archive-org.com » ORG » R » REALCLIMATE.ORG

Total: 1481

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Model-data-comparison, Lesson 2 « RealClimate
    certainly a more important goal than going to Mars This is also why any temperature analysis that ignores the oceans and ice sheets is not going to be of much use alone in checking on climate models but an extension of that analysis i e Tamino s to oceans would be nice to see The IPCC does have an illuminating chapter on ocean observations and the key conclusion appears to be that there is large inter decadal variability in ocean heat content Thus changes in surface temperature cannot be used to infer that global warming has paused Another problem is getting accurate measurements of the exact amount of sunlight reflected by the earth as well as the amount incident on the top of the atmosphere since one can argue that the observed warming is all due to changes in albedo The way around that problem was seen years ago and it was to place a satellite at a point where it get a direct and constant view of the Earth s surface thereby directly measuring the top of the atmosphere radiation budget The satellite was built and then NASA cancelled the mission under still obscure circumstances Even without the climate satellite s direct confirmation of the situation the conclusion of Hansen et al 2005 hasn t been rebutted Our climate model driven mainly by increasing human made greenhouse gases and aerosols among other forcings calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0 85 T 0 15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years Implications include 1 the expectation of additional global warming of about 0 6 C without further change of atmospheric composition 2 the confirmation of the climate system s lag in responding to forcings implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change and 3 the likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise We can argue about what the eventual effect on human civilization will be and what the cost of ending all carbon emissions and building renewable energy infrastructure will be but the basic underlying issue is settled we re warming the planet 107 Martin Vermeer says 14 Apr 2008 at 1 15 AM Re 92 There s really no evidence at all that the rate today is any different than it has been for 30 years Precisely Re 94 Ian Castles They made a specific assertion that six additional years of observations show that temperatures have continued to warm What is there in additional you don t understand What is there in continued you don t understand Big picture The null hypothesis stands 108 Jim Cripwell says 14 Apr 2008 at 6 07 AM Ref 91 Am I mistaken in thinking that weather represents noise and climate represents signal If I am not mistaken then presumably a signal can have change in the slope of the temperature time graph over time There is no reason why the effect of climate cannot be that temperatures go through a very shallow maximum and eventually decrease 109 Jim Cripwell says 14 Apr 2008 at 6 16 AM Ref 93 Agreed In statistics it is inevitable that it is hard to find the signal in the presence of noise But standard statistical tests tell you whether you have indeed detected a signal My point is that the question What is the current slope of the temperature time graph is a proper scientific question Whether the data allows us to answer the question because there is too much noise is another issue entirely But there is no reason why we cannot try 110 Jim Cripwell says 14 Apr 2008 at 6 25 AM Ref 92 Tamino writes There s really no evidence at all that the rate today is any different than it has been for 30 years As for the rate temporarily seeming negative it s not just possible for noise to make that happen it s inevitable On this I think we can agree to disagree I think there is evidence that the rate today is different than it has been for 30 years But the noise is so great that it will be some time before we will know for sure which of us is correct 111 Barton Paul Levenson says 14 Apr 2008 at 7 01 AM Jim Cripwell still not getting it posts What is happening to temperatures now whenever now happens to be As of this time now is April 2008 Or in other words what is the slope of the temperature time graph as of now Is it positive or negative It seems to me that there ought to be statistical methods to answer this question and they probably only use data for a few recent years I cannot see why temperatures taken 10 years or more ago tell us very much about what the slope of the temperature time graph is as of now My own very limited analysis convinces me that the current slope of the temperature time graph is negative Not enough information yet to say You can t generalize from a few months or even a few years Sample size matters sample size matters sample size matters 112 Barton Paul Levenson says 14 Apr 2008 at 7 05 AM tom watson writes More CO2 in the air means a small percent surface emitted black body radiation gets absorbed even closer It s not just radiation from the ground that matters Radiation from every level of atmosphere matters as well That s why the carbon dioxide fraction is so important Water vapor is more important near the ground it has a very shallow scale height compared to the rest of the atmosphere 113 Jim Cripwell says 14 Apr 2008 at 9 28 AM Ref 111 Is there enough information to say definitely that the slope of the climate signal temperature time graph as of now April 2008 is positive If so where is it 114 Phil Felton says 14 Apr 2008 at 9 29 AM Re 76 As Thomas Hobbes famously noted life before industrialization was solitary poor nasty brutish and short Miss Priss I suggest you reread Leviathan Hobbes was writing about life before government indeed in the 1650s industrialisation could hardly have been said to have started 115 tom watson says 14 Apr 2008 at 10 32 AM Re 96 Response The argument from personal incredulity is not a very useful one in scientific discussions gavin When in your personal incredulity did Einstien s theory of relativity become science and not his personal incredulity I see no argument presented in my post that is not both science and personal incredulity Personal incredulity is a personal incredulity in the minds eye To me personal incredulity is the believe that what was written in post 96 can be dictated as certain science or certain personal incredulity I attempt to always speak with as much logic as certain science and honesty and common sense dictates That to me leads to the most honest science And to all you who count your finger and toes of temperature measurements as some form of science The Earth is forever cooling How CO2 slows that cooling in any process that yields an integration of stored energy over decades in the context of this earth is a fanciful personal incredulity that time and satellite measurements will demonstrate as the decades pass 116 B Buckner says 14 Apr 2008 at 10 41 AM Ray 101 You say All convection does is move energy from one part of the atmosphere to another The only way energy leaves the climate system is via outgoing IR radiation and it is here that increasing greenhouse gases has its effect True but when water evaporates from the ocean surface the ocean cools This heat is released high in the troposphere when the water condenses Does this convection process not largely bypass the greenhouse gases in the troposphere and allow relatively more IR to go out to space 117 Hank Roberts says 14 Apr 2008 at 10 55 AM Jim Cripwell you re illustrating exactly what students go through in trying to understand statistics re the slope of the climate signal temperature time graph as of now April 2008 Yes there is evidence that will let us say what that slope is as of April 2008 It will be available But it isn t available now You can t get now from statistics Urge your congresspeople to put the Triana satellite up so we can at least have contemporary data for the planet Put an end to teaching the controversy by collecting actual information to inform choices And read at least the simplest textbook on statistics http www amazon com Cartoon Guide Statistics Larry Gonick dp 0062731025 ref si3 rdr bb product 118 tom watson says 14 Apr 2008 at 11 31 AM Re 112 Barton Paul Levenson Says It s not just radiation from the ground that matters Radiation from every level of atmosphere matters as well That s why the carbon dioxide fraction is so important Water vapor is more important near the ground it has a very shallow scale height compared to the rest of the atmosphere Tom s reply I do not believe any science shows vapor is more important near the ground it has a very shallow scale height compared to the rest of the atmosphere as a complete and overriding law that governs convection transport may slightly increase as CO2 increases because initial absorptions is more intense In the design of a heat exchanger the most effective way to transport the most heat is to have the hottest meet the coldest first In effect Adsorption in a shorter distance create a mini change in temp and density for the initial start of convection And in cold dry places or any dry places the Earth cools by degrees per hour when the sun goes down Any heat that gets to a cool dry place in the atmosphere is gone very very quickly And infrared heat that s up cannot get back down as it s blocked by CO2 and water vapor below My Personal incredulity says the CO2 does not effect the altitude at which heat that is above can get below it and will be lost to space CO2 increasing may have some minor effect in getting heat above that altitude in some tiny tine amount Or maybe on balance is slows it some tiny tine tiny amount But whatever will not create any real difference in what ever is defined as the global temperature And I read your stuff on Greenhouse 101 Science looks OK but makes no case for any CO2 suppositions 119 Jim Cripwell says 14 Apr 2008 at 11 51 AM Ref 117 Hank I dont agree with you but let us assume you are correct and Yes there is evidence that will let us say what that slope is as of April 2008 It will be available But it isn t available now You can t get now from statistics As an aside I am Canadian and we dont have Congressmen But if we dont have any now statistics then I have trouble with the latest magazine from National Geographic a Special Report on Changing Climate On page 25 it is stated Here s another indisputable fact Earth s temperature is going up too Surely this statement is just plain wrong if you are right How can it be indisputable if there are no now statistics Obviously if you are correct we have no idea whether the earth s temperature is still going up despite the fact that CO2 concentrations are going up at an unprecedented rate 120 David B Benson says 14 Apr 2008 at 12 29 PM tamino 92 Thank you for the correction For the record the graph http tamino files wordpress com 2008 04 t3v jpg is of yearly global average temperatures 121 Ian Castles says 14 Apr 2008 at 1 12 PM Re 107 Martin Vermeer The six years of data used by the IPCC don t rule out continued warming but neither do they show it Please refer to the post Rahmstorf et al 2007 IPCC Error at the Niche Modeling blog and the ensuing discussion 122 Martin Vermeer says 14 Apr 2008 at 1 20 PM Re 116 B Buckner yes convection plays a very important role for outward heat transport Both wet convection in the lower troposphere and dry convection higher up But the question to ask is how this affects the response of the system to a change in greenhouse gas concentration Convection interacts with the greenhouse effect in the following way a convecting atmosphere establishes an adiabatic lapse rate of some 5 6 degs per km of height At some level in the troposphere on average 6 km but dependent on wavelength the air changes from opaque to transparent for the heat radiation and from that level the heat escapes to space As I like to depict it to myself if you increase the CO2 content of the air the air s opaqueness for IR increases and this radiating surface will creep up It s a bit like the wall of fog coming closer when the fog thickens This means that the temperature of the radiating surface will drop because of the lapse rate According to Stefan Boltzmann the radiating effectiveness drops and the whole Earth ocean atmosphere system has to warm up to compensate In reality it s more complicated of course the CO2 in the air throttles only a part of the outgoing heat in this way much also leaves from the top of the wet layer or even from the surface And also the profiles of the spectral lines get broader which contributes its own effect Etcetera 123 Hank Roberts says 14 Apr 2008 at 1 23 PM Jim Tamino s 92 answers your 119 I m not going to dispute the question of undisputable email National Geographic s editors for that argument Tamino makes the point much better than the N G stuff you set up to knock down there You can find bad writing everywhere Look for the good writing instead 124 David Stockwell says 14 Apr 2008 at 2 09 PM Stephan I would be grateful if you would clarify for me a puzzling aspect of the your Rahmstorf et al 07 Science paper You state in the figure caption that the minimum roughness criterion was used to get the temperature trend line Use of this method of data padding as described in Mann 2004 should pin the trend line to the 2006 temperature value However while the 2006 value lies in the center of the IPCC range the trend line shown on the figure lies above the 2006 value in the upper IPCC range I would like to clarify this apparent inconsistency This is an important paper for the case that the climate system may be responding more quickly than climate models indicate and it is important to verify its technical correctness More details and graphs can be found here http landshape org enm rahmstorf et al 2007 ipcc error Response Thanks David I have responded to your query also on your website as follows 1 The smoothing algorithm we used is the SSA algorithm c by Aslak Grinsted 2004 distributed in the matlab file ssatrend m This has two alternatives for the boundary condition 1 minimum roughness which is what we used in our paper and 2 minimum slope This is described in the Moore et al paper If you have questions about the details of this algorithm please contact its authors I think the confusion that arises is that you equate minimum roughness with padding with reflected values Indeed such padding would mean that the trend line runs into the last point which it does not in our graph and hence you wrongly conclude that we did not use minimum roughness The correct conclusion is that we did not use padding Note that Moore et al call their minimum roughness a variation on the minimum roughness criterion described by Mann 2004 This already makes clear it is not the same 2 None of the conclusions of our paper depend on the use of this particular boundary condition at the end which only affects the last five years of the trend line As you can see the temperatures 2002 2006 lie in the upper half of the IPCC range Btw my name is Stefan Rahmstorf You get my first name wrong here and my last name wrong on your site just like Pielke consistently mis spells my name in his Nature Geoscience correspondence this is also an indication of the care someone takes in getting things right stefan 125 Jim Cripwell says 14 Apr 2008 at 3 19 PM Ref 122 Hank you are missing the point of my discussion I explained many months ago that the reason I post on RC is because people here challenge my ideas and as a result I understand better what I am talking about This does not happen on CS This idea started with Tamino s 67 in which he discussed the idea that warming ceased in 2001 The point I started off with is that I do not question that global temperatures have risen However what I see in the media particularly but in many different other places is the idea that temperatures are still rising This is not as Ray Ladbury thinks a question of the difference between weather and climate If we consider what I will call climate temperature what I think needs to be established is whether climate temperature is rising staying stable or falling again going back to Tamino s 67 From the discussion on this blog there seem to be two possibilities Either there is not enough evidence to say what is currently happening to climate temperatures as you seem to believe In which case no one knows that climate temperatures are rising Or there is enough data which I believe and I believe climate temperatures are falling I am trying to find someone who will dispute this and show me a scientific hopefully peer reviewed paper which establishes that climate temperatures are indeed still rising However no such paper seems to exist 126 tom watson says 14 Apr 2008 at 3 53 PM Re Jim 100 Let us assume most understand radiative physics Now the reiteration of blackbody radiation over time as it applies to higher altitudes is not well explained anywhere As warm air and the heat it contains rises there is a point where there is more CO2 and H20 below it than above it All radiation that is emitted up and not adsorbed is gone in less than the blink of an eye All that is adsorbed by CO2 or H20 is instantly conducted to the 97 to 99 percent of non CO2 H20 air molecules For whatever temperature works out the warmed air re radiates a spectrum and all of that spectrum that is not adsorbed and pointed up is also gone in less than a blink of an eye That which is emitted in a downward direction will be adsorbed and maybe reflected back up if it hits clouds Where air is dry it cools by degrees per hour when the sun is not shining My gut or my experience has my personal credulity suggesting there is an inclination or the sum of all factors gets the radiative energy out to space and CO2 has no property in the context of it s rare content the Earth s atmosphere to move temperatures up or down more than a tiny tiny tiny amount What does this show What do the temperatures shown really mean http toms homeip net global warming movie test3 goes enam 2008 01 22 17 18 IR Large jpg Where there are clearer skies do we see surface temperatures Where there are clouds or a less clear sky we see what The temperature of some altitude above the surface FYI An animation of this sat image will show daily rising and falling temps in desserts 127 tamino says 14 Apr 2008 at 4 27 PM Re 123 Jim Cripwell Noise exists in the global climate system you can call it weather if you like But because noise exists it will never be possible to determine the instantaneous long term rate of change that implies letting the time span over which a determination is made shrink to zero You also propose a false dichotomy when you say I believe climate temperatures are falling then ask someone to dispute it by showing a paper which establishes that climate temperatures are indeed still rising I dispute that temperatures are falling not because I can prove they were rising over the last six or seven years or six or seven days or six or seven minutes but because there s zero evidence for your claim I d never get this published by a reputable journal because it s so obvious that noisy data over a very short time span don t support any conclusion at all Both physics and the long record of temperatures support the still rising hypothesis but you seem to think that because you can find a time span which is short enough to give an inclusive result that justifies a conclusion of cooling You don t seem to realize that noise making the short term trend seem negative even though it s still positive isn t just a possibility it s an inevitability If the temperature record did not contain episodes like we ve seen recently brief time periods with negative but not statistically significant trend rates then I d know that the data are invalid It s really like flipping a coin to test whether it s fair Even if it is if you flip it enough times eventually you ll see 10 heads in a row In fact if you flip it enough times and don t see 10 heads in a row somewhere then you have proof that the coin is not fair Your entire premise really is no different than the claim that global warming stopped last Thursday Of course the data don t disprove that idea But it sound ridiculous because it is 128 David B Benson says 14 Apr 2008 at 4 44 PM Jim Cripwell 123 I ll say that a climate temperature is a 50 year linear trend line Since you are interesteed in now use the data from 1958 CE through 2007 CE Fit the data linked in comment 120 to discover an upward trend line By this definition of climate temperature it is rising Indeed notice the strong correlation with the Keeling curve http www esrl noaa gov gmd ccgg trends co2 data mlo html and then apply some fairly straightforward atmospheric physics to discover that the Keeling curve explains the climate temperature There I have supplied you with enough that you can write the paper yourself 129 Philip Machanick says 14 Apr 2008 at 6 01 PM 123 Jim Cripwell another thing to contemplate Can you see your toenails growing No Look back in a week Not yet Have your toenails stopped growing Or is the growth too small to measure However if you last clipped them 6 months ago you should have have evidence that some time between then and now they have grown enough to tell the difference If despite this evidence you are still convinced that because you can t actually see them growing they must have stopped measure their exact length to the best accuracy you can and report back here in 6 months with no clipping before then obviously Why is this relevant Aside from the noise issue the rate at which temperatures are growing is pretty slow If for example we have a rate of increase of 3 C over a century that s 0 3 C per decade If you just look at a few years the change will be within the error bars and very likely dwarfed by natural variability aka noise do toenails shrink and expand depending on the tightness of your shoes Should anyone be saying temperatures are still rising given this It would be more accurate to say something like you can t judge anything by looking at a few years in isolation but there s no evidence of a change in the trend because we are still well above the pre AGW level but how I wonder would that have been spun by the denialosphere 130 Phil Felton says 14 Apr 2008 at 6 12 PM Re 118 What does this show What do the temperatures shown really mean http toms homeip net global warming movie test3 goes enam 2008 01 22 17 18 IR Large jpg Where there are clearer skies do we see surface temperatures Where there are clouds or a less clear sky we see what The temperature of some altitude above the surface The temperature of the top of the clouds Goes 12 has 4 IR channels the shortwave infrared channel 3 8 4 0 um and two longwave infrared 10 2 12 5 um channels have a resolution of 4 km while the water vapor channel 6 7 7 0 um has an 8 0 km resolution 131 Vincent says 15 Apr 2008 at 3 18 AM climate science is quite new and would need quite a few years before it establishes any reputation A Reputable journal as mentioned above should be judged in this context 132 Meltwater says 15 Apr 2008 at 6 12 AM Tim B said in 35 Regarding the arrogance discussion Laypeople don t have the time or education to evaluate scientific claims based on the scientific data especially in a field as complex as climate science We have to rely on the judgment and expertise of scientists who attempt to explain complex analyses in simplified ways we can understand Therefore it is essential for laypeople to judge the character and motivations of a scientist making a claim in order to establish in their mind whether this person is a trustworthy authority As a layperson I suggest that scientific claims and scientific authorities cannot be reliably evaluated by any means except how consistent they are with evidence Also some facts about climate in spite of its complexity are simple One such fact is that since IR excitable gases like CO2 warm the atmosphere increasing their concentration forces the temperature to increase No matter what guesses you make about the character and motivations of people who mention that fact it remains true Personal considerations do not affect arithmetic Please make the time to look at the evidence The lives of our children may depend on it If a goal of realclimate is to inform laypeople of issues in climate science then arrogance in this forum will only appeal to its most unquestioning adherents while driving away those who prefer to keep an open mind about a complex and dynamic field That is good advice Many of us who are aware of the evidence that our emissions warm the globe tend to say things that doubters and newbies perceive as arrogant In my case however and probably that of others these apparently arrogant comments really reflect great despair at the peril ahead and the stubborn gullibility displayed by many who refuse to face it Denialism has won every round of this debate so far no matter what debating tactics have been tried against it Precious years have been squandered Far from being curtailed emissions are rising The likely cost is painful to imagine and could be much more painful to experience 133 Martin Vermeer says 15 Apr 2008 at 6 30 AM climate science is quite new and would need quite a few years before it establishes any reputation A Reputable journal as mentioned above should be judged in this context Any journal that has existed longer than the claimed stop in global warming will do BTW Spencer Weart s Discovery of Global Warming under Science Links above right was written for you 134 Barton Paul Levenson says 15 Apr 2008 at 7 03 AM tom watson posts The Earth is forever cooling How CO2 slows that cooling in any process that yields an integration of stored energy over decades in the context of this earth is a fanciful personal incredulity that time and satellite measurements will demonstrate as the decades pass To which I have no answer because I can t for the life of me figure out what you re trying to say here 135 Barton Paul Levenson says 15 Apr 2008 at 7 11 AM tom watson writes Tom s reply I do not believe any science shows vapor is more important near the ground it has a very shallow scale height compared to the rest of the atmosphere as a complete and overriding law that governs It s an empirical observation and it s theoretically backed by considerations such as the Clausius Clapeyron law The scale height for the atmosphere in general is about 8 kilometers For water vapor it s closer to 2 km convection transport may slightly increase as CO2 increases because initial absorptions is more intense In the design of a heat exchanger the most effective way to transport the most heat is to have the hottest meet the coldest first In effect Adsorption in a shorter distance create a mini change in temp and density for the initial start of convection Huh What Come again And in cold dry places or any dry places the Earth cools by degrees per hour when the sun goes down Any heat that gets to a cool dry place in the atmosphere is gone very very quickly And infrared heat that s up cannot get back down as it s blocked by CO2 and water vapor below It doesn t have to get all the way down It just has to get to the next layer below it and heat it up a bit Then that layer will radiate a bit more both up and down Every layer affects every other layer but not always by a direct connection My Personal incredulity Your personal incredulity is meaningless for convincing anybody else of anything Personal incredulity means what this person can t believe And what you believe doesn t matter what you can prove or demonstrate does says the CO2 does not effect the altitude at which heat that is above can get below it and will be lost to space CO2 increasing may have some minor effect in getting heat above that altitude in some tiny tine amount Or maybe on balance is slows it some tiny tine tiny amount But whatever will not create any real difference in what ever is defined as the global temperature But it does And I read your stuff on Greenhouse 101 Science looks OK but makes no case for any CO2 suppositions CO 2 largely allows visible light to pass but absorbs infrared light Thus more of it in the atmosphere will heat the atmosphere which will heat the ground There s really no way around it 136 Barton Paul Levenson says 15 Apr 2008 at 7 18 AM Vincent writes climate science is quite new and would need quite a few years before it establishes any reputation A Reputable journal as mentioned above should be judged in this context Evangelista Torricelli invented the barometer in the 1600s Jean Joseph Fourier posited the existence of the greenhouse effect in 1824 John Tyndal showed that it was mostly due to water vapor and carbon dioxide in 1859 In the 1860s Louis Agassiz established that there had been ice ages The first prediction of warming under doubled carbon dioxide was published by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 Climatology is not a new field Newer than physics yes But much older than say computer science or quantum mechanics 137 Keith says 15 Apr 2008 at 7 21 AM John Mashey re 78 Given your response to some comments referring back to our previous discussion comparing protein modelling vs climate modelling I thought I d give you an update on progress here It might amuse you Or not Well basically I threw the debate open to the modellers here and to be honest all hell broke loose With a 5 1 margin not including myself the tv chemists here came back with well they would say that it s all rubbish if you ask me etc etc In effect the conclusion was that protein folding was not a fair comparison my mistake then eh and that docking scores was a more appropriate comparison If you are interested in what that is then just google it Personally it quickly went past my head but the end result was that a major pharma company now has climate model code running on its cluster disguised as something else of course I ve stopped asking about it since it is only more fuel to the fire For my part I ve done a bit more reading and whilst I am comfortable with the differences I am plauged by nagging doubts about the fidelity of the prediction which is kinda what s be discussed again on this post I think that s driven by the fact that many of the discussions are heavily focussed around physical methods or a physics perspective if you like and I worry that the problem has much larger chemical and biological components than is being suggested And from brutal experience I know that once you start working a multiple discipline boundaries things get complicated and just a little bit messy On the plus side that means it s a fabulously interesting area to work in I m almost jealous And you ve got a bunch of comp chemists running code on a big pharma cluster I ll let you know if they actually get a conclusion 138 tom watson says 15 Apr 2008 at 8 13 AM Re 127 tamino Says Also some facts about climate in spite of its complexity are simple One such fact is that since IR excitable gases like CO2 warm the atmosphere increasing their concentration forces the temperature to increase No matter what guesses you make about the character and motivations of people who mention that fact it remains true Personal considerations do not affect arithmetic Well CO2 in isolation does what you say But CO2 competes for blackbody spectrums with H20 This is a link to a copy of the original http toms homeip net global warming Global Warming Not From CO2 20080124 pdf This is pdf as a html http toms homeip net global warming Global Warming Not From CO2 20080124 txt html On this earth where there is dry air temperatures plunge by degrees per hour when the sun goes down This image is a quite revealing summary http e6 ath cx gw Global Warming Not From CO2 20080124 fig02 jpg Response Your paper is wrong wrong wrong All of these effects are included in all the standard methodology and when you do the full calculation using all the spectral lines using full atmospheric profiles using all the spatial information you end up with the the standard number i e 2xCO2 gives 4 W m2 forcing You can continue to point to special cases that don t use all the lines that don t use full profiles and that don t integrate over the surface of the planet but they won t change the numbers you d get if you did There are real uncertainties in climate science the role of aerosols clouds ice sheet response etc

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/04/model-data-comparison-lesson-2/comment-page-3/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Model-data-comparison, Lesson 2 « RealClimate
    not see in my understanding of what absorption is to introduce a gain function Now I do not claim I have a perfect or totally correct understanding of absorption But I have not seen any convincing explanations that contradict or confirm with certainty I have the correct understanding MODTRAN I am looking now but a specific pointer through all the weeds of the internet would be helpful superimposed graphs of a known concentration of CO2 with an unknown but high concentration of H2O secondly you plotted the graph over too large a range of cm 1 no point in anything over 2000 cm 1 Do you know the concentration of CO2 and H20 Even relative high is not quantitative And h20 at 2 or 20 000 PPM is high compared to CO2 386 PPM but realistic I used the graphs that NIST makes available I also believe the the NIST graphs I used do take into account the black body radiation spectrum of earth s temperature I have collected all kinds of plots of absorption at http e6 ath cx gw http e6 ath cx gw absorbspec jpg http e6 ath cx gw Atmospheric Transmission sm jpg http e6 ath cx gw AtmosphericAbsorption n Transmission jpg http e6 ath cx gw chriscolose h20 co2 absorption gif http e6 ath cx gw earth emisson spectrum jpg http e6 ath cx gw IR SPEC GIF http e6 ath cx gw TerrestrialRadiation energy wavelength gif Response Watson just give up You re going around in circles and not scoring any points The absorption data you re showing in the graphs is just the same stuff GCM radiation codes are based on These codes explicitly model the degree of overlap between water vapor and CO2 taking into account the fact that water vapor decreases with height whereas CO2 does not to a radiatively significant extent The radiation codes still give a strong radiative forcing from doubling of CO2 and when embedded in a model that simulates the full hydrological cycle gives a substantial warming If you really want to learn something about CO2 vs water vapor radiative effects look at a Gavin s RC article on Water vapor Feedback or Forcing my chapter in the Princeton University Press general circulation volume Schneider and Sobel eds Chapter 4 of my planetary climate textbook available online through my web site You are not allowing yourself to be educated by the astute remarks of the various commenters who have set you straight You are just trying to re invent radiative transfere modelling but doing it in words without mathematics and you are making a dog s breakfast of it If you want to argue about water vapor feedback that s one thing but to argue against AGW on the basis of CO2 H2O overlap is just alchemy and I won t let this go on forever raypierre 354 Phil Felton says 27 Apr 2008 at 6 56 PM I heartily endorse Raypierre s remarks while you profess to want to learn all you re doing is arguing with the experts who re trying to help you at the same time revealing your lack of knowledge Some examples The only difference is the wavelength of the particular photons absorbed Also CO2 and H20 do have the ability to absorb photons of the same wavelength Not true linewidths and absorption cross sections for example Do you know the concentration of CO2 and H20 I read the data on the NIST pages that you took the graphs from Depending on which of the CO2 graphs you used the concentration is either Notice Concentration information is not available for this spectrum and therefore molar absorptivity values cannot be derived or GAS 200 mmHg DILUTED TO A TOTAL PRESSURE OF 600 mmHg WITH N2 And for the H2O graph you used Notice Concentration information is not available for this spectrum and therefore molar absorptivity values cannot be derived Which render the comparison you attempt to make with your graph totally meaningless To me the amplitude of the signal is a function of the total population C02 H20 vs the ppm population change of CO2 Figure 11 in this page of yours illustrates the error of your statements if you had the wit to see it http e6 ath cx gw IR SPEC GIF 355 John Mashey says 28 Apr 2008 at 1 05 AM As a public service I have extended the research in 290 as this thread may become a classic for students of blogging behavior Of 354 posts so far 94 27 of the total 43 are by Tom Watson 51 are by others replying to Tom Watson Of the last 65 posts 47 72 21 by Tom Watson 26 by others replying to Tom Watson I suspect the word percentages are higher I may have missed a few 356 Hank Roberts says 28 Apr 2008 at 10 39 AM So back to the topic then 357 Martin Vermeer says 28 Apr 2008 at 11 31 AM Re 355 John Mashey I am tempted to refer to the history of operations research like described in http en wikipedia org wiki Operations research especially the part about Blackett and armouring RAF bombers There are a few other examples cannot find the links now of such counter intuitive results What you see is not all there is That the Tom Watsons of the world are immune to learning doesn t establish that those reading over his shoulders are 358 Alan says 30 Apr 2008 at 9 56 AM Tom I also find your arguments unconvincing and circular but don t give up altogether Every brilliant scientist is first and foremost a skeptic Having said that the first rule of skepticisim is to question your own ideas more rigoursly than you question the ideas of others I highly recommend Carl Sagan s book The Demon Haunted World it expands on the notion of skepticism in science and everyday life in far more eloquent

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/04/model-data-comparison-lesson-2/comment-page-8/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Tendencias globales y ENSO « RealClimate
    the temperature is not in equilibrium with the forcing that takes time and ii CO2 is not the only forcing you need to factor in aerosols other greenhouse gases etc gavin 20 David B Benson says 5 Jul 2008 at 3 10 PM Steve Mauget 18 Indirectly peraining to your quexstion I recommend reading Earth s Climate Past and Future by W F Ruddiman At a minimum this will improve your intuitions 21 Gary P says 5 Jul 2008 at 3 37 PM I really like the second graph in this article It looks like temperatures are starting to level off despite a higher CO2 level and CO2 rate of increase in the atmosphere Sweet Response Brought to you by the magic of natural variability gavin 22 Steve Reynolds says 5 Jul 2008 at 4 35 PM Brought to you by the magic of natural variability gavin How do we know that recent temperatures are not typical and that 1950 to 1978 temperatures were not unusually low due to natural variability Could a climate sensitivity of around 1 5C also be consistent with this data 23 John P Reisman The Centrist Party says 5 Jul 2008 at 6 26 PM 13 Sean Gavin Has anyone overlaid the 11 1 solar cycle 9 14 yr avg over the El Nino La Nina cycle I ve been thinking about what drives the cycle and that thought has popped up in my head several times over the past few years With a 3W m2 variance that s a pretty good booster just wondering it the overlay graph would match up The 1998 was in the upswing of the sunspot cycle activity so I m curious if this pattern is fairly well repeated and what other complications might be attached to the influence 22 Steve Reynolds Natural variability is what it is You seem to be happy about a leveling off trend even though we are essentially in a cool phase with low sunspot activity and La Nina occurrence Will you also say sweet in a few years when sunspot activity is peaking again and we get another El Nino not to oversimplify but while natural variability occurs that does not mean that the overall climate system is not operating outside of natural variability when it comes to forcing levels which are not calculated around 1 9 W m2 when considered with all the positive and negative forcings aerosols moisture clouds etc The 1950 to 1978 1942 to 1978 temps were likely due to aerosol pollution We can always go back to producing sulphates and CFC to cool the planet I suppose but how much do you like acid rain and skin cancer and all the other wonderful respiratory disorders we gained from that type of pollution natural variability of course is always at play on top of anthropogenic influence in our modern era 24 David B Benson says 5 Jul 2008 at 6 31 PM Steve Reynolds 22 Using the stand formula for temperature increases due to addional CO2 I compared 1958 CE 315 ppm with 1850 288 ppm and obtained the average temperature increase for the 1850s decade to the 1950s decde close enough So by this one kinda crude measurement no climate sensitivity is close to 3 K To see that it cannot be as low as you suggest read Gregory et al 2002 25 Joseph says 5 Jul 2008 at 6 54 PM Are we able to extrapolate something about the CO2 sensitivity from these figures Response No i the temperature is not in equilibrium with the forcing that takes time Is there an official figure on the lag If it s known you could calculate the sensitivity right After looking at the data it appears that the lag is about 8 years for a fluctuating trend It would be more for a long term CO2 increase It might not even be catching up that way With an assumption of 8 years the average effect I see is 0 015 degrees C for every extra 1 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere The relationship appears to be completely linear 26 Mauri Pelto says 5 Jul 2008 at 6 59 PM 12 Hank you are a natural science detective 27 Jeff says 5 Jul 2008 at 7 20 PM Off Topic Gavin I was intrigued by some of the articles in the June 13th issue of Science Magazine Is there any chance of getting a guest contribution summarizing the state of Dynamic Global Vegetation Models and how they might be incorporated in future GCMs 28 Steve Reynolds says 5 Jul 2008 at 7 21 PM David B Benson Using the stand formula for temperature increases due to addional CO2 I compared 1958 CE 315 ppm with 1850 288 ppm climate sensitivity is close to 3 K Any estimate based on that small CO2 change is extremely crude Benson To see that it cannot be as low as you suggest read Gregory et al 2002 I looked at Gregory they also say 1 1K is possible with different assumptions Also I wonder what the result would be if their methods were repeated with recent data Another paper showing 1 2K as possible http www jamstec go jp frcgc research d5 jdannan prob pdf 29 John P Reisman The Centrist Party says 5 Jul 2008 at 7 40 PM 25 Joseph I am not an expert but I do have two cents to throw in The forcing is at 1 9W m2 so it will take more than 8 years for the oceans to absorb the forcing Of course as they absorb the forcing they will release more moisture There is apparently a great amount of learning still in the cards on clouds but this is a pretty big forcing I m not expecting things to cool down anytime soon More moisture means positive feedback There has been a 4 degree latitudinal shift which i believe was expected of the jet stream system I m a pilot so I relate that to how we measure air density Hot air expands so when we try to get our aircraft of the ground if it s hot it s harder to get enough air over the wing to produce enough lift As things heat up I would therefore expect that hotter air will create less dense air and that said air expansion would push the jet streams north and south as the tropics get more sunlight and the heat is trapped in the climate system and absorbed slowly by the oceans That will have an effect on the geometric absorption of heat I suppose relational to the amount of GHG s at a given time and the amount of earth absorbing the solar radiation So with the increase of heat trapping gases and the positive feedback of increased water moisture which is of course also a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere I m just expecting things to get warmer which in turn will make things warmer i e positive feedback I doubt any 8 year trend is significant to ocean absorption lag time Gavin already pointed out that you have to add the aerosols and other gases then you have to consider effects The amount of time for the lag absorption rate is also relational to the type of gas doing the forcing While Methane and Nitrous oxide gases are more short lived Co2 is long lived in the atmosphere so stopping some of the gases will not eliminate the long term forcing on the oceanic thermal absorption The lifespan of atmospheric Co2 is pretty long retaining still 25 over hundreds of years So lag time has to be understood in connection to the type of GHG and the lifetime of the GHG Add em all up and you can start to draw a picture 30 sdw says 5 Jul 2008 at 8 45 PM Are we able to extrapolate something about the CO2 sensitivity from these figures Response No i the temperature is not in equilibrium with the forcing that takes time So where is the missing temperature I presume some form of lag via the oceans However the ocean temperatures are not recently rising the ARGO data set and a strong and consistent trend should be observable with consistent CO2 increase Is this correct regards sdw 31 iceman says 5 Jul 2008 at 9 02 PM 23 The 1950 to 1978 1942 to 1978 temps were likely due to aerosol pollution We can always go back to producing sulphates and CFC to cool the planet I suppose but how much do you like acid rain and skin cancer and all the other wonderful respiratory disorders we gained from that type of pollution natural variability of course is always at play on top of anthropogenic influence in our modern era Look at the waxing and waning of the solar cycles Solar cycle 20 was relatively low and long Is it just coincicdence that a cooling period occured during cycle 20 Is it a coincidence that the Dalton Minimum during solar cycles 5 and 6 produced notably cool temperatures Is it a coincidence that temperatures are starting to go down after a relative long solar minimum between cycles 23 and 24 What about the little ice age durning the Maunder solar minimum in the mid to late 1600 s Why attribute it to aerosols when a direct relationship between weak solar activity and cooler temperature can be seen It could be just a coincidence but sure looks good to a layman such as myself The people posting here are a lot brighter than I am I just cant let go of solar climate connection There are some smart people like the fellow who heads up one of Russia s space related agencies Habibullah Abdusamatov He strongly beleives that it is the sun that is the primary driver of climate I was directed by a knowledgable poster to check out the discrediting of solar cycle influence on climate I did so and was almost swayed to that opinion But I still have a lingering though unfounded suspicion that variations in the solar output should be given more higher weight in the climate models We are now in a pretty deep solar minimum Temperatures have start to fall this year There may be a significant lag between solar min and consequential global temp decrease If the solar minimum continues and temperatures continue to drop then the influence of solar cycles should be given more consideration If the minimum continues and temperatures continue to rise then I will abandon the idea that climate follow solar activity It will take only one or two years to convince me of that 32 John P Reisman The Centrist Party says 5 Jul 2008 at 9 07 PM 23 John P Reisman Okay I type too fast my apologies which are not calculated around 1 9 W m2 is supposed to be which are now calculated around 1 9 W m2 33 iceman says 5 Jul 2008 at 9 54 PM Could it be that PDO and AMO are subharmonics of solar forcing A post from solarcycle24 com Hansen predicted in 1988 that we would be considerably warmer now than we are That s a fact The past decade at the very least has not seem the same rate of warming as the previous two decades all natural variability such as ENSO accounted for Also a fact NASA predicted in 2006 that if an El Nino formed later that year or in 2007 a new global temperature record would almost surely be set The El Nino formed but neither 2006 or 2007 came close to 1998 The 2007 IPCC report states that they expect half the years from 2009 2015 to be warmer than 1998 It is clear that climate science expected and still expects more warming than what has been observed None of this oh natural variation and cool spells are expected to interrupt the warming for more than a year or two crap that s not what has been predicted and if temperatures do not rebound in a big way soon AGW projections will continue to look foolish 34 wayne davidson says 5 Jul 2008 at 10 27 PM 33 Iceman do a graph of Northern Hemisphere annual temperature anomalies from here http data giss nasa gov gistemp tabledata NH Ts txt Is my understanding that CO2 has far greater impact overland than sea But the facts speak about a noticeable warming 35 Thomas Lee Elifritz says 5 Jul 2008 at 10 34 PM that s not what has been predicted and if temperatures do not rebound in a big way soon AGW projections will continue to look foolish Why There are plenty of places for that heat to go I can think of three of them offhand besides the obvious The portals in and out of these places are very fluid 36 John P Reisman The Centrist Party says 5 Jul 2008 at 10 44 PM 31 iceman Climate is not driven only by solar though Some of what you are saying may be or likely is coincidence As is known correlation is not necessarily causation Cherry picking data and narrowly scoping the view does not help either That was the UAH problem and it led them to eventually be proven wrong in their base assumptions because they did not look at the big picture That was also the problem illustrated in the Great global warming swindled movie where they represented only the data that matches and stopped the data set where it no longer matched because it did not suit their purpose of trying to trick people in to believing something that was not true Apples and oranges are not the same but both are tasty The Maunder minimum is natural cycle variability But you have to look at variability and geologic time scale in relation to the forcing components As far as the sun being the primary driver of climate absolutely if you take the sun away we would not have climate to be concerned about nor would we be here I am oversimplifying with a purpose Climate is driven now by components of natural variability and human components added to the forcing of the climate We are actually quite far outside of natural variability on the recent trend There has thus far been no model or even substantive reasoning that can explain this recent warming Only looking at solar is cherry picking too though DOn t forget there are lots of things actin on climate Eccentricity Precession Obliquity Oceans and algae co2 absorption methane nitrous oxide co2 High GWP s albedo changes cloud pattern shifts moisture content etc From what is currently known if we were following natural variability we should be cooling more But we are not So something changes The If I were to follow your logic then when we should have been warming during the 40s and 50s because solar cycle 17 18 and 19 were each progressively stronger But at that time we were producing a lot of sulphates and other aerosols that helped cool the planet but that is also complimented by natural variability It is too easy to oversimplify or cherry pick your data and reasons for climate When everything is looked at in context and with relevance to the forcing added and taken away and placed in the context of natural variability then the picture not only becomes clearer it matches the models quite well 37 John P Reisman The Centrist Party says 5 Jul 2008 at 10 52 PM 33 iceman Cool down iceman your starting to warm I don t know about your fact about Hansens prediction The 1988 model when revisited in 2006 was pretty much on track in scenario B which was presented as the most likely scenario Here are some facts the long term trend is up and there is more warming in the pipeline There is no reason to expect a trend reversal unless you have some new data and modeling you would like to share that has made it through peer review and peer response and survived to to the amount of forcing in the system the lifetime of Co2 in the atmosphere the human industrial output and the oceanic thermal inertia and lag time for absorption AGW projections are not foolish they are science and extremely well founded not to mention that little consensus thing among relevant climatologists that are working in the field on a daily basis 38 tamino says 5 Jul 2008 at 11 25 PM Re 33 Iceman neither 2006 or 2007 came close to 1998 According to GISS analysis 2007 tied 1998 That s not close enough for you You re the one looking foolish 39 Lamont says 6 Jul 2008 at 12 01 AM the el nino that preceeded 1998 was much stronger and longer than the el nino that preceeded 2007 just summing up the monthly ENSO values prior to 1998 and prior to 2007 i get 22 2 for 1998 and 5 2 for 2007 approximating an area under the curve to try to gauge the magnitude of the whole event http www cpc ncep noaa gov products analysis monitoring ensostuff ensoyears shtml also unless my eyeballs are deciving me i m staring at monthly NASA data which is a lot of numbers Jan 2007 was the warmest by temperature anomoly month ever and Dec Jan Feb around that month was the warmest 3 month period http data giss nasa gov gistemp tabledata GLB Ts dSST txt so we re almost there a little larger of an el nino or a few more years of AGW and the 1998 record should be soundly broken 40 Craig Allen says 6 Jul 2008 at 1 01 AM Iceman Every year since 2000 have been warmer than any year prior to 1998 I don t see how that

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/langswitch_lang/sp/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive


  • 0914707e 01 0 275 0 11 0 14414 1919 79 4 0505239e 01 0 368 0 17 0 20705 1919 88 6 0930399e 01 0 582 0 45 0 47730 1919 96 5 0099777e 01 0 474 0 34 0 36699 1920 04 3 1966443e 01 0 320 0 12 0 11966 1920 12 5 3312481e 01 0 498 0 19 0 22512 1920 21 1 9329532e 01 0 201 0 02 0 027704 1920 29 3 5501643e 01 0 355 0 1 0 10001 1920 38 2 6357351e 01 0 259 0 1 0 10457 1920 46 3 0542961e 01 0 294 0 17 0 18143 1920 54 3 6928077e 01 0 349 0 21 0 23028 1920 62 3 3963555e 01 0 310 0 17 0 19963 1920 71 2 6881841e 01 0 246 0 19 0 21281 1920 79 3 4769142e 01 0 337 0 25 0 26069 1920 88 3 7648941e 01 0 367 0 28 0 28948 1920 96 3 7853818e 01 0 385 0 45 0 44353 1921 04 1 9325773e 01 0 222 0 0 028742 1921 12 2 5568577e 01 0 292 0 17 0 13368 1921 21 2 6662873e 01 0 315 0 13 0 08162 1921 29 2 2132406e 01 0 293 0 12 0 04832 1921 38 1 5171780e 01 0 218 0 18 0 11371 1921 46 1 0040284e 01 0 175 0 1 0 02540 1921 54 1 3951632e 01 0 206 0 0 066483 1921 62 2 6481879e 01 0 343 0 24 0 16181 1921 71 1 6317196e 01 0 231 0 2 0 13217 1921 79 1 7563593e 01 0 229 0 08 0 02663 1921 88 3 5666620e 01 0 405 0 17 0 12166 1921 96 2 6034539e 01 0 285 0 18 0 15534 1922 04 4 1786330e 01 0 443 0 31 0 28486 1922 12 3 6066262e 01 0 398 0 36 0 32266 1922 21 3 2707627e 01 0 363 0 18 0 14407 1922 29 3 0625081e 01 0 335 0 23 0 20125 1922 38 3 9482225e 01 0 415 0 29 0 26982 1922 46 3 4545483e 01 0 374 0 24 0 21145 1922 54 3 1090360e 01 0 336 0 15 0 12490 1922 62 3 5265658e 01 0 372 0 25 0 23065 1922 71 3 1636694e 01 0 358 0 29 0 24836 1922 79 3 2603729e 01 0 377 0 25 0 19903 1922 88 2 9251171e 01 0 361 0 17 0 10151 1922 96 3 0370781e 01 0 383 0 18 0 10070 1923 04 2 3051246e 01 0 311 0 24 0 15951 1923 12 3 9762896e 01 0 483 0 29 0 20462 1923 21 3 5368160e 01 0 440 0 23 0 14368 1923 29 3 6381376e 01 0 442 0 33 0 25181 1923 38 3 0174610e 01 0 365 0 33 0 26674 1923 46 2 7429926e 01 0 308 0 22 0 18629 1923 54 4 0667820e 01 0 426 0 24 0 22067 1923 62 4 1084973e 01 0 417 0 29 0 28385 1923 71 3 6618587e 01 0 369 0 26 0 25718 1923 79 3 5586362e 01 0 346 0 06 0 06986 1923 88 1 4918929e 01 0 134 0 04 0 024810 1923 96 1 2274332e 01 0 100 0 01 0 03274 1924 04 3 7986667e 01 0 353 0 24 0 26686 1924 12 2 8000316e 01 0 256 0 26 0 28400 1924 21 3 6687679e 01 0 345 0 1 0 12187 1924 29 3 8085793e 01 0 360 0 29 0 31085 1924 38 3 4695298e 01 0 339 0 2 0 20795 1924 46 2 9766808e 01 0 301 0 19 0 18666 1924 54 3 3502218e 01 0 351 0 17 0 15402 1924 62 2 7492474e 01 0 306 0 2 0 16892 1924 71 3 1294960e 01 0 363 0 23 0 17995 1924 79 2 6276627e 01 0 330 0 23 0 16276 1924 88 3 2177965e 01 0 393 0 13 0 05877 1924 96 4 9570929e 01 0 576 0 31 0 22970 1925 04 3 4873088e 01 0 444 0 28 0 18473 1925 12 2 1002263e 01 0 309 0 25 0 15102 1925 21 1 9170963e 01 0 289 0 18 0 08270 1925 29 2 0128759e 01 0 284 0 17 0 08728 1925 38 2 5504776e 01 0 324 0 23 0 16104 1925 46 2 5157348e 01 0 310 0 25 0 19157 1925 54 2 3721274e 01 0 277 0 2 0 16021 1925 62 1 8193101e 01 0 209 0 12 0 09293 1925 71 2 2221297e 01 0 227 0 16 0 15521 1925 79 3 7419578e 01 0 364 0 19 0 20019 1925 88 1 8934851e 01 0 171 0 01 0 02834 1925 96 1 2132197e 01 0 081 0 16 0 119678 1926 04 9 7474564e 02 0 026 0 21 0 138525 1926 12 1 9101116e 01 0 113 0 12 0 041988 1926 21 1 7826840e 01 0 100 0 21 0 131732 1926 29 3 2275507e 01 0 241 0 04 0 12175 1926 38 3 3815797e 01 0 256 0 12 0 20215 1926 46 2 7395778e 01 0 188 0 13 0 21595 1926 54 3 7068764e 01 0 306 0 09 0 15468 1926 62 1 8272157e 01 0 124 0 01 0 04872 1926 71 2 2245332e 01 0 180 0 05 0 09245 1926 79 1 8900222e 01 0 165 0 02 0 04400 1926 88 1 8945352e 01 0 189 0 06 0 06045 1926 96 2 4214528e 01 0 260 0 21 0 19214 1927 04 2 4552393e 01 0 282 0 19 0 15352 1927 12 1 8153274e 01 0 220 0 04 0 00153 1927 21 3 1765790e 01 0 354 0 29 0 25365 1927 29 2 5930928e 01 0 299 0 22 0 18030 1927 38 2 4391219e 01 0 291 0 19 0 14291 1927 46 2 1888126e 01 0 259 0 15 0 10988 1927 54 1 8031794e 01 0 218 0 04 0 00231 1927 62 1 5491367e 01 0 193 0 15 0 11191 1927 71 1 3983629e 01 0 177 0 07 0 03283 1927 79 8 1170340e 02 0 112 0 04 0 070829 1927 88 2 2636123e 01 0 244 0 0 017638 1927 96 4 2541426e 01 0 441 0 29 0 27441 1928 04 1 5394916e 01 0 166 0 05 0 062050 1928 12 2 3475780e 01 0 248 0 01 0 023242 1928 21 3 7864302e 01 0 388 0 16 0 15064 1928 29 3 0687763e 01 0 315 0 23 0 22187 1928 38 2 8308710e 01 0 286 0 24 0 23708 1928 46 3 6510752e 01 0 364 0 27 0 27110 1928 54 1 9267113e 01 0 202 0 11 0 10067 1928 62 2 2711760e 01 0 226 0 14 0 14111 1928 71 2 2781125e 01 0 235 0 1 0 09281 1928 79 1 9011120e 01 0 202 0 09 0 07811 1928 88 1 6421293e 01 0 180 0 0 015787 1928 96 2 2326693e 01 0 244 0 06 0 03926 1929 04 4 1926585e 01 0 435 0 31 0 29426 1929 12 6 1063456e 01 0 638 0 42 0 39263 1929 21 3 8585048e 01 0 426 0 22 0 17985 1929 29 3 3345588e 01 0 368 0 29 0 25545 1929 38 3 4921686e 01 0 380 0 31 0 27921 1929 46 3 2573832e 01 0 357 0 29 0 25873 1929 54 3 4964765e 01 0 376 0 24 0 21364 1929 62 2 1080507e 01 0 234 0 23 0 20680 1929 71 2 6945432e 01 0 287 0 2 0 18245 1929 79 1 9421086e 01 0 199 0 06 0 05521 1929 88 1 4092771e 01 0 141 0 7 229e 05 1929 96 4 6562913e 01 0 459 0 4 0 40662 1930 04 3 6691380e 01 0 360 0 14 0 14691 1930 12 2 4600582e 01 0 238 0 13 0 13800 1930 21 2 1051797e 01 0 200 0 01 0 02051 1930 29 2 2409573e 01 0 211 0 16 0 17309 1930 38 2 5079941e 01 0 231 0 17 0 18979 1930 46 2 2727283e 01 0 194 0 14 0 17327 1930 54 1 9918192e 01 0 166 0 06 0 09318 1930 62 1 4189895e 01 0 098 0 02 0 06389 1930 71 1 6601322e 01 0 115 0 1 0 15101 1930 79 1 8198207e 01 0 117 0 06 0 12498 1930 88 6 7278496e 02 0 001 0 19 0 121721 1930 96 2 1478914e 01 0 121 0 0 09378 1931 04 1 5655415e 01 0 051 0 01 0 09555 1931 12 3 1191607e 01 0 198 0 17 0 28391 1931 21 2 5769356e 01 0 147 0 01 0 10069 1931 29 3 1010271e 01 0 203 0 12 0 22710 1931 38 3 2096955e 01 0 223 0 08 0 17797 1931 46 1 8627511e 01 0 100 0 07 0 01627 1931 54 1 5007274e 01 0 082 0 12 0 051927 1931 62 1 6190653e 01 0 106 0 04 0 01590 1931 71 1 5765337e 01 0 117 0 08 0 12065 1931 79 1 1388235e 01 0 093 0 06 0 039117 1931 88 2 0225259e 01 0 206 0 0 003747 1931 96 1 2335857e 01 0 140 0 03 0 046641 1932 04 1 0208963e 01 0 072 0 18 0 21009 1932 12 1 7534268e 01 0 211 0 11 0 07434 1932 21 2 3716410e 01 0 272 0 09 0 05516 1932 29 1 1365957e 01 0 136 0 01 0 012340 1932 38 1 9061764e 01 0 205 0 08 0 06561 1932 46 2 0274824e 01 0 195 0 17 0 17774 1932 54 1 5463514e 01 0 140 0 08 0 09463 1932 62 2 0138033e 01 0 187 0 1 0 11438 1932 71 7 3192707e 02 0 069 0 03 0 025807 1932 79 1 3814377e 01 0 139 0 04 0 040856 1932 88 2 3389956e 01 0 235 0 14 0 1389 1932 96 2 2162690e 01 0 221 0 14 0 14062 1933 04 2 7852708e 01 0 289 0 2 0 18952 1933 12 3 3866241e 01 0 359 0 17 0 14966 1933 21 3 2650340e 01 0 344 0 16 0 14250 1933 29 2 3933997e 01 0 257 0 14 0 12234 1933 38 2 3215441e 01 0 246 0 17 0 15615 1933 46 2 2105533e 01 0 243 0 16 0 13805 1933 54 1 7140705e 01 0 206 0 04 0 00540 1933 62 1 5965666e 01 0 197 0 1 0 06265 1933 71 1 7391188e 01 0 217 0 17 0 12691 1933 79 1 4230409e 01 0 204 0 12 0 05830 1933 88 2 3764636e 01 0 316 0 24 0 16164 1933 96 4 1263176e 01 0 504 0 39 0 29863 1934 04 1 4486419e 01 0 251 0 14 0 03386 1934 12 1 1376915e 01 0 209 0 05 0 145231 1934 21 2 9204836e 01 0 390 0 23 0 13204 1934 29 1 7381585e 01 0 271 0 22 0 12281 1934 38 4 8122469e 02 0 131 0 03 0 052877 1934 46 3 0684833e 03 0 062 0 05 0 015068 1934 54 2 9830208e 02 0 079 0 0 049169 1934 62 3 0597270e 02 0 070 0 02 0 019402 1934 71 9 5973694e 02 0 122 0 13 0 10397 1934 79 9 5894849e 02 0 118 0 0 022105 1934 88 3 2482026e 02 0 058 0 11 0 135518 1934 96 1 5307981e 01 0 169 0 05 0 065920 1935 04 2 1631264e 01 0 245 0 25 0 22131 1935 12 8 3834802e 02 0 048 0 26 0 295835 1935 21 1 9830353e 01 0 239 0 0 040696 1935 29 2 3017206e 01 0 272 0 25 0 20817 1935 38 2 1595565e 01 0 252 0 21 0 17395 1935 46 1 5722914e 01 0 183 0 13 0 10422 1935 54 1 0643880e 01 0 136 0 09 0 06043 1935 62 1 2864684e 01 0 154 0 11 0 08464 1935 71 1 3412623e 01 0 153 0 13 0 11112 1935 79 6 9445338e 02 0 091 0 02 0 041554 1935 88 2 6751808e 01 0 283 0 22 0 20451 1935 96 2 5278749e 01 0 255 0 11 0 10778 1936 04 2 6236896e 01 0 272 0 19 0 18036 1936 12 3 3563071e 01 0 343 0 26 0 25263 1936 21 2 4788496e 01 0 255 0 14 0 13288 1936 29 2 1196575e 01 0 219 0 08 0 07296 1936 38 1 5242867e 01 0 148 0 09 0 09442 1936 46 1 6097818e 01 0 154 0 05 0 05697 1936 54 2 3865583e 02 0 031 0 13 0 137134 1936 62 4 1140334e 02 0 055 0 02 0 033859 1936 71 8 4924608e 02 0 100 0 0 015075 1936 79 3 2262664e 02 0 047 0 06 0 074737 1936 88 9 8835291e 02 0 114 0 07 0 085164 1936 96 2 8004094e 02 0 053 0 11 0 134996 1937 04 1 5408613e 01 0 190 0 05 0 085913 1937 12 2 9610599e 02 0 015 0 22 0 264611 1937 21 2 0759773e 01 0 248 0 05 0 00959 1937 29 9 6448623e 02 0 131 0 06 0 02544 1937 38 7 2288389e 02 0 093 0 03 0 050711 1937 46 1 2147578e 02 0 008 0 06 0 080147 1937 54 6 2220508e 02 0 046 0 11 0 126221 1937 62 9 4009278e 02 0 083 0 09 0 101009 1937 71 1 1588238e 01 0 107 0 19 0 198882 1937 79 9 3499665e 02 0 090 0 16 0 1635 1937 88 2 3679247e 02 0 026 0 2 0 202321 1937 96 1 1019917e 01 0 108 0 01 0 01219 1938 04 1 2047938e 03 0 005 0 16 0 163795 1938 12 4 2460645e 02 0 019 0 11 0 133461 1938 21 9 5978809e 02 0 066 0 25 0 279979 1938 29 9 6553019e 02 0 054 0 22 0 262553 1938 38 1 4495944e 02 0 062 0 07 0 117504 1938 46 3 0478510e 02 0 031 0 02 0 041478 1938 54 5 5262675e 02 0 022 0 08 0 157263 1938 62 1 2507909e 01 0 036 0 08 0 169079 1938 71 1 7088620e 01 0 070 0 14 0 240886 1938 79 2 3360314e 01 0 126 0 22 0 327603 1938 88 1 0956726e 01 0 017 0 16 0 252567 1938 96 1 4009564e 01 0 247 0 1 0 006904 1939 04 4 7274073e 02 0 062 0 02 0 129274 1939 12 3 7672066e 02 0 063 0 01 0 110672 1939 21 1 1586867e 01 0 200 0 13 0 04586 1939 29 1 6874075e 02 0 063 0 05 0 029874 1939 38 5 5873951e 02 0 004 0 0 051874 1939 46 1 2030854e 01 0 090 0 03 0 060308 1939 54 9 1659839e 02 0 077 0 06 0 074659 1939 62 5 6946753e 02 0 081 0 01 0 03405 1939 71 4 7120633e 02 0 015 0 01 0 02212 1939 79 1 9025353e 01 0 152 0 04 0 07825 1939 88 2 1719142e 02 0 015 0 06 0 053280 1939 96 2 7815884e 01 0 278 0 38 0 380159 1940 04 2 2130230e 01 0 209 0 17 0 18230 1940 12 1 0475997e 01 0 057 0 02 0 02776 1940 21 1 5892291e 01 0 088 0 06 0 01092 1940 29 4 1768337e 02 0 014 0 12 0 064231 1940 38 3 6260295e 02 0 008 0 05 0 005739 1940 46 3 7353202e 02 0 020 0 05 0 00735 1940 54 4 7983389e 02 0 106 0 2 0 141983 1940 62 8 0960989e 03 0 057 0 01 0 05890 1940 71 5 7556194e 02 0 120 0 08 0 017556 1940 79 4 3363096e 02 0 013 0 02 0 03636 1940 88 1 0014647e 01 0 045 0 07 0 014853 1940 96 1 0414449e 01 0 158 0 12 0 066144 1941 04 9 7044987e 02 0 034 0 11 0 046955 1941 12 1 1238300e 02 0 074 0 22 0 134762 1941 21 1 6023700e 01 0 065 0 05 0 04523 1941 29 2 5375931e 02 0 121 0 15 0 054375 1941 38 1 0500302e 01 0 001 0 1 0 00600 1941 46 1 6830164e 02 0 130 0 08 0 03317 1941 54 3 4892649e 02 0 148 0 13 0 016893 1941 62 3 0272219e 02 0 082 0 02 0 09227 1941 71 1 6910384e 01 0 063 0 12 0 22610 1941 79 1 2208273e 01 0 220 0 21 0 112083 1941 88 3 5057973e 03 0 091 0 12 0 025494 1941 96 6 3938189e 02 0 042 0 22 0 114062 1942 04 4 2798614e 02 0 170 0 22 0 092799 1942 12 2 1704731e 01 0 097 0 08 0 20004 1942 21 1 5176792e 01 0 046 0 0 10576 1942 29 1 2730972e 01 0 039 0 0 08830 1942 38 6 3897469e 02 0 013 0 09 0 013102 1942 46 3 3145080e 04 0 057 0 05 0 00666 1942 54 9 4136371e 02 0 064 0 02 0 01013 1942 62 3 8046676e 02 0 032 0 01 0 01604 1942 71 1 8666297e 02 0 007 0 02 0 045666 1942 79 1 5030792e 02 0 043 0 03 0 088030 1942 88 6 5632271e 03 0 084 0 03 0 107437 1942 96 2 8777357e 02 0 073 0 06 0 161777 1943 04 8 9667441e 02 0 205 0 11 0 005333 1943 12 1 2879710e 01 0 005 0 13 0 253797 1943 21 6 4346037e 02 0 190 0 05 0 075654 1943 29 9 1691923e 02 0 033 0 09 0 214692 1943 38 1 1741622e 01 0 003 0 17 0 284416 1943 46 1 7534910e 03 0 096 0 03 0 124246 1943 54 1 0556536e 01 0 027 0 16 0 238565 1943 62 2 7407679e 03 0 059 0 06 0 121741 1943 71 4 0241959e 02 0 011 0 06 0 111242 1943 79 2 4578327e 01 0 192 0 24 0 293783 1943 88 6 5005441e 02 0 007 0 19 0 248005 1943 96 2 0409728e 01 0 143 0 26 0 321097 1944 04 3 0109561e 01 0 243 0 37 0 428096 1944 12 1 6909838e 01 0 107 0 26 0 322098 1944 21 1 2750899e 01 0 081 0 22 0 266509 1944 29 1 1674900e 02 0 025 0 12 0 156675 1944 38 4 5190086e 02 0 029 0 2 0 21619 1944 46 1 2373168e 01 0 115 0 12 0 128732 1944 54 1 7373264e 01 0 174 0 2 0 199733 1944 62 1 7693340e 01 0 183 0 17 0 163933 1944 71 2 0388456e 01 0 214 0 27 0 259885 1944 79 1 6924894e 01 0 165 0 25 0 254249 1944 88 1 2485880e 02 0 012 0 15 0 174486 1944 96 4 6912809e 02 0 083 0 13 0 166087 1945 04 1 2681603e 02 0 037 0 16 0 209682 1945 12 4 1734472e 02 0 094 0 13 0 182265 1945 21 9 0451506e 03 0 062 0 13 0 182955 1945 29 1 3801894e 01 0 079 0 19 0 249019 1945 38 9 0937038e 02 0 158 0 03 0 037063 1945 46 2 2632762e 02 0 032 0 01 0 064632 1945 54 6 3813729e 02 0 095 0 04 0 071186 1945 62 3 5191669e 01 0 308 0 16 0 203917 1945 71 1 2498199e 01 0 081 0 01 0 053982 1945 79 1 1399192e 01 0 065 0 08 0 128992 1945 88 2 3820499e 02 0 070 0 06 0 106179 1945 96 2 2675221e 01 0 272 0 09 0 04475 1946 04 1 4331003e 02 0 018 0 14 0 172331 1946 12 9 9343082e 03 0 033 0 09 0 113066 1946 21 2 2059564e 01 0 228 0 03 0 02259 1946 29 6 4996685e 02 0 073 0 07 0 078003 1946 38 2 5221071e 01 0 251 0 06 0 06121 1946 46 3 3626234e 01 0 329 0 13 0 13726 1946 54 1 4089797e 01 0 157 0 02 0 00389 1946 62 2 1970065e 01 0 245 0 18 0 15470 1946 71 6 9272256e 02 0 114 0 02 0 024727 1946 79 1 3695175e 01 0 176 0 03 0 009048 1946 88 1 7940520e 01 0 226 0 04 0 006594 1946 96 3 8239868e 01 0 430 0 27 0 22239 1947 04 2 0111565e 01 0 247 0 03 0 015884 1947 12 2 6261341e 01 0 294 0 0 031386 1947 21 1 9129658e 01 0 214 0 15 0 172703 1947 29 7 8045040e 02 0 100 0 06 0 081955 1947 38 1 9769936e 01 0 214 0 03 0 01369 1947 46 1 1506072e 01 0 131 0 07 0 05406 1947 54 1 3940440e 01 0 149 0 01 0 00040 1947 62 1 6708359e 01 0 181 0 03 0 01608 1947 71 1 9779791e 01 0 223 0 07 0 04479 1947 79 6 9915240e 02 0 105 0 13 0 165085 1947 88 1 0854698e 01 0 159 0 12 0 170453 1947 96 2 4889579e 01 0 303 0 1 0 04589 1948 04 8 6842013e 03 0 058 0 14 0 189316 1948 12 2 1931504e 01 0 267 0 07 0 02231 1948 21 2 9047215e 01 0 330 0 08 0 04047 1948 29 1 7983679e 01 0 200 0 03 0 00983 1948 38 7 5942949e 02 0 092 0 05 0 066057 1948 46 8 2775171e 02 0 097 0 05 0 064224 1948 54 2 1855511e 01 0 236 0 09 0 07255 1948 62 1 2829699e 01 0 160 0 07 0 03829 1948 71 1 6069480e 01 0 190 0 08 0 05069 1948 79 1 1630570e 01 0 160 0 01 0 053694 1948 88 1 8450271e 01 0 235 0 05 0 000497 1948 96 2 6826275e 01 0 319 0 19 0 13926 1949 04 3 3971310e 02 0 015 0 16 0 208971 1949 12 2 0985288e 01 0 260 0 15 0 09985 1949 21 2 6246616e 01 0 298 0 03 0 005533 1949 29 1 4644742e 01 0 183 0 1 0 06344 1949 38 1 5695910e 01 0 180 0 07 0 04695 1949 46 2 7910407e 01 0 292 0 2 0 18710 1949 54 1 7827834e 01 0 212 0 09 0 05627 1949 62 1 1806186e 01 0 157 0 04 0 00106 1949 71 1 5536741e 01 0 192 0 05 0 01336 1949 79 1 2756428e 01 0 179 0 0 051435 1949 88 1 2406950e 01 0 190 0 06 0 005930 1949 96 2 1772173e 01 0 309 0 1 0 00872 1950 04 3 6417674e 01 0 467 0 24 0 13717 1950 12 2 2599545e 01 0 349 0 26 0 13699 1950 21 1 5680662e 01 0 290 0 02 0 113193 1950 29 1 5833507e 01 0 284 0 17 0 04433 1950 38 9 0843374e 02 0 210 0 13 0 01084 1950 46 8 4467373e 02 0 210 0 05 0 075533 1950 54 8 7739759e 02 0 206 0 08 0 03826 1950 62 1 1369653e 01 0 233 0 18 0 06069 1950 71 9 6620112e 02 0 206 0 11 0 00062 1950 79 1 3414281e 01 0 246 0 16 0 04814 1950 88 3 8054930e 01 0 491 0 3 0 18954 1950 96 2 0707972e 01 0 326 0 1 0 01892 1951 04 3 0983730e 01 0 423 0 31 0 19683 1951 12 4 3322763e 01 0 533 0 39 0 29022 1951 21 2 8207133e 01 0 367 0 17 0 08507 1951 29 1 5618155e 01 0 226 0 09 0 02018 1951 38 9 5657632e 02 0 141 0 02 0 065342 1951 46 4 6206770e 02 0 077 0 03 0 000793 1951 54 5 0440303e 02 0 076 0 01 0 015559 1951 62 3 0035245e 03 0 004 0 12 0 119004 1951 71 4 8857569e 02 0 025 0 09 0 066142 1951 79 7 5257759e 02 0 043 0 14 0 107742 1951 88 1 8323322e 01 0 139 0 03 0 01423 1951 96 2 7812459e 02 0 031 0 18 0 121188 1952 04 1 9687838e 02 0 053 0 14 0 067312 1952 12 7 7065515e 02 0 011 0 14 0 073934 1952 21 2 9101948e 01 0 232 0 08 0 13902 1952 29 1 2958753e 01 0 084 0 06 0 014412 1952 38 1 4642135e 01 0 101 0 01 0 05542 1952 46 1 2822419e 01 0 094 0 04 0 005775 1952 54 6 3110035e 02 0 054 0 08 0 07089 1952 62 2 9968090e 02 0 037 0 1 0 107032 1952 71 6 5604837e 03 0 014 0 08 0 087439 1952 79 9 8156220e 02 0 111 0 03 0 01715 1952 88 2 7217767e 01 0 288 0 13 0 11417 1952 96 1 3505178e 01 0 152 0 04 0 02305 1953 04 2 7452395e 02 0 056 0 1 0 128548 1953 12 2 5889187e 02 0 009 0 18 0 196889 1953 21 1 0087684e 02 0 003 0 16 0 167088 1953 29 2 0849896e 02 0 022 0 19 0 18885 1953 38 5 2539873e 02 0 038 0 08 0 065460 1953 46 4 1915412e 02 0 017 0 05 0 025084 1953 54 1 2410561e 01 0 096 0 06 0 031894 1953 62 7 6993134e 02 0 043 0 1 0 066006 1953 71 7 0144831e 02 0 044 0 1 0 073855 1953 79 8 0920068e 02 0 052 0 1 0 071079 1953 88 2 1157421e 01 0 185 0 01 0 01657 1953 96 7 4665440e 02 0 047 0 15 0 122335 1954 04 3 5561179e 01 0 337 0 18 0 19861 1954 12 2 0945135e 01 0 193 0 04 0 05645 1954 21 2 7022128e 01 0 257 0 08 0 09322 1954 29 3 1623676e 01 0 305 0 1 0 11123 1954 38 3 1438660e 01 0 332 0 16 0 14238 1954 46 2 0419108e 01 0 245 0 12 0 07919 1954 54 2 4868564e 01 0 304 0 21 0 15468 1954 62 1 2969785e 01 0 195 0 17 0 10469 1954 71 1 0354280e 01 0 181 0 13 0 05254 1954 79 6 8543304e 02 0 160 0 03 0 061456 1954 88 8 1547230e 03 0 100 0 12 0 211845 1954 96 2 4547972e 01 0 328 0 11 0 02747 1955 04 5 9261345e 02 0 027 0 19 0 276261 1955 12 1 5832076e 01 0 237 0 13 0 05132 1955 21 3 8161743e 01 0 453 0 29 0 21861 1955 29 2 6105953e 01 0 335 0 16 0 08605 1955 38 2 3551376e 01 0 310 0 18 0 10551 1955 46 1 7549770e 01 0 261 0 12 0 03449 1955 54 1 8374646e 01 0 272 0 06 0 028253 1955 62 6 8186602e 02 0 160 0 11 0 201813 1955 71 1 0307166e 01 0 194 0 07 0 020928 1955 79 1 2370714e 01 0 227 0 01 0 113293 1955 88 2 3705122e 01 0 360 0 22 0 09705 1955 96 2 3027783e 01 0 375 0 28 0 13527 1956 04 1 7847261e 01 0 323 0 15 0 00547 1956 12 2 7340716e 01 0 416 0 24 0 09740 1956 21 2 4711391e 01 0 376 0 22 0 09111 1956 29 2 7632718e 01 0 386 0 21 0 10032 1956 38 2 5939836e 01 0 358 0 22 0 12139 1956 46 2 2275966e 01 0 309 0 13 0 04375 1956 54 2 1520470e 01 0 294 0 08 0 00120 1956 62 2 3606550e 01 0 307 0 25 0 17906 1956 71 2 6479725e 01 0 338 0 14 0 06679 1956 79 1 9402137e 01 0 273 0 2 0 12102 1956 88 2 6000713e 01 0 335 0 16 0 08500 1956 96 2 3599611e 01 0 318 0 07 0 012003 1957 04 1 7529409e 01 0 259 0 06 0 023705 1957 12 1 3144980e 01 0 211 0 03 0 10955 1957 21 1 5007662e 01 0 214 0 03 0 093923 1957 29 9 3298745e 02 0 136 0 1 0 142701 1957 38 3 4955065e 02 0 056 0 12 0 141045 1957 46 1 3383600e 02 0 011 0 15 0 147616 1957 54 9 3675942e 02 0 075 0 01 0 00867 1957 62 3 3080011e 02 0 004 0 12 0 08292 1957 71 9 5827059e 02 0 042 0 08 0 026172 1957 79 1 3669918e 01 0 084 0 04 0 01269 1957 88 6 4683676e 02 0 008 0 12 0 063316 1957 96 2 6660349e 02 0 096 0 17 0 10066 1958 04 1 0681901e 01 0 194 0 41 0 322819 1958 12 3 1280536e 04 0 101 0 23 0 128687 1958 21 1 6873825e 01 0 058 0 14 0 029262 1958 29 1 4794057e 01 0 039 0 04 0 06894 1958 38 1 5174983e 01 0 052 0 07 0 02974 1958 46 1 4994239e 01 0 064 0 08 0 16594 1958 54 1 0943087e 01 0 036 0 08 0 006569 1958 62 1 2751729e 01 0 061 0 02 0 08651 1958 71 1 6393369e 01 0 106 0 03 0 08793 1958 79 8 2860203e 02 0 042 0 05 0 009139 1958 88 7 0468522e 02 0 037 0 05 0 016531 1958 96 5 7099269e 02 0 026 0 04 0 008900 1959 04 3 4234536e 02 0 009 0 11 0 084765 1959 12 6 8128370e 02 0 041 0 12 0 092871 1959 21 3 6576226e 02 0 012 0 22 0 195424 1959 29 6 5232486e 02 0 040 0 15 0 124767 1959 38 1 2612213e 01 0 096 0 1 0 069877 1959 46 5 6720910e 02 0 026 0 07 0 039279 1959 54 9 0663876e 02 0 073 0 07 0 052336 1959 62 5 9388348e 02 0 051 0 01 0 001611 1959 71 3 4240200e 02 0 035 0 08 0 07924 1959 79 1 0961402e 01 0 121 0 03 0 01861 1959 88 2 2770265e 01 0 232 0 08 0 07570 1959 96 1 3551240e 01 0 141 0 04 0 045487 1960 04 9 6341842e 02 0 101 0 01 0 014658 1960 12 5 7769889e 02 0 050 0 18 0 18777 1960 21 3 5221580e 01 0 365 0 32 0 30721 1960 29 2 0898739e 01 0 220 0 13 0 11898 1960 38 2 2039038e 01 0 228 0 06 0 05239 1960 46 9 5881274e 02 0 103 0 03 0 02288 1960 54 8 8524381e 02 0 098 0 0 009475 1960 62 6 6417925e 02 0 076 0 06 0 069582 1960 71 1 9153568e 02 0 028 0 05 0 058846 1960 79 8 2471869e 02 0 093 0 06 0 070528 1960 88 1 7532639e 01 0 196 0 1 0 07932 1960 96 6 7358838e 02 0 042 0 2 0 225359 1961 04 2 4763123e 02 0 004 0 05 0 078763 1961 12 1 1230843e 01 0 084 0 21 0 238308 1961 21 3 1176582e 02 0 012 0 1 0 119177 1961 29 2 7501271e 03 0 015 0 11 0 12775 1961 38 2 6742975e 02 0 015 0 22 0 231743 1961 46 4 3500434e 02 0 034 0 13 0 1395 1961 54 6 2740852e 02 0 065 0 01 0 012259 1961 62 8 5012626e 03 0 005 0 03 0 043501 1961 71 7 1383774e 02 0 094 0 08 0 102616 1961 79 4 2659701e 02 0 086 0 07 0 11334 1961 88 3 9553900e 02 0 090 0 05 0 100446 1961 96 1 1370599e 01 0 161 0 15 0 10270 1962 04 1 1941015e 02 0 033 0 05 0 094941 1962 12 1 0863712e 01 0 064 0 18 0 224637 1962 21 2 2160553e 02 0 063 0 13 0 170839 1962 29 3 1547003e 02 0 071 0 11 0 149453 1962 38 5 5203256e 02 0 098 0 1 0 05720 1962 46 2 9496748e 02 0 074 0 07 0 114503 1962 54 2 4105096e 02 0 017 0 03 0 011105 1962 62 5 1239037e 03 0 031 0 05 0 01387 1962 71 9 5356326e 03 0 023 0 02 0 052535 1962 79 4 8885967e 02 0 009 0 01 0 049886 1962 88 6 0929707e 03 0 040 0 08 0 126093 1962 96 2 7935716e 02 0 026 0 0 053935 1963 04 5 4402959e 02 0 115 0 01 0 070597 1963 12 1 6833265e 01 0 107 0 19 0 251333 1963 21 9 3027391e 02 0 152 0 13 0 07102 1963 29 8 2839499e 02 0 131 0 07 0 02183 1963 38 2 3551638e 02 0 056 0 02 0 012448 1963 46 4 9549201e 02 0 075 0 06 0 085450 1963 54 7 6035721e 02 0 058 0 14 0 158036 1963 62 5 5399167e 02 0 062 0 26 0 253399 1963 71 1 1875644e 02 0 034 0 25 0 227876 1963 79 1 0556785e 01 0 138 0 08 0 047567 1963 88 1 9331665e 02 0 059 0 14 0 100332 1963 96 8 6213827e 02 0 038 0 03 0 01821 1964 04 1 3538497e 01 0 080 0 05 0 10538 1964 12 2 9120898e 01 0 234 0 08 0 13720 1964 21 3 8160110e 01 0 328 0 27 0 32360 1964 29 3 2663025e 01 0 290 0 33 0 36663 1964 38 2 4079743e 01 0 225 0 28 0 29579 1964 46 2 1085165e 01 0 221 0 02 0 00985 1964 54 1 9304029e 01 0 226 0 05 0 01704 1964 62 2 7051434e 01 0 311 0 24 0 19951 1964 71 2 7399113e 01 0 328 0 37 0 31599 1964 79 2 6306827e 01 0 327 0 3 0 23606 1964 88 2 5656751e 01 0 324 0 2 0 13256 1964 96 3 5289173e 01 0 430 0 3 0 22289 1965 04 1 0541577e 01 0 194 0 1 0 01141 1965 12 2 2829394e 01 0 313 0 18 0 09529 1965 21 2 2558954e 01 0 299 0 1 0 02658 1965 29 2

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/data/enso_corr_mon.txt (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Tendencias globales y ENSO « RealClimate
    be but the car is weaving a bit That is you staying within natural variability you have not hit a tree or another car yet in the expected direction based on the fact you are on the right road Now let s look at AGW and drunk driving Let s say you are fairly well impaired And you accidentally get on the wrong road Now you are going in a new direction But you are still doing the same wavering you were doing before Just on a different road In other words you changed course and are no longer going where you expected at the start of the trip i e destination home now you are going somewhere else but you are still wavering on the path natural variability warming and cooling short term trends in the new long term trend Natural variability wont go away it will just be doing its thing on a new road 65 Craig Allen says 6 Jul 2008 at 10 37 AM Iceman A statistician who goes by the name of Tamino has done the Fourier analysis in exquisite detail here Not a hint of any kind of periodicity in the temperature record let alone anything that correlates with sun activity I wouldn t rely too much store on what media articles tell you about the science The dodginess of media reporting is a regular topic of conversation here at RealClimate and at many other sites devoted to climate science 66 Tom Dayton says 6 Jul 2008 at 10 41 AM In 53 iceman wrote But there seems to be a change in tone from AGW proponents Articles I have seen in the media The key phrase iceman is in the media The popular media very often are just plain wrong Even scientifically literate popular media often overstate the scientists claims in order to make succinct catchy headlines in order to attract readers And scientists themselves often make statements to the media that are incorrect when interpreted without the context that is in the scientists heads and in the scientific literature 67 John P Reisman The Centrist Party says 6 Jul 2008 at 10 49 AM 53 iceman One piece of advice Don t listen to the media and expect to get science Their job is controversy because controversy sells Another reason not to listen to the media is the Monsanto Fox news case which made it to the supreme court in Florida They basically said it is not illegal for the news to lie So if they do they can t be prosecuted Isn t that lovely 54 John P Reisman correction new equilibrium to forcing ration balance is supposed to be new equilibrium to forcing ratio balance 68 Lamont says 6 Jul 2008 at 11 02 AM I know there is a strong tendency of most pro global warming posters here to ignore that giant ball of fire and its cyclical behavior Its not that its being ignored It is in fact the first and most obvious thing to look at when discussing climate change Which is why it has been studied for a couple of centuries for the history http www aip org history climate solar htm None of this speculation is new and all of it has been addressed Yes climate scientists looked at the rising temperatures since 1880 the cooling around 1940 and the subsequent warming and attempted to correlate those patterns with solar patterns No that doesn t work to explain the current warming Please if you re going to speculate about solar activity affecting the earth s climate address the existing scientific record so that we know that you ve done your homework Most of you are just posting nothing more than have you ever thought about the sun huh have you Yes its been done 69 Lamont says 6 Jul 2008 at 11 04 AM At least that is what I have picked up on from following media stories on the subject Stop following the media stories try following the science 70 tamino says 6 Jul 2008 at 11 10 AM Re 53 iceman First I and many others have been all over the sunspot data and there s no hint of a cycle near 30 years Second the figure 30 years for the PDO AMO is not a cycle it s a characteristic time scale There s no evidence that PDO and AMO are periodic or even nearly so Probably much of your confusion originates from misinformation you ve received For example you say I think the standard AGW claim is that CO2 influence is a factor of 10 greater than that of natural variability Where did you get this and precisely what does it mean 71 Hank Roberts says 6 Jul 2008 at 11 23 AM Thompson et al 2008 paper discussed here used a neat way to extract the ENSO signal from the SST data by building a simple physical model for how the tropical Pacific anomalies affect the mean He kindly used the same approach for the HadCRUT3v data and I Gavin adapted it for the GISTEMP data as well Writing as I always do from the peanut gallery a Thank You to Dr Thompson and I m curious what more the researchers have to say about the method and where else it may be useful Is it possible to generalize and describe this as a statistical tool 72 iceman says 6 Jul 2008 at 11 28 AM Hey I appreciate the feedback Kind of flattered that you all are taking the time to respond to my layman naive observations 73 Hank Roberts says 6 Jul 2008 at 11 29 AM Articles I have seen in the media Cite them so you can tell others exactly what you re talking about and people can read them for themselves instead of trust your recollection Look at the writer s record Look at the sources the writer gives if any Look at the papers the footnotes and then click the cited by and the similar links available online for most contemporary science paper abstracts You can take one PR press release reported by a handful of media sources and commented on fifty times by five regular blogfloggers and think something s happened Trust the source Luke But verify 74 Allen says 6 Jul 2008 at 11 31 AM Iceman 53 Can someone run a Fourier transform I m a beginner too my first serious look at the RealClimate site On a similar topic for fun I did the FFT for global temperature several incarnations and sunspots one incarnation On that limited basis there seemed to be a connection between global temperature and sunspot numbers Seeing a connection I created a fairly straight forward model of global temperature vs sunspots etcetera It incorporated limited unsubstantiated assumptions based on general physics and my reading of the blogosphere literature regarding mechanisms It did not include CO2 effects as I wanted to see if sun alone could explain things to a first order The model fit the HadCrut2 data quite well from 1880 to present with about 0 2C left to explain during the last 10 years The fit to HadCrut3 was not as good from 1860 to present leaving 0 3C Looking at areas of misfit volcanoes El Nino etc seemed to be affecting those areas Interesting but no more than that if I did it it can t be new news I remain open minded regarding the relative importance of sun and anthropogenic mechanisms to global temperatures over the next 100 years 75 iceman says 6 Jul 2008 at 11 33 AM I think I am going stop posting and just read To quote The Rock Know your role and shut your mouth My role is learn more and not waste peoples time til I find out more about the subject Really glad I stumbled onto this site 76 Allen says 6 Jul 2008 at 11 41 AM Hmmm I see my 71 findings contradict 64 which was written as I posted no harm intended Bottom line in a topic as controversial as this one I am slow to submit to authority on either side Rather I like to try these things for myself when I can 77 Jim Galasyn says 6 Jul 2008 at 11 45 AM Climate change comes to California Or just La Niña need to worry The ripple effect The state s water crisis is taking a withering toll on life on the Valley s west side By Dennis Pollock and Robert Rodriguez The Fresno Bee 07 05 08 21 48 39 Life on the Valley s west side may be withering along with crops that farmers have left to die Hundreds of farmworkers already have lost their jobs as growers idled or abandoned crops because of severe water shortages Hundreds more will lose work because of crops that won t be planted this autumn Signs of trouble are everywhere The Spreckels Sugar plant in Mendota a fixture since 1963 will close in September unless a grower cooperative can salvage it Closure would mean 200 jobs lost Fordel a major grower packer shipper of melons and other produce is selling its Mendota facility after more than two decades It is not harvesting or packing a crop this year City officials say the company accounted for as many as 500 growing and packing jobs St Joseph s School in Firebaugh is closing this month after more than 40 years a casualty of declining enrollment and a shrinking pool of farmers able to give money Weather and pest challenges along with abandoned acreage are cutting processing tomato production for Fresno County the state s top grower by as much as 400 000 tons In 2006 the last year for which figures are available farmers in Fresno County produced 4 4 million tons of processing tomatoes valued at 248 million This year s cut will mean shorter hours of plant operation and less work for truckers Thousands of acres of cotton are being abandoned at a time when planted upland cotton acreage already was at its lowest level on record In addition windy weather and roller coaster temperatures have taken their toll 78 Hank Roberts says 6 Jul 2008 at 11 45 AM Gavin mentioned and linked to the Arctic Buoy program in the original post The linked article from 2000 led me to the home page http iabp apl washington edu index html Their 2008 annual meeting late June draft agenda includes Much faster ice drift speed observed in recent years T Kikuchi State of the Arctic Ocean 2007 J Richter Menge Treatment of sea ice in the global 1 4 Mercator Ocean forecasting system G Garric Outlook for Summer Sea Ice Extent 2008 I Rigor Google Scholar recommended to find work already published there s a whole lot The agenda promises more to be found or yet to appear 79 PeterK says 6 Jul 2008 at 11 48 AM I don t like bets Would one bet on the view of one Russian institute that solar activity will decrease As many readers pointed out the sun is a huge gasball in the solar system and we do not know too much about its behaviour The logical conclusion is to continue with our current beahviour and place a bet that a decrease in sun radiation will compensate for this Irony Brilliant idea We do not understand our planet but we will instead predict the behaviour of a star That s like a stone age man who refuses to learn to light a fire and starts directly with the construction of a nuclear reactor Good luck to him 80 Steve Reynolds says 6 Jul 2008 at 11 53 AM Ray The thing is when you look at only one dataset yes you see that low values of sensitivity may be possible but you also can t eliminate 6 degrees per doubling and that would be catastrophic Annan 2008 seems to do a pretty good job of eliminating sensitivity 3 6C with one data set and a reasonable prior although more data sets would add to the confidence Ray Personally I would be much more satisfied if we could reduce the probability that sensitivity is 4 5 degrees per doubling than if we could raise the probability that it s less than 2 degrees per doubling Yes but even better to show 1 5C the most likely sensitivity and 3C the maximum 81 Joseph says 6 Jul 2008 at 12 21 PM How is it real relating to the article to take away what is happening to show what one believes should be happening That strikes me as a perfectly valid analysis similar to a standardization method of control for confounding 82 Martin Vermeer says 6 Jul 2008 at 12 37 PM Mauri Pelto 26 12 Hank you are a natural science detective Given the nature of the subject studied the practice of posting across various forums lies thinly disguised as questions my characterization would rather be forensic sleuth Or perhaps natural forensic sleuth Hank is a natural Every teacher knows this technique for catching student plagiarism 83 PeterK says 6 Jul 2008 at 12 44 PM Hi Iceman I know what HAM is I run a self compiled Linux system Yes the debate about solar cycles is interesting and tamino performed a great job Thanks 64 for the link and tamino for his comment Maybe I can unterstand you better because I am a former sceptic and it needs a lot of reading and the willingness to accept that there are open questions It was only this Blog not the mainstream media which finally convinced me It is not helpful to talk about denialists because it is important for the scientific process that people stand up get involved and raise valid questions that s what we call a democracy tamino What do you think about the Russian stuff and his ideas about solar cycles e g 200 years I mean this guy is not an idiot even if I have problems to find a relevant link to climate science it does not mean that everything from this guy is pure crap Major thanks go to Gavin and the RC team this is by far one of the best blogs 84 Ray Ladbury says 6 Jul 2008 at 2 21 PM Steve Reynolds Actually moving the most likely value from 3 down to 1 5 while still leaving substantial probability for levels above 4 5 really doesn t help us all that much in terms of risk mitigation that s been my point all through such discussions First if we reach a point where natural ghg emissions from oceans permafrost etc ever swamped anthropogenic emissions then we re screwed regardless of sensitivity Second looking at it in terms of risk the consequences of high sensitivity are so catastrophic that they dominate risk even for pretty modest probabilities James Annan s Bayesian approach is not unreasonable but the choice of location for the Prior is highly subjective and not at all conservative It may give us a warm fuzzy but I wouldn t drive a car over a bridge that used similar techniques Finally many of the same changes that must occur due to climate change must also occur as a result of Peak Oil Certianly limitations of energy supply will require decreased consumption in the near term We will have to come up with different energy solutions The main difference is that climate concerns force us to leave carbon where it is sequestered in the ground as coal tar sands oil shale etc in the Oceans as clathrates and so on At this point arguments for doing nothing are very difficult to justify 85 David B Benson says 6 Jul 2008 at 2 28 PM Steve Reynolds 28 Naturally one has to consider as much data as possible and even then one still cannot rule out very low or very high climate sensitivites entirely by these probablistic techniques Another method is to look at the climate sensitvites of the various GCMs for this see IPCC AR4 WG1 report So far using as much as one can find climate sensitivity of 3 0 2 K seems the best estimate Wider error bars cannot be excluded of course iceman PeterK I used a periodogram technique for finding quasi periodic signals in the temperature anomalies of the GISP2 ice core temperature proxies by Alley but just for the Holocene There is nothing detectable by this method for intervals from 22 to 45 years and again from 90 to 300 years Between 45 and 90 years there seems to be something which could be attributed to the various ocean oscillations It would I think take a wavelet technique to tease out if there is actually anything there I m not up on how to do that so I ll take a pass on doing anything further with this 86 PeterK says 6 Jul 2008 at 3 52 PM 85 Thank you for your work and I would doubt that any anomalies existed However in his article on his website Abdusamatov makes such a claim I do not know if the magazine is good enough and if would be seen as peer reviewed Generally and I am a former sceptic this guy causes us a lot of trouble In our forum in Germany we now have close to 9 000 postings so really any comment or any article from Gavin Raypierre or Stefan on Pulkovo would help I am still open minded don t get me wrong if the Rusian guy would be correct no problem but I doubt it 87 John P Reisman The Centrist Party says 6 Jul 2008 at 4 09 PM 36 John P Reisman My apologies to all I think my fingers are superseding my brain today Another correction to my own posting There has thus

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/comment-page-2/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Tendencias globales y ENSO « RealClimate
    to build the models in general How could it not be gavin 117 John Lederer says 7 Jul 2008 at 4 29 PM You also need to think about the net heat flux into the ocean but that is less constrained gavin That is actually what bothers me about adjusting for El Nino or La Nina In each case heat is borrowed from or lent to the subsurface ocean Presumably there is some slower process by which the heat is brought back into some sort of equilibrium of geography and thermocline If we compensate for the relatively rapid heat transfer of an El Nino but not for the slower return to equilibrium aren t we likely to see a climate picture that is unduly influenced by those gradual returns to normal They will be read as climate trend while the rapid transfers of an ENSO event will be read as an unusual event to be compensated for 118 David B Benson says 7 Jul 2008 at 4 47 PM Steve Reynolds 116 You may care to read Estimating Climate Sensitivity Report of a Workshop 2003 http books nap edu openbook php record id 10787 page 7 119 Matti Virtanen says 7 Jul 2008 at 5 04 PM Would it be possible to filter out the AGW signal and show us the global temperature development for the past 10 20 or 50 years in the natural world without humans 120 Tom Bolger says 7 Jul 2008 at 5 04 PM You agree that ENSO has an effect on global temperature Have you checked what happens to the R 2 of CO2 vs global temperature if ENSO effects are allowed for The R 2 should improve if CO2 is driving Temperature Does it 121 Steve Reynolds says 7 Jul 2008 at 5 18 PM gavin But of course data is used to build the models in general How could it not be I agree but some here seem to think GCMs are constructed using only known physics such as quantum mechanics and thermodynamics and are therefore not susceptible to any of the uncertainty of climatology data such as UHI and bucket corrections Response But that is correct The issue of UHI does not come into the construction of the models UHI or buckets or across satellite calibrations affect estimates of the long term trends Those trends are the test data for the models not the input data Read Schmidt et al 2006 not because it s my paper but because it shows you what goes into tuning the models there is no long term trend data used at all gavin 122 Mark says 7 Jul 2008 at 5 32 PM Matti 119 Well that s the models produced without CO2 There s a lot else we do to change things and this isn t easy to quantify land clearance overfishing algal blooms fertilisers being dumped etc It s been done and that s how they know that humans have done most of the damage Because even by tweaking things to be most generous about 1 3 of the heating change can be made to fit the no human CO2 scenario without putting something OBVIOUSLY wrong in there like say trees outputting 100x the ozone we see in measurements today That isn t what you asked for but the result is the same as far as climate is concerned 123 David B Benson says 7 Jul 2008 at 5 39 PM Matti Virtanen 119 I believe there is an IPCC AR4 FAQ page which does that Check the links in the Science section of the sidebar 124 Steve Reynolds says 7 Jul 2008 at 5 47 PM David B Benson You may care to read Estimating Climate Sensitivity Report of a Workshop 2003 Thanks interesting info but as to be expected not very conclusive 125 Allen says 7 Jul 2008 at 6 50 PM 110 Doug Bostrom I spent 30 minutes looking for the succinct illustrated version I just saw it in the last few days but that still means scores of potential links I will try some more as I am now interested in saving those pages 115 Martin Vermeer Thanks for the fft tip For what its worth I did see the same fingerprint frequencies in all the temperature data sets However they became less pronounced in the more heavily reduced data sets Since they were always there and happened to be the same ones in the sunspot data and the ones in the sunspot data were the same ones noted in the literature for sun phenomena as having physical basis I assumed they probably were physical reality in the temperature data doesn t mean they were though I don t think the GISS staff is making things up for nefarious purposes Heck I m a retired NASA guy myself we didn t make things up but we made mistakes often enough I imagine the methodology was intended to meet a perceived need However as noisy data raised a flag with you data with so many interpolated points and weighting adjustments some of which seem unjustified at this stage of my ignorance raises a flag with me Anyhow as you suggest I ll first work to understand the GISS process well enough to have an opinion on the method s validity relative to its intended purpose and other possible uses If I remain concerned there is a remote chance I ll download the raw temperature data millions of points I presume and try my own reduction methodology for the enjoyment and self edification 126 Ray Ladbury says 7 Jul 2008 at 7 16 PM Steve Reynolds Any physical constant is determined from data whether it is CO2 sensitivity or the gravitational constant Science is empirical You don t get anything for free However once you ve determined your constant the degree to which your model reproduces behavior in the real world provides validation and if the validation is strong both the data used in fitting AND the validation result support your value for the constant It s pretty hard to find strong support for a low sensitivity 127 Allen says 7 Jul 2008 at 8 20 PM 110 Doug Bostrom In answer to your query Don t know this site s policy on linking articles So I ll just say google How much Estimation is too much Estimation Yahoo search works too This gives an overview Other articles at the site go into some depth regarding the details Despite the title the article is not too negative It merely raises the questions I or any interested party might ask Response It merely raises questions hmm the fact that not all data comes in on time and is not collected by NASA at all isn t worth a mention I suppose No it s easier just to insinuate gavin 128 Tilo Reber says 7 Jul 2008 at 9 56 PM Being a computer scientist and not a statistician I decided to hack out my own ENSO compensation back in May here http reallyrealclimate blogspot com 2008 05 ten year hadcrut3 enso effects html The divergence between Gavin s method and my own for the period beginning in 1998 is 029 C So they are very close I used HadCrut3 data not HadCrut3v In any case I plotted Gavin s HadCrut3v data and his ENSO adjusted HadCrut3v data together beginning in 1998 here http reallyrealclimate blogspot com 2008 07 gavin schmidt enso adjustment for html The first thing that we can see is that there is very little divergence between the two 0 0163 C for the 125 month period The unadjusted HadCrut3v data fell by 00375 C over that interval and the adjusted data rose by 0 0125 C So then comes the next question If the decadal warming trend caused by CO2 is 2C and if ENSO is now adjusted for then where is the other 187 C of temperature rise If we are going to attribute the flat trend to elements of natural variation and if we have already accounted for ENSO then to what elements of natural variation can we attribute the flat trend for the last decade 129 FurryCatHerder says 7 Jul 2008 at 11 08 PM In re 103 It doesn t they undoubtedly had an effect But the sun is not driving the present global warming because there has been no clear trend in sunlight for 50 years I guess I m confused because I have looked at the correlation between the aa index and global temperatures and there does appear to be one So other than say Hogwash or something similar how about pointing me at something which explains why there is no correlation 130 Timothy Chase says 8 Jul 2008 at 2 13 AM Allen 127 wrote So I ll just say google How much Estimation is too much Estimation Yahoo search works too This gives an overview Other articles at the site go into some depth regarding the details Here is something I find particularly interesting Global Temperature from GISS NCDC HadCRU January 24 2008 http tamino wordpress com 2008 01 24 giss ncdc hadcru Particularly the second chart It shows that once you adjust for different base periods Nasa GISS Noaa NCDC and Hadley HadCRU are virtually identical Some deviation in the very early part due to the sparseness of data I would presume and some deviation around the end given their different treatement of the Arctic as Hadley basically omits everything beyond the land whereas Nasa interpolates And it isn t like this is the only methodological difference between GISS and HadCRU I don t know as much about NCDC so I will leave it out at this point But despite the differences in methodology the results are nearly identical This I submit constitutes evidence But evidence for what In my view for the fact that both methodologies are reality based that while they are different the methodologies each have a basis in reality for doing things they way they do that they are both rational in how they deal with the fact that we have incomplete information And as such both work rather well in estimating average temperature anomalies of adhering to a reality that exists independently of each like cartesian and polar coordinate systems to a nearly flat plane But I suspect that you would view their near agreement as evidence for something else And then the interesting question becomes whether there could ever be any evidence that would make you think otherwise rather than interpret as further support for your view PS You will find some rather interesting reviews of some the articles you are probably familiar with at the site above 131 Mark says 8 Jul 2008 at 3 48 AM Ray 126 In a debate about the LHC on El Reg one Anon Coward was insisting there was a real danger with it because among other reasons Plank s constant was an estimate Why was it an estimate Because the statement of the constant had error bars Good joined up thinking there Maybe that AC was Steve 132 Martin Vermeer says 8 Jul 2008 at 4 29 AM Allen 125 go for it I assume you are aware that the GIStemp software is freely downloadable As is an alternative package called Freetemp by a guy called Van Vliet Who was in a bit the same situation as you some years ago when GIStemp wasn t yet released and decided to find out for himself Which he very much did 133 Matti Virtanen says 8 Jul 2008 at 7 13 AM Re 123 Thanks I forgot those graphs But they are too general for my purposes and stop at 2000 I wonder why the IPCC in 2006 did not include five more years of temperature data It will be interesting to see where they end in the 2014 report if the present post 1998 trend continues 134 Barton Paul Levenson says 8 Jul 2008 at 7 50 AM Tilo Reber posts If the decadal warming trend caused by CO2 is 2C and if ENSO is now adjusted for then where is the other 187 C of temperature rise If we are going to attribute the flat trend to elements of natural variation and if we have already accounted for ENSO then to what elements of natural variation can we attribute the flat trend for the last decade This is in fact something he posts on every climate related blog he can get to He simply doesn t understand the facts that A the trend is not flat and B you can t tell the trend from ten or eleven years of data as I showed above Half my post got deleted because I used a less than sign where I should have used lt Could someone correct my post please 135 Allen says 8 Jul 2008 at 8 02 AM 129 Timothy Chase But I suspect that you would view their near agreement as evidence for something else And then the interesting question becomes whether there could ever be any evidence that would make you think otherwise rather than interpret as further support for your view All I questioned was the validity of FFT analysis of the final GISS and HadCRUT3 temperature anomaly products It was all about my back of the envelope FFT analysis nothing more I m new to this climatology and AGW I have been paying absolutely no attention up until maybe three weeks ago when for some already forgotten reason I happened upon a climate site and became interested Sure I knew people were concerned about global warming but for me it was not something I thought about Considering how consuming it seems to many on the sites that may be hard to fathom One thing obvious from the start this is an emotionally charged subject People easily read ulterior motives into simple discourse and are really quick to write people off as being in one camp or another Personally at my current level of ignorance here is what I believe Global warming has obviously been happening over the last 100 years Atmospheric CO2 has been rising to record levels relative to the recent past AGW is likely happening but is still based on circumstantial evidence The AGW rate and the influence of natural factors have not been finally determined my area of current interest Much science remains to be done regarding consequences good and bad What should be done politically is a different forum I presume So maybe that puts me in the on the fence camp 136 Allen says 8 Jul 2008 at 8 21 AM 132 Martin Vermeer I did not know about FreeTemp Thanks I presume being so late in the game anything I think of has already been done and I do not want to reinvent any wheels I can download 137 Fred Staples says 8 Jul 2008 at 9 12 AM There is a lot of data about Barton 104 If you look carefully you will see that the UAH monthly data from June 2001 to date shows a significant negative trend Their mid troposphere temperatures show very little trend from the start of the record 0 05 degrees per decade There is a distinctly defensive tone to these posts based on the suggestion that short term temperature changes cannot yield any significant information Statistically the time span of the record has nothing to do with significance A trend is significant at a given level of probability if it accounts for a sufficient proportion of the variance in the data It is not if it doesn t Returning to the blog as stimulating as ever I came across Barton s paper on Saturation I used the approach to add some calculations to Tamino s explanation of the Lapse Rate at Open Mind I would be very interested in Barton s comments particularly on the relative absorption of the atmosphere above Essenhigh s extinction levels 138 John P Reisman The Centrist Party says 8 Jul 2008 at 9 52 AM 129 Furrycatherder Here s a mantra for you Correlation does not equal causation neither does no correlation equal causation Some things are coincidental and some complimentary in effect Getting climate models to work right needs positive forces and negative forces of the existing elements that impose forcing Solar variance is just one piece of the puzzle http www agu org pubs crossref 2005 2005GL023621 shtml The biggest problem people have in understanding this global warming event is narrowly scoped data and improper context of that data when weighed with the big picture of global climate As I have stated before with a properly narrowed scope I can prove to you the world is flat Some might disagree with me but why should that matter They might even have data that disproves my assertion but why should that matter I am only saying that I can prove the world in flat with my narrowly scoped view If I am foolish enough not to look at other relevant data that would affect the outcome of my assertion then that is what I am a fool though Fred Singer would simply smile and say no the world is flat smoking is not bad for your health CFC s do not harm the ozone you need to check the source and the history behind the source to get more perspective If you are seeing a chart that proves otherwise i e that this global warming event is caused by solar it is likely either fraudulent or narrowly scoped or both Show us your data Furrycatherder Also reread my post to you 59 above Further warming is in the pipeline Heck we re doing such a great job at warming the planet we don t even need sunspots to do it Aren t we industrious Who needs that extra 3 W m2 anyway

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/comment-page-3/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Tendencias globales y ENSO « RealClimate
    or whatever years of industrialization has to still be at work The alternative is that they are purely chance and chance seldom makes pretty charts with nice cycles 218 Boyle says 10 Jul 2008 at 4 49 PM In addition Mark doesn t it seem somewhat arbitrary to label the latest ten year period as noise and yet we seem to accept any other ten year period as indicative of the overall trend edit don t just repeat yourself all the time it s dull 219 David B Benson says 10 Jul 2008 at 5 25 PM Boyle 218 I left this for you on another thread but you seemed to have wandered over here Here is the decadal averages of the HadCRUTv3 global temperature product http tamino files wordpress com 2008 04 10yave jpg Study it this time please 220 Dan says 10 Jul 2008 at 5 25 PM re 218 1998 was an exceptionally warm year due to the AGW and the additional influence of the historically strong El Nino on top of it Using 1998 as a reference point for a any trend is classic cherry picking of the data The long term trend is unequivocal 221 Tilo Reber says 10 Jul 2008 at 5 53 PM Using 1998 as a reference point for a any trend is classic cherry picking of the data The long term trend is unequivocal This is false The 1998 El Nino was immediately followed by a long La Nina There were 7 El Nino La Nina cycles in that ten year period As Gavin s ENSO adjusted data shows The decadal flat trend is not due to ENSO or any cherry picked ENSO endpoints http reallyrealclimate blogspot com 2008 07 gavin schmidt enso adjustment for html So far no one has suggested any other observed natural variation that explains the decade long flat trend Response Well discarding all the data that don t support your point is also a classic cherry pick what happened to the GISTEMP or NCDC gavin 222 tamino says 10 Jul 2008 at 6 39 PM Re Accumulated Cyclone Energy ACE graph for the Atlantic basin As regards the uptick in storms yes there has been one And there was one just like it in the 1950 s and another just like it in the 1890 s Here is a nice chart from NOAA if you d like to check it out I tried to explain that visual inspection of a graph can be very misleading and that my professional eye indicated a different conclusion but that I wouldn t trust it because it wasn t coupled to any analysis I emphasized that this opinion isn t a knee jerk reaction it s based on decades of experience I also suggested at least using some analysis something as rough but simple as moving averages to get more insight While my thesis garnered only agreement regarding the specific case at hand it seems I haven t persuaded those who believe the modern era is just like the 1950s and 1890s to give serious consideration to the possibility that it might not be the case Instead I hear I still maintain your assessment of the graph in question is a gross over reaction and incorrect and I d be surprised if a 10 year moving average failed to show anything but what the graph appears to show I don t have time at this precise moment to do that The data are available here I calculated 11 yr moving averages The early peak moving average is 124 9 for the 11 year period centered at 1892 the mid century averages peak at 122 4 centered at 1953 the lowest value in the trough between them is 58 9 centered at 1915 Peak to trough amplitude for the change in 11 yr average for this period of time is therefore 66 0 The recent peak is 156 9 for the 11 year average centered at 2000 This is 32 0 higher than the highest previous peak or 48 of the preceding peak to trough amplitude greater than the previous maximum In fact the average for the 11 yr period centered on 1999 which excludes the phenomenal 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is 137 2 still higher than the preceding peak by 12 3 or 19 of the peak to trough amplitude More sophisticated smoothing methods indicate an even greater difference between recent activity and previous peaks 223 FurryCatHerder says 10 Jul 2008 at 8 05 PM Tamino No I don t think the modern era is just like anything That would be called all or nothing thinking on your part Could you answer me a simple question why do you do that Why does it seem that otherwise smart people can t comprehend a periodic signal summed with a linear signal to produce a monotonically increasing periodic signal Is this some kind of really difficult thing to grasp Like y mx b and y sin x somehow don t go together 224 tamino says 10 Jul 2008 at 8 45 PM Re 223 FurryCatHerder No I don t think the modern era is just like anything Here s what you said in 191 As regards the uptick in storms yes there has been one And there was one just like it in the 1950 s and another just like it in the 1890 s The words are yours the emphasis is mine Yet you want to accuse me of all or nothing thinking and ask why do you do that You re not just being absurd You re being dishonest 225 FurryCatHerder says 10 Jul 2008 at 10 06 PM Tamino Like is not exactly the same value which is what you complained about That while going up and down which you seem to comprehend the ACE value does you then said Ah ha The high is higher Up and down is up and down That s periodic part up like before down like before It s the down part you and Reisman have a problem with edit Please let s keep all the context together It went up it s going down Yes Feel free to just you know agree with the obvious 2008 is going to be a less active year in the Atlantic basin than 2005 2006 and very likely 2007 edit Response I don t know why this thread seems to have brought out the most pedantic and tedious aspects of conversation but it is tiresome Please focus on substance rather than on who said what when gavin 226 Tilo Reber says 10 Jul 2008 at 11 25 PM Gavin what happened to the GISTEMP or NCDC Regarding GISTEMP in the last decade it is diverging from RSS UAH and HadCrut3 at a rate of about 13 C per decade The divergence is more than half the supposed 2 C decadal trend due to AGW It fails to cover much of Africa Northern Canada and Greenland and the extrapolations at the poles would seem to be dubious in light of the Antarctic cooling That along with the failure of the network to follow it s own quality control standards hinged adjustments that adjust rural sites from the past down weighting urban station adjustments to rural stations such that stations from 500 to 1000 km use the same range as those from 250 to 500 km etc give me little faith in GISTEMP But I m willing to accept that there is a chance that the others are wrong and that GISTEMP is more correct and so I will make my statement another way If the HadCrut3 RSS and UAH trend lines are the correct ones and if ENSO adjustments to RSS and UAH lead to similar results as the adjustments to HadCrut3 then we do not seem to have an understood culprit among the elements of natural variation on whom we can blame the absent warming Fair enough Response No First off you ignored NCDC completely second HadCRUT3v uses basically the same input data as the other two GISTEMP does not control any of the station issues you think are important and you completely ignore the large structural differences in the satellite records I m not claiming that I know which if any approaches are correct but picking just the ones that agree with a pre determined idea of what you want to see is not fair enough it is cherry picking You have to use all the relevant data gavin 227 Adam M says 11 Jul 2008 at 3 39 AM If something as simple as a volcano can cut temperature so severely isnt human replication of this possible 228 Arch Stanton says 11 Jul 2008 at 8 49 AM Adam M 227 In theory you are right but the unintended consequences such as drought would likely be severe There is also the problem that the effects of stratospheric SO2 injection only last a couple of years while the effects of CO2 last hundreds of times that long These issues have been discussed here several times Search the site for geoengineering 229 stevenmosher says 11 Jul 2008 at 8 53 AM Re 219 Thanks david That is a great chart Now 1t looks to me that since 1900 you have one 10 year peroid with a downward trend And that ten year peroid just happens to be the peroid that is going to be adjusted upward when the bucket inlet problem gets fixed So go back 100 years excluding those peroids where volanoes spiked the tempature down and excluding those peroids where we have data that is still being corrected the bucket peroid can we find some 10 year peroid that is flat or down I dont know I ll have to look And when we find one can we tie to an actual weather cycle rather than weather armwaving again open question I dont know might be fun to look Please note it won t make AGW false it will just be an interesting thing to understand 230 Radar says 11 Jul 2008 at 9 57 AM David B Benson 219 Layman s question I ve looked at your chart and 1000 others What is it that explains the warming from 1920 1940 that does not explain warming since mid century John Reisman 1950 to 1978 1942 to 1978 temps were likely due to aerosol pollution OK then what portion of warming since 1978 is due to the reduction of aerosols soot pollution rather than AGW Thank you both 231 T Siefferman says 11 Jul 2008 at 12 31 PM Is there any way to get RAW data before everyone does their tricks with the data like GISTemp data WITH the outliers kept in or HadCRUT before data made up data from the artic and other areas get added It really would be interesting to see just the RAW DATA plotted out and then compare the plots to what keeps being shown Response Yes Download the GHCN data gavin 232 L Miller says 11 Jul 2008 at 12 58 PM Layman s question I ve looked at your chart and 1000 others What is it that explains the warming from 1920 1940 that does not explain warming since mid century Have you looked at this http en wikipedia org wiki Image Climate Change Attribution png Between 1900 1940 there is notable increasing in solar activity that isn t present any time after that There is also a prolonged period of relatively little volcanic activity Volcanic activity has a cooling effect There is also a drop in aerosol cooling through the 30 s which could play a role as well OK then what portion of warming since 1978 is due to the reduction of aerosols soot pollution rather than AGW Warming caused by a reduction in aerosols can still be AGW All aerosols do is hide warming for a time and most of the warming they are currently hiding is almost certainly anthropogenic in nature Aerosols have been increasing but are not doing so as fast as CO2 levels so they balanced CO2 emissions for a time but in the mid 70 s CO2 starts to dominate 233 Doug Bostrom says 11 Jul 2008 at 3 18 PM 231 T Siefferman When you speculate that data is made up it s axiomatic that someone me in this case is going to ask why you believe it s made up Can you show how this is so Next how is it made up Are numbers drawn from a hat Darts thrown at a dartboard I believe if you think about it carefully you ll realize you ve been told that data is made up and you ve accepted what you ve been told without further consideration Further it s likely that if you picture to yourself a scientist throwing darts at a dartboard carefully recording the output and then proceeding to stick his her neck on a chopping block by publishing the results you ll come to understand what an absurd idea has been planted in your noggin 234 Radar says 11 Jul 2008 at 3 34 PM L Miller Thanks I ve seen the chart and your commentary about solar activity 1900 1940 helped me see that The chart is not so great It ends in 1995 And it shows aerosols continuing to force temperature down That is a problem because despite your thinking the contrary aerosols have not been increasing they are at historic lows for some time 2000 So if you re going to support the aerosol cooling masking AGW theory it makes it more difficult to explain the lack of warming that coincides with these historic lows does it not Response Aerosols are only at historic lows in the US and Europe They are at historic highs in Asia the net effect relatively to previous decades is currently uncertain gavin 235 Martin Vermeer says 11 Jul 2008 at 4 08 PM 232 L Miller Between 1900 1940 there is notable increasing in solar activity that isn t present any time after that There is also a prolonged period of relatively little volcanic activity Volcanic activity has a cooling effect There is also a drop in aerosol cooling through the 30 s which could play a role as well True but I would make the reservation that our knowledge of this solar increase is highly uncertain It was adjusted downward substantially in AR4 Furthermore see Figure 9 5a in the AR4 WG1 report You see that the peak around 1940 pushes the top edge of the ensemble of model simulations This suggests that a substantial part of the 1920 1940 trend is natural variability in the one realization that is the measured temp curve Note that for later years this black curve lies much closer to the ensenble average Finally note the accuracy of the measurements based curve which degrades before 1940 due to lower station density among other things See Brahan et al 2006 236 Tilo Reber says 11 Jul 2008 at 9 54 PM Gavin You have to use all the relevant data Gavin HadCRUT3v uses basically the same input data as the other two I am using all of the data I m simply not using all of the different adjustments of the same data And I see no reason why I should I suppose that you could theorize that by using different peoples adjustements that the errors will cancel each other But of course that s not verifiable I also don t see you making much use of UAH or RSS So I think that the accusation of cherry picking is unfounded And lastly you have shifted the topic from one that you do not want to deal with mainly how to explain the decadal flat trend to one where you can bicker about data set choices Response You miss the point entirely The other two datasets don t have a flat trend Thus your flat trend is not a robust result and so asking me to explain something that might not even be true is silly However the variability in the system is undeniable and it s expression the global mean temperature clear As for my not using the satellite data that is untrue I ve used it when it was relevant Despite the current fashion for thinking them equivalent to the surface data I do not confuse the lower troposphere with the surface They might be related but as many papers have shown including Santer et al 2005 showed clearly they are not the same Should I use the satellite data I would use both records and maybe Vinnikov and Grody as well because there are clear structural uncertainties in those products that should not be brushed aside gavin 237 tamino says 12 Jul 2008 at 1 18 AM Reality check Once again we suffer from people drawing conclusions in this case flat trend based on visual inspection of a graph with no numerical analysis It s particularly problematic in this case because not only is the noise not white it isn t even AR1 the usual model used to correct for autocorrelation the AR1 correction to trend analysis underestimates the uncertainty because the autocorrelation coefficients higher than the 1st decay more slowly than that So I computed the trend rate from 1998 to the present a wee tiny bit more than the last decade for both ENSO corrected data series using the complete formula for autocorrelation correction to linear regression modeling the AR coefficients as rho j rho 1 alpha j 1 which gives a much better fit to the AR coefficients than the AR1 model rho j rho 1 j The results for ENSO corrected HadCRU 0 0014 0 0172 deg C yr 2 sigma GISS 0 0134 0 0180 deg C yr The 95 confidence intervals are for HadCRU 0 0158 to 0 0186 GISS

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/comment-page-5/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Attenzione alla differenza! « RealClimate
    36 AM Thanks for the post The problem of GCM s representing the evolution in the Arctic rises the question if the faster than expected decline might have at least hemispheric consequences that are not captured by the models The stronger than average warming in the Arctic leads to a decrease of the temperature gradient between the tropics and the pole This in turn is probably a major reason for the projected northward shift of the polar front and storm tracks and the northward extension of the Hadley cell and thus the Subtropics The latter is probably responsible e g for the robust projection of summer drying of the Mediterranean and other subtropic regions The question is if a faster than expected warming of the Arctic could speed up and strengthen these developments Moreover the faster Arctic warming might produce low pole tropic temperature gradients that do not show up in climate models And we therefore have no hint what they might lead to I don t know if it would be possible to force a climate model with the observed sea ice extent evolution and an extrapolation to get some information what this might produce 10 Magnus says 18 Nov 2008 at 4 39 AM edit In all of your temperature graphs 1998 is far from the hotest year in history But it actually was at least accordong to HadCRUT and alll other temperature data than GISS It may be the hottest or a tie even according to the GISS data 11 Ricki Australia says 18 Nov 2008 at 5 26 AM Thanks for the added analysis I did not work through all the detail but it seems clear from the graphs that the global mean temp of the last 10 years has not been falling PAY ATTENTION MEDIA Anyway it is an error to take such a short period on the graph as any indication 12 Ricki Australia says 18 Nov 2008 at 5 28 AM Where can I get some info on the CO2e values for the last 1000 years and for the SRES scenarios I am after data that i can graph 13 Neuroskeptic says 18 Nov 2008 at 6 27 AM So correct me if I m misunderstanding but in a nutshell the problem is that the CRU dataset just doesn t cover the areas where most warming is occurring 14 pete best says 18 Nov 2008 at 6 31 AM Climate scientists in the form of the IPCC has not failed to convince those who need to be influenced Barack Obama is convinced the EU is convinced so is China and India the asian haze needs dealing with first though no doubt and even Australia now need to act to reduce emissions Ok so the world has as yet failed to act globally as yet but it is next years post Kyoto meeting that will assist in the realigning of the global economy and how their power their operations Real climate maybe failing to convince that CA website which is full of skeptics but on the whole this website has been scientific at all times and hence faithful to the data the models and the climate science RC has not only confounded the skeptics but also the people pro climate people who are fortelling destruction which is also unlikely to happen 15 Maurizio Morabito says 18 Nov 2008 at 6 35 AM thank you rasmus for being so candid about Gillett et al Would it be possible to complete the figures above with corresponding data including Antarctica please I was also under the impression that the reduction in sea ice can be also explained in terms of changed wind patterns What is your take into that 16 simon abingdon says 18 Nov 2008 at 8 05 AM That global temperatures have not been rising this century is not I think disputed That this is not inconsistent with an overall global warming trend is on statistical grounds not I think disputed It is not inconsistent with an overall cooling trend either So why does any reasonable person think that the FACTS actually provide CONFIRMATION for a theory of AGW Whatever the physics says we ignore FACTS at our peril 17 John Lang says 18 Nov 2008 at 8 40 AM Great graphics especially the rotating globe I don t know how much time it took to create this but it would be very informative to try different time periods and see if there are different cycles For example the 1945 versus 1975 globe would show a completely opposite view 18 Wayne Davidson says 18 Nov 2008 at 8 50 AM 15 Maurizio there has been changes in dominant winds but my take on the greater ice melt is a flat out warmer atmosphere causing these winds to change which shows itself as a brighter twilight during the long night especially when there is a cooling on the surface The brighter light is captured and travels at the interface just below the inversion peak upper Air temperature Maxima This warm air layer gets its heat reflected downwards during cloudy periods especially during long night extensive cloudy periods as a result Arctic ocean ice doesn t thicken so much during darkness and leaves it up to summer sunlight if there is some to finish off what is left of it Complementary information to the Arctic warming analysis would be using DWT s of the few left Upper Air stations in the Circumpolar zone and crunch up temperature trends of the entire atmosphere when variances from year to year are very small but are mostly for the warmer 19 Barton Paul Levenson says 18 Nov 2008 at 9 02 AM PHE writes The observation that temperatures have not been rising since 1998 is generally raised as a tongue in cheek comment Its not seriously presented as proof that AGW is not real Its more to teasingly counter the continual selective use of data to prove that AGW is certain Hansen had only about 10 years of a rising trend when he first most publicly declared AGW is a big threat Actually annual temperature figures go back to about 1880 There hasn t been any selective use of data to prove that AGW is certain The selective use of data has all been on the denier side when they claim that global warming stopped in 1998 Don t tell me it s meant tongue in cheek not when so many internet morons defend it to the death Try telling Tilo Reber or cohenite that it s meant tongue in cheek Deniers generally do not understand and don t want to understand that ten years means nothing to climate The World Meteorological Organization defines climate as mean regional or global weather over a period of 30 years or more They didn t pick that number out of a hat 20 Barton Paul Levenson says 18 Nov 2008 at 9 06 AM Ricki Try here http cdiac ornl gov trends co2 lawdome html 21 Lawrence Coleman says 18 Nov 2008 at 9 19 AM I ve reading the entire report from UNEP on Atmospheric Brown Clouds and that would go a long way to answering the question about the current relative cooling trend If is was not for the sulphuric and micro carbon soot laden atmosphere over almost every major city the world s temp would now be 2 75C hotter than at present The sulphur in the lower atmosphere below 15kms is reflecting sunlight back into space but the black soot also a component in the ABC s is heating when bombarded with solar radiation and warming the atmosphere up to 15kms dramatically affecting cloud formation and monsoon drought cycles The jist of this is that we must NOT suddenly switch off carbon sulphur producing industries over the planet but instead we must first dramatically reduce CO2 emissions from every conceivable source then gradually tackle coal fossil fuel sources to smoothly remove the soot from the air to prevent a sudden leap in average global temps which if it is indeed 2 75C as the UNEP predicts will permanently destroy the climates ability to regulate itself and lead to catastrophic changes on the land and sea 22 Kevin McKinney says 18 Nov 2008 at 9 25 AM Re 10 Magnus look again at the graph The Hadcrut data in the graph is labelled UAE CRU You ll see that 1998 is indeed shown as the highest temp for that dataset just as you stated it to be Look for the blue squares The GISS data shown also clearly agrees with your correct description though the pink triangle is partially obscured by the CRU blue square If like me you have trouble seeing the details of the graphic you can click on it to access a PDF version which will allow you to enlarge it 23 Lawrence Coleman says 18 Nov 2008 at 9 25 AM from 17 What that report tells me is that we are already on borrowed time and we have been thrown a very ironic life line with respect to ABC s which we must grasp with both hands 24 Guido says 18 Nov 2008 at 9 40 AM Good post important to see why GISS and CRU temperatures are different Just wondering why aren t the satellite based temperature datasets not included Would be another independent data source 25 mauri pelto says 18 Nov 2008 at 10 06 AM Nice graphics Does HadCrut have any plans to fill in the Arctic As is the record is certainly flawed Wendell what data set is updated daily that you refer to Mark Fiore astute post anything short of 450 ppm seems unrealistic to me 26 Bob North says 18 Nov 2008 at 10 26 AM Neuroskeptic There are little to no actual data i e temperature measurements from most of the Artic The difference between the HadCrut and GISS treatment of this problem is that HadCrut does not use those grid cells to calculate the global temperature anomaly while GISS interpolates extrapolates from the few stations around the artic to infill temperature estimates for the grid cells where no real data is available Both methods are valid approaches to treating areas without actual measurements and both have advantages and disadvantages I think Rasmus points out that model simulations where the available temp data is plugged into the models i e the re analysis provide support for a warming Artic and GISS s interpolation extrapolation method However he wisely cautions that the model simulations are just that and cannot by themselves be considered as evidence of a specific temperature trend It is good that there is a concerted effort to obtain more actual data from the Artic region Response There is a comprehensive arctic buoy program that can be used to give temperature data This is an ongoing analysis to generate gridded data but it isn t available in real time like the station data gavin 27 Mark C Serreze says 18 Nov 2008 at 10 30 AM Note that we ve got a paper soon to come out in The Cryosphere and we ll have a poster at AGU looking at recent Arctic Amplification that you discuss the stronger rise in surface air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean compared to lower latitudes We make use of data from both the NCEP NCAR and JRA 25 reanalyses JRA 25 a product of the Japan Meteorological Agency It s a pretty impressive signal and is clearly associated with loss of the sea ice cover You see the signal in autumn as this is when the ocean is losing the heat it gained in summer back to the atmosphere Very little happening in summer itself as expected as the melting ice surface and heat sensible heat gain in the mixed layer limit the surface air temperature change Response Thanks for the heads up on this Mark Looking forward to dropping by your poster at AGU mike 28 pete best says 18 Nov 2008 at 10 50 AM http nsidc org arcticseaicenews Is all this related to the strange Arctic sea ice response to latent fusion of sea temperatures which is causing the sea ice to form very oddly on the graphs It seems that the oceans have absorbed much heat over the summer but have relased it into the atmosphere which has caused the ocean to freeze quickly and oddly even though the atmosphere is warmer than usual 29 Rod B says 18 Nov 2008 at 11 10 AM Urs 9 a question Why does lesser tropic polar gradient shift the fronts and cells It s not obvious why that would happen but then I have limited knowledge here 30 Chris Colose says 18 Nov 2008 at 11 32 AM Can someone point to a technical paper where I can learn more about the GISS methodology of arctic treatment Also if the 1930 40 arctic warming was AO induced what kind of expected temperature variations would be seen in the coastal areas verus the center of the GIS Most the older data seems to be mostly southern all coastal so it seems tough to say with high confidence what that area was doing at the time 31 Kevin McKinney says 18 Nov 2008 at 12 27 PM RE 16 Simon wrote So why does any reasonable person think that the FACTS actually provide CONFIRMATION for a theory of AGW Because your mental map of the factual terrain is flawed by the cherry picking fallacy That is you are comparing the 2000 s to 1998 and saying not warmer However if you compare the mean global temp for the 2000 s so far to the mean for the 90 s you are definitely going to have to say warmer This is not the optimum way to assess trends either but for a simple illustrative comparison is probably not too bad 32 Don Healy says 18 Nov 2008 at 12 30 PM Just curious why was the data from UAH and RSS not included in this discussion If one plots the records from GISS HADCru RSS and UAH GISS is the outlier and three of the four primary global temperature measuring systems show a decrease over the most recent six years and a downward trend over the past decade not that this establishes a significant trend yet I have personally checked 24 of the USHCN stations in the western U S and after seeing the gross quality control problems with the current ground based measurements have far greater confidence in the RSS and UAH data 33 Mary says 18 Nov 2008 at 12 31 PM 19 Barton Paul Levenson I don t think anyone can say with certain what the average global temperature was back in 1880 There were no temperature readings for huge portions of the globe If you cannot say with certainty what the 1880 temperature was then how can you say with certainty that 2008 is warmer in comparison At best studies seem to indicate it might be 5C Based on recent conversations there does not seem to be much confidence in what gets reported as overall global october temperatures given the lack of QA on incoming data Call me a denier if that suits you but belief in warming does not make it so 34 Ray Ladbury says 18 Nov 2008 at 1 27 PM PHE says As I say the non rising temperature does not prove that AGW is not real but rather demonstrates that the case is not settled Well actually what it demonstrates is that those making the argument are either ignorant or disingenuous Climate is noisy It takes at least 30 years for a signal even a strong one to emerge from the noise with very high confidence If you don t know this you ve no business making pronouncements on climate If you do know this and make pronouncements anyway you ve no credibility 35 simon abingdon says 18 Nov 2008 at 1 36 PM Kevin McKinney 31 The words warmer and warming have different meanings Trends change 36 David B Benson says 18 Nov 2008 at 2 10 PM Chris McGrath 2 Here is my amateur standing take on it The circumpolar vortex around Antartica at about 60 degrees south latitude is much more pronounced than for the Arctic This tends to meteorologically isolate most of the Antarctic excepting only the Antarctic Pennisula which is warming very fast For reasons I do not fully understand with global warming the circumpolar vortex has moved somewhat further south exposing the Antarctic Pennisula I think that somehow the ozone hole is involved In any case there are ample resources on the internet for you to more fully understand this physics there is at least one thread about the Antarctic here on RealClimate reCAPTCHA reminds us Gas Managers 37 Geoff Beacon says 18 Nov 2008 at 2 14 PM How does http www ncdc noaa gov oa climate research 2008 oct global html fit with this discussion And previous ones 38 simon abingdon says 18 Nov 2008 at 2 34 PM Ray 32 Climate is noisy It takes at least 30 years for a signal even a strong one to emerge from the noise with very high confidence Climate is for ever changing as is the rate of change of that change So after patiently observing for at least 30 years in what is it that you then expect to be able to express an opinion with very high confidence 39 Hank Roberts says 18 Nov 2008 at 2 34 PM Pete Best writes It seems that the oceans have absorbed much heat over the summer but have relased it into the atmosphere which has caused the ocean to freeze quickly and oddly Pete I think you re paraphrasing from the page you point to http nsidc org arcticseaicenews where they write Higher than average air temperatures

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mind-the-gap/langswitch_lang/it/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •