|From: Brumar89||7/17/2012 5:04:28 PM|
|New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homogenization |
Posted on July 17, 2012 by Anthony Watts
I’m going to make this a top post for a day, new posts will appear below this one. Dr. Richard Muller and BEST, please take note prior to publishing your upcoming paper (I’ve sent them a notice).- Anthony
From the told ya so department, comes this recently presented paper at the European Geosciences Union meeting.
Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account find global warming over the past century was only about one-half [0.42°C] of that claimed by the IPCC [0.7-0.8°C].
Here’s the part I really like: of 67% of the weather stations examined, questionable adjustments were made to raw data that resulted in:
“increased positive trends, decreased negative trends, or changed negative trends to positive,” whereas “the expected proportions would be 1/2 (50%).”
“homogenation practices used until today are mainly statistical, not well justified by experiments, and are rarely supported by metadata. It can be argued that they often lead to false results: natural features of hydroclimatic times series are regarded as errors and are adjusted.”
The paper abstract and my helpful visualization on homogenization of data follows:
Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization
Steirou, E., and D. Koutsoyiannis, Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization, European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2012, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 14, Vienna, 956-1, European Geosciences Union, 2012.
We investigate the methods used for the adjustment of inhomogeneities of temperature time series covering the last 100 years. Based on a systematic study of scientific literature, we classify and evaluate the observed inhomogeneities in historical and modern time series, as well as their adjustment methods. It turns out that these methods are mainly statistical, not well justified by experiments and are rarely supported by metadata. In many of the cases studied the proposed corrections are not even statistically significant.
From the global database GHCN-Monthly Version 2, we examine all stations containing both raw and adjusted data that satisfy certain criteria of continuity and distribution over the globe. In the United States of America, because of the large number of available stations, stations were chosen after a suitable sampling. In total we analyzed 181 stations globally. For these stations we calculated the differences between the adjusted and non-adjusted linear 100-year trends. It was found that in the two thirds of the cases, the homogenization procedure increased the positive or decreased the negative temperature trends.
One of the most common homogenization methods, ‘SNHT for single shifts’, was applied to synthetic time series with selected statistical characteristics, occasionally with offsets. The method was satisfactory when applied to independent data normally distributed, but not in data with long-term persistence.
The above results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4°C and 0.7°C, where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data, respectively.
1. Homogenization is necessary to remove errors introduced in climatic time
2. Homogenization practices used until today are mainly statistical, not well
justified by experiments and are rarely supported by metadata. It can be
argued that they often lead to false results: natural features of hydroclimatic
time series are regarded errors and are adjusted.
3. While homogenization is expected to increase or decrease the existing
multiyear trends in equal proportions, the fact is that in 2/3 of the cases the
trends increased after homogenization.
4. The above results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures
and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the
last century is smaller than 0.7-0.8°C.
5. A new approach of the homogenization procedure is needed, based on
experiments, metadata and better comprehension of the stochastic
characteristics of hydroclimatic time series.
h/t to “ The Hockey Schtick” and Indur Goklany
Here’s a way to visualize the homogenization process. Think of it like measuring water pollution. Here’s a simple visual table of CRN station quality ratings and what they might look like as water pollution turbidity levels, rated as 1 to 5 from best to worst turbidity:
In homogenization the data is weighted against the nearby neighbors within a radius. And so a station might start out as a “1” data wise, might end up getting polluted with the data of nearby stations and end up as a new value, say weighted at “2.5”. Even single stations can affect many other stations in the GISS and NOAA data homogenization methods carried out on US surface temperature data here and here.
In the map above, applying a homogenization smoothing, weighting stations by distance nearby the stations with question marks, what would you imagine the values (of turbidity) of them would be? And, how close would these two values be for the east coast station in question and the west coast station in question? Each would be closer to a smoothed center average value based on the neighboring stations.
UPDATE: Steve McIntyre concurs in a new post, writing:
Finally, when reference information from nearby stations was used, artifacts at neighbor stations tend to cause adjustment errors: the “bad neighbor” problem. In this case, after adjustment, climate signals became more similar at nearby stations even when the average bias over the whole network was not reduced.
consequences of cooling.
Philip Bradley says: July 17, 2012 at 5:38 am
Homogenization is necessary to remove errors introduced in climatic time
No it isn’t. Nor does it.
William Briggs on the topic. http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1459
Mike Jonas says: July 17, 2012 at 5:39 am
If I understand the IPCC website correctly, this paper is in time to be considered in AR5. Someone needs to make sure it is submitted to the IPCC. They can easily ignore it, of course, as they have ignored everything that doesn’t fit the pre-written Summary for Policymakers, but at least it needs to be put in front of them.
Cut-Off Dates for literature to be considered for AR5
Updated 17 January 2012
Working Group I – 31 July 2012 Papers submitted – 15 March 2013 Papers accepted
Working Group II – 31 January 2013 Papers submitted – 31 August 2013 Papers accepted
Working Group III – 31 January 2013 Papers submitted – 3 October 2013 Papers accepted
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|To: Eric who wrote (33383)||7/17/2012 5:45:35 PM|
|Joe Bastardi Show Parallels To The 1950s, And Tells Us What to Expect Looking Forward |
Posted on July 17, 2012 by stevengoddard
Guest post by Joe Bastardi
The Way it Is: Back to the 50s.
In 2006 , I loudly proclaimed on national outlets that we were going back to the 1950s as far as the climate pattern went and that the patterns of the 50s which opened the east coast up for hurricanes, as well as hot, droughty look, for the southern US would take over. The reason was simple, we were in a cycle roughly like the period when the PDO and AMO warmed and a flip to the cold PDO was on the way. So its not brain surgery to then go to the maps of the summer of the 1950s with heat and drought,
and then the remarkable slamming of the east coast in the 1950s
This Made it relatively unremarkable to me to simply forecast the similar event based on the reality of where the pattern was going.
So in 2006 I made the statement that by 2015 2 major hurricanes should hit the northeast, which I thought was conservative given the physical reality of what the warm AMO and Cold PDO produce as far as the pattern around N America. Even this year, with the low ACE I have for the classic breeding grounds, I think there is reason to be very concerned along the east coast yet again, from in close developments such as we saw with Bob ( 1991) Belle ( 1976) or Carol (1954). I was taken aback at charges of “hype” given I merely identified what should be an obvious elephant in the room. But what is most remarkable is that they have not come. Even Irene, though a formidable storm and pressure wise, as strong as they come, fell apart compared to the sisters of 1954 and Donna of 1960. See that map above. Consider what happened in the Carolinas, and that does not even show Diane in 1955 which came right after Connie.
So imagine how completely flabbergasted I am when I hear nonsense about co2 and causing global warming and Irene is a product of that, , when in a 2 year stretch, 1954-1955 6 hurricanes, affected N Carolinas with at least hurricane conditions and 8 in a 7 year stretch from 1954-1960. And cat 2 or greater in New England with a sideswipe to the west from the great Hazel in 1954, and then Donna in 1960, a storm that gave hurricane force winds to every state on the east coast.
So climate clowns, be forewarned. We have your number. What you should be asking ( and I am) is why we haven’t been hit, not blaming co2
You know, I thought when I got on some national outlets and laid out a forecast for a pattern like the 1950s, it would serve as a warning to these clowns not to play the co2 card. Seriously, you have to be pretty ignorant to blame a drought that was being forecasted because of a large scale pattern change by people years before ( not just me), on co2 after the drought sets in. But I find they either don’t know, don’t understand, or could care less about this matter. There is a physical reason for why this happens , why the US warms at first when the pacific cools and the atlantic is still warm When the PDO flips, the cooling of the tropical pacific and the waters that ring the warm core lead to a stronger jet that aims itself toward the northwest part of the US. South of the mean jet, large scale sinking takes place, hence the drier, In addition, the colder pacific means less water content in air masses south of 40 north that come into the US, unlike when the tropical pacific is warm. It shows why
Pres Obamas proclamation that the Texas drought was because of global warming was sheer ignorance. During the warming PDO, texas had above normal precip as global temps responded to the warming of the Pacific, the opposite happens when the Pacific, and global temps cool
Look at 1980 to 2000 temps.. warming globally during the warm PDO
Look at US, Texas precip opposite of what happened in the 50s when the PDO flipped to cold and cooling began
So the warming pattern in the Pacific and then corresponding response in global temps is a WET PATTERN, opposite of what was being hoisted on the American public, like now, and the media sheep swallow and follow.
When its dry, its hotter in much of the US, which climate clowns don’t seem to understand is CLOSER TO THE EQUATOR THAN THE NORTH POLE. In the meantime, the overall global temps start to cool, but until the AMO cools, atlantic basin then becomes a key source of warmth to the pattern. Now I want the climate clowns out there to think.. what happens when you have a warm ocean naturally to your east ( warm AMO) and you are warming the southern part of the US.. where should you look for enhanced hurricane activity relative to normal, based on the overall signal of a colder pdo and warmer amo? Its not that hard, you can do it, just look.. Should be relatively close to land right.. the intersection of where the pdo induced southern US warming and the amo warming is taking place. Sure its simplified, but you don’t see many hurricanes off the west coast do you ( don’t see any, really, why, the water is cold and the air is cool
So since you simply ignored the facts when it comes to warmer weather and drought, ESPECIALLY RIGHT AFTER THE PDO FLIP, THE EARLY TO MID 50S, AS WE ARE IN NOW, You will not be able to blame any major east coast hurricanes the next 5-10 years, or for that matter anytime, on the fraud of AGW. In fact you should be expecting them to happen simply because of the pattern. The history you choose to ignore says so, though that never has stopped you before.
So now, if we see these comments based on what has to be ignorance of the past and the physical realities of how the atmosphere reacts when basic climate cycle patterns take over, we have a reference point for them to go to. Its not rocket science and yes to some extent it does diminish the importance perhaps of the forecaster and the climate scientist , and maybe that is why they are so threatened and wish to ramp up what is going on. But CO2 is not responsible for what you see going on, as it is right in line with basic climate cycle theory.
So to the climate clowns trying to use these events, I want you to explain how this can possibly be so similar
Here is the summer of 1951, the first “el nino summer after the pdo flip from warm to cold
Here is the summer of 2009, the first el nino summer after the latest pdo flip from warm to cold
Now watch the following 3 summers in the 1950s
Look at 2010, 2011 and then given what has happened so far , use reasoning to come up with the three will look like after this year
let me help, the core of the warmth this year is such that it will add more to the northwest and probably cut down in the southeast making these almost perfect matches
Now how any rational human being, yet alone a phd in anything, can not see how close this link is with the climate cycle is either because they have not looked, or they are simply lying trying to push their agenda. What else can it be. You cant get a closer match. In fact I cant even believe how close this is. Its amazing. But guess what, we have similar cycles of the Pacific and atlantic, but co2 is not a constant!
So when hurricanes come, lets be ready. They are a part of the pattern that we are in, and the data and physical reasoning show it.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|From: Brumar89||7/17/2012 5:49:35 PM|
"Burning Colorado" update: "The National Interagency Fire Center now reports that there are no large fires in Colorado, and that the number of fires in the US has been the lowest for the date since 2003"
A Reminder Of How Incredibly Clueless Our Global Warming Friends Are | Real Science
A few days ago they were hysterical about Colorado burning, and proclaimed that the worst fire season on record was just getting started. Is the Heat Wave of 2012 What Climate Change Looks Like? : The New Yorker
The National Interagency Fire Center now reports that there are no large fires in Colorado, and that the number of fires in the US has been the lowest for the date since 2003.
“It’s no exaggeration to say Colorado is burning,” KDVR, the Fox station in Denver, reported. By the time the most destructive blaze was fully contained, almost three weeks later, it had scorched nearly twenty-nine square miles. Colorado: Facts, Map and State Symbols - EnchantedLearning.com
104,100 square miles
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|
|From: average joe||7/18/2012 9:04:24 AM|
|Earth’s magnetic field just might be gearing up for a reversal |
Our planet's magnetic field periodically flips its direction, with the magnetic North and South Poles switching places. Such a reversal could wreak havoc on human society — and there's now reason to think one could happen soon... in geological terms, at least.
If nothing else, it's been an unusually long period since the last reversal — the geological evidence suggests the field flips about once every 450,000 years, and it's been about 780,000 years since the last reversal. That in itself doesn't necessarily mean a reversal is imminent, as there have been past instances where a million years passed from one reversal to the next. Just over 200,000 years may not be much time as far as the planet is concerned, but it would mean the chances of humanity having to deal with a magnetic field reversal in even the long-term future remain extremely low.
To have any idea of when a reversal might occur, we first need to know more about the mechanism that causes it, and that's where new research by Peter Olson and Renaud Deguen of Johns Hopkins enters the picture. Their seismic imaging of Earth's core revealed lopsided growth — in other words, the core wasn't spherical or even all that close to it, with one hemisphere slowly melting into something noticeably smaller than the other half. Currently, the eastern hemisphere of the core is bigger than its western counterpart.
This lines up neatly with the current location of the axis of Earth's magnetic field. The line linking the two magnetic poles doesn't pass right through the center of the Earth, but is in fact offset about 300 miles eastward. Their data suggests this is a change from recent history, as until about 200 years ago the magnetic axis was solidly in the western hemisphere for at least 10,000 years. In what is likely not a coincidence, it was about two centuries ago that the inner core's eastern hemisphere started growing bigger.
All this indicates some fairly rapid movement from west to east, and Olson and Deguen's research indicates a link between these sorts of quick shifts and magnetic field reversals in the past. This might be enough to suggest that a magnetic reversal is already underway, although the researchers are quick to point out that the core is simply too chaotic to say anything with certainty at this stage. It's only a possibility, perhaps a very remote one, but this new model at least suggests that it is a possibility.
Besides, reversals take anywhere from 1,000 to 10,000 years — even if you do want to grant that we're two centuries into one, that doesn't necessarily mean its more serious effects on human technology will be felt in the next few centuries, let alone in our lifetimes. This is the problem with being in the middle of a geological event — they're so damn slow it's hard to tell if anything is actually happening at all.
Via Nature Geoscience. Image by NASA Goddard Photo and Video on Flickr.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)|
|To: Follies who wrote (33392)||7/18/2012 9:14:40 AM|
|From: average joe|
|Effects on biosphere and human society (geomagnetic reversal) Not long after the first geomagnetic polarity time scales were produced, scientists began exploring the possibility that reversals could be linked to extinctions. Most such proposals rest on the assumption that the Earth's field has much lower intensity during reversals. Possibly the first such hypothesis was that high energy particles trapped in the Van Allen radiation belt could be liberated and bombard the Earth.Detailed calculations confirm that, if the Earth's dipole field disappeared entirely (leaving the quadrupole and higher components), most of the atmosphere could be reached by high energy particles. However, the atmosphere would stop them. Instead there would be secondary radiation of Be or Cl from collisions of cosmic rays with the atmosphere. There is evidence that this occurs both during secular variation and during reversals. |
Another hypothesis by McCormac and Evans assumes that the Earth's field would disappear entirely during reversals.They argue that the atmosphere of Mars may have been eroded away by the solar wind because it had no magnetic field to protect it. They predict that ions would be stripped away from Earth's atmosphere above 100 km. However, the evidence from paleointensity measurements is that the magnetic field does not disappear. Based on paleointensity data for the last 800,000 years,the magnetopause is still estimated to be at about 3 Earth radii during the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal. Even if the magnetic field disappeared, the solar wind may induce a sufficient magnetic field in the Earth's ionosphere to shield the surface from energetic particles.
Hypotheses have also been advanced linking reversals to mass extinctions.Many such arguments were based on an apparent periodicity in the rate of reversals; more careful analyses show that the reversal record is not periodic.It may be, however, that the ends of superchrons have caused vigorous convection leading to widespread volcanism, and that the subsequent airborne ash caused extinctions.
Tests of correlations between extinctions and reversals are difficult for a number of reasons. Larger animals are too scarce in the fossil record for good statistics, so paleontologists have analyzed microfossil extinctions. Even microfossil data can be unreliable if there are hiatuses in the fossil record. It can appear that the extinction occurs at the end of a polarity interval when the rest of that polarity interval was simply eroded away.Statistical analysis shows no evidence for a correlation between reversals and extinctions.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|To: ManyMoose who wrote (33394)||7/18/2012 10:56:09 AM|
|Scientists say that magnetic north, which for two centuries has been in the icy wilderness of Canada, is currently relocating towards Russia at a rate of about 40 miles a year. The speed of its movement has increased by a third in the past decade, prompting speculation that the field could be about to "flip", causing compasses to invert and point south rather than north, something that happens between three and seven times every million years.|
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|