Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Uncategorized

A Note on Temperature Anomalies by Tom Quirk

By

One of the most vexing things about climate change is the endless debate about temperatures. Did they rise, did they fall or were they pushed? At times it seems like a Monty Python sketch following either the Dead Parrot or the 5 or 10 Minute Argument.

However it is possible to see some of the issues by looking at the correlation of the five temperature series that are advanced by the uppers or the downers.

The five groups are:
1. GISS, The Goddard Institute, home of James Hansen,
2. NCDC, The National Climate Data Center, a part of NOAA (as is GISS), the National Oceanographic and Atmosphere Administration.
3. BMO/UEA, The British Meteorological Office and the University of East Anglia.
4. UAH, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, home of Roy Spencer with his colleagues including John Christy of NASA and
5. RSS, Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, California, a company supported by NASA for the analysis of satellite data.

The first three groups use ground based data where possible with a degree of commonality. However since 70% of the surface of the earth is ocean and it is not monitored in a detailed manner, various recipes are followed to fill the ocean gap, if that is the best way of putting it.

The last two groups use satellite data to probe the atmosphere and with the exception of the Polar Regions which are less than 10% of the globe, they get comprehensive coverage.

One question is of course are the two groups measuring the same temperature? After all the satellite looks down through the atmosphere, while the ground stations are exactly that.

One of the ways to probe this is to look over time at the degree of correlation achieved in the measurements of the “global temperature anomaly

The results of such a comparison are given in Table 1 for the monthly time series from 1979 to 2008. There is the Pearson correlation coefficient extracted from the data. A value of 1.00 shows the compared values move in step with each other while a value of 0.00 would give complete independence. (A value of-1.00 is also possible.) “Commonality”, the square of the correlation coefficient is interpreted as showing what proportion of one measurement series is covered by the other series. Note that correlation does not imply connection or causality except that we know there is some commonality with ground based measurements.

Table 1.
Tom Quirk_table1_temp.JPG

First a check of the land based measurements shows that two groups are closely aligned, the difference reflecting the different processing to get the global result.

GISS is more problematic with less commonality which must be a reflection of quite different processing assumptions to that of NCDC or BMO/UEA.

For land based measurements we are faced with a “Judgement of Paris” and it is not clear who gets the Golden Apple.

Finally the satellite measurements have a high internal commonality but a commonality of some 50% with the land based measurements.

None of this should be surprising. The land measurements are on the land and subject to a number of uncertainties, such as heat island effects and lack of extensive ocean measurements while the satellites probe the atmosphere but not ground level.

So for the last 8 years the results are in Table 2

Table 2.
Tom Quirk_table2_temp.JPG

It is surprising to see the agreement achieved by two quite independent approaches.

However we should be aware that none of this is simple.

Tom Quirk
Melbourne

Economist Ross Garnaut Confuses ‘Skepticism’ and ‘Dissent’

By

Australian economist Ross Garnaut has been commissioned by Australia’s Commonwealth, state and territory governments to examine the impacts, challenges and opportunities of climate change for Australia. There will be a final report by 30 September 2008.

Peter Gallager attended a recent lecture by this well known economist who is likely to significantly shape Australian government policy, he commented:

“I hoped to find that Prof. Garnaut would use his Heinz Arndt Lecture to describe the balance he intended to strike in his recommendations between evidence for risky climate change and a growing body of evidence that the risks are low to moderate (at most). Given his well-known views, I expected to find the balance tilted in favor of the former but I hoped to find that it would be moderated by recognition of the latter. Unfortunately, Prof. Garnaut paid no attention to any scientific facts and made no attempt to strike a balanced risk assessment…

“Ross Garnaut seems to believe that ‘scepticism’ about climate change is analogous to… or is, ‘dissent’. That is, he prefers to describe critics of his views using a term drawn from religious history, identifying someone who rejects a dogma. My reaction on first reading was surprise at the use of a term that implies acceptance of man-made global warming is really a faith from which critics may ‘dissent’. Did Ross Garnaut understand that (obvious) implication, I wondered? …

“Answering the question whether it is possible for ‘dissenters’ can be scientists, Ross Garnaut invokes Gallileo, whom he wrongly describes as a ‘dissenter’—Gallileo was no such thing; Gallileo’s conflict with the Church was about the appropriate role of empricism and contained no basic doctrinal dissent—as an exception that proves his rule…

“When Prof. Garnaut concludes ‘the Dissenters are possibly right, and probably wrong’, what evidence does he adduce? None. Not a shred. This is depressingly consistent with the approach taken in his Interim Report. He does not consider that the science offered in contradiction of the IPPCC pronouncements (the hypotheses of ‘those who are best placed to know’—see p. 5 of his address) calls anything into question because it is ‘dissent’ and not science.

“So much for name-calling. What positive reason does Prof. Garnaut offer for accepting the ‘uncertainties’ of the IPCC as reasonably indicative of a probability? No scientific reason, as it turns out.”

These excerpts are from ‘Science, dogma and dissent: Ross Garnaut’s Heinz Arndt lecture’, by Peter Gallagher. You can read the complete article here:
http://www.petergallagher.com.au/index.php/site/article/science-dogma-and-dissent-ross-garnauts-heinz-arndt-lecture/

The lecure by Professor Garnaut was entitled ‘Measuring the Immeasurable: The Costs and Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation’ and given on June 5, 2008, at the Australian National University. You can read the complete lecture here:
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/MeasuringtheImmeasurable-TheCostsandBenefitsofClimateChangeMitigation,ProfessorRossGarnaut/$File/Measuring%20the%20Immeasurable-%20The%20Costs%20and%20Benefits%20of%20Climate%20Change%20Mitigation,%20Professor%20Ross%20Garnaut.pdf

Carbon Costs Soar as World Cools: Christopher Booker in The Sunday Telegraph

By

“In just 16 months we have seen global cooling greater than the 0.7 degrees net warming recorded by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the whole of the 20th century. Yet it was on this figure more than anything else that the whole warmist theory has been based. Those IPCC computer models never predicted anything like this recent drop in temperatures.

“We can be sure that if the data showed a jump of that magnitude in warming rather than cooling, it would have been top of the BBC news. But it no more earned a mention than the truly unimaginable costs envisaged in the “carbon reduction” bill put before the US Senate last week.

“This solemnly proposed that the US should spend $6.7 trillion to achieve a cut in carbon emissions of 66 per cent by 2050 (even more than the target adopted by the EU). It was described as heralding the most massive shock to the US economy since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

“Even if there is no chance of this bill succeeding until George Bush is out of the White House, it may well get a fairer wind under Obama or McCain. Before the world commits economic suicide, it might be an idea to look at the theory again in the light of those latest temperature figures.”

From ‘Carbon costs soar as world cools’, in The Sunday Telegraph on 8 June 2008, by Christopher Booker.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/08/do0803.xml

[via Benny Peiser]

Ann Novek has a New Blog

By

Ann Novek lives in Sweden. She was once a medical student, but quit to work as a wildlife rehabilitator. She works mostly with birds, and has a special interest in helping birds affected by oil spills.

Ann has also been a supporter of this blog, sending in wildlife photographs and also information about whaling. My favourite wildlife photograph from Ann was probably of the Arctic Fox.

Now Ann has her own blog: http://annimal.bloggsida.se

She plans to post on whaling, diseases amongst birds and wildlife accidents. I have always found Ann’s ‘wildlife accident photographs very distressing but it is important to be reminded of the levitra suffering.

I wish Ann all the best with the new blog, and hope we can do some joint posts – even on wildlife accidents and even though I find the pictures distressing.

duck and plastic ring_And ölring.jpg
A duck with a plastic ring. Photo courtesy of Swedish Veterinary Institute.

Do you recognise this face?

By

X.jpg

On this Queen’s Birthday Public Holiday, I thought that I would issue a challenge to our Politics & Environment Weblog community:

To whom or what does this face belong?

I can tell you that it is not a member of Australia’s legislature. Neither is it employed in Australia’s public service. It is definitely Australian, but it is not a contributor to our discussion on this blog, so it would be vexatious to suggest any of our local identities.

I’ll wait to see what our readership comes up with, before revealing the identity.