Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler?

Positive Feedback

"Are all GW sceptics American then. "

A higher percentage of Americans are skeptics than Europeans.

"Now if you start off on saying "well, there are negative feedbacks", please think these through first:

a) that is all mentioned in IPCC reports"

The IPCC thesis relies on positive feedbacks. The IPCC admits that the effects of CO2 alone won't have much measurable effect.

"b) have you actually got any proof that would satisfy a sceptic that you can measure the negative effects"

The Aqua satellite is doing that. To cut to the chase, CO2 is supposed to lead to increased water vapor, which increases temperatures which melts surface ice, which decreases albedo, which leads to a tipping point.

Instead what has happened is that increased CO2 has led to an increase not so much in dispersed vapor, but in low level cloud cover, which has increased albedo, which has resulted in homeostasis.

And there are none of the projected tropospheric heat bubbles, either.

The Aqua bouys have shown a slight ocean cooling over the last few years as well.

The AquaSat and the argoBots were supposed to conclusively prove anthropogenic global warming. But so far they have not.

"c) why haven't you produced a paper showing this will negate any effect"

Others (the dudes with the Ph.Ds) are beating me to it. (Sigh.)

Negative feedback won't negate the direct (but very small) CO2 effect. But there appears to be no positive feedback to speak of.

The GCMs are bust, to say the least. The predictions simply haven't panned out. But those models were never any good. If they had been, the IPCC would have released the code and operating manuals.

Try this one out for a feedback mechanism: No open source results in no independent review, which results (by definition) in no scientific method, which results in a lack of credibility.

@MechaNikos

No, this is not about data and possible manipulation. That discussion could be made over, say, the elections in London or the ones in the US.

This is about how AGW must be wrong because they keep fiddling the figures.

And you state "As far as the global eco-craze is concerned, I couldn't care less." but then countermand that statement with "But I do urge all sane El-Reg readers not to buy in to this whole load of crap they're trying to sell us." and "I will keep my awesome 2.5V6 engine" so you definitely DO care. You just care about your comfort more than the possibility of global warming being partly your fault.

So you don't care about AGW but you do care that it should be shown false.

Whom to believe?

"As I understand it, the corrections made were due to a drift in the orbits of the satellites, resulting in a mistiming of the readings. Obviously if you're erroneously attributing early-evening readings to mid-afternoon (or something similar) you're going to need to correct upwards when you discover the problem."

No, those are not NASA corrections. In fact, the corrected satellite data to which you refer is already shown in the article (RSS and UAH graphs). What is being discussed is NASA's "readjustment". You are confusing agencies. (Not too difficult; I do it all the time. But one has to keep track.)

NASA/GISS does not use satellite data (odd, but true). GISS uses NOAA/HCN ground station network metadata (already heartily adjusted upward by NOAA) and then NASA adjusts the NOAA data further. (I have already acerbically commented on the NOAA adjustment process.)

"So water is ONLY causing a negative feedback???"

Water vapor is earth's primary greenhouse gas. Any added water that remains as vapor adds to the GH effect and is, to that extent, a positive feedback. But that which instead forms into low level clouds reflects heat back out into space (i.e., it causes an increase in albedo), This results in homeostasis. Enough has gone into albedo to prevent temperature rise.

"And with that you expect anyone to believe the rest of your message? Please.

"Water vapour keeps heat in. This is why, despite being flaming hot, desserts (dry) are flippin freezing at night. And 100% of the air will have water vapour. You can have 0% cloud.

"So what's wrong with your idea?"

Any heat that gets in is (partially) trapped by GH gasses. But it has to get in, first. As it turns out, most of the increase in atmospheric water is going into low-level cloud formation, not ambient vapor.

The result is that enough heat is being reflected back into space to make up for that which is trapped. Thus CO2 has no positive feedback. It warms a little bit on its own, but does not trigger the warming dominoes.

This is why temperatures have remained "jig-jag" flat for the last decade, as has been shown by RSS and UAH satellite data and HadCRU surface data. NASA is the odd man out. (Liars, damnliars and outliers?)

Think of it this way, a barrier can act like a blanket to keep heat in, or like a fireman's getup to keep heat out, or both, like a spacesuit. When Truman said, "If it's too hot, get out of the kitchen," Harry Hopkins is said to have replied, "In this kitchen you need asbestos pants".

"Well, given that you make assertions that aren't backed up, why should anyone listen to the rest? If it is of no better quality, it would just be a waste of time, wouldn't it."

I couldn't have put it better myself, actually. The IPCC makes claims based on Global Climate Models, yet they refuse to release the algorithms, code, or operating manuals. Not only that, but the results so far have proven to be just plain old wrong. So why should anyone listen? Much less base major policy on it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for others believing what I am saying as opposed to what you are saying, I have no expectations whatever, one way or another. They are perfectly capable of reading what I say and reading what you say and making up their own minds.

CO2 permanency

"I gather that the current best estimate for the Co2 sensitivity is about 3 degrees per doubling of Co2 concentration. So if the average temp now is 14C and we double the concentration of Co2 then the average temp will slowly rise until it gets to 17C (and then stop if we don't add any more Co2)."

There's a lot of dispute over that calculation (and it's +/- 1.5°C) because it is based on the IPCC positive feedback assumptions, but I am willing to stipulate it for the sake of argument.

Isn't CO2 persistence a significant factor? CO2 has a long, but limited life in the atmosphere, and it sinks out, given time. (That's also the paleo model, so far as we can reconstruct it via proxies.)

So assuming CO2 output stopped, wouldn't CO2 (and temperatures) decrease as time went on, in much the same manner as the Cretaceous-to-present model?

BTW, I don't disagree with you about the sun. I am more of a sea witch than a sun-worshiper (BUT with due deference to the DeVries cycle, naturally). It seems to me that the atmospheric tail cannot wag the oceanic dog (considering where the joules are stashed). And I find it highly significant that the ArgoBots show a slight ocean cooling.

Back to data accuracy

"This is about how AGW must be wrong because they keep fiddling the figures."

Now that you mention it, The NOAA has set up a pristine network, the CRN (to go online this fall). It is pristine and beautiful, with fully automated (and redundant) data measurement and collection.

All data will be raw and unadjusted. No fiddling with figures. The NOAA has finally seen what a disaster their adjustment procedure is.

Even if it were done right (which it ain't), there would still be an unacceptable margin of error. (These guys are claiming to be accurate to >0.01°C! You don't get there with a six-step adjustment procedure . . .) You want positive feedbacks? Nothing beats multiple margins of error for THAT!

CO2 permanency

the sensitivity is a mapping based on geological records. If you can find a sensitivity that fits the past record much less than 1.5degrees, print it. However, 3 degrees is the best fit and there's a much higher upper limit on sensitivity than the lower limit. That is, more than 4.5 degrees per doubling is much more likely than less than 1.5 degrees per doubling.

Re:accuracy. Argument by personal incredulity and also assuming that since that was wrong, the mean must be different AND assuming that if it is different, it is and must be lower. Not higher. So where's the feedback? Too low an error calculation cools the planet??? Where's the cause for that?

Which leads me on to:

And regarding the eternal coward, there IS a cause: CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we're emitting lots by burning oil (the volume of which can be found in the financial reports of the oil producing countries). THERE is the cause. Now if our CO2 isn't doing any warming,what is the cause of that anomaly? Where's YOUR cause for that effect?

re: Satellite data corrections

It does show that adjustments to satellite data needn't be because they wanted a different answer. Since that is the main thrust of your argument, this does seem to me to be quite relevant an observation.

But, hey. What would I know.

Where are we and how did we get here?

"the sensitivity is a mapping based on geological records. If you can find a sensitivity that fits the past record much less than 1.5degrees, print it. However, 3 degrees is the best fit and there's a much higher upper limit on sensitivity than the lower limit. That is, more than 4.5 degrees per doubling is much more likely than less than 1.5 degrees per doubling."

If there is any real connectivity at all. Before the most recent drop there were three other drops in temperature. With one of them there was a strong drop in CO2, but with the other two there was a (relatively) mild increase. CO2 fluctuation does not match temperature very well. It's not an impossible fit, but it's a bad one.

The best "outside" correlations with surface temperatures are the multidecadal ocean cycles (PDO, AMO, IPO) and atmospheric/oceanic cycles (AO, AAO, NAO, etc.). Those match up fairly well, not only with the recent 130-year curve, but the hemispheric differences as well.

"there IS a cause: CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we're emitting lots by burning oil (the volume of which can be found in the financial reports of the oil producing countries)."

I agree. The question is that of degree and secondary effects.

"THERE is the cause. Now if our CO2 isn't doing any warming,what is the cause of that anomaly? Where's YOUR cause for that effect?"

I am a lukewarmist. I think there has been a mild temperature increase. I think the 1880-1998 measurements can be pased as follows:

1.) A slow, natural recovery from the (most recent) Little Ice Age. If you add up the last five major minimums (Oort, Wolf, Spoerer, Maunder, Dalton minima, over the last 900 years), you will find that 25% of the time, earth has been subjected to Little Ice Age-type conditions.

2.) There have been two periods of warming and one of cooling during the 20th century. We are at currently at the peak of a warm phase. But around 1900, we were in a cool phase. So we are measuring from a low point to a high point, which exaggerates the trend. But if you measure form the 1930s peak to the current peak, you get a mere 0.2°C increase, which is quite modest.

And now we appears to be changing. After two "warmings" and two "coolings", we may well find the true "trend".

3.) I think there has been spurious exaggeration of the record due to severe (well documented), accumulating surface station site violation (overwhelmingly warm biases)--plus NOAA/NASA "adjustment" procedures. Correct or incorrect, this is a conclusion, not an assumption, based on n direct evidence of site violation and examination of specific adjustment procedures, including the specifics of NOAA's FILENET, SHAP, and UHI adjustments. (If you factor this in, the air/sea cycles fit the curve spectacularly well rather than fairly well.)

In short, I think there has been a mild warming (but not as much as measured by surface stations) due to both natural and anthropogenic (mostly non-CO2) causes.

On the other hand, I think all this can be and is being untangled, and we will get confirmation one way or another fairly soon. Let the chips fall where they may.

Problem with the Land-Ocean Index graphs

The scaling shown on the Global Temperature Land-Ocean Index graph (page 1) on the vertical axis is not consistant. This may be a misprint but the gradations below the 0 line are in increments of -2, -4 etc. The gradations above the 0 line are in increments of +0.2, +0.4, +0.6 etc an order of magnitude difference. If this is not a mis-print then this would show a warming since 1880 of ~ +2.6C (-2ish in 1880 and +0.6 now, according to the graph) which is much more than this article's author states (" - and nearly a full degree warmer than 1880.") or the IPCC for that matter - which would indicate that either he or someone else mistyped the graph information or he has mis-read the graph if it is indeed correct - not good in either case if you're going to write an article like this.

Also I have just looked at the Hadley Center website

(http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html)

...and their graphs for "Global Temperature , 1850-2007" do not appear to me to show any significant cooling since 1998 which is not what the author states. Additionally there was an exceptionally strong El Nino event in 1998 that contributed to that year being the warmest on record, but the second warmest year on record was 2005 (a *very* close 2nd. place behind '98) and in that year there was no corresponding El Nino to lay any blame on. The author makes no mention of this either. I may be missing some things here but I don't think so, and I am dubious about this article author's ability to interpret this kind of data properly - even with a mis-print he is still misreading the graph.

Further Questions

I'd just like to second the comments that John Philip posed a few posts up and ask for some answers to the points raised. I'm late to this particular party, so his post pre-empted most of the problems I had with the article as I read it.

Further to his questions however, I would like to know:

1) Why did the author not use consistent axis scales for the four graphs at the head of the article?

2) In the eighth paragraph, the author mentions 'red below green' and 'red above green' in a couple of places. What is he referring to here? None of the graphics in the article seem to correspond with the description given in the text.

Beyond those minor queries, I'd like to mention one aspect of the wider issue which is being overlooked by many commentators but which is touched on by the reference to the recent Nature article in the first paragraph - namely that the various datasets (HadCRUT, NASA, the satellites etc) are all attempts at measuring average air temperatures at (or near) to the earth's surface. The surface air temperature (SAT) is a useful metric of course, primarily because it's the piece of the of the wider climate system where we humans live, but it is only a small piece of the overall system and while we can use the trends in the surface record as a shorthand for the total process this useage can be a false friend if we're not careful.

This is what seems to be happening with the reaction to the Keenlyside article, everyone seems to be fixated on the decadal projection they have made for SAT as though a decade of sideways-moving SAT means that warming is no longer happening, but this research does nothing to challenge the radiative model we have for the various GHGs (indeed the article's authors mention that they included GHG forcings in their model runs) so the authors think the warming effect will still occur, it's just that they don't expect the heat to show up in the SAT for a few years.

All the stuff about 'Global Warming On Hold For A Decade' only makes sense if you conflate the surface record with the whole system (which is where the false friend takes you), but of course the air temperature isn't the whole system and anyone who has a passing acquaintance with thermodynamics will spot that for the air to be cooled then the excess heat has to have warmed something else up. In this case the 'something else' is almost certainly the ocean - which constitutes something like 90% of the total heat sink for the climate system and, incidentally, is something that we don't measure at all well.

If the heat moves from something that is relatively well monitored to something that is barely monitored at all then to state that 'global warming has stopped' is really very badly mis-stating the actual situation - in reality the warming is still happening but now it's dropped out of sight.

Regards

Luke

short term changes

Interesting article, it appears the global warming religion has no qualms about maniulating data to match its beliefs.

What I find particularly amusing is that GW believers will frequently quote short term temperature changes as 'evidence' of GW. Yet when reports come out predicing the next 10 years will see a cooling (or that the last 10 years saw a cooling) it is 'only a temporary' cooling and it'll be back to warming as usual after that (well obviously if temperatures fall then they will rise again eventually!).

I remember at the beginning of 2007 the UK media and the 'experts' were saying - 'this will be the hotest summer on record', 'this will finally convince all the GW doubters' etc..

What happened?

We had a typical British wet and changable summer.

What did the media and the usual GW advocates say?

'Well that proves it even more - the weather is all messed up'.

Huh? You can't have it both ways.

What did all this prove? Nothing, the weather in this country has always been changable and unpredicable. The panic mongers need to grow up and get on with their lives.

Andy

"let the chips fall where they may"

So, in the espoused "I have no pony in this show, so I've no agenda. trust me" way of thinking you advice do nothing.

Given that we have two sides of the debate:

a) Doom! We MUST do SOMETHING!!!

and

b) Doom! If we do SOMETHING, we'll all be living in caves!!!

we should do nothing.

How is that a compromise?

Wonderful compromise!

Definitely. "Doing nothing" (in a governmental sense) is exactly what the doctor ordered.

"Doing nothing" means that the undeveloped countries (including but not limited to India/China) will develop and achieve the level affluence has has banished the age-old miseries of mankind. That which we westerners take for granted. This will take two or three decades.

"Doing nothing" means that the developed countries will acquire immense wealth and power. This will probably take two or three decades, but breakthroughs along the way may accelerate things in ways we cannot yet imagine.

If global warming, anthropogenic or not, is not a problem, we have one end of Pascal's wager. If global warming DOES turn out to be a serious problem, we will be infinitely better equipped and empowered to deal with it. (I think the "hi-tech-sheet-of-tinfoil-in-space" reflector idea may eventually show promise, as it is adjustable.) Which is the other end of Pascal's wager.

But Kyoto-like solutions have three problems.

--First, they come at incredible cost in both treasure and human life. (This affects the poor far, far more than the rich--as we have seen so far.)

--Second, they don't work. Even the greens admit that the CO2 effects of Kyoto would be minimal in terms of climate change.

--Third, they would leave us that much poorer and with that much less wealth-generated technology to deal with the AGW problem if it turns out to be serious.

This is NOT what Pascal had in mind.

Stipulating a serious AGW problem, we cannot "dodge" it. But we can "outrun" it.

You see, climate isn't the only field with "feedback" synergy. Economics works that way. too. Wealth results in technology which results in the ability to solve previously insoluble problems--which results in yet more wealth.

Once you have gotten over the climate graphs for the 20th century, take a gander at some of the economic graphs!

Besides, no country has ever cleaned up its environment before it has become affluent. And no affluent country has ever failed to clean up its environment. (And it is the developed countries that have by far the lowest birthrates. Check out birthrates in 1990 compared with today. Birthrates are much lower today.)

The "tipping point" we keep hearing about, applies far more to economics than it ever did to global warming.

So, yes. for heaven's sake, "do nothing"!

So for you the only good comptromise

is the compromise when you win.

Idiot.

Outcome

As far apart as we are, we both want the greatest good for the greatest number. We disagree on the degree of danger how to deal.

I doubt GW is a problem. I doubt very much it is an immediate problem.

You disagree.

Either one of us could be wrong.

But it is important to note that the proposed solutions are not free of cost (mostly cost to the poor), and that the more generally advanced mankind's technology is, the more capable we are to deal with almost any given problem.

Also, bear in mind that the debate is ongoing. If compelling AGW evidence shows up, we can alter course, and we will be more able to act effectively the wealthier and more advanced we have become.

CO2 concentration and absorbtion saturation

For some, the fact that CO2 is at current concentrations at the surface isn't the whole picture.

That is true at the surface, but CO2 is well mixed and its scale height is about 8km, so concentrations go down as you go up. So although it is saturated at the surface, CO2 is not saturated higher up. However, as you increase surface concentration, the mixing will increase the saturation at higher levels too. Which will increase (to saturation of the IR band being looked at) the higher levels. Thickening the blanket. And what happens when you change your 6TOG with an 8TOG?

Add to that the edges of the spectra are NOT saturated and that energy increases as you go up the black-body curve (until it peaks), these currently unsaturated bands will increase their absorbtion linearly with increasing concentration.

PS Steven, your entire post is about how the NASA pages had changed figures and posited that this was purely because they wanted to show GW. YOU are making the accusation, not me. I'm just pointing out that other cases where you do not believe a change to be because of anything other than finding out the assumptions changing the digital readout to temperature profiles was incorrect and needed changing. Much like calibrating thermometers: mercury thermometers are calibrated differently from pyric (?) incandescent thermometers.

YOU made that assertion. NOT ME. Your assertion was with a different group, though, but you still accused scientists of malfeasance.

YOU.

CO2 Argument / Site Violations &. Adjustments

The main IPCC argument is not with CO2-as-a-blanket. A common misconception.

The IPCC argues that CO2 acts as the driver of secondary forcing (mainly water vapor) which leads to loss of ice (decreased albedo) and to irreversible warming.

The IPCC concedes that CO2 effect alone is minimal. It ONLY matters if it leads to positive reinforcement. The IPCC argues that there is a huge amount of positive reinforecement.

But since there is recent strong evidence (theoretical as well as observatonal) that CO2 does NOT lead to positive reinforcement, an increase of CO2 warming, in and of itself, doesn't add up to half a tinker's damn.

As for RSS and UAH, they became aware of the orbital drift error and made the necessary corrections. Warming corrections, as it turns out.

But when NASA and NOAA are made strikingly aware of the grotesque (to the point of high humor) site violations of the HCN ground network, they do NOT make the necessary corrections. IF If it weren't for the pristine CRN network being set up by the NOAA, I would write them off as hopeless. But NOAA, unlike NASA, shows promise. And I will wager that NASA will continue to base its measurements on the old NOAA system and not off NOAA/CRN.

If anyone questions how a heat sink violation ruins a ground station regarding BOTH warming offset AND warming trend, see,

Yimaz, et al (2008) [for spurious increase in warming offset]

http://www.ejournal.unam.mx/atm/Vol21-2/ATM002100202.pdf

And,

LaDochy, Pazlet, et al (Dec. 2007) [for spurious increase in warming trend]

http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v33/n2/p159-169/

The CRN is quite aware of all this, of course, which accounts for their spanking new and vastly improved ground network (to go on line this Fall).

Spin again?

"There is no question that the data has been systematically altered on several occasions to increase the slope of the graph."

Nope, this is assuming that the changes were to make the slope steeper.

All you have proof of is that there are changes that make the slope steeper.

One is assuming intent. The other not.

Re: What I want to know is...

Just before someone gets the council to re-zone your property and sell it to someone with lots of wonga, then rezone it back to residential.

Do you really think that Mr Rich Bastard is going to see his Henley abode sink under the waves and do nothing???

'Elp! 'Elp! Ahm Bein' Repressed!

Yes, life would be so much easier for you if only those rich bastards vanished off the face of the earth. They don't create wealth, buy lots of stuff made by poorer people, employ poorer people, or invest their money and grow the economy. They just steal it from you, heap it into a big pile and sleep on it for a bed. After all, when was the last time a CEO ever had to work hard? <Insert smiley-face indicating mordant sarcasm>

Spending power

When you're poor, you spend 100% of your money. When you're rich, you have to spend much less as a proportion. Most of what is spend is an investment. And there are a LOT more poor people.

The Keynseian multiplier touted doesn't work in real life: the rich lend out their dosh to poorer people that have to pay the money back with interest, pooling the money back into their hands.

And as to my position, I could trim sails a little and get away with a salary about half (or a little less) than I'm currently getting. So I'd consider myself wealthy. People had asked why I don't get a second house and rent it out and make more money that way, but in my estimation that would make me part of the housing problem. I don't need that extra money so why do it. NOTE: those who DO need the money can't get a mortgage because nobody will lend it to them, despite lending it to people who are just going to rent it out (something the poor person could do just as well). So you can't make money until you're at the stage you don't have to make it.

Mark says it all (without trying)

@Evan - Progressive politics used to be about making the poor better off.

Now it's about ensuring they stay poor, with sanctimonious middle class Greens making ostentatious signs of how they are making sacrifices.

Fortunately this agenda is electoral suicide.