Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 Next
Comments 98151 to 98200:
-
NewYorkJ at 11:10 AM on 18 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
"If we look at the Nasa Map above, it shows that the Arctic has been heating up" I have to nitpick here. A 1-month anomaly map is not a good indicator, as there's major weather noise in that. Hansen also notes the extreme negative configuration of the AO has had a lot to do with recent cold couple of winters in some mid-latitute areas. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/ Now is the AO changing as a result of Arctic warming? Seems like an interesting question, but I'm not convinced colder regional winters will be the norm going forward. -
Marcus at 11:10 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
Monckton here is displaying his usual talent for *cherry picking*! Why choose 2001 to 2010? Normal convention is to go from 1980-1989, then 1990-1999, then 2000-2009. Maybe its because, if he goes from 2000-2009, the warming trend jumps to +0.013 degrees per year (or +1.3 degrees per century)-almost triple the warming for 1980-1989 (+0.0054 per year), & only slightly lower than for 1990-1999 (+0.017 degrees per year). Given that the warming trend of 2000-2009 (or even 2001 to 2010) was against the backdrop of a deep solar minimum, I hardly think that's a result Monckton & his contrarian mates should be crowing about! -
Bob Lacatena at 11:08 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
6, Roughyed, It shouldn't be surprising that the nine additional months of record-setting or near-record-setting warmth from Feb 2010 to Nov 2010 pushed the statistical significance over the edge, especially when it was replacing nine months of dropping temperatures at the end of 1995. This is a case where the end points really affected things, although with an overall warming trend, it shouldn't be surprising that lower values are dropping off the left while higher values are appearing on the right. And as an aside, please avoid linking to Jo Nova nonsense here. It's bad enough when she covers politics, but her version of smoke-and-mirrors hand-waving snake-oil salesmanship "science" has no place on the planet, let alone with any sort of reference from here. If people do want to go there, just remember to take a serious draught of true-skeptic juice before you leave. You will be hit with every silly, underhanded statistics/graphing trick in the book for the duration of your stay, as well as enjoying the company of an extremely venomous, nasty, closed-minded and rather ill-informed collection of regulars in the comments. In fact, it can be fun and informative to identify all of the quite purposeful errors that she makes in either constructing or presenting her data -- such as the oh-so-subtle use of the Greenland ice core data, with the silent implication that it is a good Global indicator, and which ends prior to 1900, before any of the past 110 years of warming... although she then "generously" compensates for that early termination with the "generous" addition of 0.7˚C for 1900-2010 (although she doesn't add that to her graph, so people that like to just look at the pictures without reading and comprehending will get an extra helping of trickery)... even though actual warming in Greenland is anywhere from 3˚C to 8˚C, depending on where and when you look. -
skywatcher at 11:05 AM on 18 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
#49: A stock analogy does not work here, as, much as muoncounter has already said, there are physical processes driving the temperature change - no amount of speculative 'trading' will alter the energy balance of the Earth until we substantially reduce carbon emissions. In a stock market, there are no such physical laws - money is made or lost essentially by gambling on share prices, and as such the share price is both highly volatile, and can go sharply down as well as up, driven by human decisions, as we have all discovered to our cost. If share prices were as predictable as long-term climate then everybody (or by definition nobody) would get rich... Of course our climate is being driven by human decisions - it's just that they are so far all pointed in a single overwhelming direction and cannot be reversed very quickly. -
WHATDOWEKNOW at 11:04 AM on 18 January 2011It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Muoncounter, see my comment #13 on what seems to cause PDO. So far, again, and unfortunately I have not seen one single other viable explanation on this blog. As I also mentioned, a sinus (or co-sinus) wave oscillates perfectly around 0 too, and the trend line through one complete wave length is of course 0. But that doesn't mean there are no "trends" in a sinus wave pattern, which there obviously are depending on where you (x) are in the wave. Bakes the question, where are we (temperature wise) on such a sinus wave, and is there a temperature sinus wave? History has shown time and again temperatures go up and down... Anyway, I have to say that the 2nd graph in this post is misleading. One can't simply draw a straight line through the temperature record and the PDO. That's BS (bad science). Why? Simply because there are seasonal cycles in the temperatures and those need to be adjusted for first. Likewise with the PDO, which oscillates (sinus wave like pattern); see prior paragraph and my comment under #25. After the seasonal adjustment is done, THEN a linear regression may be done through the entire data set. But, in this case we can't do that either as there are clearly years where trend-reversals occur (see comment #25). Hence, drawing a straight-line through the entire seasonally-adjusted data-set is also BS. Since regression lines are in fact models, we need to find the model that best fits the (temperature) data, expressed as r2. In excel, a simple linear regression line through the seasonally adjusted data from 1900 to 2010 would give an r2 of ~0.68. A polynomial to the sixth (excel's limit) order gives an r2 of .81. Hence the data is better explained with a 6th order regression line. (of course with an even higher order it would explain up to an r2 of 1, but that's not the issue here; it's the fact that the increase has not been linear) Back to the PDO and temperature; I don't think PDO can explain most/much of the observed temperature trend; only to a certain degree. But, instead, and as pointed out under comment #13, I think the PDO can explain the ENSO/NOI cycle much better. -
dana1981 at 10:57 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
Monckton's problem was that Steketee said "in the last 40 years", forcing Monckton to start in 1970. This excludes UAH, which started in 1979, yet Monckton cited the UAH trend (roughly 1.3°C per century) anyway. It's bad enough to cherrypick UAH, but even worse to cherrypick it over a timeframe during 25% of which it didn't even exist! 2001 seems to be surpassing 1998 as the 'skeptics' preferred cherrypicked starting point. No doubt because the longer the timeframe, the clearer the warming signal. This creates a bit of a conflict though, because UAH has one of the largest warming trends since 2001 of any temperature data set. It's difficult to cherrypick when your preferred cherries keep changing. I picture Monckton hopping from one branch of the cherry tree to the next. -
WheelsOC at 10:41 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
Notice how he switches time periods in mid-paragraph, going from "since 1970" to "since 2001." It's like he consciously knows that focusing on the last decade alone will give a skewed picture of the temperature trend. I suspect the same is true of those who claim, "no warming since 1998!" It's hard to be convinced they can make these mistakes honestly. It's especially frustrating since Monckton repeatedly accuses Steketee of cherry-picking time periods or extreme weather events. Unfortunately, Monckton is increasingly adroit when it comes to the Gish Gallop. Usually the only two ways to deal with this are not to dignify the low-flying bull with a debate, or to write a book-length rebuttal. Sadly the former option isn't available in this case, especially since Monckton is a favorite for legislative testimony. -
apiratelooksat50 at 10:39 AM on 18 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
First, let me make it clear, I am all for wind power as a source of power. There are some issues including geographical footprint, dependability, etc... that need to be resolved. It is also not feasible for all areas. But, where applicable, it should be applied as a method to reduce usage of fossil fuels. There is a clear resistance to this from the environmentalists due to the bird killings and impact on scenic views. Also, the financial viability of this without government subsidies is suspect. Even T. Boone Pickens backed out of it. -
Kooiti Masuda at 10:36 AM on 18 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
According to scientific studies, variation of atmospheric CO2 in interannual time scale is correlated with ENSO. But it is not that the warmer eastern Pacific Ocean give up more CO2 during the El Nino phase. Rather it is the terrestrial biosphere around the western Pacific (and perhaps also Amazon river basin) that take less CO2 then. I think this connection has already been discussed somewhere at this web site. Otherwise I will look for references. -
Ron Crouch at 10:34 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
Monckton must have learned his tricks from Fred Seitz, but then didn't they all (Seitz was considered the granddaddy of global warming skeptics). It's just the age old trick of casting doubt; usually with an ulterior motive/incentive. I don't know about you but I wouldn't walk a mile for a "Camel". And I wouldn't listen to anyone who casts doubt on an issue which is being put under the microscope by so many different scientific disciples that have provided substantial proof to the contrary. That's not to say that there isn't room for constructive criticism, and that's why blogs like this and RealClimate and others serve a very useful purpose in informing the public, which is refreshing in comparison to those blogs that more resemble the chaotic nature of a scrum. -
apiratelooksat50 at 10:33 AM on 18 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
I’ve been asked to provide my scientific reasons for not supporting the AGW hypothesis. A short explanation follows. (Sorry for the delay, I’ve been working this past week on delineating a wetland to help minimize the effects of running a 4 mile wastewater effluent pipeline.). In statistics, a null hypothesis is a hypothesis that is presumed true until statistical evidence in the form of a hypothesis test indicates otherwise. For example, in a clinical trial of a new drug, the null hypothesis might be that the new drug is no better, on average, than the current drug. We would write H0: there is no difference between the two drugs on average. Special consideration is given to the null hypothesis, due to the fact that the null hypothesis relates to the statement being tested, whereas the alternative hypothesis relates to the statement to be accepted if/when the null is rejected. H0 can be “not rejected”, or H0 can be “rejected in favor of H1”. It can never be concluded to "reject H1", or even "accept H1". “Not rejecting H0", does not necessarily mean that the null hypothesis is true, it only suggests that there is not sufficient evidence against H0 in favor of H1. Rejecting the null hypothesis then, suggests that the alternative hypothesis may be true.. Prior to discussion of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis it should be established that the Earth’s climate has gone through relatively extensive cyclical changes in temperature throughout its history. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns. If changes in the Earth’s orbit can initiate warming changes, then the opposite must be true: changes in the Earth’s orbit can initiate cooling changes, as the feedbacks listed above become negative. Also, as the world is coming out of the Little Ice Age it is only reasonable that the Earth is experiencing a gradual rise in temperature. The fundamental AGW hypothesis is based on the following scientifically verifiable facts: 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG) and contributes to the greenhouse effect by absorbing and emitting radiation within the thermal infrared range thus warming the Earth. 2) Through the use of fossil fuels over the past 150 years, humans have contributed to the current rise in atmospheric CO2 levels from 280 ppm to 390 ppm. The AGW hypothesis (H1) then basically states that: current human CO2 emissions significantly affect the climate outside of natural variations. Therefore, the null hypothesis (H0) is: human CO2 emissions do not significantly affect the climate and the variations are the result of natural processes. There are a number of rational and viable scientific objections that have been raised against various parts of the hypothesis, from the nature and sign of the forcings considered and unconsidered, to the existence of natural thermostatic mechanisms. It is the onus of the supporters of the H1 hypothesis to establish enough evidence to reject H0. That is, show where the climate has changed from any historically established norms. First, the climate must be acting significantly anomalously or abnormally. Second, the anomaly must be explained by human actions. And, third modeling (predicting) cannot be used as explanations or facts. At this point, for the sake of brevity, I will end this post. I have rebuttals prepared for examples you supporting AGW you will want to post. -
Bibliovermis at 10:11 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
Marcus, Yes, although it's not that they are dumb. It's a combination of the Dunning-Kueger effect, provincialism, apathy, scientific illiteracy and occasionally willful, even prideful ignorance, fed by a well-saturated misinformation campaign. It's the reason why Monckton is even given any consideration. -
skywatcher at 10:06 AM on 18 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Both Esop #66 and John Brookes #72: Eyjafjallajokull had little impact on global climate for several reasons. 1: It was a relatively small eruption on the global scale - VEI 3-4 and ~0.25 cubic km of ejected material. Pinatubo was VEI 6 and ~10 cubic km of material. 2: It was at a high latitude - Eruptions that can significantly affect global climate through aerosols stand a much better chance of doing so if they are near the Equator. 3: The Eyja eruption column was not very high - ~8km, and so did not inject much material into the stratosphere. Large Plinian eruption columns such as Pinatubo (>20km high eruption column) inject material directly into the stratosphere, notably statospheric sulphuric acid, influencing climate. Part of the reason Eyjafjallajokull was even as explosive as it was is the presence of the glacier and consequent abundant water around the magma producing phreatomagmatic activity enhancing the explosivity of the andesitic eruption. But that explosivity still isn't very large. Eyja is not going to feature very high on a global list of 21st Century eruptions. So while it's tempting to relate the Eyjafjallajokull 2010 volcanic eruption to snowy weather, it's not relevant here, as Eyjafjallajokull was orders of magnitude too small to have much of a global or climatic impact. The fine ash, the wind direction, and subsequent entrainment of fine ash into higher altitudes of the troposphere course led to plenty of travel disruption and media attention... -
Glenn Tamblyn at 09:51 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
Bern #1 Yes, disappointing that the first comment was a denier. But every comment since then has been positive. The denier 'John Mac' might be feeling a little punch-drunk. Excellent post John. -
Marcus at 09:34 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
What some people out there don't understand is this-its *not* just Queensland getting flooded. The whole of Eastern Australia has been hit, & now we hear about South America getting hit too-& just months after Pakistan suffered its worst floods in living memory. Yet still I hear people say "well its not as bad as the floods in 1974 or the 1800's" or "how can you blame this on global warming when you blamed the drought on global warming". I mean, seriously, are people *really* that dumb? -
barry1487 at 09:24 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
Thanks, Mile. Data is from 1986, and the anomaly maps go as far back as 36 months, as far as I can make out. I'd like to find some longer term data. -
Roughyed at 09:20 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
@ Robert Way #5 Phil Jones has stated recently that with fuller data for 2010 the last 15 year trend comes up to the 95% level. See here - http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/12/08/impervious-to-learning/ I guess it semantics of Feb 1995 to Feb 2010 from when he made his interview to the BBC, or Nov 1995 to Nov 2010 when he made comments in the Monbiot piece. Also heres a link to the trends I think probably Monkton uses, they don't seem to match yours but state they are from Hadley data? Jo Nova Graph -
littlerobbergirl at 08:56 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
err yes - very thorough! that last paragraph is a bit of a brain twister. well it all is, but you cant give any wiggle room with these people. tamino has been examining 'noisy short-term temperature data', nice tidy up here http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/sharper-focus/ -
littlerobbergirl at 08:45 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
i tried to post a reply to that comment, but abc threw a wobbly at a post from england lol someone else will have to do it. good night/morning john, glad yous and yr town mostly ok (this time around). -
dana1981 at 08:22 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
MattJ #1 - the problem is that it's very easy to make a false, unsubstantiated statement. It takes a lot more work to prove the statement is false. Monckton constantly takes advantage of this principle, which is why we have to have an entire series of Monckton Myths. -
MattJ at 08:16 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
I always knew there was something fishy about the figures Monckton tosses around. Now if only we could state the rebuttal as succinctly as Monckton stated the disinformation. -
dhogaza at 08:16 AM on 18 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
Marco: "I don't think SCIRP is Chinese government-backed. In fact, I think the Chinese involved in SCIRP would prefer to leave the Chinese government out..." Thank you for that reference, that's interesting. So SCIRP perhaps is just a symptom of the general shoddy nature of much of the Chinese academic press ... (for those of you who didn't chase Marco's link, the story is that essentially that rather than promote crappy Chinese science journals, the government is seriously looking into trying to weed them out.) -
Blueflash at 07:44 AM on 18 January 2011We're heading into an ice age
Daniel, 1) The graph I was referring to was a temperature graph. The one you have responded with is a CO2 graph. 2) "For 650,000 years, atmospheric CO2 has never been above this line... until now" uses misleading grammar. The word "never" has strong implications. And 650,000 years is not a long time in the grand scheme of earth. The correct phrasing would be "CO2 has not been above this line in the past 650,000 years."Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Sigh. In reverse order (feeling contrarian myself today), 650K years is an immense time in the history of our species; the Earth will abide long after we are gone (unless we get too many handwaving comments). CO2's peak in the Vostok core was 298.3 PPM. The line was to represent 300 PPM. Grammar concerns notwithstanding, the point is unequivocal. And for those who refuse to acknowledge any relationship between CO2 and temps:
-
robert way at 07:35 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
On that topic also if we are to consider things only from the purely statistical perspective we could not conclude with 95% confidence that it has warmed significantly over the last 15 years using hadley but i don't think anyone would really make that argument. Statistics is important and we hate to be aware of these things when we publish and submit papers but we also have to remember that results are not useless because they're not 95% significant. -
robert way at 07:32 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
I used yearly data rather than monthly data. I understand this will alter the trends one would expect and that it is perhaps optimal to use monthly data instead but simply out of ease of usage I used yearly. Regarding the 95% significance trends and so on it was suggested previously to use error bars and so on but John suggested to me to leave them out. If we want to put our statistics hat on and evaluate this then of course the trends in many cases are too short to be statistically significant but that does not make the data useless. Certainly Monckton does not make his statements based upon statistical rigour. More or less this post was meant to use his assumptions that he is implicitly making. He is essentially not making any reference to error bars and is treating the values as the 100% confidence values. If we do the same using his own method we find that his argument is flawed regardless. -
SRJ at 07:21 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
Hi Robert Are you using annual or monthly data to calculate the trends in table 3 and 4? When I use monthly data from 2001 to November 2010 I get slightly different trends than you. Besides that I think you should also include significance levels or error estimates. None of the trends are significant at the 95% level. See this plot. The errorbars in the plot are 95% confidence limits. -
Alden Griffith at 07:18 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
Another way that I like to convey the effect of el Nino / la Nina: At most, a moderate el Nino by itself should make one year warmer than the previous year, but shouldn't make it record setter. The strength of the el Nino phases that we've had since 2000 have been unexceptional, yet temperatures have been quite exceptional. -
keithpickering at 07:17 AM on 18 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
I think you missed an important point here, and perhaps need to revise this posting. Soares eliminated the secular growth in CO2 from his data. In other words, he wasn't looking for an anthropogenic signal to begin with: he was looking for (and found) a non-anthropogenic signal of warming oceans giving up CO2, and cooling oceans absorbing CO2. This paper isn't really about CO2 causing climate change. It's more about the cause/effect of, for example, the 800 year temp/CO2 lag seen in ice cores. -
Albatross at 06:39 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
Robert, Great job. Just one comment for now. Monckton states: "...but exactly the same rate occurred from 1860-1880 and again from 1910-1940" To which you respond: "....only 1 out of the 4 major indices indicates a rate of warming within 0.25°C per century and none within 0.2°C. His claim that the rates are similar is dubious at best. You have demonstrated unequivocally that the rates of warming are most certainly not "exactly the same". I do not know what the 95% confidence intervals are for the trends, there may be some overlap, but even so, they are most definitely not the same, and in all likelihood recent rates of warming are higher than those observe din 1910-1940, and almost certainly higher than those observed between 1860-1880. Watts has sunk to an almost seemingly impossible new low by allowing this drivel from Monckton to be published on his blog. Time for serious "skeptics" and contrarians (e.g., Lucia) to drop Watts too. -
David Horton at 06:33 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
Reluctant as I am to link to the appalling Gerard Henderson, here is his take http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/eco-doomsayers-blind-to-history-unreliable-tipsters-20110117-19u0i.html, For good old Gerard nothing can ever go wrong with the environment, nothing humans can do can affect the environment, nothing that is happening now is of any concern because things have happened before, nothing happening now can possibly be relevant to anything, and there is absolutely no concern for the future - just as long as conservative policies are followed and nobody takes any notice of those environmentalists of course. A column every week in the SMH to spout this kind of garbage, and help to create a political environment where nothing will ever be done to protect the actual environment. Especially nothing to help stop global warming. -
John Hartz at 05:47 AM on 18 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
Speaking of Patrick Michaels (see 4th place in Glieck’s award article).. “The Koch Brothers' Climatologist” by Russell Baker (Huffington Post, Jan 14, 2011) does a nice job of explaining who Patrick Michaels is and what he’s up to. To access Baker’s article, go to: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-baker/the-koch-brothers-climato_b_809014.html#postComment -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:37 AM on 18 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
muoncounter, I think it is too soon to discern a trend in early versus late winter snowstorms. IMO, I don't think we have had enough years of very low ice yet. -
Lazarus at 05:29 AM on 18 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
I have actually looked at the short comings of the Soares paper on my own humble blog a week ago; http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/gold-standard-in-science.html An obscure journal is the least of the problems in my opinion and I didn't even really look at the science in the detail you have! -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:29 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
CAPE and climate paper (I only read the abstract): http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2345222 The bottom line of their study is pretty clear from the last few sentences: Although a prediction based on the change in moist adiabat matches the GCM simulation of climate change averaged over the tropical Pacific basin, it does not match the simulation regionally because small changes in the general circulation change the local boundary layer relative humidity by 1%-2%. Thus, the prediction of regional climate change in CAPE is also dependent on subtle changes in the dynamics. IOW, while it's hard to make the argument about a local event without studying the local weather, the argument can be made on average. -
MrAce at 05:23 AM on 18 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
I've got the feeling that clouds are of some importance here. Since they absorb a wide spectrum of IR and radiate a blackbody spectrum depending on the temperature of the cloud. If more CO2 does not change the temperature/height/amount of the clouds, we expect the surface to warm even more, because it can only lose extra energy where there are no clouds. Is this reasoning correct? -
Albatross at 04:35 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
John, excellent piece. I think you covered all the bases nicely. Really, what you are saying is explained well by both the Clausius-Clapeyron equation and the equation for moist static energy (MSE = CpT +gz+Lr). In fact, Crook (1996) investigated the sensitivity of Convective Available Potential Energy (measure of buoyancy and updraft strength in thunderstorms) to small changes in the near-surface temperature and moisture. Through a scaling analysis of the equation for MSE he found that an increase in mixing ratio (r) of only 1 g/kg has about 2.5 times the effect on CAPE as increasing the surface temperature by 1 C. To keep things simple by keeping the vertical wind shear constant, a relatively small increases in low-level moisture in a convectively unstable environment can translate into a significant impact of thunderstorm intensity (and in turn increase precipitation rate). -
Kevin C at 04:05 AM on 18 January 2011A Quick and Dirty Analysis of GHCN Surface Temperature Data
Thanks, that's very helpful indeed, especially with respect to missing data. Python indeed has a hashmap data structure - dict. It's a built-in and the students tend to use it extensively, for things which never occur to me with my C++ background! I'd already used it to read in the GHCNv3 data using pretty much the data structure you suggest: So far my only difference is to introduce a class at the station level with lat/long info for later use. -
Phila at 03:32 AM on 18 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
GC: Enjoy the current warming. Long may it last! This sort of braying certainty really isn't compatible with your attempts to present yourself as a humble amateur truthseeker. Maybe you should approach your own opinions with the same skepticism you recommend when discussing the findings of people who actually have some expertise. -
muoncounter at 03:22 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
Good one, John. Great to get exposure on a 'mainstream' media outlet, except for the inevitable rise of zombie comments. A word of warming from US Gulf Coast hurricane experience -- after the flood, first come the home repair scam artists, then the cheesy lawyer commercials. I noticed when I posted this comment on Its not bad that the new term 'atmospheric river' is gaining traction as an observable characteristic of extreme rainfall events. While initially used to explain California flooding, a quick search shows that this phenom may be applicable to the Qland flooding as well. These ARs are highly visible on radar. -
caerbannog at 03:21 AM on 18 January 2011A Quick and Dirty Analysis of GHCN Surface Temperature Data
(7), (8), (14): 7: Mea-Culpa -- I used an imperfect recollection of what NASA did when I coded up my app. Didn't check into the details before coding. Just went from (incorrect) memory. So I ended up implementing something considerably simpler than what NASA does. 8: As for the implications for global-scale averages, this should attest to the robustness of the global temperature record. There are multiple ways to skin the "global temperature" cat, and they all give you pretty close to the same answer. There are significant differences between NASA's algorithm and my much simpler one, but both approaches gave very consistent results. That attests to the robustness of the data *and* the averaging methods. 14: My algorithm would quite simple if it weren't for the "data gap" issue. The programming "complications" that could really trip up students have to do with those gaps. Not all stations have data for all years/months. The gaps/missing-data vary randomly from station to station. As a result, when calculating baseline temperatures, you have to keep track of the number of valid temperature samples per station and month. The map template in the C++ Standard Template Library (STL) makes this chore much easier, but C++ isn't exactly a "student-friendly" language. Plus, code with STL templates isn't the easiest to debug -- step into an STL container with a debugger, and you'll see mostly incomprehensible gobbledygook. I presume that Python contains a "map" container similar to the STL map (but I haven't done any Python programming, so I can't say for sure). You will definitely want to use a higher-level "data container" function (like a map) that will help keep you "out of the weeds" with respect to data-gap bookkeeping. Depending on how advanced your students are, you may want to write your own Python "extensions" that hide the uglier coding details, and have your students use those. Anyway, here's a description of the algorithm (I just "coded it up from memory", so I don't have a nice reference document that I can point you to): 1) Read in the data into a structure that allows you to access any particular temperature sample by [WMO-ID][YEAR][MONTH]. (WMO-ID is the unique identification number given to each temperature station). The advantage of the STL map container (over simple arrays) is that if there are data gaps for, say, years 1920, 1930-1935, etc. for a given temperature station, the map container will make it much easier to avoid averaging in "missing" data by mistake. Unlike a plain array, map indices don't have to be sequential. The map container will take care of jumping over discontinuities in the index values for you. 2) For each station, calculate the average temperature for each month over the period 1951-1980. I.e. Calculate the average Jan temp for each station, the average Feb temp for each station, etc. Put all these averages into a 2-d map/array/whatever so that you can index each station/month average by [station-id][month]. The tricky part (for students) here is that not all stations will have data for the entire baseline period. There may be missing years of data, and missing months within years. This will vary randomly from station to station. So you'll want to keep track of the number of valid temperature values for each station and month. (I do this in a separate [station-id][temperature] "sample counter" map). In my code, I define a "minimum valid number of samples" value. For a station to be included in the baseline calculation for a particular month, it must have at least that many valid samples to be included. Otherwise I throw it out. The default value is 15. That means that unless a station contains at least 15 valid temperature readings (i.e. 15 years out of 30 for the 1951-1980 baseline period) for a given month during the baseline period, I exclude that station from the global-anomaly calculations for that particular month. I have found my results to be highly insensitive to that value, however. If I use 1 as the minimum number, I get similar results. Likewise, if I use 30 (the maximum number for the 1951-1980 baseline period), I get similar results. 3) Then you go back to the original temperature data, and for each [station][year][month], subtract the corresponding [station][month] baseline value to get the anomaly value. The anomaly value is simply the difference between the temperature for each [station][year][month] and its corresponding [station][month] 1951-1980 baseline temperature. 4) Then for each year/month, you calculate the average of all anomalies for all the stations. Once again, the number of stations reporting valid temperatures for each year/month will vary, so to compute the averages correctly, you will have to keep count of the number of valid reporting stations for each [year][month]. 5) To get an single average anomaly value for each year, calculate the average anomaly value for all the months in that year (i.e. average over months in the [year][month] array/map generated in step 4). Once again, the number of months reporting valid data for each year may vary, so you'll want to keep track of the number of valid "month" temperature samples for each year. In the GHCN temperature files, missing temperature values are assigned the value -9999, so they are easy to identify and code around. Definitely a challenging project for students, but if it's broken up into digestible "pieces" so that students don't get stuck/frustrated (a common programming teaching challenge), it would be a terrific learning experience. Anyway, I hope that this is "clearer than mud" -- putting something like this together as a digestible "lesson plan" for students would be a great thing to do. I would imagine that having students see that their own independently-generated global-temperature results agree nicely with NASA's would be a mountain of "icing on the cake" -
Bibliovermis at 03:15 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
funglestrumpet, Thank you for demonstrating what separates the (honest) skeptics from the deniers & contrarians who claim to be such; the ability to learn from the resources presented to you. Keep asking questions & keep updating your understanding. I'm self-taught in this field by that very process. It is difficult to keep the cynicism at bay, but it is necessary in order to continue productive, civil discussions. Now, back to the topic at hand - ocean cooling. Claims of ocean cooling are the same as claims of surface cooling, a failure to take into account all of the evidence & asking questions in defense of preconceived notions rather than in search of knowledge. -
muoncounter at 02:57 AM on 18 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
#78: "positively balmy compared to cold winters during the "Little Ice Age" I don't know what the relevance of that statement is to this thread or any other -- except as a sound byte on threads on the LIA. This thread and Northern hemisphere warming rates both originate in the desperate 'skeptic' claims that even a single winter snowstorm 'proves' warming is over or was never real. And unlike the 'skeptic non-science' of 'natural cycles,' actual climate science must reconcile strong early winter storms with deteriorating Arctic ice and all of the other fingerprints. Denial is easy; science is hard work. -
Dennis at 02:54 AM on 18 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
As in the case of Energy and Environment, I would like to know more about the International Journal of Geosciences. I would like bone fide climate scientists who have been widely published and cited to step forward and say, "yes, I have participated in peer reviews for that journal and I stand behind the published papers I have reviewed." They don't have to identify which papers, just that they back the journal. -
Ron Crouch at 02:53 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
Nice plain simple language John. Nicely portrays: more heat = more moisture in the air column = greater energy potential. Yes the land being baked dry does make a difference when it does downpour. The water can't sink into the soil so it piles up faster. I'm sure that's probably a factor in the Australian floods. -
Mila at 01:54 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
#10 Have you tried: Global Drought Monitor? NOAA Drought Information Center provides data for US and a lot of background information. -
funglestrumpet at 01:48 AM on 18 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
48 Bibliovermis No, you are not misreading me, I simply did not know that what I was calling for had been covered by the IPCC, so no apologies necessary on your part and humble ones on mine. It is perhaps a reflection of the status of the IPCC in the minds of the general public that when someone like myself who is not a scientist, but very interested in it generally, and Climate Change in particular, was unaware of that aspect of its work. I try to keep abreast of events, but have neither the time nor the inclination to read the whole of the IPCC report, relying instead on trusted sources to produce their interpretation of it. I struggle with a considerable amount of the detailed science published on this page, and I am not particularly stupid if my IQ of 135 is any guide, so we face an uphill struggle if we are to convince those members of the general public who have little or no interest in science. Perhaps Professor Lovelock is right when he says that, having swarmed as a species, we are in for a cull in the same way that all other members of the animal kingdom are when they have outgrown their habitat. Perhaps the majority of those that have replied to my posts are also right, judging by the lack of alternative suggestions as to how we move from a business as usual situation i.e. there is nothing we can do other than to carry on as we are. (Or copy ancient sci-fi films and have a bunch of church leaders arguing about the wingspan of an angel assisting us in the matter. Let’s face it, they will probably come up with “God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform” and say we should let The Big Feller get on with it.) Heaven help us – literally! -
barry1487 at 01:20 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
Michael, I'm sincerely interested in any drought data available for the globe and for Australia. I have difficulty finding such. Similarly with flooding. Precipitation records are much easier to come by. -
michael sweet at 00:38 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
While we cannot connect a single weather event conclusively to AGW, the list is starting to get pretty long. I think your opinion piece should have been more strongly worded. Scientists have been qualifying their data while the deniers claim certainty. Something like this quote from the WMO, then empnhasing that events match the IPCC projections: "While a longer time range is required to establish whether an individual event is attributable to climate change, the sequence of current events matches IPCC projections of more frequent and more intense extreme weather events due to global warming." The general public perceives the qualifications by scientists as meaning the data is not clear. The data is clear: AGW has increased flooding and drought world wide. That fact needs to be emphasized in the first paragraph. -
Alexandre at 00:29 AM on 18 January 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
Here in Brazil we're having a lot of floods and landslides due to heavy rain too. It looks like a specially "disastrous" year, but I don't know about our local long term trends, though. -
HumanityRules at 00:28 AM on 18 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
21 Marco You could write a whole blog on the issue of publishing access for scientists is resourse poor regions of the world. I remember a professor of mine when I showed him a paper I'd read said, paraphrasing, "ignore that it's written by Indians". The crassness of that remark may have disappeared somewhat but I think the sentiment is still there. It's not coincidental that many journals who's titles start International are at the lower end of the impact factor scale.
Prev 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 Next
