upon those who disagree, such as you, to present evidence sufficient to overturn that 150 years of data and theory. Armwaving and nitpicking, let alone semantic gaming and your presentations of short term trends without statistical significance (such as since 1998) do not suffice.

    The strength of that correlation with CO2 was your initial objection to this thread - and quite frankly your objection has not survived examination. Since then you've done little but dance around trying to change the subject. You've been verbose, and your Gish Gallups extensive, but hardly convincing. 

  18. #117 When we examine the data, as presented in any number of graphs representing global temperature since ca. 1880, we see only one period in which both tempertures and CO2 emissions are rising at roughly the same rate at the same time: the last 20 years or so of the 20th century. Aside from that, no correlation is evident. That doesn't mean that an underlying correlation might be present that is hidden by other factors. But given the complete lack of long-term correlation in the raw data, it is incumbent on followers of the mainstream view to support the underlying correlation they seek to demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence. Otherwise, skeptics are justified in denying that any such correlation exists. 

    Once again, I won't waste my time elaborating until I feel sure my comments won't be deleted or censored.

    Response:

    [JH] All commenters on this site are required to abide by the SkS Comments Policy.

  19. victorag @118 wants to look at graphs, apparently because he thinks his eyeball can better detect correlations than maths.  For what it is worth, the correlation between CO2 and Temperture from March 1958 to July 2016 (ie, over the full Mauna Loa record) is 0.855 as noted @107 above.  Apparently that fact is refuted (in his opinion) by the superior discriminating ability of his eyeball.  If that is not enough, using  BEST LOTI temperature and the Law Dome CO2 record extended by Cape Grim data, the correlation between CO2 concentration and global mean surface temperature from 1850 to 2013 is 0.903.

    Of course, if you are going to insist on eyeballing your correlations, and not use those lying mathematical methods (/sarc), you can always check out a scatterplot of the values:

    When compared to a set of sample scatterplots for different correlations, the similarity to that for a correlation of 0.9 is evident:

    Perhaps the mathematics isn't lying at all, and there really is a strong correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature.

    Given this mathematical, and eyeball evidence, I don't know what to make of victorag's claim that:

    "But given the complete lack of long-term correlation in the raw data, it is incumbent on followers of the mainstream view to support the underlying correlation they seek to demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence. Otherwise, skeptics are justified in denying that any such correlation exists."

    Well, no doubt, given that a false statement implies everything.  But both the maths and a simple scatter plot show clearly that there is a high correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last 160 odd years.  

    So the more interesting question is, why given the clear evidence of a long term correlation between CO2 and temperature does Victor persist in insisting that no such correlation exists?  How he does it is easy.  In a mutual plot of concentration and temperature against time, there are periods in which the correlation is not 1.  Indeed, if you do not use smoothed data, there is no period in which the correlation is 1.  Victor appears to take this as proving the correlation is not high, but "does not have perfect correlation" does not imply "does not have high correlation".  Therefore the inference from "does not match the slope in all intervals" to "is not highly correlated" a garbage inference.  

     

    As an aside, Victor also seems to think the ratio of scales of a mutual plot of CO2 concentration and Temperature against time is a given.  How else can we make sense of his claim that "we see only one period in which both tempertures and CO2 emissions are rising at roughly the same rate at the same time: the last 20 years or so of the 20th century".  In fact, the rate of increase of CO2 will be in ppmv per annum, and that of temperature will be in degrees Centigrade (or Kelvin, etc) per annum; so that at no time will they rise at the same rate.  Given that the rates are not commensurate, they can be arbitrarilly varied, and doing so can make any period of approximate linear rise by both graphically coincide.  Victor may be assuming the normal convention of standardizing by the standard deviation of both, but where the short term variability of both is very dissimilar (as is the case for CO2 and temperature), this can lead to deceptive results.  Using the BEST/Law dome data, for example, it leads to a predicted transient response of 1 C per 100 ppmv increase.  On the forcing data derived from the same data set it predicts a Transient Climate Response of 0.59 C/(W/m^2), or 2.2 C per doubling of CO2, which is likely too high.

  20. Victor Gauer @116,

    As you truncate your comment for fear thet it will be moderated into oblivion, I have no way of knowing whether your selective response to my comment @116 can be addressed at all. Suffice to say, your repeat waving of the abstract of Fyfe et al (2016) @116 is noted by me and that you should be aware that were Fyfe et al to consider the terms "slowdown" and "hiatus" to be "equivalent," it is mighty odd that for the three times the term "hiatus" is used in that context within the paper, one is saying others use the term "hiatus", a second is within a quote of others who use the term and a third is specifically saying Fyde et al object to use of the term "hiatus". You will note that its use in the well-waved abstract has a description appended just to be sure foolish folk know what they mean by "hiatus" and "global warming slowdown." They make quite clear within the paper that they address a slowdown in surface warming and nothing more. Nowhere do they "specifically refer to the terms "hiatus" and "slowdown" as equivalent" and that includes the abstract.

  21. Victor Gauer @118,

    Adding to Tom Curtis @119, I am also concerned that your comment @118 is incorrect.

    You tell us:-

    "When we examine the data, as presented in any number of graphs representing global temperature since ca. 1880, we see only one period in which both tempertures and CO2 emissions are rising at roughly the same rate at the same time: the last 20 years or so of the 20th century. Aside from that, no correlation is evident."

    This is an important comment as it is the bedrock of all this palaver running down this comment thread. In this regard, your obsession with CO2 forcings is quite extraordinary and poorly explained. So perhaps the paper Lovejoy (2014)would be of interest to you. The paper sets out some reasons for atmospheric CO2 being used as a proxy both for all AGHGs and for the sum of anthropogenic forcings. Lovejoy (2014) additionally considers the time lags between forcing & ΔT as well as the lack of linearity in the relationship.

    You may find Loyejoy (2014) also interesting because of its Figure 3a, which provides a "graph(s) representing global temperature since ca. 1880" and one which does show significantly more than "20 years or so ... in which both tempertures and CO2 emissions are rising at roughly the same rate at the same time." In truth it demonstrates a convincing correlation over the whole period under analysis 1880-2004, echoing the analysis presented @119.

    Lovejoy (2014) Fig 3

    Of course, you may wish to present your own "evidence" for your absent-but-for-20-years CO2 v GMST correlation. I appreciate that @97 you tell us "The evidence I presented concerned the lack of a long-term correlation between global warming and CO2 emissions. Since I've been told not to repeat myself, I won't get into that again." But you will see up-thread of #97, your presented "evidence" is restricted to almost nothing, indeed absent-but-for-a-bit-of-hand-waving.

  22. MA Rodger @121, Victor's claim that "he evidence I presented concerned the lack of a long-term correlation between global warming and CO2 emissions" assumes a fundamental misrepresentation of climate science.  Specifically, if AGW is correct, we expect a strong correlation between global mean surface temperature and CO2 concentration, but CO2 concentration is not expected to be correlated with CO2 emissions.  Rather, it is a near linear function of cumulative emissions.  Again, there is no necessary correlation between emissions and cumulative emissions.  (There is, no doubt a de facto correlation simply because emissions have grown with time, but there is no reason to suppose it is a particularly strong correlation; and it will be much less than the near perfect correlation with cumulative emissions.)

  23. Tom Curtis @122,

    You are entirely correct except that Victor has been so frequently using the phrase "CO2 emissions" down this thread in place of 'increased atmospheric CO2 levels' or 'anthropogenic CO2 forcing' or whatever, that I ignore the true meaning of it and substitute the sensible intended meaning.

  24. MA Rodger @123, given how wrong Victor is regarding CO2 concentration/Temp correlation, I think you are being over generous in your interpretation, unless, and until Victor corrects the record.

  25. victorag has mistakenly posted a response to my post @119 on the incorrect thread.  As the comments are off topic on the other thread, I will reply here.

    Victor wrote:

    "Regarding the difference between "eyeballing" and statistical analysis: there are many ways to manipulate results using statistics, whereas one's eye sees the data directly. Sorry, but where the picture is clearly there for all to see, I'll trust my eye, thank you."

    First, and most obviously, it is as easy to distort with graphs as it is with statistics.  Indeed, in some respects easier.  Second, I find the imputation that my statistical analysis, which I fully described, were designed to manipulate the data, still less to "modfied [the data] to produce the desired result".  For the full Mauna Loa comparison I used the same Mauna Loa data that was used by Danley Wolf, with the sole exception that I used anomaly data because the temperature data was anomaly data, and I wanted to compare like to like, and that I interpolated missing values.  I deliberately used monthly data to avoid artificially smoothing the data.  Over the full interval of Mauna Loa data, had I instead used the raw montly values (with interpolation for missing months), ie, used the data essentially as downloaded, it would have increased the calculated correlation from 0.855 to 0.857, a negligible difference.  That clearly demonstrates that my high calculated correlation was not an artifact of using anomaly data for CO2 concentration.  It should be noted that Mauna Loa, because of its location in the northern hemisphere, experiences a larger seasonal cycle in CO2 concentration than does the global average, so that using the raw data with no seasonal cycle adjustment itself represents an artificial deflation of the correlation.

    "Smoothing creates artificially high correlations between any two smoothed series."

    This is an obvious consequence from the formula for correlation, which is the covarriance divided by the product of the standard deviations.  Smoothing reduces the size of the standard deviation and thereby increases the correlation.  But, just as it is possible to artificially inflate correlations by reducing the standard deviations of the data, so it is possible to artificially deflate increasing the standard deviation (of which more later).

    "Regarding scattergrams: the scattergram offered by Tom lacks sufficient detail to be very useful. Here's another that does, compiled by Danley Wolfe from raw data available to all at:

    Mauna Loa: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

    NASA GISS: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

    Wolfe does nothing to "massage" his data, it's directly transcribed from the two sites referenced above."

    First, Wolfe did not "directly transcribe" the data.  Specifically, with regard to temperature he added the mean annual temperature durring the baseline period to all values in the mistaken belief that he would thereby convert them from anomaly values.  Anomaly values are calcultated from monthly means, however, so Wolfe's hybrid data represents neither anomaly values or the actual temperatures experienced.

    Second, Wolfe cherry picks his data set.  Instead of using the GISS Land Ocean Temperature Index, he used the GISS Land (Meteorological Stations only) data.  Because that data represents only a third of the globe, and because it largely excludes oceans, the data is far more variable than the GISS LOTI.  Thus by cherry picking the meteorological station data, he takes advantage of the fact that inflating the standard deviation of the data artificially deflates correlations (alluded to above).  This by itself deflates the correlation by about 20%, and the R-squared by about 36%.

    He gains further advantages from his cherry pick.  First, because of the limited geographical area covered by his data, temperature variability is more influenced by local factors, and less influenced by global factors - further decreasing the correlation with CO2.  Second, the meteorological station data is distinctly flater after 1998 than is the Land/Ocean data, thereby further deflating the correlation in the so called hiatus period.  Wolfe is doing well, in that he got three distortions of the data from just one cherry pick.

    In any event, here is a scatterplot of the monthly Mauna Loa data as downloaded except for the interpolation of missing values, against the BEST LOTI.  The correlation as previously noted is 0.857 (R^2: 0.734):

  26. #125 Thanks so much, Tom, for the very thorough explanation, and the corrected scatterplot. Maybe my eyeballs are deceiving me, but I see more or less the same picture as in Wolfe's scatterplot. Random until roughly 340 ppm, correlated until roughly 380, and then random again — with a bit of a spike after 400. What do you see?

  27. victorag @126, for any scatter plot where the data has a correlation less than 1, and conforms approximately to a linear trend, if you take a small section of the total data measured by distance along the x-axis, the subsection of the data will look like it has a much smaller correlation.  That only indicates that by using a small section of the data you are maximizing the noise to signal ratio.  Because the temperature noise is autocorrelated, the small subsection may give the appearance of a very different trend, but again that is just a product of cherry picking.

    If you want to find a genuine divergence from the scatter plot, you need to find a significant body of data that lies more than two standard deviations from the trend line.  In this case, that means +/- 0.3 C relative to the line 0.0094X - 3.05.  For the demarcated x values, this gives parameters of:

    X value Mean -2 SD +2 SD
    300 -0.23 -0.52 0.06
    320 -0.05 -0.34 0.24
    340 0.14 -0.15 0.43
    360 0.33 0.04 0.62
    380 0.52 0.23 0.81
    400 0.71 0.42 1
    420 0.89 0.6 1.18

    A quick check shows that there are no major clusters of points lying outside the +/- 2 SD limits, and hence no reason to assume a break point in the trend.

    We can take this further by extending the data using that from Law Dome.  Unfortunately when we do so we are limited to annual values generated by a 20 year spline smooth for CO2, and hence annual values for temperature.  That artificially inflates correlation, but not by much given the small variance of CO2 to begin with.  It has no effect on trends.  So, having done so we find the trend is 0.0097 X - 3.13.  The values are within two standard errors of the predicted trend and intercept based on the Mauna Loa data, and are minimally divergent in absolute values.  That indicates the observed trend in the Mauna Loa/Temp scatter plot is robust, and has been in effect since 1850 at least.  Given that, looking to subdivide the Mauna Loa data is clearly not justified (and not justified on two distinct tests).

    There are reasons for a slight visual distinctiveness in the two regions you point out.  Specifically, both the rate of increase in CO2 concentration and in temperature have tended to increase over time.  This results in the points being more densely scattered on the left of the graph than on the right.  This is even more apparent on the Law Dome scatter plot.  As it happens there was an acceleration in the increase in CO2 concentration about when CO2 concentration reached 340 ppmv, which accounts for the denser plot below that level.  Near 400 ppmv the distinctive appearance results from the reduced linear least squared error fit for temperature (ie, not the underlying trend, but the superficial trend) followed by the spike in temperatures starting around 2013.  That reduced superficial trend, however, does not carry the temperature values outside 2 standard deviations of the y estimate, however, and therefore is irrelevant unless it were to continue and carry the values outside that range.  Of course, with the recent spike in temperatures it has patently not done so.

  28. Tom's scatterplot

    Global warming 1960-2009

    (from this site www.walkersands.com/Blog/climate-change-in-the-age-of-google/)

    #127  So, Tom, what you are saying is that the congruence I see between these two graphs is a meaningless optical illusion?

    One other thing. Your correltion of 0.857 covers the entire scattergram, which was not the point. The claim is that three different scattergrams are represented, the first showing little to no correlation, the middle showing significant correlation and the last also showing no significant correlation. That's what I see in both Wolfe's graph and yours. And if there's a problem assigning a statistically derived value to each of these because they're too short, then as I see that's a problem with the statistical methodology, not with our ability to evaluate the data per se.

  29. #127 P.S.

    Tom, if you go to the SkSc trend calculator, setting the start date to 1960, the end date to 2016, and the moving average to 0 — and select HadCrut4, you'll see a more up-to-date representation that's even closer to your scattergram.

  30. Concerning the bogus nature of the Danley Wolfe graphic introduced into this discussion by Victor Gauer (but on the wrong thread).

    May I introduce my own graphic of three panels that illustrates the bogus nature of Wolfe's analysis, my graphic linked here (usualy 2 clicks to 'download your attachment')

    The top panel reproduces Wolfe's data plot, LOTI (I actually use LOTI as published in May 2014 - what should have been the Wolfe data - it is very close to Wolfe's data and indestinguishable for the data most recent to May 2014) plotted against MLO CO2. Note Wolfe repeatedly says he uses GISTEMP Met Station data but he is obviously wrong. He uses LOTI but adds 14ºC to the values. He calls this "absolute" rather than an anomaly although it is simply the anomaly shifted by 14ºC so not the monthly "absolute" values.

    Added to the Wolfe data is the LOTI data for June 2014-to-date as published today. The annual CO2 cycle (unlike the annual LOTI cycle) remains as per Wolfe's plot. Its inclusion has no physical justification, just as retaining the annual LOTI cycle would have no physical justifictaion. Its inclusion is patently wrong.

    The central panel plots the same data but adds a trace using 12-month averages for MLO CO2 and a red trace that additionally uses the 12-month averages for temperature. As the rate of increase in CO2 has been rising over the decades, the red trace is effectively the LOTI time series but with the early years squished up and the later years stretched out. The ratio of most-squished:most-stretched is about 1:3. So conpared with the more normal time series plot of LOTI, this CO2-series plot will markedly eccentuate any slowdown in the LOTI record during the later years.

    The third panel introduces the trend lines drawn on by Wolfe (the black trace). The flat part of the trend for the later years is not calculated as Wolfe describes. Wolfe's "1998-2014" result can be reproduced (down to the "158 observations") using May 2014 published data and the period 4/2001-5/2014. The other flat trend for the earlier years is undescribed by Wolfe. Importantly, the sloping trend Wolfe shows joining the flat eary section to the flat later section cannot be the result of any analysis. It is probably drawn fancifully simply to connect the top and bottom flat trends. It is entirely bogus.

    The yellow trend is the OLS trend for Wolfe's data through the middle part of the data with the narrower yellow lines extending that trend to the ends of the data. The OLS trend for the entirety of Wolfe's data is represented by the white plot and is very little different from the full-length yellow trend plot. It is thus evidently bogus to attempt to argue that there are any periods either at the start or at the end of this data with significantly lower trends. Yet Wolfe does just that!!!

  31. #130 MARodger. Thanks very much for going to all this trouble, MA. I won't respond in detail for the usual reason, so all I'll say at this point is:

    I see what Wolfe sees.

    Response:

    [JH] The discussion of scatter plots has now run its course. It's time to move on to other topics.

  32. #121 MARodger:

    What Lovejoy's Figure 3a represents to me is how easily data can be distorted to support just about any theory, providing one is clever enough to adroitly juggle the statistics. And of course Lovejoy is not alone. I see this sort of distortion everywhere in the cli. sci. literature.

    For some examples see the following list

    It wouldn't be so bad if the various attempts reinforced one another or were even consistent with one another, but in most cases they are not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's not enough to pull a few rabbits out of a hat. The evidence must be there, it must be clear and it must be objective. While highly complex and even convoluted technical discussions are appropriate in a purely scientific paper, it should be possible to boil all that down into a clear and simple explanation that any educated person can understand. And no, simply reiterating over and over that "climate change is real" won't do. 

    Response:

    [JH] Sloganeering snipped.

    [DB] This participant has recused themselves from further participation in this venue, finding the burden of complying with this venue's Comments Policy too onerous.

  33. MA Rodger & Tom Curtis:

    Because Victor cannot abide by the SkS Comments Policy, he has relinquished his privilege of posting comments on this site. Therefore, please do no post any new responses to him.

    Thank you.

  34. Elsewhere, I have noted that:

     "Using the Law Dome combined CO2 data plus the BEST Land Ocean Temperature Index over the period of their overlap (1850-2013), we find a correlation between CO2 forcing (calculated as 5.35 x ln(CO2current/CO2initial)) of 0.900, an R-squared of 0.811, with a linear regression of 0.58 +/- 0.044 C/(W/m^2).  ... Using just the raw Law Dome data (with no Cape Grim), however, we achieve a correlation of 0.711, and R-squared of 0.505, and a regression of 0.59 +/- 0.164 C/(W/m^2). Using forcings calculated from the Mauna Loa montly values from March 1958 to July 2016, the correlation is 0.854, the R-squared is 0.729, and the linear regression is 0.62 +/- 0.28 C/(W/m^2)."

    My respondent, like victorag above, refused to accept the mathematical results based on their eyeballing of the timeseries of the CO2 concentration data plotted alongside the temperature data.  They also insisted that the UAH TLT v6 was, despite being still in beta, the "gold standard of temperature records", a claim in stark contradiction to the evidence.  Despite this, I thought it would be instructive to run the regressions over the UAH TLT v6 beta 5 vs the Mauna Loa monthly data.  Before doing so, I converted the Mauna Loa data to anomaly values, both to eliminate the seasonal cycle and because the UAH data was also in anomaly values (and hence without a seasonal cycle).

    Regressing temperature against CO2 forcing, we obtain a result of 0.43 +/- 0.06 C/(W/m^2) with a correlation of 0.556 and an R-squared of 0.309.  That regressed value indicates a transient climate response of 1.59 +/- 0.22 C per doubling of CO2, a value well within error of the 2.29 +/- 1 C per doubling of CO2 from the Mauna Loa data (the highest value obtained).  The shorter time span and greater perturbation of the satellite record by ENSO fluctuations, however, does reduce the proportion of the variation explained by the change in CO2 concentration (as shown by the smaller R-squared).

    AGW deniers typically argue, in the face of this sort of data, that the correlation is a function of the temperature impact on the CO2 concentration, or growth in the CO2 concentration - ie, that the analysis has causation reversed.  However, regressing CO2 concentration against temperature gives results of 49 +/- 7 ppmv/oC (Correlation: 0.552; R-squared: 0.305).  On the surface, and given the trend increase of 0.41oC over the period analyzed, that would mean temperature accounts for just 19.9 ppmv of the trend 64.6 ppmv increase in CO2 concentration over that period.  In contrast, based on the regression, CO2 forcing accounts for 0.404 of the 0.405oC trend temperature increase.  In short, temperature explains CO2 concentration far worse than CO2 forcing explains temperature.  It is likely that apparent forcing of CO2 concentration by temperature shown by the regression is an artifact of CO2 forcing causing the increase in temperature, particularly given that it is at least twice the value shown in other situations where we know change in temperature drives the increase in CO2, such as durring the glacial/interglacial cycle.

    dCO2 concentration is even worse, showing a regression of 0.06 +/- 0.18 ppmv/oC (Correlation: 0.03; R-squared: 0.001).  That is, the values are neither correlated, nor stastically significant, although it is possible better results might be obtained with suitably lagged values.

    In summary, the evidence remains that there is a strong correlation between CO2 and/or CO2 forcing and temperature, and that correlation is primarilly driven by changes in CO2 concentration driving changes in the Earth's GMST.

  35. Nigelj @ 28 I appreciate the opportunity to explain the design of my linear regression.There are scientific concerns and statistical concerns. When there are known laws of physics you don’t have to use statistical analysis to generate coefficients for calculating the effect of carbon dioxide on air temperature. But in order to calculate the effect that air temperature has on the quantity of carbon dioxide in the air we do. We know that colder water absorbs carbon dioxide at a faster rate than hotter water. Assuming that water temperature and air temperature annually globally vary together we can model that if air temperature goes down the water temperature will go down also and absorb more carbon dioxide. If that assumption is wrong the regression coefficient will tell us with a change of sign. I assume that all of the gross increase in carbon dioxide emissions each year comes from humans burning fossil fuels and other organic material. Since more than average carbon dioxide is being absorbed we think the net growth in carbon dioxide left in the air will be decreased. On the other hand if the air temperature is higher than normal we assume that the water temperature will be higher and that less carbon dioxide will be absorbed. Then the annual growth in carbon dioxide in the air will be larger. To be scientifically correct we have to model changes in the magnitude of the annual increase of carbon dioxide as a function of the air temperature. This makes carbon dioxide the dependent variable and air temperature the independent variable. If we use anomalies as the measure of temperature around the 1981 to 2010 baseline, on the graph of the regression results 0.0 on the x axis will also represent when the anomaly is 0.0. The statistical consideration is that when dealing with time series data and the quantities are autocorrelated the scatter of plots is not a random sample. This problem was avoided by modeling dC for carbon dioxide and anomalies for temperature. Also when it is obvious the variables are correlated with a third variable time you have a multicolinearity problem. Modeling dC and T anomalies avoids this problem also. If you graph the regression, the sloping line wii intersect the y axis at 1.7. This means when the anomaly is 0.0oK the carbon dioxide growth is 1.7ppm/yr. If the temperature anomaly is higher the carbon dioxide growth rate is higher. If the temperature is lower the growth rate is lower. 58% of the variation in the growth rate per year of carbon dioxide is explained by the earth’s air temperature. Between 1979 and 2011 the mean growth was 1.7ppm per year. The regression coefficient says if the air temperature goes up 1.0oK the growth rate of carbon dioxide will go up 1.94ppm/yr for a total of 3.64ppm/yr.

    I took time away from my mission because I wanted to prove that I know my science by evaluating Tom Curtis’s carbon dioxide sensitivity coefficient linear regression. I want to tie things up on this subject. Tom Curtis said the GMST is a proxy for air temperature. 70% of GMST temperatures are ship log sea surface temperature. We already know ocean temperature is the primary determinant of carbon dioxide absorption. From a practical point the variation in the data for Tom’s dependent variable comes from the world’s sea surface temperatures. On the independent variable, carbon dioxide radiative forcing is a close derivative of the change in carbon dioxide per year. In essence, regardless of the labels he put on the variables he was regressing sea surface temperatures against the change in carbon dioxide per year. The order of causation is wrong but the attained R2 is the same.

  36. To all between 26 and 33 two corrections: I used UAH Mid Troposphere. I think channel 4 was down in 1912 when I sent this to Dan Lashof at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
    There is a typo I need corrected at line 16 for john warner @22 Change, did conform, to did not conform.
    My source for the earth’s average annual global surface air temperature of 281.92oK, is NASA 2010 CERES Earth Energy Budget. Notice absorbed by atmosphere is 358.2wpsm. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law Calculator yields an average annual global surface air temperature of 281.92oK.

    https://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/energy_budget/pdf/Energy_Budget_Litho_10year.pdf

    I have enjoyed the challenge of communicating on Skeptical Science. I learned a lot.

  37. Note concerning john warner @135 & @136.

    These two comments are copies of comments first posted on this comment thread which is also where the referenced previous comments can be found.

  38. john warner @135 & @136.

    It is good that you enjoy the challenge. Perhaps you can communicate to us your reasons for considering that "the earth’s average annual global surface air temperature" can be calculated in the manner presented @136. In particular, what possible relevance does an estimated 358.2W/sq m average radiative energy flux between surface & atmosphere have to establishing such a temperature. (I am conscious that this was described as being a rhetorical subject of discussion on the previous thread and this off-topic and that it remains so on this thread.)

    And would you communicate your reasoning for suggesting @135 that your methods avoid the problems of autocorrelation as they patently do not.

  39. MA Rodger @ 138 If you do a runs test on carbon dioxide you get all positive changes from one data point to the next. If you do a runs test on changes in carbon dioxide you get a nice scatter of pluses and minuses. Which proves Tom Curtis linear regression data is autocorrelated data. But I also explained that is the least of the problems with is carbon dioxide sensitivity coefficient.

    It is not your fault that you misinterperted the earth energy budget. The presention is intentionally misleading. The back radiation 340.3 has no corresponding physical scientific meaning. It is composed of emmitted by atmosphere 169.9 W/m2, plus emitted by clouds 29.9 W/m2, minus greenhouse gases 17.9 W/m2, (not even shown) and the increase in radiative forcing of the surface air by the 12 tons of air above every square meter 158.4 W/m2. (169.9+29.9-17.9+158.4= 340.3). In 1992 I wrote a 42 page paper which my congressman circulated to the relevant commmitties and submitted into the congression record based upon the misleading presentation of absorbed by atmosphere that confused you. I didn't like being tricked into making a fool of myself. That is why I self-educated myself so I can't be fooled again. I am dedicating a lot of my time on Skepticel Science to help those who are making a good faith effort to understand the real science of global warming.

    398.2 W/m2 is the radiation power per square meter of the earth surface. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law Equation the temperature of the earth surface is 289.48oK. 358.2 W/m2 is the radiation power per square meter of the earth air at the surface. The earth air temperature is 281.92oK at the surface. The difference is 7.56oK. This means that 40.1 W/m2 of the surface power is not absorbed by the air and radiated directly to space.

    The CERES mission proves that weather station data is not accurate. If something as simple as his was not settled when AlGore won the noble prize maybe CAGW was not settled either.

    The information contained in the earth energy budget is excellent, you just have to know how to draw inferences about the real world from the budget.

  40. john warner @139:

    1)

    "If you do a runs test on carbon dioxide you get all positive changes from one data point to the next. If you do a runs test on changes in carbon dioxide you get a nice scatter of pluses and minuses."

    The claim here is that, for each data point in a time series of CO2 concentration, the next data point is higher (all positive changes); but that the series x = CO2(i) - CO2(i-1) gives a variety of positive and negative values ("a nice scatter of pluses and minuses").  I hope I am not alone in seeing the straight forward contradiction in that claim.   Perhaps john warner means to claim that ΔCO2 is always positive, while Δ(ΔCO2) provides a scatter of positive and negative values.  If so, the point is irrelevant to autocorrelation, which is not a function of slope.

    2)  Here is the energy budget to which john warner refers:

    It is NASA's own estimate comparison of the peer reviewed estimates by Loeb et al, and Trenberth et al, (2009).  Of this, john warner says, "The back radiation 340.3 has no corresponding physical scientific meaning" despite the back radiation being an observed quantity from many locations around the Earth.

    The back radiation is IR radiation from greenhouse gases (including water vapour) and the cloud base. It's flux is less than that of the surface because it comes on average from a slightly higher altitude than the surface, and hence (because of the lapse rate) a slightly cooler layer than the surface. john warner's decomposition is a fiction.

    3)  With regard to the energy balance and GMST, because the energy flux is a function of the fourth power or temperature, the mean value of the energy flux does not directly correspond to the mean value of temperature unless the temperature at all points is identical.  Trenberth, Fasullo and Khiel (2009) discuss this issue in the special section on "Spatial and temporal sampling" (page 315).  Deriving the Global Mean Surface Temperature from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and the known upward flux is, therefore, a basic mathematical error.  Thus, if the Earth had two equal parts, each being isothermal, with the temperature of one being 283 K, and the other 295.6 K, for a mean temperature of 289.3, the net upward flux would average at 398.2 W/m^2.  Using that to estimate surface temperature would yield a mean of 289.5 K.  The variation in surface temperatures is much larger than the +/- 6 K used in my example, which accounts for the larger discrepancy found by john warner.

     I should note that Trenberth et al derived their value from a reanalusis product (NRA), ie, a climate model run constrained to match observational data (ie, weather stations, among other sources).  That is, he is using a result obtained premised on the accuracy of weather stations to "show" that the weather stations are inaccurate - while making a mathematical blunder in the process.

  41. John Warner,

    Your claim at 139 that "increase in radiative forcing of the surface air by the 12 tons of air above every square meter 158.4 W/m2." is unphysical.  The air pressure on the surface is a static force, while the radiation of W/m2 is power.  A static force cannot emit power or it would be perpetual motion.  You have made several other claims that are unphysical.  Making claims that are unphysical are very basic errors that demonstrate you have not mastered of the basic concepts of AGW.  It appears from your posting that you have developed your own description of AGW that does not match what professional scientists have developed.  What is your background that you are qualified to develop a new area of science?  

    If you want to convince others here that your ideas have merit I suggest that you start out asking questions about what you think are errors in AGW theory.  Discuss only one simple concept at a time to reduce confusion.  By discussing the basics you will be able to eliminate the errors that are rife in your posts here.  Expounding on your own ideas will not convince others while basic physical errors, like describing a static force as emitting power, are present.

    As an alternative you could post your material at WUWT where most of the readers do not understand the science and will lap up your ideas.

    Tom Curtis,

    I am amazed at your patience on this thread.

    Response:

    [JH] Please keep it civil.

    [PS] Also please note, if you wish to change the discussion away from Co2/temperature correlation, then find an appropriate thread and comment there. Leave a comment on original thread indicating where new comment is (the date of top right of  a posted comment is a suitable link). Offtopic comments are coming to get deleted.

  42. Google 1976 US Standard Atmosphere Calculator, Digital Dutch and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law Calculator. From the Earth Energy Budget emitted by atmosphere is 169.9wpsm and emitted by clouds is 29.9wpsm. They add up to 199.8wpsm. Entering 199.8 for P yields 243.64oK. Now enter 5,891 meters for altitude and -6.22oK into the Standard Atmosphere Calculator. T=243.638oK Subtract 243.638oK from 281.93oK. Where did thes extra 38.292oK come from? Gravity. The 12 tons of air over the air at the surface increased the Pressure and Density. According to the Ideal Gas Law Pressure and Density determine Temperature according to the following formula. P=CDT Where C is the Gas Law Constant. At 0.0 meters altitude the Ideal Gas Law Calculates:
    101325 Pa = 287.052 Pam3/kgoK * 1.25203 kg/m3 * 281.930oK.
    How much did the Gravity induced increase in Temperature increase the the radiation emitted by the surface temperature? 154.8wpsm. 199.8wpsm +158.4wpsm=358.2wpsm.

  43. john warner @142.

    There are monumental flaws in the argument you present but I will confine myself to just the one monumental flaw. It is true that there is a phenomenon known as Gravitational Compression. The act of compressing a gas does heat the gas (as anybody who has pumped up a bicycle type by hand would have noted). But when the compression stops so does the warming and the elevated temperatures experience cooling (as my bicycle pump plainly shows). So what compression is happening in the Earth's atmosphere? There is none. The Earth's atmosphere has not been compressing for eons.

    With deference to the Moderator Response @142, I will not suggest that you are delusional in you belief that you have mastered the understanding required to allow a person to wield the equations that you employ. Rather I will humbly suggest that you are a tad out of your depth here.

    Response:

    [JH] The deleted paragraph is a blatant "ad hominem" attack which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

    You know better than that.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

  44. Correction: john warner @ 142

    101325 Pa = 287.052 Pam3/kgoK * 1.25203 kg/m3 * 281.93oK.

  45. john warner @142, if you look at the diagram @140, you will notice that the 169.9 W/m^2 from atmosphere, and the 29.9 W/m^2 from clouds are labels for arrows leading upwards.  That is, they are the upward IR flux from the atmosphere at the Top Of the Atmosphere (TOA).  While it is true that the IR flux from a layer of the atmosphere sufficiently thin so as to absorb essentially none or the IR photons emitted from the layer is equal in both the upward and downward direction, that is not true of the atmosphere as a whole.  It follows that upward IR flux at the TOA from atmospheric emission does not inform us regarding the downward IR flux from atmospheric emission at the surface.  Ditto for clouds.  Reading the chart as it it does is nonsense.

    That is most easilly seen with clouds.  Clouds are essentially opaque to IR radiation except for all but the thinest clouds.  Thus, for a cloud of thickness T (units of meters), the upward emission comes almost exclusively from the cloud top, while the downward emission comes almost exclusively from the cloud bottom.  Because of the lapse rate in atmospheric temperatures, that means the downward transmission will have a brightness temperature approximately T x 0.0065 K greater than the upward emission from the cloud top.  As the upward arrow in the diagram is radiation to space, if there is high cloud overlying low cloud the difference in brigtness temperature of the upward emission will be a function of the altitude difference between the cloud top of the upper cloud and the cloud bottom of the lower cloud, multiplied by the lapse rate.

    Atmosperic emission is not quite so clear cut, but in general, the thicker lower atmosphere results in a shorter free path length for downward emission than for upward emission.  That means IR radiation emitted from the atmosphere and reaching the surface comes from much closer to the ground than IR radiation emitted from the atmosphere and reaching space.  Dragging numbers at random from a diagram while ignoring context (such as the arrows) does not change this.  Invoking an unphysical theory to "explain" a discrepancy that only exists because you have completely, and bizarrely, misread the graph does not change it either.  

  46. From the Stefan-Boltzmann Law if we know the temperature we can calculated the rate at which the air is cooling itself. The total air at all altitudes combined radiates to space at the rate of 199.8 W/m2. That is the only energy that needs to be replaced to maintain all of the temperatures of the temperature gradient. 

    [snip]

    Response:

    [RH] John, before you go any further here, you're going to have to directly and clearly address the shortcomings that have been pointed out so far.

  47. John Warner,

    At 142 you claim that according to the ideal gas equation P = CDT where C is the ideal gas constant (normally abbreviated as R), D is density and T is temperature.  If that were the case, since all gases have different densities, all gases would have different pressures at the same temperature and volume.   All my High School students learn that at the same temperature and volume different gasses have the same pressure.  Your equation is falsified by my college textbook (Brown and LeMay: Chemistry the Central Science 11th edition page 407).

    I cannot find your value of 287.052 Pam3/kgoK for R anywhere on the Internet.  It appears that you made this up.  What are these units anyway?

    As MA Rodger explained, while pressure and temperature are related, you cannot draw power with gravity as the source.  That violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

    Your "calculation" using Boltzamn's law (struck by the moderator) was similarly in error.

    Since you have demonstrated that you cannot calculate values from first principles, you must start to reference your material to accepted sources.  You need to start asking questions about how the atmosphere works.  People here are happy to help you understand.  Everything you explain just makes others doubt you more.

    Response:

    [RH] Though it's dubious to believe it would be fruitful, perhaps it would be good to take John's errors one at a time. The list is large and growing, thus the potential for advancing the conversation is diminishing.

    I propose John first address the pressure and temperature violation of thermodynamics. Any comments outside of that will be struck until John addresses this one.

    [PS] John has bad habit of simply ignoring inconvenient response and then changing to a different tack. He not responded to errors pointed about source of CO2, meaning of correlation, calculation errors and now a monumental misunderstanding of thermodynamics. Furthermore he is repeatedly ignoring moderator instructions to find suitable thread.

    I agree that John should respond here to either acknowledge the errors or defend his position and any other response should be deleted. This vaguely resembles Postma's nonsense so perhaps further followup beyond this should go to here.

  48. Michael sweet @ 147

    101325 Nm-2 = 287.052 Nm-2m3/kgoK * 1.25203 kgm-3 * 281.930oK

                                         Nm/kgoK

                                         J/kgoK

    If you know that a pascal is defined as a Newton per square meter and simplify the expression to a Newton meter which is a Joule you can see that the individual gas constant for air in Standard International Units is 286.9 J/kgoK.

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/individual-universal-gas-constant-d_588.html

    Would you repost my snipped comment so I can defend it.

    Response:

    [RH] Please respond to Tom's comments below. This needs to be acknowledged and resolved before moving forward.

  49. john warner, given your tendency to ignore rebutals, and just switch topics, the moderators have directed you to stick to the topic @142 until you have acknowledged your errors therein, or proved your views on that topic to be correct. (See Moderator's comment @146, and @147.  Particularly the statement that:

    "I propose John first address the pressure and temperature violation of thermodynamics. Any comments outside of that will be struck until John addresses this one."

    )

    In light of that, you claim @142 that the ideal gas law states:

    P = CDT          (1)

    where P is pressure, C is a constant, D is density, and T is temperature.

    The ideal gas law is normaly given as:

    PV = nRT        (2)

    where P is pressure, V is volume, n is the number of molecules of the substance (in moles), R is the gas constant, and T is the temperature.

    Rearranging (2), we get

    P = (Rn/V)T    (3)

    If we then multiply n/V by the molar mass of the substance (M(s)), relying on the fact that M(s) * n equals the mass of the substance, we then get

    P = R/M(s) * DT  (4)

    Substituting with one, we then find that so long as C = R/M(s), your formula is correct.  R = 8.3144598 J/(K mol).  The molar mass of dry air is 0.02897 Kg / mol.  Ergo, in the case of dry air, C= 287.0024 J /(Kg K)

    Inserting, that and checking units, we find that the right hand of the equation has units of Joules/meter^3, which reduces to units of (kg x m^2)/(m^3 x sec^2).  That cancels to units of kg/(m x sec^2)  In the meantime, the left hand has units of pascals, or kgs/(m x sec^2).  The two are identical, thereby validating the equation.

    Comparing to your exposition @142, I first notice a slight difference in the value of C (about 2%), which is possibly due to rounding errors in the calculation.  I also notice @148 that you use correct units for C.  It follows that your presentation of the ideal gas law, although ideosyncratic, is valid.

    You proceed by saying:

    "How much did the Gravity induced increase in Temperature increase the the radiation emitted by the surface temperature? 154.8wpsm. 199.8wpsm +158.4wpsm=358.2wpsm."

    That is ambiguous to me.  Are you saying that:

    1)  Gravity induces a temperture difference in the atmosphere between an altitude of approximately 6 kms and the surface, such that additional energy must be supplied from some other source (ie, not from gravity) to maintain that equilibrium temperature difference (and hence difference in emmitted radiation); or

    2)  There is an external source of energy which provides the energy allowing the atmosphere to radiate at 199.8 W/m^2 at approximately 6 Km altitude, but the additional emission at the surface is the result of a continuous energy supply to the atmosphere by gravity?

    (1) is, of course, the standard theory of the greenhouse effect; while (2) is arrant nonsense.

    (PS inline @147, I looked carefully at the post suggested, and Postma's article and I cannot find where he is suggesting the theory such as john warner appears to be expounding above.  While we have encountered that theory several times on SkS, it has always to my knowledge, been in comments and lacks a specific article debunking it.  Hence, for want of a better location I am continuing to discuss it here.) 

  50. john warner @150, are you explicitly stating that your snipped post @146 answers my question at the end of my post @149.  In other words, you are explicitly stating that (in my words), "There is an external source of energy which provides the energy allowing the atmosphere to radiate at 199.8 W/m^2 at approximately 6 Km altitude, but the additional emission at the surface is the result of a continuous energy supply to the atmosphere by gravity".

    Is that correct?

Prev  1  2  3  4  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2019 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us