A Global Warming Skeptic Guide for the Perplexed

How should responsible Global Warming Skeptics respond to opinions from intelligent members of the general public who have been perplexed by the Warmists and Alarmists?

NOTE: AN UPDATED VERSION OF THIS HAS BEEN PUBLISHED AT THE WORLD'S MOST POPULAR CLIMATE WEBSITE, SEE

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/10/a-guide-for-those-perplexed-about-global-warming/ 

PLEASE CLICK THE LINK TO SEE IT. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO JOIN THE CONVERSATION.

IN THE FIRST 12 HOURS, IT WAS VIEWED BY OVER 3,500 PEOPLE, 168 OF WHO TOOK THE TIME TO POST COMMENTS. AT 24 HOURS IT WAS UP TO OVER 10,000 PAGE VIEWS AND 237 COMMENTS. I EXPECT IT TO CONTINUE TO BE POPULAR, GAIN THOUSANDS MORE PAGE VIEWS AND BE RE-POSTED BY OTHERS. 

We should reply in a strictly fact-based way, using official sources, and being careful not to speculate or over-complicate the matter. Here is my shot at it.

At a recent meeting of a local discussion group a well-spoken retired teacher presented a list of important issues that, in his opinion, have received less coverage by the media than they deserve. "Climate Change" was on his list.

He said it was unfortunate that the main proponent of human-caused "Global Warning" was a prominent Democrat (former VP Al Gore), because that led to the issue becoming politicized, with his fellow Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other. He speculated that had a leading Republican promoted the same issue, the reaction would probably be the reverse.

He then raised several points, citing the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and other expert sources. He said that Global Warming is really happening, with a rise of over 0.7⁰C, and we humans are the main cause due to our massive use of fossil fuels that generate atmospheric CO2, a greenhouse gas that warms the Earth.

During the discussion period I agreed that global warming is real, that atmospheric CO2 undoubtedly causes warming, and that some of the increased CO2 is certainly due to human actions. However, I pointed out that, although atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise, and at an accelerating rate, global temperatures have not statistically increased for at least 15 years. Therefore, while CO2 levels have definitely caused some of the warming, and rising CO2 is mostly caused by human activities, CO2 cannot be the main cause.

The presenter assured me that he respected my opinions, but, while he was not a scientist, he was relying on scientists and scientific organizations that had studied the issue. He then read a few quotes, including one that said human actions were likely to lead to a "tipping point" where the ice caps melt and there is runaway warming on a catastrophic scale.

I have prepared the following strictly fact-based response, using sources the presenter himself mentioned and being careful not to speculate or over-complicate the matter.

1- It is undoubtedly true that average surface temperatures have increased significantly since 1880. Human activities are responsible for some portion of that warming. [The image below is the latest GISS Global Temperature Index anomaly. The black squares indicate the mean temperature anomaly for each 12-month calendar year. The thick red line indicates the mean temperature anomaly smoothed over 60 months (five years). This graphic shows a net increase of about 0.8⁰C (about 1.5⁰F) since 1880. While I think "data adjustments" have increased the apparent warming by a few tenths of a degree, I accept that warming since 1880 is at least 0.5⁰C (about 1⁰F)]

Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.pdf  - downloaded 6 Sep 2014

2- Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen steadily, and the rate of increase has doubled since reliable CO2 data from Mauna Loa became available around 1959. [The image below is the latest NOAA ESRL Atmospheric CO2 showing an increase of about 1 ppm/year in the 1960's and about 2 ppm/year in the 2000's. The current level is approaching 400 ppm. The pre-industrial level is estimated to have been about 280 ppm.]

Source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ - Downloaded 6 Sep 2014. Annotations in purple by Ira.

3- When compared to actual polar satellite temperature observations, the IPCC climate models have predicted too much warming, particularly after 1998. [The image below is the latest RSS Global temperature anomaly since about 1979 when good global temperature data from polar orbiting satellites became available. Note how, from 1999 to the present, the actual observations of temperature (thick black line) consistently fall below the yellow band (IPCC climate model prediction range with supposed 95% probability).]

Source: http://www.remss.com/research/climate - Downloaded 6 Sep 2014. Annotations in purple by Ira.

[NOAA Caption "Fig. 1.  Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time.  The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures.  The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations.  The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Again, after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming."] (my bold)

Please note that, according to the actual RSS polar satellite temperature observations (thick black line), there has been absolutely no net warming after 1998. Indeed, 2013 is about 0.6⁰C (more than 1⁰F) cooler than the middle of the predicted range, and even 0.3⁰C (more than 0.5⁰F) cooler than the lower edge of the predicted range. Also note that the thick black line falls well below the yellow band, which indicates that the statistical 95% confidence level claimed for the IPCC climate models is not valid. Over the most recent 15-year period, actual satellite temperature observations have consistently been cooler than the central prediction of the IPCC climate models, by from 0.2⁰C to 0.8⁰C (about 0.4⁰F to 1.5⁰F).   

4- According to the NASA GISS Global Temperature Index, when smoothed over a calendar year, there has been no net warming for 15 years. Even when smoothed over a longer period of five years, there has been no net warming for seven years. [The image below is a close-up of the upper right corner of the first image in this posting.]

Source: Close-up view of the upper right corner of the NASA GISS Global Temperature Index anomaly from the first graphic in this posting. Annotations in purple by Ira.

[The black squares represent the temperature anomaly for each given calendar year (12 month average). Note that 1998 is warmer than 2013, indicating no net warming for 15 years. The thick red line represents the 5-year running mean (smoothed over 5 years which is 60 months). Note that 2003 is at the same temperature as 2010, indicating no net warming for at least seven years.]

CONCLUSIONS

All of the above facts and data is directly from official, government-sponsored climate research organizations, and I have provide web links so anyone can check them his- or herself. If any reader thinks I have distorted or misrepresented any of the above material I will appreciate it if he or she posts a comment to this blog detailing any objections. (If you cannot figure out how to post a blog comment, please send your material to me in an email to ira@techie.com and I will be happy to post it for you.)

Unlike the above, the following conclusions involve some speculation on my part.

a- Politicization of the issue. I agree that "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" have been way over-politicized. Had the main proponent been a Republican, positions might have been reversed. However, I cannot imagine any Republican President or VP or other Republican office-older of similar national prominence falling for the idea that we humans are responsible for the majority of the warming we have experienced, or that the warming process is likely to lead to global catastrophe. And, even if he or she went along with the initial dire predictions, any reasonable and responsible politician (of either party) would understand that the absolute disconnect between actual temperature observations and predictions of IPCC climate models invalidates the idea of human-caused catastrophic climate change, and reverse their positions.

b- Activists in the catastrophic climate change industry purposely misrepresent the views of responsible Skeptics by making a number of false claims:

• FALSE CLAIM - Skeptics do not believe the basic science of the Atmospheric "greenhouse" effect. RESPONSE - We do accept that water vapor, CO2, and other 'greenhouse" gases are responsible for the Earth being around 33⁰C (60⁰F) warmer than it would be if there were no "greenhouse"gases in the Atmosphere. However, based on the failure of the IPCC climate models to comport with actual temperature observations for at least 15 years, we question the IPCC position that doubling of CO2 will warm the Earth surface by 1.5⁰C to 4.5⁰C (3⁰F to 8⁰F). For example, I believe the true value (called "climate sensitivity") is only a half or a third of what the IPCC claims.
• FALSE CLAIM - Skeptics do not believe the Earth surface has warmed significantly since 1880. RESPONSE -  We do accept that average global surface temperatures have increased by at least 0.5⁰C (1⁰F) since pre-industrial times. Many of us think that the thermometer record is somewhat unreliable. It is a matter of official record that, in recent decades, old temperature data prior to the 1970's have been adjusted down by as much as 0.3⁰C (0.5⁰F) and date after the 1980's adjusted up, which has increased claimed net warming by a few tenths of a degree. NASA GISS and other official record-keepers say these "data adjustments" are valid, but many of us think they are self-serving. However, we could be wrong, and the net warming since 1880 might be as much as 0.8⁰C (1.5⁰F). 
• FALSE CLAIM - Skeptics do not believe that human activities have any part in causing the warming. RESPONSE - We do accept that unprecedented burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, and some changes in land use, are responsible for a significant fraction of the actual warming. However, based on comparison of actual temperature observations with IPCC climate models, I am convinced that the majority of warming is due to natural causes and processes not under human control or influence.

Looking forward to your comments.

Ira Glickstein

Should NASA be trying to scare us over the temperature rise?

[From Rick] A couple of weeks ago, our local news pumped a NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies - Hansen's group) news release regarding 'Yet Another Temperature Record.'

My first thought was - HEY - why is this newsworthy? If the temperature has been gradually warming since the last ice age, then EVERY year is likely to set new temperature records. It reminded me of the newscaster that said on election night last year "70% of the votes have been counted and that number is expected to go higher!" I wondered how often they went lower!

But then I thought some about the appearance of the graph as NASA formatted it. What I decided to do was make a little video about that which is here:



[Click on arrow to play video] It will take 2 minutes of your remaining life to watch this and I can't guarantee it will be worth it, but it IS a different point of view.

In putting this together, I noted that the temperature records for Central England (available through Hadley Center but the website I used is either down at the moment (or taken offline as a result of Climategate). The Wikipedia entry is here.

So what I was wondering was - if CO2 didn't begin it's sharp rise until the mid 20th century, can that be picked out of the temperature record. In NASA's chart - MAYBE - you will see that there is a recent trend that MIGHT fall outside the uncertainty in NASA's graph. However, if you also look at the Central England chart, it might not be so obvious. Especially since similar long term rises in the record have occasionally exceeded the slope of recent rises. Even back to pre-industrial times - well before any significant CO2 rise!

Perhaps you will disagree.

Another note - I have not done ANY 'corrections' to the NASA mean temperatures. There have been numerous suggestions of either inappropriate, inadequate or unnecessary corrections to the temperature record (esp. urban heat island and siting corrections). Depending on your take, these might well remove the remaining datapoints that fall outside the error bars in the plots. If this were done, I think that ANY CO2 footprint would be very hard to justify, EPA and IPCC notwithstanding!

What do I believe? Results of experiments where a hypothesis may be isolated and tested, preferably, but those are difficult to come by in climate science. I rarely believe models unless they are validated (even though creating and validating models was a significant part of my career) - it's just too easy to create 'results' without accurately documenting the assumptions and starting conditions required to simulate the models.

I imagine that CO2 does have an impact on the climate - and I doubt it will be measured anytime soon. Until then I think that political action (e.g. cap and trade) falls somewhere between Unwise and Folly!

I'd appreciate hearing if you find the video to clarify your understanding or to trigger any new insights for you.

Explaining Away Climategate - 4

See the detailed timeline for Climategate, posted at ClimateAudit yesterday, and my previous postings on Climategate: Original posting, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.


Although VP Al Gore has had no direct part in the recent Climategate controversy, it was his 2006 movie An Inconvenient Truth that most activated the ALARMISTs, outraged the DENIERs, and animated the reaction by the Skeptics.

When I watched Gore's impressive movie several years ago, I was most struck by the scene in the above photo [Click it for a larger version - The base photo is from the movie, the annotations are mine.]

Explaining Away Climategate - 3

Climategate was triggered by the release of thousands of emails and computer programs from the UK Climactic Research Unit (CRU) late in 2009. See the video attempt at Explaining Away Climategate for a defence of the Warmists. This is the third of my series. See Part 1 and part 2.

Even the IPCC has admitted the truth of the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). See the image above that appeared in their 1990 report, indicating that temperatures between 1100 and 1300 were higher than the most recent decades. [I added the red annotation - more about that below.]

Explaining Away Climategate - 2

Climategate was triggered by the release of thousands of emails and computer programs from the UK Climactic Research Unit (CRU) late in 2009. See the video attempt at Explaining Away Climategate for a defence of the Warmists.

This is the second of a series of new Topic postings that detail the viewpoints of the major groups involved in the controversy. See first part here.

Explaining Away Climategate - 1

Climategate was triggered by the release of thousands of emails and computer programs from the UK Climactic Research Unit (CRU) late in 2009. See Jon Stewart's hilarious and surprisingly fact-filled take and this attempt at Explaining Away Climategate.

This is the first of a series of new Topic postings that detail the viewpoints of the major groups involved in the controversy:

Global Warming Tiger - Ocean Carbon

This is the fourth of the series Global Warming - Tale of the Tiger.

Read the first posting in this series: Tale and a description of the figure to the left. I believe the apparent 0.8ºC increase in Global Temperature over the past 150 years is due to three major causes and one minor one, as indicated by the parts of the "tiger". (The second posting details Data Bias and the third Natural Cycles.)

OCEAN CARBON

This posting is about OCEAN CARBON that I estimate is responsible for about 20% of the apparent warming of the surface of the Earth over the past 150 years.

COMPONENTS OF ATMOSPHERIC CARBON GASSES

Atmospheric carbon gasses may be subdivided into three categories: 1) Historically normal levels, typical for the past 100,000 years or so, 2) excess carbon gasses over historically normal levels due to non-human causes, mainly the general warming of the surface of the Earth over the past 150 years, and 3) excess carbon gasses due to human activities, primarily the burning of previously sequestered carbon (coal, oil, natural gas). Although there are many carbon gasses, the following analysis centers on CO2, which is the main one.

1) What are the historically normal levels? Homo sapiens, hominids with large brains about the size of ours, have been on Earth for about 100,000 years. Humans capable of understanding and speaking metaphoric languages have been around for about 10,000 years. Industrial humans capable of having a substantial effect on atmospheric carbon have been around for only about 200 years. During the period from 100,000 to 200 years ago, according to ice core data, atmospheric CO2 gas has varied from about 180 to 280 parts per million (ppm). Thus, anything over 280 ppm is historically excessive.

2) What are the non-human-caused excess carbon levels? Current CO2 levels are about 390 ppm, which is 110 ppm in excess of the historical maximum. Of that, I believe around 70 to 80 ppm is due to the transfer of carbon from the surface of the Earth to the atmosphere, as a result of the actual global warming of about 0.5ºC over the past 150 years. I call this "ocean carbon" because most of it has fizzed out of the oceans over the past century and a half. The posting you are currently reading has to do with "ocean carbon".

3) What are the human-caused excess carbon levels? The remaining 30-40 ppm of excess CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human burning of previously sequestered carbon. The next posting in this series will detail what I call "human carbon".

THE "GREENHOUSE" EFFECT

When we were kids, we learned about the "greenhouse" effect. Visible light from the sun passes through the glass roof of the greenhouse. As this light energy floods in and illuminates the plants, soil and rocks, they heat up and emit infrared radiation. Since the infrared radiation is of a longer wavelength, it cannot pass back out through the glass, which is why (we were taught) the greenhouse heats up. Well, what we learned was true, but it turns out that the sun's heat stays within the greenhouse mostly because the side walls prevent the hot air from escaping. Nowadays you can build a good greenhouse with plastic materials that pass both visible and infrared radiation. As long as you make the building airtight it will work. On the other hand, a glass-roofed greenhouse that is not airtight will not work well.

WARMING DUE TO "GREENHOUSE GASSES"

CO2 in the atmosphere acts something like the glass roof of a greenhouse. Visible light passes through it fairly freely, but infrared radiation does not. Thus, as the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from the historical maximum of about 280 ppm to the current level of about 390 ppm, more infrared radiation has been trapped in the atmosphere and the Earth has warmed considerably as a result.

I believe global warming is responsible for an actual increase of about 0.5ºC. Of that amount, about 0.1ºC to 0.2ºC is due to positive feedback from carbon gasses in the atmosphere that are in excess of historical levels and not due to human activities. This increase, which is about 20% of the apparent increase of 0.8ºC, is not under human control.

The fact that rising CO2 triggers positive feedback has led some to worry we may come to a "tipping point" where the CO2 increase triggers a temperature increase that triggers further CO2 increases and it all goes out of control. No need to worry. There is evidence that the current levels of CO2 are blocking nearly all the infrared radiation, so additional CO2 has little effect. Even doubling current levels will not cause a large increase in global warming. Beyond a certain point, if you double or triple the thickness of glass in the roof of a greenhouse, it will have little positive effect. (Consider a sun-blocking curtain on a window. If one curtain blocks, say, 90% of the sunlight, adding a second curtain will only block an additional 9%, and a third curtain less than 1% - the "Law of Dimimishing Returns".)

WHY DOES CO2 COME OUT OF THE OCEANS AS THEY WARM?

You are all familiar with the way a cold can of soda warms up and loses its "fizz" when left open on a hot day. The CO2 comes out of solution and goes into the atmosphere. That CO2 got absorbed into the soda at the factory when the cold liquid was exposed to concentrations of CO2 at high pressures.

The rate and direction of transfer of CO2 between the atmosphere and the oceans depends on many factors, mainly the concentration of CO2 in the air and water and the temperatures of the air and water. At current levels of CO2, the cold polar waters are net absorbers of CO2 from the atmosphere and the warm equatorial waters are net emitters of CO2 into the atmosphere. The temperate waters in-between either absorb or emit CO2 according to daily and seasonal temperatures.

As the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, the colder waters have warmed a bit and therefore currently absorb a bit less carbon gasses than they did in the past. At the same time, the equatorial waters have also warmed and therefore emit a bit more carbon than in the past. The temporal waters also warmed and they absorb a bit less and emit a bit more. The result has been a net increase in atmospheric carbon of about 70-80 ppm over the past 150 years.

WHY ARE NORMAL LEVELS OF CO2 ESSENTIAL FOR LIFE ON EARTH?

Absent normal levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth would be a very cold place, unable to support life. Atmospheric CO2 is necessary for the growth of plants which obtain most of their mass from absorbtion of atmospheric carbon, creating carbohydrates and releasing oxygen into the atmosphere. Animals breathe the oxygenated air and feed on plants and digest the carbohydrates, releasing carbon dioxide and methane back into the atmosphere, where it is ingested again by the plants and so on in the carbon cycle of life.

Modest increases in atmospheric CO2 are beneficial to most plants as are moderate increases in temperature. There is NO short-term problem. However, as a conservative, I have a bias against relatively rapid change into unknown or unproven scenarios. Quite apart from global warming, I am sufficiently concerned about rapidly rising CO2 levels that I favor reasonable, concerted worldwide action, see Carbon Tax YES!, Cap and Trade NO!

CONCLUSIONS

Global warming, mostly due to natural cycles, has raised the temperature of the Earth causing the surface (mainly the oceans) to become a net emitters of CO2, responsible for about 70 - 80 ppm of the excesss atmospheric CO2 over historical levels. This naturally-caused temperature increase and resultant CO2 increase has increased the "greenhouse effect" and is responsible for about 20% of the apparent global warming we have experienced over the past 150 years. However, we are not near any "tipping point" as some of the alarmists claim.

Ira Glickstein

Global Warming Tiger - Natural Cycles

This is the third of the series Global Warming - Tale of the Tiger.

Read the first posting in this series: Tale and a description of the figure to the left. I believe the apparent 0.8ºC increase in Global Temperature over the past 150 years is due to three major causes and one minor one, as indicated by the parts of the "tiger". (The second posting details Data Bias.)

NATURAL CYCLES
This posting is about NATURAL CYCLES that I estimate are responsible for about 40% of the apparent warming. In other words, 0.3ºC to 0.4ºC of the apparent 0.8ºC temperature increase is due to natural cycles not under human control.

You are familiar with three of the natural cycles that affect the energy input and heat balance of the Earth: 1) diurnal - the daily rotation of the Earth, 2) seasons - Earth's yearly orbit around the Sun, and 3) sunspots - 9 to 13-year magnetic cycles on the Sun. Sunrise to afternoon temperatures vary by 10ºC or more and seasonal temperatures by 40ºC or more.

However, these cycles have no long-term effect on surface temperatures. They are not the cause of Global Warming. However, when scientists are trying to detect long-term temperature variations of fractions of a degree, multi-degree daily and yearly variations complicate the task.

Individual sunspot cycles are not long enough to have significant effects on global temperatures. However, when a multi-decadal series of especially short-strong cycles, or long-weak cycles occur, there are significant effects, see (7) below.

Three more natural variations are called Milankovitch cycles: 3) eccentricity of Earth orbit around the Sun, 4) axial tilt, and 5) precession. These changes do not increase or decrease the total amount of solar radiation falling on the Earth. However, they change the relative distribution between the polar and equatorial regions. It turns out that the more energy that falls on the polar regions, the more the Earth warms, and vice-versa. These cycles run from 19,000 to 400,000 years and they are the most likely cause of the approximate 100,000 year glaciation cycles seen in the ice core records. Over the past 20 thousand years or so, according to ice core data, the Earth has warmed by over 10ºC. During most of that time, human activity had no effect on global temperatures. The Milankovitch cycles may have contributed 0.1ºC or more to the 0.8ºC apparent Global Warming over the past 150 years.

Another set of cycles of interest are: 6) multi-decadal oscillations of the oceans, including the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (20-30 years), Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (15-20 years) PDO and IDO, El Nino-Southern Oscillation (3-8 years) ENSO, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (70 years) AMO, and others. These cycles are associated with temperature variations of 1ºC or more, and they may have contributed 0.1ºC or more to the 0.8ºC apparent Global Warming over the past 150 years.

The last cycle of interest is: 7) multi-decadal magnetic activity variations on the Sun. As I noted above, individual sunspot cycles, per se, are not associated with significant global temperature variations. However, a series of especially short and strong cycles may be associated with multi-decadal warming trends. Conversely, a series of especially long and weak cycles may be associated with multi-decadal cooling trends. See Solar variation for an excellent discusion.


CORRELATION OF TEMPERATURE WITH SUNSPOT NUMBER TRENDS


The figure (from Solar variation, with annotations in green and pink by Ira) compares global temperature with CO2 and Sunspot Number. [Click the diagram for a larger version.]


The upper dark red curve shows how temperatures have increased by an apparent 0.8ºC over the past 150 years. Note that there was a dip around 1860, another around 1910, and a third around 1950. A small, relatively short rise followed the 1860 dip, a larger, longer rise followed the 1910 dip, and the 1950 dip was followed by a very long and strong rise. That last rise has triggered current Global Warming fears.

The middle blue curve shows how CO2 has increased steadily since 1850, with a particularly rapid rise from 1960 to the present. (The reason the blue curve gets brush-like after 1960 is better measurement equipment that captured seasonal variations.) The correlation between CO2 rise and temperature rise has lent credence to the theory that rising CO2 levels are the main cause of Global Warming.

The lower yellow curve shows sunspot number variations. The thin line shows the individual 9 to 13-year sunspot cycles and the thicker line is the multi-cycle average.

My annotation shows, in green, the sunsport cycles that peaked below 80 sunspots/day. Note the correlation between those low cycles and the dips in global temperature experienced about a decade later. Annotations in pink indicate the sunspot cycles that peaked above 110 sunspots/day. Note that the peaks are correlated with those more active sunspot cycles.

In particular, note that six of the last seven sunspot cycles have peaked above 110 and that correllates with the global temperature rise from 1950 to 2000. However, since 1999 there has been a stabilization of global temperatures and, since 2005, a dip of nearly 0.2ºC in the non-smoothed data. That dip is NOT correlated with any dip in CO2 level rise - indeed CO2 levels are rising faster than ever.

Therefore, it is plausable that CO2 levels, while significant, are NOT the primary cause of Global Warming.

So, what is the main cause? Well, look at the thick yellow smoothed sunspot curve. It has been on the downswing for the past decade! The latest averages are below 80!

Couple that with the two-year (and counting) delay in the expected start of sunspot cycle #24. In 2006, NASA experts predicted cycle #24 would start at the end of 2006 or early 2007 and that it would be a doozy, peaking over 150! But, here at mid-2009 #23 has probably not ended yet nor has #24 started. So, NASA's latest prediction is that #24 will be be a weak kitten, peaking at 90. (I predicted, back in January that it would peak even lower, at 80. Also see an "Inconvenient" Minimum.)

CONCLUSIONS

Sunspot activity is better correlated with global temperature than CO2 levels. It is probably responsible for about 40% of the apparent Global Warming we have experienced over the past 150 years and over 0.3ºC of the actual warming. If the coming sunspot cycle is further delayed and if it is as weak as expected, that could stabilize global temperatures for a decade or more and give us breathing room to control CO2 levels in a conservative way.

Ira Glickstein

Global Warming Tiger - Data Bias

This is the second of the series Global Warming - Tale of the Tiger.

Read the Tale and a description of the figure to the left. I believe the apparent 0.8ºC increase in Global Temperature over the past 150 years is due to three major causes and one minor one, as indicated by the parts of the "tiger".

DATA BIAS

This posting is about DATA BIAS which I think is responsible for about 30% of the apparent warming. In other words, 0.2ºC to 0.3ºC of the apparent 0.8ºC temperature increase is not actual warming.

(However, the remaining 0.5ºC to 0.6ºC is actual warming, and needs to be addressed.)

NASA/NOAA GISS MODIFICATION OF THEIR OWN BASE DATA

The figure below is a "blink comparator" of the official NASA/NOAA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) USA temperature anomaly (from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/14/the-evolution-of-the-giss-temperature-product/. Credit for the graphs goes to http://zapruder.nl/images/uploads/screenhunter3qk7.gif.)

More about the above graph near the end of this posting!

CLASSES OF OFFICIAL MEASUREMENT SITES

NASA/NOAA specifies measurement sites in five classes, with the best at least 100 m (over 300 ft) from any source of artificial heating or land development and the worst located right on an occupied building. According to a 2009 survey, only about 3% of official sites in the US are at Class 1. About 8% are in Class 2, at least 30 m from a source of artificial heat. About 20% are in Class 3, between 10 and 30 m. The remaining stations are closer than 10 m to an artificial heat source (58%) or right on a heat source (11%).

Thus, only about 11% are in the best two classes, reasonably distant from artificial sources of heat, while 69% are in the worst two classes, easily affected by nearby heat sources. Over 2/3rds of the official reporting stations in the US are close enough to artificial heating sources to be affected. We have no idea if the situation is better for foreign stations, but it is likely even worse!

Of course, since Global Warming has to do with changes in temperature, if a station has been at the same location for decades, any change in reported temperature should be consistent with actual trends in that area, right?

WRONG! Stations in urban areas, even if they have been in the exact same place, have been affected by lifestyle changes, such as installation of air conditioning in buildings that had none fifty years ago, more auto and truck traffic, and construction of nearby buildings. But, many stations have been moved from time to time and thus have not been in the same place all this time, and most have been affected and encroached by civilization and changes in land use.

Why are the stations so close to artificial heat sources? Well, fifty or more years ago, all the readings were taken manually by volunteer observers twice a day. They were not about to walk the length of a football field to do so. Even as automatic reporting stations were introduced, the stations had to be close to buildings so the telephone and power wires could be run to them.

ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE (Source)

"One swallow doesn't make a spring." (Aristotle). Even two doesn't prove it is spring. Likewise, the following anecdotal evidence does not prove the case for measurement bias. However, human beings seem to be moved more by specific examples than by statistical evidence. So have a look at these two stations about 50 miles apart in north-central California with very different temperature plots.

Orland, CA has a well-located station that has been in the same place for 100 years. The period from 1880 to 1900 shows a precipitous dip in mean annual temperature of about 2ºC. Mean temperatures have been in the same approximate range since 1900, with a small dip in the 1940's.
Marysville, CA, around 50 miles away, has seen considerable encroachment by development. The shelter that houses the MMTS temperature sensor is close to air conditioning exhaust fans and you can see their effect in the 2ºC mean temperature rise from 1940 to the present.

Sadly, the second example is far more representative of reporting stations than the first.

How could two temperature measurement stations, only 50 miles apart, experience such large differences in annual mean temperature trends? The only explanation is measurement bias due to encroachment of development at the second station.

THAT IS WHY NASA/NOAA GISS CORRECTS THE RAW DATA

Indeed, NASA/NOAA has retroactively corrected the data to account for measurement error. Here is that "blink comparitor" again.

Remember, this is OFFICIAL published data from NASA/NOAA GISS in 1999 and then in 2008. They have adjusted the data by about 0.3ºC which is more than 30% of the apparent Global Warming over the past 150 years.

Since the data has been biased by proximity to artificial heating sources which tend to increase over time, you would expect them to adjust the data to show less actual warming in later years. However, they seem to have made the "correction" in the wrong direction!

Check the blinking graphs! For data before 1970, they have REDUCED the temperatures by up to 0.1ºC. For the years after 1970, they have INCREASED the temperatures by up to 0.2ºC. This retroactive "correction" has added 0.3ºC o the apparent warming.

CONCLUSIONS

I have only scratched the surface on reasons to suspect data bias. There are dozens of photos showing official temperature measurement sites that are clearly too close to artificial heat sources that have obviously encroached relatively recently. There is evidence that painting the sensor enclosures with modern, longer-lasting latex paint rather than the old method using whitewash has increased temperature readings in the warm part of the summer.

What if I suggested that all official sites in Class #4 and Class #5 should be abandoned and replaced by new sites that met the requirements of Class #1 (or at least Class #2)? Well, the Global Warming alarmists would be up in arms, and for good reason, because that would wipe out most of the apparent temperature increase.

I agree with them! Since much of the data from years ago came from stations that were in very close proximity to human development, the old data is biased towards higher readings.

On the other hand, I think everyone should agree that encroachment of measurement sites by human development, especially over the past 40 years as air conditioning and vehicular traffic became more common, has biased recent data towards higher readings.

I don't have the power to correct the measurement stations that have been encroached, nor do I have the base data to make exact corrections. However, I think it is clear that a substantial portion of the apparent Global Warming increase is definitiely due to data bias. I estimate this bias as about 30% (+ 0.2ºC to +0.3ºC). Does anybody agree or disagree with that estimate? On what basis?

(However, I hasten to repeat, the remaining 0.5ºC to 0.6ºC is actual warming, and needs to be addressed.)

Ira Glickstein

L/C Minds and Temper

Since none of you seem to be interested in writing an article about our method of L/C analysis, I'm doing the job myself. Here's a draft of the introduction. In writing this I realized that there is an analogy that I have difficulty working out. I would appreciate contributions.

Introduction

The logic behind the L/C method of analysis is based upon the following principles.
1. Fallibility is common.
2. Roughly half the population have L-minds. Roughly half have C-minds.
3. Each half thinks that the other is irrational with respect to the issues that divide them.
4. Both halves are wrong about the other's rationality.
5. Analysis of the situation requires the participation of both C-minds and L-minds and must be non-partisan and non-confrontational.
6. Any consensus concerning the nature of L-minds and C-minds requires symmetrical dichotomy and neutral language.

Fallibility

As a thinking machine, the human brain leaves a lot to be desired. Living is about making decisions, most of them evolved from binary choices or can be converted to binary choices. Do I go left or right? Do I eat this plant or not? Do I release my arrow now or do I wait for a better shot? We seem to have evolved special mechanisms for making this type of survival related decision. Those mechanisms often get in the way of more complex thinking. In fact, I propose to you that what we call thinking is only an artifact of our primitive decision making skills, thereby creating the illusion that we can reason accurately. Our ability is so faulty that large fractions of the population, given the same facts about a situation will still come to quite different conclusions as to what to decide. That's why in almost every public policy issue which ultimately comes down to voting yea or nay, the population will split very roughly in half, and each half will think the other is mad. The train of decision making starts with faulty perception, proceeds to erroneous communication, a distorted problem statement not to mention bad modeling, optimization and implementation.

L-Minds and C-Minds

Not only does the population split roughly evenly on almost all issues requiring thought, the same people will group together resulting in the establishment of political parties and ideologies. For the most part, we will assume that the L-Minds and C-Minds are hard wired that way. This is not to say that sufficient propaganda, self-interest and concerted effort cannot cause C-minds to behave like L-Minds and vice-versa. Modern L-minds and C-minds can be discerned through the use of a series of questions concerning public policy and personal responsibility issues.

If you grant the above, then our task is to determine a truth using two instruments both of which have a distorted output. In science, the usual way to accomplish this is calibration against a standard for which the ground truth is known. However, in this case the truth is unknown, so what do we do?

An analogy is in the use of thermometers. Temperature is odd in that it isn't a quantity but rather a ranking. It's like the pecking order ranking in a yard full of chickens. We can observe that a chicken is "higher" than another by the fact that it can peck the other chicken on the head, but how much higher is not possible to tell. Physical measurements on a single isolated chicken will not tell us it's rank in the pecking order. We might keep a barnyard full of chickens and see where a new arbitrary bird fits in the pecking order. Similarly, temperature is a rank measurement. To determine an arbitrary body's rank we must bring it in contact with another body in order to see whether or not heat flows to one or the other. Then we can say that one body has a higher "temper" than the other. When no heat flow occurs the two are said to have the same temper. A thermometer is a device we can use for such testing. In the most fundamental sense, we should have a storage place where we keep a large number of standard bodies (or thermometers) maintained at different tempers. Every time we wish to measure the temperature of an arbitrary body, we should take the thermometers out of storage and test which one of them fails to transfer heat to or from the body under investigation. They are then at equilibrium and can be said to have the same temper. The standard thermometers can be assigned any symbol you like so that we can compare temperatures of a body under investigation. Fortunately, in the real world we can save on storage facilities by the use of a single thermometer and secondary measurable properties like expansion, voltage, resistance, etc.) However that doesn't change the arbitrary nature of a temperature scale.

Now let's connect the temperature analogy to L-Minds and C-Minds. Two popular arbitrary temperature scales are the Fahrenheit and Celsius scales. When examining the temperature of something each yields a different number. Suppose there are two people who have grown up using these scales. On a balmy spring day one might say that it's 20 degrees while the other says it's 72 degrees. They disagree about the numerical value of the temper, although they're both correct. However, we aren't concerned with the number as such. Rather we are concerned with the subtile influence the numbers may have on their opinions about the weather or room conditions. For instance, the celsius scale has coarser degrees. A child brought up using celsius might have a coarser perception of temperature than a child brought up using Fahrenheit. In other words, the children senses are calibrated against two different scales and learn to express two different verbal reactions to temperature change. The Fahrenheit calibrated child might say the temperature has changed a lot, while the Celsius child says the temperature has changed very little. (In fact, psychologists find this kind of difference occurs when preparing survey questions about estimates of distances.) Each is sure they are right and believes there must be something wrong with the other's perception.

I'm not at all satisfied with this analogy. Can anyone help?

With respect -Joel