Global Warming : Another hot blip on the Blob Chart

The simplest, most undeniable chart of Global Warming known to man, which I affectionately call "the Blob Chart", has a another red hot blip for July 2008. Refresh your browser (reload your page) if you can't see the blob for July 2008 when you page to this address :-

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Ts_vs.year+month.lrg.gif

The main holding page of graphs is being intermittently updated :-

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

However, the top comparison chart "Comparison of 2008 Temperature to the Two Years with the Warmest Annual Means" for Mean Surface Temperature anomaly TsubscriptS has been updated as well as the all-important sceptic-busting Blob Chart, showing July 2008 up there with July 2007 and July 2005. This should concern you :-

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/2008+2005+2007.pdf

If you're not at all perturbed that Summer 2008 is on a par with both 2007 and 2005, you should get some more education.

We know that La Nina ENSO in 2007 has had a major temporary cooling effect on world temperatures in the "halfway" band between the Equator and the North Pole in particular during late 2007 and early 2008. Heat seems to have been relocated temporarily to the Arctic, hence the rapid melt there. This should definitely get you thinking.

If the Arctic area has been the "air conditioning" for Europe, China and North America for the last six months, does that not suggest problems for the protection of the "albedo effect" of the frozen North ? At which point does melting reflective white stuff give way permanently to absorbing dark water and push Global Warming into a higher gear, feeding back to accentuate it ?

Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn14527...?

Special Report Climate Change

Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998
11:00 15 August 2008
NewScientist.com news service
Michael Le Page

See all the climate myths in our special feature

Even if the atmospheric temperature near the earth's surface has become cooler recently, that doesn't mean the planet as a whole isn't heating up

Imagine two people standing at the South Pole, one dressed in full Antarctic gear and the other wearing not much at all. Now imagine that you're looking through one of those infrared thermal imagers that show how hot things are. Which person will look warmest - and which will be frozen solid after a few hours?

The answer, of course, is that the near-naked person will appear hotter: but because they are losing heat fast, they will freeze long before the person dressed more appropriately for the weather.

The point is that you have to look beyond the surface to understand how a body's temperature will change over time - and that's as true of planets as it is of warm-blooded bipeds.

Now take a look at the two main compilations (see figures, right [links below]) of global surface temperatures, based on monthly records from weather stations around the world.

According to the dataset of the UK Met Office Hadley Centre (see figure), 1998 was the warmest year by far since records began, but since 2003 there has been slight cooling.

But according to the dataset of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (see figure), 2005 was the warmest since records began, with 1998 and 2007 tied in second place.

Tracking the heat

Why the difference? The main reason is that there are no permanent weather stations in the Arctic Ocean, the place on Earth that has been warming fastest. The Hadley record simply excludes this area, whereas the NASA version assumes its surface temperature is the same as that of the nearest land-based stations.

It is possible that the NASA approach underestimates the rate of warming in the Arctic Ocean, but for the sake of argument let's assume that the Hadley record is the most accurate reflection of changes in global surface temperatures. Doesn't it show that the world has cooled since the record warmth of 1998, as many claim?

Not necessarily. The Hadley record is based only on surface temperatures, so it reflects only what's happening to the very thin layer where air meets the land and sea.

In the long term, what matters is how much heat is gained or lost by the entire planet - what climate scientists call the "top of the atmosphere" radiation budget - and falling surface temperatures do not prove that the entire planet is losing heat.

Swaddling gases

Think again about that scantily clad person at the South Pole. If they put on some clothing, they'll appear cooler to a thermal imager, but what's really happening is that they are losing less heat.

Similarly, if you could look at Earth through a thermal imager, it would appear slightly cooler than it did a few decades ago. The reason is that the outer atmosphere, the stratosphere, is cooler because we've added more "clothing" to the lower atmosphere in the form of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

As a result, the planet is gaining as much heat from the sun as usual but losing less heat every year as greenhouse gas levels rise (apart from the exceptional periods after major volcanic eruptions, such as El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991).

How do we know? Because the oceans are getting warmer.

Tricky oceans

Water stores an immense amount of heat compared with air. It takes more than 1000 times as much energy to heat a cubic metre of water by 1 degree Centigrade as it does the same volume of air. Since the 1960s, over 90% of the excess heat due to higher greenhouse gas levels has gone into the oceans, and just 3% into warming the atmosphere (see figure 5.4 in the IPCC report (PDF)).

Globally, this means that if the oceans soak up a bit more heat energy than normal, surface air temperatures can fall even though the total heat content of the planet is rising. Conversely, if the oceans soak up less heat than usual, surface temperatures will rise rapidly.

This is why surface temperatures do not necessarily rise steadily year after year, even though the planet as a whole is heating up a bit more every year. Most of the year-to-year variability in surface temperatures is due to heat sloshing back and forth between the oceans and atmosphere, rather than to the planet as a whole gaining or losing heat.

The record warmth of 1998 was not due to a sudden spurt in global warming but to a very strong El Nino (see figure, right). In normal years, trade winds keep hot water piled up on the western side of the tropical Pacific.

During an El Nino, the winds weaken and the hot water spreads out across the Pacific in a shallow layer. Its heat is transferred to the atmosphere. (During a La Nina, by contrast, as occurred during the early part of 2008, the process is reversed and upwelling cold water in the eastern Pacific soaks up heat from the atmosphere.)

A temporary fall in the heat content of the oceans at this time may have been due to the extra strong El Nino.

What next?

Since 1999, however, the heat content of the oceans has steadily increased again (despite claims to the contrary). Global warming has certainly not stopped, even if average surface temperatures really have fallen slightly as the Hadley figures suggest.

In the long term, some of the heat being soaked up by the oceans will inevitably spill back into the atmosphere, raising surface temperatures. Warmer oceans also mean rising sea levels, due to both thermal expansion and the melting of the floating ice shelves that slow down glaciers sliding off land into the sea. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which rests on the seabed rather than on land, is also highly vulnerable to rising sea temperatures.

Some climate scientists are predicting that surface temperatures will remain static or even fall slightly over the next few years, before warming resumes. Their predictions are based largely on the idea that changes in long-term fluctuation in ocean surface temperatures known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation will bring cooler sea surface temperatures.

If these predictions are right - and not all climate scientists think they are - you can expect to hear more claims from climate-change deniers about how global warming has stopped. But unless we see a simultaneous fall in both surface temperatures and ocean-heat content, claims that the "entire planet" is cooling are nonsense.

And while a big volcanic eruption could indeed trigger genuine cooling for a few years, global warming will resume again once the dust has settled.

Learn more about climate myths in our special feature

Climate Change: Want to know more about global warming: the science, impacts and political debate? Visit our continually updated special report.

Some of the info there is very out of date

e.g.
Solar activity.
It's only in the last few months we've actually discovered this. But the sun has been going through a period of tremendous energy output, something to do with magnetic forces. Afraid i can't remember any more, you'll have to look it up.

Hockey stick.
Utterly, utterly, debunked. Poor data source, much worse stats, it's only been included in the IPCC report thanks to politics and terrible practices on the part of thos involved.

Hockey Stick Update - (it's still stick-shaped)


This is NOT a Hockey Stick
(http://www.desmogblog.com/this-is-not-a-hockey-stick)




In a desperate effort to distract attention from the real issue, Steve McIntyre and one of his more loquacious acolytes have renewed their attack on the fabled hockey stick - cheering themselves hoarse over their one, small "victory" in climate science debate, even while the science itself continues to pass them by.

mann4


Mann's Hockey Stick Graph


Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph, above, was placed prominently in the Third Assessment Review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in part because it showed so clearly how temperatures over the last millennium rode along fairly steadily for hundreds of years and then spiked in the latter part of the 20th century (approximating the shape of a hockey stick).

Steve McIntyre, an amateur statistician and retired mining stock promoter found in Mann's work what he argued was a statistical anomaly, challenged Mann and was actually successful in getting Mann to submit a correction to the journal (I think it was Science) that originally published the graph. The excited chorus of "Ah ha!" rang through the deniersphere. Mann, they said, had "admitted he was wrong" (albeit on one small detail). And therefore, we could all go home and stop worrying about climate change.

This is stupid for a host of reasons. First, even Edward Wegman, the statistician who the (anti-climate change policy) Republicans "invited" to critique the "stick" agreed that Mann's original conclusions were reasonable, even if not absolutely verifiable beyond about 400 years.

But more obviously, the stick has been replicated time and again, using different termperature proxies and different methodologies. And guess what? In every instance, the image looks like a hockey stick. And in NO instance has McIntyre or any of his cronies so much as peeped about the credibility of these pieces of research.

So, even if you wanted to walk away from Mann's work (and we don't; it was good work overall), there is still an overwhelming body of evidence that the deniers fear or fail to recognize.

To whit: the image at the top is from a paper by Jones, et al , that appeared in the journal Science in 2001. It's based on multiple proxies, including tree rings, ice cores, corals and historical records, and like the Wegman-approved Mann hockey stick, goes back 400 years.

darrigo


D'Arrigio, et al

But don't stop there. What about the next image above. It's from a paper by D'Ariggo, et al, published in the Joutrnal of Geophysical Atmospheres in 2006, also uses tree rings, but extends for the full thousand years.

briffa2


Briffa, et al

Or the next thousand-year image (above), from a paper by Briffa, et al, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 2001 and based again on tree rings.

 

oerlmanns2

Oerlemans

Then there's the image (above) from a paper by Oerlemans, based on glacier records and published in the April 2005 issue of Science.

 

jansen2

Jansen, et al

But let's not stop there. What about the next graph (above) from Jansen, et al, published in the Fourth IPCC Review in 2007.

Moberg, et al

And as we're on a role, why not also look at the next graph, from Moberg, et al, based on tree rings and lake and ocean sediment and published in Nature in 2005.

wilson3

Wilson, et al

Then, we might reasonably consider the next graph, from Wilson, et al, more tree rings, different methodology, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres in 2007.

 

jouzan

Jouzan, et al

Finally, why not look at Jouzel, et al, (Note that this graph goes in the other direction) which covers not 1,000 years but 800,000, and which seems to show a hockey stick shape for about 110,000 years. Oh yeah, this was published in Science in August of 2007, ample time for the climate "experts" at ClimateAudit to use their vast statistical skills to identify an anomalies or debunk that which bears debunking.

Alas, no. Despite it's quite pleasing new design, ClimateAudit is silent on all but the Mann graph and really has had NOTHING NEW TO SAY since 2003.

So, what do you say, Steve McIntyre, Bishop Hill, Chris Monckton and all the others who love to hold so closely to the Hockey Stick. Have you any legitimate criticism of all the other science that supports Mann's work? Any criticism at all?

Or would you prefer to huddle about like has-been high school football stars, forever reliving that one great play - imagining, even today, that it made a difference?






'Barelysane'
- why do you hide behind an alias? We're all friends here.
- who's 'we'? [It's only in the last few months we've actually discovered this.]
- when you remember, could you please look it up for me? [Afraid i can't remember any more, you'll have to look it up.]
Thanks
:)




Hi Oisin

A very simplified walkthrough of the Steve McIntyre "hockey stick" saga (btw he's a retired professional statistician, and his blog takes no sides in the debate, it just evaluates the data)

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-pa...

Barelysane is a generic username for me, saves me having to remember a myriad of combinations. My real name is Keith, pleased to meet you :)

We = us, people in general.

I'm trying to remember where i read/saw it, soon as i work it out, happy to post a link here.

I'm in the group that thinks we have seen significant climate change but have yet to be convinced it's man made. I like to keep an open mind and evaluate everything that comes my way (spent 10 yrs as a scientist before i finally decided i'd like to earn a living wage)

Hi Keith

- thanks - Keith is much nicer.

This is what i was thinking of (probably)

http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/21/hinode-discovers-the-suns-hidden...

Though you really need to read around the topic to get a picture of how things link together. Some starting topics are sunspots, solar maximum and minimum, coronal loops.

I think there's something more recent, again if i track it down, i'll post.