Make up your mind

ANDREW BOLT Readers – Welcome. If you decide to leave a comment please note all first time comments go into moderation. Your comments will be approved in due course.

The CSIRO has set up a site that allows people to decide for themselves on greenhouse gasses.

The CSIRO has launched a website that allows people to see the raw data of greenhouse gases for themselves, as debate continues to rage over the merits of climate change science.

The website will report un-modelled, raw measurements directly to the public so people can make up their own minds about climate change.

Scientists say the site will show the monthly levels of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide being recorded at a site in Tasmania.

The site is here and contains some graphics.

That’s all very interesting – Australian can see and decide for themselves. The CSIRO obviously didn’t get the memo, because here is Ove Hoegh-Guldberg saying that the only people who can make decisions are peer-review published scientists.

We are left, then, with the observation that the Climate Commission’s report, peer-reviewed and assessed by scientists with appropriate expertise, is being challenged by four individuals who refer to websites and blogs and who have not had their core claims about climate change tested in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Don’t get me wrong, discussion is important, but on serious matter such as climate change, let us hope we listen carefully to the experts and not the unsubstantiated opinions of those that are not.

To my mind what is missing from the CSIRO graphic is a comparison with average temperatures. Unfortunately the CSIRO site doesn’t seem to allow you to download the data (but I did find a sub-sample here). Australian temperature data can be downloaded here – I grabbed the annual data because downloading the monthly data would be tedious (happy for someone to send me the monthly data and I’ll graph it). I then combined the CO2 data and the average annual Australian temperatures (that is the 1961-90 average plus the temperature anomaly).

Update 1: Andrew Reynolds want to see the graph with a 2 degree axis.

Update 2: BOAB asks, ‘What does the graph look like with the minimum of both axes set to zero?’

Update 3: Some have suggested in comments that I graph a much longer time series. So using the Global average temperature data and the CO2 series from Mauna Loa I have re graphed the data and made the intervals as small as possible.

Then showing the origin.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

144 Responses to Make up your mind

  1. Jarrah

    Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is not saying that, but that peer-reviewed experts are the ones we should be listening to. And your graph covers 15 years of Australian temps – what information about long-term global trends do you hope to get from it?

  2. Sinclair Davidson

    That is the longest set of data I could find. If you can provide the full set from 1976 to the present I’ll happily graph that.

  3. JC

    And your graph covers 15 years of Australian temps – what information about long-term global trends do you hope to get from it?

    I’d put it in this context, Jarrah.

    With the CO2 arrow pointing straight at record levels and the temp flailing… it would be like a supermodel suddenly walks in a room totally starkers, but as a hetro you’re not aroused in the slightest.

    In other words something is really really out of sync.

    What this may be leading to, is the Lindzen thesis in that the responsiveness is more complex and longer term than we expect, while still being on the warming camp.

  4. Bruce J

    A quick look at the graph above seems to show an almost straight line rate of increase in CO2 concentration over the past 34 years. Now, the “science is settled” gurus tell us that man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 is a result of industrialisation and consumerism which has expanded enormously in that period. Why does this graph not show an increase in CO2 concentration commensurate with the increased human caused emissions? Is the graph wrong? Or does the data fail to support the hypothesis, i.e. the hypothesis is disproved?

  5. Andrew Reynolds

    Sinclair,
    The average annual temperature scale looks a little odd. I would have thought that a 14 degree difference between the top value and the bottom value a little excessive as I am not aware of any modelling that would indicate that a 14 degree temperature change is to be expected from an increase of 25ppm in CO2.
    If you want to question the IPCC then using a scale that represents their argument might be more appropriate.
    Perhaps 2 or 4 degrees would be a little more fair.

  6. CraigS

    Whenever a believer starts going on about longer timeframes I go sure, lets look at the last 10,000 years?

    Lets look at those ice core samples, you know the ones that show temperature rises before Co2?

    Oh, not that long? Funny that.

  7. eb

    The CO2 graph is going up in steady steps over 34 years. This doesn’t make sense to me. If the increase is solely due to human actions wouldn’t the increase be much more variable? Wouldn’t the increase be going up at an increasing rate?

  8. Jarrah

    “If you can provide the full set from 1976 to the present I’ll happily graph that.”

    I can do better than that:
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/meant03.txt

    “sure, lets look at the last 10,000 years?”

    This current trend is much more rapid than anything in the last 10,000 years.

    “Lets look at those ice core samples, you know the ones that show temperature rises before Co2?”

    Good grief. Go forth and learn something.

  9. Jarrah

    CL continues his deep confusion over local and global.

  10. Gabrielle

    Jarrah, your link refers to anomalies. Where is the avg, annual temps from 1910 to 2010.

    I can’t find it on the BOM site. Can you?

  11. eb

    “This current trend is much more rapid than anything in the last 10,000 years.”

    That’s rubbish. There is no way that statement could be made with anywhere near enough precision to be true. Show me the month by month temperature readings going back 10,000 years!

  12. C.L.

    CL continues his deep confusion over local and global.

    No confusion at all. There is no historical warming ‘crisis’.

    The confusion over local and global is all the warmies’. When it’s record-breaking cold, it’s local. When there’s a flood in Queensland or an earthquake in Japan, it’s global (Brown and Pachauri respectively).

  13. CraigS

    Good grief. Go forth and learn something.

    My point exactly, I don’t recall hearing CO2 ‘contributes’ to global warming all we hear is that it causes it.

    Where as human contributions compared to natural causes is microscopic.

    This current trend is much more rapid than anything in the last 10,000 years.

    And the sooner it gets on with it the better, the worst case scenario gives us, what 2 degrees by the end of this century, meaning we will be about as warm as the medieval period, one of the most prosperous times in human evolution.

  14. Sinclair Davidson

    Jarrah – I’ve got the temp data already. Send me the CO2 data from Cape Grim.

  15. Jarrah

    “Jarrah, your link refers to anomalies. Where is the avg, annual temps from 1910 to 2010.”

    Just do what Sinc did – add the 1961-1990 average to the anomaly.

    “Send me the CO2 data from Cape Grim.”

    Ah, I should have realised. But no can do. Why not put up the Mauna Loa data?

    “the worst case scenario gives us, what 2 degrees by the end of this century”

    Wrong. Worst-case scenario is 6 degrees. And it could go higher.

    “Wouldn’t the increase be going up at an increasing rate?”

    It is.

  16. Sinclair Davidson

    The CSIRO aren’t promoting the the Mauna Loa data.

  17. Gabrielle

    Why can’t the BOM simply also supply the avg annual temps? Why is this so difficult?

  18. Jarrah

    What difference does it make, Gab? It’s the same information in different forms.

  19. Gabrielle

    It’s just extra work, Jarrah. And they have the info so why not just make it available.

  20. Biota

    deep confusion over local and global

    Global temp is made up from a lot of local temps. It will have a distribution like any sample- a peak with tails either side. Dunno why this doesn’t get some attention because not everywhere will respond the same to ‘global’ warming. So where will individual localities be positioned on the sampling curve? How do we know that Australia, or NSW, or coz’s little Tassie for example will be on the high side of the curve and not the low side?

  21. Jarrah

    “Why not just make it available”

    Here’s why they use anomalies:

    Why use temperature anomalies (departure from average) and not absolute temperature measurements?

    Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions. In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a region’s average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average.

    Using reference values computed on smaller [more local] scales over the same time period establishes a baseline from which anomalies are calculated. This effectively normalizes the data so they can be compared and combined to more accurately represent temperature patterns with respect to what is normal for different places within a region.

    For these reasons, large-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.

  22. Gabrielle

    Yes that’s all very convenient for global average figures, but we’re looking at local temperatures and local CO2 emissions in this case, Jarrah.

  23. Jarrah

    “Dunno why this doesn’t get some attention because not everywhere will respond the same to ‘global’ warming.”

    This DOES get attention. Regional variation in the degree of warming and impacts of AGW gets lots of attention.

    Time after time, those criticising the science or the policy implications reveal that their objections rest on a lack of information.

  24. dover_beach

    Wrong. Worst-case scenario is 6 degrees. And it could go higher.

    Yes, that is the worse case scenario but at the moment even 2C by 2010 looks unlikely.

  25. dover_beach

    Sorry, that should read 2100. Hey, at least I corrected it quicker than then IPCC.

  26. at the moment even 2C by 2010 looks unlikely.

    Only to cherry pickers of Catallaxy.

  27. dover_beach

    Cheery pickers? Aren’t they the ones that are hanging everything on a 30 year stretch?

  28. twostix

    For these reasons, large-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.

    So they can’t actually record the global surface temperatures, even where they do have sensors, so they fudge it, do some extrapolation and then that’s that we’re all going to die unless we go back to 1800’s style living.

    This is the current certainty of global warming (FU “climate change”, you don’t get to change the goal posts), predicated on ridiculously incomplete data sets massaged by layers upon layers upon layers of “alter this by 0.1 degree here and reduce this by 1 millionth of a ppm there”.

    All not even based on actual measurement of the global temperature!

    Yet you post this sort of stuff thinking it’s some extraordinary revelation that proves how right you are.

    Plus you didn’t answer the question “Why not just make the data available?”.

    Obfuscation as usual.

  29. Gabrielle

    Only to cherry pickers of Catallaxy.

    Not at all. The 2 deg C is just one scenario, and you know that Steve.
    Where’s the warming in the last decade?

  30. MarkL of Canberra

    FFS.

    We can add all the plant food we want to the atmosphere. it will have naff-all impact.

    The absorption spectrum for CO2 is filled at less than 100ppmv.

    MarkL
    Brisbane

  31. manalive

    The gargantuan monster that ‘the science’ has developed into, is based on this: “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” (AR4) i.e. nothing more solid than a guess by a few authors of the Summary for Policymakers — that’s it.

    Cyclones, tornados, blizzards, floods, droughts, melting glaciers, polar bears, earthquakes, tsunamis etc. are all red herrings devised to bamboozle, it’s about post-WWII CO2 v temperature.

    Since c 1958 the CO2 rising trend, as measured at Mauna Loa, has been virtually monotonic while the net global temperature rise has been confined to the period c 1975 – c 2000, which is inconsistent with the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions have been the overwhelming post WWII climate forcing factor.

  32. JC

    That’s not true Man..

    CO2 does act as a greenhouse gas and has been proven to act as such in experiments.

    There aren’t many people that agree with your position. Not even Richard Lindzen does.

  33. Biota

    MarkL, I hear your frustration!

  34. Entropy

    Anomalies rather than averages are useful because we are wanting to look at the change. So that should be OK.

    So if your range for determining the baseline LTA was in the trough in temperatures in the last hundred years(say the sixties and seventies and to a lesser extent the eighties) you would get positive anomalies in the thirties and forties, and at the turn of the century. But that would only be because they were the “best data quality” years for determining your baseline.

  35. Entropy

    The second graph ( the Reynolds graph) ends before a peak temp in 2009-10 due to a strong El Niño event. That might help the AGW case.

    Mind you from the other perspective I would expect temps to be a fair bit lower in 2011 due to a strong la Nina, which may slow things down a bit.

  36. manalive

    JC, I know CO2 is a greenhouse gas but it is a minor one, H2O (as vapour and clouds) is by far the most important.
    All I’m saying is that CO2 is unlikely to have been the overwhelming climate factor as claimed by the IPCC.

  37. Gabrielle

    “alter this by 0.1 degree here and reduce this by 1 millionth of a ppm there”.

    ..or add 0.3mm per year to actual sea level measurements ’cause…well it makes for better catastrophes.

  38. manalive

    And there are many other factors like solar irradiance and PDO + AMO.

  39. JC

    Fair enough Man.

    There are however pretty big issues to worry about going forward with the emerging economies spewing out a CO2 party.

    I hope Lindzen is right and that it is minor.

  40. manalive

    Another thing to consider is that the ‘greenhouse’ effect of CO2 diminishes logarithmically.
    Every additional CO2 molecule added to the atmosphere has less effect than the previous.
    It is agreed by both sides that each doubling of the CO2 concentration forces about 1°C in temperature.

    The IPCC dread ‘scenarios’ rely on additional water vapour feedback — which is merely an assumption built into their models but not substantiated by empirical evidence.

  41. boy on a bike

    Sinkers

    What does the graph look like with the minimum of both axes set to zero?

  42. And how, I wonder, is the second graph meant to sway me that there is something wrong with the 2 – 4 degree range for climate sensitivity?

  43. manalive

    JC you mentioned Richard Lindzen.
    He’s not only a distinguished climate scientist but also unusually articulate:

    there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.

  44. Lazlo

    Please all understand, and Jarrah confirms it here, that the core and sole warmist argument is that global warming in recent years (used to be last 30 years in 2001, shame about the last 40 now not cooperating) is ‘unprecedented’. That’s it. All the paleo reconstructed, unvalidated hockey sticks do just that. And then they say that there is no other explanation for this, cos we won’t think of one ever, than AGW. Gobsmackingly awful pseudo-science.

  45. Philip Shehan

    The best estimate for climate sensitivity, the temperature rise accompanying a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from the onset of the industrial revolution (270 to 540 ppm), is 2 – 4.5 C with the most likely value 3 C.

    Reynold’s graph equating a 2 C rise with a CO2 rise from 340 to 385 ppm is nowhere near this.

    It is a basic tenet, of AGW theory and research that CO2 concentration is but one climate forcing and that whereas the former is indeed constantly rising variablility of other forcings means that spikes, dips plateaus in the global temperature record are inevitable in the short term.

    The temperature records for Cape grim are not representative of global tmperaure rises from 1992 -2007

  46. Shinsko

    That first graph is a shocking example of manipulating graphics to convey a distorted impression of the correlation between two variables.

    What was the point?

  47. Well how amusingly dishonest. Andrew Bolt today picks up on this post and reproduces only the first two graphs; not the third one which more honestly represents the temperature information.

    And I see how no one has answered my question. How is the third graph supposed to be taken as anything other than supporting climate sensitivity in the range of 2 – 4 degrees as the IPCC says? Eyeballing it, it looks roughly like about .4 or .5 degree over only a 15 year period.

  48. Sinclair Davidson

    Shinto – hardly. That sort of variation could occur on any summer day. Furthermore the most correct way of showing graphs includes the origin and that picture is shown in update 2.

  49. Sinclair Davidson

    Steve – Really? When I look at the data to 2010 the temperature has increased from 21.94 degrees in 1992 to 21.99 degrees in 2010. It also fell during that period to 21.57 degrees. It’s really up to you to untangle the natural variation in the temperature itself, then the variation in measurement and then the AGW component. Don’t take too long.

  50. jcrabb

    No doubt one could construct a similar stupid graph about how harmless a drop of Mercury is to humans based on how it is such a tiny, insignificant rise in comparison to the total volume of Blood in a human.

    It is hilarious that Deniers have become this desperate to resort to ludicrous garph.

    Hope you get to see Lord Monkton, ask him how he has admitted the Arctic has been in decline for the last thirty years.

    [Advocating that people you don’t like poison themselves is irresponsible and constitutes a threat of violence. You should be ashamed of yourself. Sinc]

  51. Can you do another graph for me? Plot CO2 vs. temp. What’s the R^2?

  52. Sinclair Davidson

    R2 = 0.1473

  53. Eyrie

    Why go to zero deg C for the temperature? Temperature should be in Kelvin zero is absolute zero at -273.15 degC. What happened to the data to 2010?
    What is more interesting is that despite the GFC there seems to be not a wriggle in the CO2 increase graph yet we see the natural seasonal variation.
    Bodes ill for any CO2 abatement schemes.
    More food for thought. CO2 is 390ppm. Water vapour is 10,000 to 40,000 ppm. CO2 is up by 100ppm. A whole 0.25 to 1% of total CO2+H2O. Given the variability of H20 I’d say the CO2 effect is impossible to break out of the noise.
    Oh and the skepticalscience site isn’t, is misleading in its name and run by a climatological “expert” who works as a cartoonist.
    Any Earth/physical science people here or just economists?

  54. Eyrie

    Sorry chop out that extra kelvin.

    [Fixed that. Sinc]

  55. Sinclair Davidson

    Eyrie – couldn’t get CO2 data from Cape Grim past 2006 so I’ve plotted the data I could get.

  56. andy

    jcrabb – why refer to mercury ? Harmless CO2 compares better with water. A drop of water is a better analogy. No effect whatsoever.

    I’m a skeptic, but silly arguments from the deniers just make things worse.

  57. alan

    people must also google Dr Vincent Gray.

  58. Thanks, so if R2=0.1473 you’ve found a moderate linear relationship between CO2 and temp in your dataset. Interesting.

  59. Meh

    So Professor why is it that you can plot a short term range of Australian average temperatures, but not the actual average global temperatures? Let alone plot a graph over a long enough time frame to discern any trend?

    If you’d actually bothered to compare global average temps with CO2 over say the 20th Century (as plenty have somehow managed to do) you’d see a good correlation. Really though, you should be plotting av global temp v a combined plot for all radiative forcings to get a true picture. These graphs are available online for all to examine, I guess you simply don’t like looking at the real picture.

    [I have – see here. Sinc]

  60. .

    What is the coefficient?

    Thanks, so if R2=0.1473 you’ve found a moderate linear relationship between CO2 and temp in your dataset. Interesting.

    If it is a valid regression. It ought to be rigourously tested for time series and other diagnostic problems.

  61. Sinclair Davidson

    Not sure how useful that R2 is. The AGW argument is that temperature will rapidly increase in the future that implies (a) past information isn’t a good guide to to future temperature movement and (b) some sort of non-linear process might be at work.

  62. Philip Shehan

    Sinclair fails to address Steves point and mine on the correct scale for the temperature. Reynolds distortion is mild compared to the first graph.

    The truly gross ditortion occurs there. The temperature should cover a range of 0.5 C not 14 C.

    The origin points are immaterial. They would indeed be different if using absolute (Kelvin) temperature scale or the celsius but offsetting the scales is entirely legitimate for comparison of the slopes, which is the real point.

    It is not up to Steve to “untangle” of anthropogenic CO2 from natural forcings. Here is one such untangling but this can only be done on the global scale, not for Cape Grim Tasmania.

  63. .

    Reading something from Hansen or Schmidt is not going to convince anyone. Especially when Hansen has referenced himself 8 or so times.

  64. Sorry, my “of course” was in reply to the post above Sinclair’s.

    “Not sure how useful that R2 is.”

    It’s fairly useful in this context, based on the small subset of data you’ve analysed. You’ve found a “moderate” statistical correlation which warrants further investigation.

  65. Shinsko

    Sinclair,

    the most correct way of showing graphs includes the origin and that picture is shown in update 2.

    Hardly – graphing the two together is silly in the first place – the correlation just mentioned is better – but if you’re going to plot them both why not use climate sensitivity as the basis of your scale. That is, nearly all studies of sensitivity centre on a 3 degree temperature increase/per doubling of CO2 – so adjust you axes proportionately.

    At least that way your graph is attempting to acknowledge the scale relationship between these two variables.

  66. Sinclair Davidson

    Gentlepeople – my original question remains; why hasn’t the CSIRO done all these things?

  67. Sinclair Davidson

    You’ve found a “moderate” statistical correlation which warrants further investigation.

    Totally agree. The first thing that should be done is check for unit roots and then difference the data and plot first differences and so on. recalculate the R2 and have a look.

  68. “The first thing that should be done is check for unit roots and then…”

    Don’t over-analyse the data you have… get more data! 🙂

  69. Sinclair Davidson

    Yes – would love more data. I spent a lot of time yesterday trying to hunt down a longer series for Cape Grim but couldn’t find any. In the thread above I have asked anyone to send me the series if they have it (or want to to hand collect it from the CSIRO). I could use the Hawaii data and the global temp series but that isn’t what the CSIRO are doing.

  70. Meh

    No you have not plotted the graph. All you have done is plot av global temp using a y-axis scale to mask changes in the plot. You have also plotted the mean surface temp anomaly over time. So you’re sort of half way there.

    Again, its pretty simple, why can’t you plot a graph comparing av global temp v CO2 over an appropriate timeframe and scale? You could easily use the combined CO2 measurements from Manua Loa and another source say ice cores. Mind you, these plots have been done and show a good correlation. Also if you were serious and not just fishing for some short term anomalies, you’d plot net forcings v mean land-ocean temp anomaly.

  71. JC

    Manalive:

    Lindzen is not a sceptic. He believes there is warming but enough to create runaway warming.

    This to alarmists makes him a sceptic.

  72. Shinsko

    Sinclair,

    my original question remains; why hasn’t the CSIRO done all these things?

    I’m not sure why you expect them to include temperature data on a web page dedicated to Cape Grim greenhouse gas data.

    They have a a climate snapshot here for example.

  73. Meh

    Links? Considering you’re trying to attack the science, on something so straight forward as plotting data… I would have thought you’d already have links to the data.

    Mauna Loa data –

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ – data from Mauna Loa

    Here’s Law Dome data – http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html

    Knock yourself out, re-plot the graphs, you know using the temperature records HadCRUT3, NASA GISS and NCDC and the CO2 data.

  74. Gabrielle

    Considering you’re trying to attack the science

    This is what it always boils down to for AGW supporters. To question, discuss, investigate, contemplate the AGW theories, modelling and predictions is tantamount to an “attack” on the science.

  75. Sinclair Davidson

    I’m not sure why you expect them to include temperature data on a web page dedicated to Cape Grim greenhouse gas data.

    Because they’re inviting people to make up their own minds without proving the information to do so.

    I’ve got the Mauna Loa data already – I was wondering where are the graphs that you keep referring to.

  76. Meh

    You should take an average of the temperature records to help remove variance. Also as mentioned earlier, seeing as we know CO2 is not the only driver of climate, to remove any anomalies you need to plot the land-ocean temperature anomaly against the Net forcings.

    Really though, lets stop kidding around. What is your explanation for using a local/regional temp record (Australia) and not the readily available global data? Not to mention the timeframe used. It would seem you are deliberately trying to mislead laymen like Gabrielle!

  77. Gabrielle

    What is your explanation for using a local/regional temp record (Australia) and not the readily available global data?

    Let’s see, at the very top, the post says:

    Scientists say the site will show the monthly levels of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide being recorded at a site in Tasmania.

    So now why should the post’s author go global?

    Being a “layperson”, continue to dazzle me with your brilliant expertise in matters of climate science.

  78. Obviously, for Gab, a statement from the CSIRO website:

    Since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7 °C . The long term trend in temperature is clear, but there is still substantial year to year variability of about plus/minus 0.5 °C.

    isn’t worth a hill of beans until Sinclair has been able to do a graph with the data to show the same result.

    Gab, despite Sinclair’s protestations about year to year figures, which as I have just shown the CSIRO fully acknowledges bounce around, do you agree that his second graph, the one where you can actually see the temperatures on a realistic scale, has a trend upwards through the middle of the wiggles?

  79. Meh

    Gabrielle sorry but you can’t use local data to infer global trends. Pretty simple really. The scientists are merely recording monthly emmissions in Tasmania. The Professor then uses Australian av temps over a tiny period and plots them against the emmissions recorded from a single site. What you seem to fail to accept, is that this plot is being used to infer the link between CO2 and temp is not as strong as we think… when in fact, it tells us nothing about the big picture!

  80. Gabrielle

    do you agree that his second graph, the one where you can actually see the temperatures on a realistic scale, has a trend upwards through the middle of the wiggles?

    You mean the graph with the 2 degree axis, yeah?
    Why yes, Steve, I do see the “wiggles”.

  81. Oh I see: is this switching to a “is 2 degrees really so bad” argument?

  82. Gabrielle

    you can’t use local data to infer global trends.

    Well yes that’s true, you need local data (preferably data which has not been manipulated) from sources located throughout the globe to suggest global trends. (Pretty simple really)

    What you seem to fail to accept, is that this plot is being used to infer the link between CO2 and temp is not as strong as we think…

    The AGW CO2/temperature link has not yet been proven beyond all reasonable doubt (see info on the PETM).

    when in fact, it tells us nothing about the big picture!

    I concur! Similarly, the CSIRO Cape Grim (such an apt name)CO2 data tells us nothing about the big picture. It tells us that CO2 has increased 58.1ppm over 34 years, in one location. That’s it. What is a layperson to think about that? The sky is falling?

    What proportion of that CO2 is source anthropogenic?

    What is it about Sinclair’s post made you state he is “trying to attack the science”?

  83. Do stop with the faux naivety, Gab, and tell us what you think the point of Sinclair’s post was.

  84. Gabrielle

    the point of Sinclair’s post was.

    Did you see the title “Make up your mind”? I’m tipping that was his point. How about you? What’s your take?

    Also, how will Australia’s carbon tax save the planet and prevent it from frying?

  85. Sinclair Davidson

    What is your explanation for using a local/regional temp record (Australia) and not the readily available global data?

    I am using the CSIRO data – they invite us to make up our minds.

    Not to mention the timeframe. used

    That’s the publicly available data I could find.

    the link between CO2 and temp is not as strong as we think

    Excellent. A confession. So why is the CSIRO showing us CO2 data?

  86. Shinsko

    Sinclair, in response to my observation,

    I’m not sure why you expect them to include temperature data on a web page dedicated to Cape Grim greenhouse gas data.

    you say,

    Because they’re inviting people to make up their own minds without proving the information to do so.

    No, I don’t think they are – that’s the reporting of the ABC. There is no such invitation on the Cape Grim website nor by the CSIRO in the article. The closest is Peta Ashworth saying the website, “provides another opportunity for evidence that people can go to try and clarify some of those sorts of things”. In this case, clarify whether CO2 is rising.

    The reporting of the website by the ABC does say “so people can make up their own minds about climate change”. But these words are the writers and not a quote from the CSIRO.

    The CSIRO says only that, in making the data public, they are interested in “setting up a dialogue to discuss what we think the data means”. And even then, the “dialogue” is only about the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and where it might come from.

  87. Sinclair Davidson

    Then it’s up to the CSIRO to contact the ABC and correct the record.

  88. Sinclair Davidson

    New graphs posted in update.

  89. Meh

    Truly staggering, so your rational for producing this graph is based on semantics and your inability to properly search the web for the correct source data to compare… as opposed to actual science. Any idea when you’ll get around to plotting the correct graph? You know, one you can actually use to back up what you infer?

    So yes, Gabrielle, this is an attack on science. I would not class this graph as “questioning the science.” It is not using new data or research paper/s to question the science. This graph has been produced to deliberately dupe people into believing the Professor’s suggestion.

    You even seem to get it… agreeing with the point that you can’t use local data to infer global trends. Not to mention the time frame issue. So again, why has the Professor produced this graph, if not for the sake of duping the gullible?

  90. Sinclair Davidson

    Meh – If you can find a longer series for Cape Grim – link to it. Otherwise STFU. You’re just a troll who talks big but can’t link.

  91. Sinclair Davidson

    . correlation between %changes in CO2 and average temp in monthly data from 1958 to 2011 is 0.0164.

  92. Meh

    How about you STFU until you get a clue about the basics? That is, stop hiding behind a bs semantics argument for using local data to infer global trends. I never suggested i could find longer data for Cape Grim… and why would I, its meaningless for your purposes. I suggested you use the correct data and time frame to draw any conclusions re global trends. Another one of your bs claims, above I provided links to Mauna Loa and Law Dome.

  93. .

    So another two stations is “global” but the Australian one isn’t?

    Come on. There is a lot of Australian data that contradicts AGW that just gets ignored. Good quality data too.

  94. Sinclair Davidson

    I never suggested i could find longer data for Cape Grim

    Actually you did.

    your inability to properly search the web for the correct source data

    This is what I said in the post.

    Unfortunately the CSIRO site doesn’t seem to allow you to download the data (but I did find a sub-sample here). Australian temperature data can be downloaded here – I grabbed the annual data because downloading the monthly data would be tedious (happy for someone to send me the monthly data and I’ll graph it).

    Now you’re trying to be snarky and squeal when you get caught. Try be civil. Start again.

  95. Confusious

    Ice core data is higly unreliable. Why?Llet me explain. You drill into compacted ice accumulated over millenia which should have trapped some atmospheric gasses. Now comes the interesting point.
    It is all under pressure and when you drill the ice core and microfracturing your ice core in the process, you create plumbing for substantial part of the gas inclusions to escape once you extract the ice core drilled. As with any gasses under pressure, remember what happens when you open a coke bottle….
    So, as there are no special corebarrels hermetically sealing the ice core it is safe to expect that any gas readings from the past are seriously underreading. The deeper the ice the worse it gets. For that reason there are quite a few scientists criticising this technique. Of course pseudo-climate experts such as Garnaut, Flannery, Arabia and Chubby ignore this. This demonstrates that in fact the warmists are the real Deniers.

  96. There is a lot of Australian data that contradicts AGW that just gets ignored. Good quality data too.

    Seeing claims without links are upsetting Sinclair, you’d better provide a link dot…

  97. Gabrielle

    agreeing with the point that you can’t use local data to infer global trends

    You mean like the way the CSIRO have done.
    What was the point of showing a graph depicting CO2 emissions in one location? What discussion would ensue based on this? Oh wow, look CO2 levles increased over Cape Grim in the last 34 years.

    Discuss!

  98. Meh

    Again with the semantics. When i stated “correct source data” this means the correct data to back-up what you are inferring. This is not CSIRO’s data, but that which I suggested earlier. This is why I linked to Mauna Loa, which provides the recent data, but over a longer time and from numerous weather stations. This is why i also posted a link to Law Dome for a CO2 record going back further using ice cores. This would be compared to a mean of the 3 global temperature records.

  99. Sinclair Davidson

    Meh – this whole post started with a critique of the CSIRO and the data they are presenting to the public. What you’re suggesting is something completely different. If you think the CSIRO data can’t do what they claim, then contact them and say so.

  100. David Barnes

    The data for the years 2000 and 2001 are outliers in the data set. When they are excluded it becomes clear there is infact an upwards direction in temperatures over the past 15 years. It is small, 0.6 degrees Celsius. Can you please add another graph where you exclude the data from 2000 and 2001.

  101. Sinclair Davidson

    I’m reluctant to just throw data – why do you think 2000 & 2001 are outliers?

  102. daddy dave

    The data for the years 2000 and 2001 are outliers in the data set. When they are excluded

    Here’s a succinct example of how statistical illiteracy is destroying science.

    There’s no principled reason for removing outliers in this situation. All you end up doing is removing the data that doesn’t fit your hypothesis. As data points, they’re as valid as any other and should be included.

  103. Philip Shehan

    Gabrielle:

    Atmospheric CO2 is distributed fairly uniformly globally as the winds blow around the globe. Local temperatures are affected by many local factors.

    CO2 is measured at specific stations like Muana Loa in Hawaii. Note that this data is in excellent agreement with that from Cape Grim.

  104. Here’s a song to help the debate. It’s title is ‘I’m a Denier’. Guess what it’s about.
    http://youtu.be/Vx-t9k7epIk

  105. Gabrielle

    Philip

    Thank you for that. As you mention the winds, it would therefore hold that CO2 measurements from China’s station would also reflect, all things being equal, the Cape Grim data.

    So the CSIRO site is showing a graph of global annual readings. In which case local temperatures would be meaningless and have nothing to do with CO2, I guess…

    Note that this data is in excellent agreement with that from Cape Grim.

    Why wouldn’t it be, given global winds blow around the globe.
    It’s nice though that the CSIRO are showing their results.

  106. Sinclair Davidson

    Note that this data is in excellent agreement with that from Cape Grim.

    I would hope so. The whole kerfuffle over CO2 is that it is a global problem – that’s why Australia should not go alone with a carbon tax or any other scheme that requires global cooperation and coordination.

  107. The whole kerfuffle over CO2 is that it is a global problem

    Now’s your chance to come clean Sinclair.

    Do you clearly acknowledge that this is a “problem” (that is, do you think CO2 and greenhouse gases should be reduced), or will you continue making posts and claims about the temperature record of the last decade or so, whether local or global, that indicate you consider there is not really a “problem” at all due to the rate of temperature change in that recent period?

  108. Sinclair Davidson

    Steve – my position on this is very clear. It’s just that you’re too ideologically blinkered to see my position. You and your warmest friends have been fundamentally dishonest and I’ve been pulling you up on that.

  109. Sinclair: why not state your position on the science issue clearly? It has appeared to the likes of me and HC that you have been making something of a game of posting stats, graphs and Climategate emails in such a way to encourage public skepticism that there is a problem at all; yet you seem to commonly adopt an attitude of “hey, I’m just providing the information” or make statements to the effect of “climate scientists have been their own worse enemy;” which are actually not the same as making a direct, personal call on it.

    Your response to my question appears to continue this approach.

  110. .

    Steve. Don’t ignore the data I posted. You question my integrity and then ignore the evidence you ask for which I supply?

    What a myopic, obstinate troll you’re turning out to be.

  111. dot: I ignored it because it was self evidently not “strong evidence against global warming”

  112. .

    I ignored it because it was self evidently

    You know this how?

  113. Umm, because the link you sent me to says:

    It is difficult to vouch for the quality of these records.

  114. Sinclair Davidson

    Steve – I have an interest in policy. Science is just one input into policy.

  115. .

    It’s difficult for the accuracy of the “global” crap too Steve. Ever seen where they record some of that rubbish from? Friggin’ ashphalt carparks. Corners of south facing walls. Jury rigged onto walls above air con exhausts.

    There is a lot of legitimate doubt when you factor in the contrary data, the urban heat islands and the fact that properly analysed, cointegrated models generally half the forcing of GHGs.

    Forget the data, do any CG models use cointegrated models as a basis? If they don’t they’re modelling a whole spurious universe.

  116. And you are, again, refusing to be clear on your personal assessment of the science.

    What else can I assume but that you are uncomfortable with answering a simple question clearly?

  117. Sinclair Davidson

    Steve been trolling here for a long time – today you want me to account for myself. If you’d paid attention instead of being a smartarse you’d know my position.

  118. Sinclair: the issue is that you have today referred to CO2 as a “global problem.”

    You might address my question by simply saying ‘well, I meant to say in parentheses: “if there is a problem at all.”‘

    But if this isn’t the explanation, describing it as a “problem” appears inconsistent with a long series of posts by you which I think anyone would take as indicative that you want people to be skeptical that the science of AGW is settled enough to warrant any response of any kind.

    This will be my last comment on the topic, incidentally.

    Answering the question clearly, even with a link to a previous clear and unambiguous previous statement of your assessment of the science, would have prevented it going this far.

  119. .

    Steve trolls for a discussion of data and models then doesn’t want to comment.

    Success troll is successful.

  120. Sinclair Davidson

    This will be my last comment on the topic, incidentally.

    Heavens be praised.

  121. Gabrielle

    Hah! If you believe him then I’ve got couple of dozen bridges to sell you, Sinclair.

    I’ll even make them baker’s dozen.

  122. C.L.

    It has appeared to the likes of me and HC…

    Harry once responded to a post from me about bovine flatulence (a frightening “problem” to warmenists) by saying my parents abused and beat me in a shed.

    Leaving aside that warmenists are lunatics, then, Sinclair’s meaning is perfectly obvious and clear. Proponents of the warmening “kerfuffle” are the ones who insist it is a “global problem” which means their obsession with Australia’s “action” on the “problem” is entirely meaningless, entirely inafficacious and entirely ludicrous.

    Steve tends to run these distraction and verballing games – as, for example, when I caught him out last week quote-doctoring a story about tobacco advertising in Bangladesh.

  123. Jarrah

    “If you’d paid attention instead of being a smartarse you’d know my position.”

    Biased Liberal Party hack posing as disinterested evaluator of statistical nuance, right? 😉

    “Ever seen where they record some of that rubbish from? Friggin’ ashphalt carparks. Corners of south facing walls. Jury rigged onto walls above air con exhausts.”

    Except rural stations are recording the same trends as urban ones. Except bad stations don’t show more warming that good ones. Time to update, Dot.

  124. Philip Shehan

    Gabrielle: I think you are missing my point while agreeing with it.

    Individual stations are representative of global atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    Individual station’s temperature or weather/climate data are not representative of global data.

    That is why such data is not presented alongside the CO2 data at Cape Grim any more than at Muana Loa.

  125. Philip Shehan

    Sinclair, since you have responded my comment on global agreement in CO2 concentrations, if not how this differs from local climate data, how about my point that your temperature scale is out by a factor of about thirty, although you have adjusted that in later postings, but not consistently?

  126. Sinclair Davidson

    Philip – I reject, with contempt, the notion that the scale is out by a factor of 30. The argument about co2 concentrations are not interesting. Quite clearly these concentrations are rising, in part due to human industrial activity. The intersting questions are (a) how much, (b) so what, and ( c ) what to do about it, if anything. The CSIRO implication that this is only about co2 is a dishonest fudge.

  127. .

    Except rural stations are recording the same trends as urban ones. Except bad stations don’t show more warming that good ones. Time to update, Dot.

    No, care to refute the data I showed you?

  128. Philip Shehan

    Sinclair, expressions of contempt are not scientific.

    To elaborate on my calculation:

    The sensitivity parameter(the temperature rise with a doubling of CO2 concentration from pre industrial level of 270 ppm) is given in a review article as between 2-4.5 C with the most likely value of 3 C.

    Thus the appropriate tmperature scale would rise 3C for a CO2 rise of 270 ppm. The CO2 scale from 340 to 382 ppm on the first graph should be compered to a temperature scale covering an increase of 42/270 x 3 = 0.47 C

    Your temperature scale covers 14 C over this CO2 concentration range. It is out by a factor of 30. This has the effect of exaggerating the slope of CO2 concentration with temperature by a factor of 30.

    With a sensitivity factor of 2 C the error is 45 fold, with 4.5 C the error factor is 20.

    If you dispute the calculation or have a credible alternative sensitivity factor, please correct my calculation.

  129. JC

    The CO2 scale from 340 to 382 ppm on the first graph should be compered to a temperature scale covering an increase of 42/270 x 3 = 0.47 C

    Ummm why?

  130. Philip Shehan

    JC. The point of the graph is supposedly to show that the rise temperature (as indicated by the slope) predicted by AGW has not kept pace with the rise in CO2 concentration (as indicated by the slope). You can make the slopes of either line as steep as you like by arbitrary selection of the scale, stretching or compressing it.

    The comparison is only meaningful if the vertical axes match in terms of the theoretical prediction of the rleationship between CO2 concentration and temperature. This is what the “sensitivty” parameter is. It says that increasing the CO2 concentration by 270 ppm is expected to produce a rise of 3 C.

    So a rise of 42 ppm (from the bottom to the top horizontal lines on the graph) should correspond to a temperature range of 42/270 x 3 C = 0.47 C if the comparison between theory and observation is to be meaningful.

    But the temperature scale from the bottom to the top line is not 0.47 C but 14 C (from 15 to 29 C. Thus the slope of the temperature line is reduced by a factor of 30 from what is should be. Or alternatively, the slope of the CO2 concentration is 30 times steeper than it should be compared to the temperature slope.

    Note that in the Graph showing the Muana Loa CO2 data, the the temperature range corresponding to the 100 ppm increase should correspond to temperature scle of 100/270 x 3 = 1.1 C The scale presented in this case covers a range of 1.5 C. This is actually less than the range required if the sensitivity factor at the upper end of the range, 4.5 C, is used.

    The other graphs use different tmeperature axes again, but only thos in the range 2-4.5 C per 270 ppm are justifiable.

  131. Sinclair Davidson

    Contempt is very scientific.

  132. Philip Shehan

    I take that as meaning you cannot find an error in argument.

  133. Sinclair Davidson

    Philip – you can take what you like. Graphs should show the origin. Now even without doing that the temperature graph is a straight and flat line. Now you can change the axis as much as you like, hide the decline and what-not, and the bottom line is we’re still looking at a straight and flat line. Did I say the line was flat?

  134. dover_beach

    Philip, what does your suggestion achieve if we look at the period 1940-70?

  135. Philip Shehan

    dover_beach: I don’t know. I don’t have the data.

    In response Sinclair, the “origin” in these graphs would mean including 0 Kelvin (-273 C) and 0 ppm. The selection of the freezing point of water at 1 atmosphere pressure for the Celsius scale is arbitrary.

    That would be neither necessary nor useful. Since what we are interested in is the comparison of the rate of rise in these relative to each other, the representation in update 3 is most useful.

    As for the temperature at Cape Grim being “flat” (well nearly)over a 14 year period, that is a case of cherry picking data.

    The Cape Grim CO2 data is representative of global concentrations, which is why it matches the Muana Loa data, while its temperature data, like all local temperature data, is highly varible and not a valid data set for the entire globe. Thus update 3 gets it right again by showing the global temperature data.

  136. dover_beach

    Maybe you should find out since it has some bearing on the usefulness of your comparison.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *