Preliminary CO2 data for March of this year are available from the Muana Loa Atmospheric Observatory. The data indicate that CO2 concentration rose slightly from February to March, but not by as much as it usually does, so the seasonally adjusted value actually dropped from February to March:
The monthly values are plotted in red, the seasonally adjusted values in black. Some have made a big deal out of the fact that last month shows a decline in the seasonally adjusted value. Is it really unusual?
This graph only covers a few years; we can get a little more perspective by looking at all of the Mauna Loa data. I’ll reverse the colors, plotting monthly data in black, the seasonally adjusted values in red:
We can also look at the seasonally adjusted data in isolation:
From this, the most recent month doesn’t seem unusual. But is the most recent change unusual? I computed the monthly change in the seasonally adjusted value, i.e., the difference between each month’s value and the previous month’s value. Here’s the result, with the most recent month circled:
It’s quite clear that last month’s drop in seasonally adjusted CO2 concentration isn’t unusual at all. Bigger drops have happened before, as recently as 2004. And while last month’s change is definitely on the low side of normal, it’s also definitely on the low side of normal.
The real story from the Mauna Loa CO2 record is the long-term growth rate. I smoothed the seasonally adjusted data using a Savitsky-Golay filter, which enables one to compute not just the smoothed value, but the rate of change of the smoothed data directly. Here’s the smoothed (long-term) growth rate of CO2 concentration according to Mauna Loa data:
CO2 concentration has consistently risen since accurate measurements began. The rise has certainly not been linear; if it were, then the growth rate would be reasonably constant. But the growth rate itself has increased over the years, demonstrating a nonlinear increase in CO2. In fact, the growth rate now is on the order of 4 times as large as it was when Mauna Loa measurements began in the late 1950s.
Yet some are making a big deal out of a single month’s drop in seasonally adjusted CO2 concentration, one which turns out not to be at all unusual. Some have made a big deal of the fact that CO2 concentration is rising linearly while emissions are increasing — when in fact the rise is most certainly not linear. It’s really just an embarrassment to those who don’t know how to make sense out of data.
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE
Discussion has turned to the growth rate of CO2. Here’s a graph of the annual growth rate from this web site (black dots), a linear fit to that data (blue line), and the growth rate as determined by a Savitzky-Golay filter applied to the monthly data (red curve):
131 responses so far ↓
kim // April 8, 2008 at 2:48 pm
It’s that figure on the ‘low side of normal’ combined with slightly dropping ocean temperatures that makes it interesting. Is is more CO2 going into solution? Too soon to tell.
=================================
[Response: There's a well-known relationship between weather changes and CO2, with a time lag of several months, which appears to be due to the impact of weather changes on plant growth. For some realistic research about models of the carbon cycle, see this.]
kim // April 8, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Also, is the intra-annual variation from increased uptake in the Northern Hemisphere summer biosphere or the Southern Hemisphere cooler winter waters. There seems to be controversy over this point.
============================
[Response: No, there's no controversy at all. There's just ludicrous speculation by denialists in an embarrassing attempt to discredit the antrhopogenic origin of CO2 increase.]
Ian // April 8, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Many people seem to be looking at the NOAA graph and thinking that there’s actually a drop in the CO2 ppm for Feb. It’s a bit of a replay of the “temp anomaly vs. raw temp” mistake from earlier this year.
JohnPaul // April 8, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Since denialists don’t like the word denialist, and the word skeptic doesn’t really apply, here’s a suggestion for the right word to describe people in denial about global warming:
[edit]
[Response: Not very flattering. But it wasn't easy to stop laughing.]
kim // April 8, 2008 at 3:06 pm
No, that business of dissolving in the Southern Oceans speaks to the intra-annual variation, not to the cause of the long term trend. Don’t try to confuse me; I do well enough on my own.
================================
kim // April 8, 2008 at 3:12 pm
How come you didn’t post my follow-up question about biosphere decaying? It was not a bad question. You could have said you don’t know the answer, or the change in CO2 is too little to be significant, but not to post it is bad form.
What do you think is the cause of this blip?
============================
[Response: Because I don't want this thread to turn into a discussion of some off-the-wall ludicrous theory, which *is* used by
denialsts[edit] to lay the foundation for their contention that it’s ocean solubility, not human emissions, that’s the root cause of CO2 increase.I certainly don’t know for sure, but I’d guess that it’s the biosphere that’s responsible for the dip in March 2008.]
Brian D // April 8, 2008 at 3:22 pm
JohnPaul:
I’ve thought about terminology for a long time, and I’ve concluded that we can’t do better than a suggestion from Joe Romm.
Let’s be honest. If they weren’t responding to the imminent government action on climate change, they wouldn’t be in denial. You see this behaviour happening any time the environmentalists raise up a small, local fuss that doesn’t suggest government intervention in the people’s lives (i.e. look how modern America views ‘Save the Whales’). And furthermore, what’s the goal here — to get them to accept climate change, so they can openly forestall action, or to get them to accept action, regardless of how they see climate change?
It’s for this reason that I’ve started calling them “delayers”. Not only is it less aggressive, it’s also closer to the truth (and it also has the subtext that action is inevitable, so people reading the discussions walk away with a very different image).
HB:
Thanks for the analysis, as always. Although the main point of the post was clear to me beforehand, this is the clearest I’ve seen the CO2 growth rate expressed, ever. That is, of course, the part that worries me the most.
[Response: I agree your term is more accurate ... but not as funny.]
Hank Roberts // April 8, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Excellent article. You can tell it’s good by the immediate attempt to fill the thread with a flurry of the usual “but this, but that” digressions.
Readers, ask yourselves: “How come I keep dragging skep-dumb nonsense to a science blog? Why can’t I recognize this stuff for myself by now?”
TCO // April 8, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Very nice analysis, Tammy.
Mike // April 8, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I check certain delusionist sites daily for their savvy insight into the dark art of statistics. Then I hurry over here to see if you’ve shredded it yet.
It’s like shooting fish in barrel, isn’t it?
Brian D // April 8, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Mike: It’s like shooting fish in a barrel, isn’t it?
With a minigun.
HB: I agree your term is more accurate … but not as funny.
True. It’s all in the audience, I suppose. On a blog with people who generally “get it”, like this one, I think I’ll start using [edit]. For general use in the public, though, I think that may be too disrespectful. Note how many people think Watts knows what he’s talking about because of the “politeness” air he tries to present (and preserve through comment-pruning)?
Paul Middents // April 8, 2008 at 4:07 pm
The period of linear growth in the late 80’s early 90’s was considered very significant at the time and analyzed by Keeling, et al in Letters to Nature.
http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1995/NatureKeeling/1995NatureKeeling.pdf
This addresses some of the questions being raised in response to the recent blip. I haven’t tried following this paper forward yet considering that its been cited over 500 times.
Dano // April 8, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Cold La Niña year.
Best,
D
kim // April 8, 2008 at 4:31 pm
So Dano? The globe cools and CO2 goes down? How come?
=================================
[Response: First of all, the CO2 went UP not down -- just not as much as for March of previous years. Second, the ludicrous idea that southern ocean temperature is responsible for the annual cycle of CO2 variations is trivially easy to disprove. Just look at the data from South Pole station.]
Bob G // April 8, 2008 at 4:40 pm
One quibble. You plotted the seasonally adjusted monthly change. What may be abnormal is the two sequential negative monthly changes that occurred in February and March. Why not just plot total deviation from seasonally adjusted norm?
FWIW, co2 levels usually jump in April. Such a jump would end the “co2 levels going down” story line. Also, the Feb and March 08 data are higher than the Feb and March 07 data, so there really is nothing to see here.
[Response: In the Mauna Loa record, there are no fewer than 147 instances of two sequential negative monthly changes in seasonally adjusted CO2.]
Lee // April 8, 2008 at 5:14 pm
BrianD,
Yes, Watts has - not often, but enough -made insulting intemperate remarks, and then scrubbed them without apology. He called me a hypocrite for declining to contribute a top post to his blog while continuing to press him to correct his errors. Then he removed me altogether. There ahve been others. I think its sad for him, but its worth remembering.
Anthony just admitted to this in a comment to Onanym, BTW, and also made it clear that he has no intention of revisiting and correcting his errors. His blog does not allow linking to comments, so I’ll paste it below - its in the apology thread for his wordpress troubles.
Please don’t hesitate to wander over there and comment on all this - politely, of course. grin.
—
Onanym (02:07:21) :
Here’s a challenge for you (that most likely will get caught by the spamfilter):
Why don’t you stop producing new posts until you have cleaned up you solar imprint post? You have been shown to be wrong, and promised to look further into it. When are the updates due?
And what is this with removing old posts that were critical to your work that you even replied to?
REPLY: Thank you for your suggestions. Do you suggest that scientists at universities that write papers that need updates or corrections stop teaching classes or cease work on other papers they are authoring or co-authoring? I think not.
The other issue is a private matter with one individual, it is not your concern. The goal of your question is to turn that matter into a discussion. Sorry, not gonna happen.
John Cross // April 8, 2008 at 5:23 pm
This is probably getting off topic, but the term I have used in the past to describe the [edit] is necromancer. No matter how many times you slay a theory, they are always able to bring it back to some zombie state of life again somewhere else.
John
Hank Roberts // April 8, 2008 at 5:52 pm
> record
And that’s the final record, after the corrections that have to be made to the provisional monthly number.
It’d be interesting to know how often the provisional monthly numbers have been adjusted in which directions, too.
BoulderSolar // April 8, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Oh come on Tamino, thou aren’t the purest around! I remember your post highlighting the very short term drop in artic ice which included a nice graph. And yet no follow up about the artic ice recovery.
Both sides propagate any news of some short term change when it helps their argument. I hold AGW advocates to a higher standard as they presumably are more “scientific”
[Response: Learn to pay attention. I also demonstrated, with zero doubt, that the dip in arctic sea ice this summer was WAY outside the bounds of normal. It was not on the low side of normal, it was so FAR outside the bounds of normal as to constitute a
significantshocking event all by itself.But the dip in CO2 for March 2008 is well within the bounds of normal.]
Hank Roberts // April 8, 2008 at 5:57 pm
So, Kim ( kim // April 8, 2008 at 4:31 pm)
Two statements as if factual, both wrong, followed by request to explain.
Is this just automated copying and pasting, or is there thought behind it?
Dano // April 8, 2008 at 6:33 pm
So Dano? The globe cools and CO2 goes down? How come?
Because a few denialists have a wish for cooling and decline to be true.
The rest of the planet sees the long-term trend.
The rest of the planet also wishes to see the short-term noise, and also wishes to listen to empirical results showing the hand of man has contributed to the warming.
Now, does the majority of society (denialists excepted) wish to move in an agreed-upon direction to mitigate and adapt? That is the question.
Denialists/[edit] don’t want to ask or answer the hard questions, they want to distract society with facile questions. More and more of society is learning to not be distracted by such questions. Fortunately.
Best,
D
[Response: And I'm learning to hit the "delete" button for [edit] comments.]
Petro // April 8, 2008 at 6:34 pm
What is abnorml in Mauna Loa February and March numbers is that they are two consecutive Winter months with such low intermonth increse in the CO2 level (0.35 and 0.21). The closest year where Feb and Mar numbers resemble 2008 is 1967, when the increases were 0.17 and 0.54, respectively. However, the current anomaly is still not statistically significant.
Anyway, let’s speculate! The accumulation of CO2 in atmosphere is dependent on human fossil fuel consumption and seasonal decay of plants in Northern hemisphere. On the other hand, in summertime, when plants are growing, CO2 is turned into sugar and cellulose: CO2 level in atmosphere decreases.
There is no evidence that human fuel consumption is suddenly decreased during this Winter (unless record cold Winter in China dramatically dropped industrial production there, but I consider this unlikely). Maybe cold Winter has delayed rottening of the plants? Maybe La Niña has enhanced plankton growth in Pacific? Maybe Spring (and plant growth) is coming earlier in the Northern hemisphere?
None of these suggests the screwball idea of the [edit] that the rising trend of CO2 in atmosphere is not caused by human fossil fuel burning.
Dano // April 8, 2008 at 6:34 pm
John Cross: good comment.
Hope all is well up there, sir.
Best,
D
Zeke // April 8, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Tamino:
Lucinda has an interesting rebuttal to this post over at her blog, where she criticizes you for analyzing the significance of a one month change instead of a two month change. Personally, I’m not sure how relevant either is in the grand scheme of things, but it appears from her figure that a the two month change is a well outside the norm:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/co2_mauna-loa.jpg
[Response: Wow! TWO months? That changes everything!!! Unless you look at 3 months, or 4, or ...
I didn't even know Lucia had posted about this, I got the idea from Anthony Watts.
I mentioned in this post that because there's noise in just about every observed data set, there will always be at least one which is "wiggling" in a direction that enables [edit] to make a big deal out of it. And the [edit] stay up late at night just *looking* for something — anything — they can seize on to say “See? It’s going the other way!” Of course, in this case they have to resort to restricting themselves to two data points out of 50 years worth of data and crowing about an event that doesn’t even break a record, it just ties one.
If you really want to see a record-breaker, try this.]
Zeke // April 8, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Bleh, the name of the blogger in the prior post should be Lucia. Thats what I get for hitting submit too quickly.
Jim Arndt // April 8, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Tamino, Now it would be significant if the annual numbers show a decrease, which is very possible. Why, because there has not been a decrease since the records started. I do agree that it is simplistic to take a few months and wave your arms frantically.
DocMartyn // April 8, 2008 at 7:05 pm
The level of CO2 measured is a function of the influx rate into the atmosphere and the efflux rate. The summer’s of the two hemispheres contribute two different efflux rates, as the North Hemisphere is more biologically productive. In essence, CO2 swings between two stable steady states. It is rising because humanity is adding to the influx. The swings in the rise and fall of CO2, and knowing the amount of CO2 humans are adding, gives you an idea of the “average” residency time of CO2 in the atmosphere; about 9-11 years. About on par with the disapearence of 14CO2 following the atmoic H-Bomb tests 50 years ago.
[Response: The post-nuke decrease of atmospheric C14 also represents migration of much of that CO2 into the oceans, which absorb and emit about 90 Gton every year. The residence time of an increase in total CO2 is much longer than 9-11 years, more like 100 years, and at least part of the increase will persist a lot longer than that.]
Dano // April 8, 2008 at 7:05 pm
[Response: And I'm learning to hit the "delete" button for [edit] comments.]
Then comes the wailing and rending of garments: ‘Ooooooh! They’re being cennnnsored! Oohhhhh! They’re being stifled! Ohhhhh! Shutting down debaaaaate! Ohhhhhh…etc.
Best,
D
Zeke // April 8, 2008 at 7:39 pm
So changes in one month anomalies are not significant, two month anomalies are significant, three month anomalies are (likely) not significant. Where (or how) do we draw the line to decide what timeframe is meaningful in this case? Is there a good statistical tool to tease it out?
[Response: The two-month change isn't significant either; there's an equally large two-month decrease in the record, and lots of nearly-as-large decreases too. The -0.68 two-month total gives z=-2.75, and that's just about a 1-in-300 event. Out of nearly 600 data points, we have two of them. So the surprising part is ...?
There are hundreds of climate-related variables being monitored continuously, and [edit] are always looking for one which is at or near a record which they can use to contradict global warming. The chances are *always* overwhelming that there’s at least one they can use. And how far down the barrel did they have to scrape to get this? Take CO2 concentration, remove the seasonal trend, take the monthly difference, then look for how many months they can combine to get something that doesn’t even break the record, or represent a truly statistically significant even. But it looks good in a [edit] way.
This month it’s CO2, next month it’ll be … who knows?]
Hank Roberts // April 8, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Doc’s channeling Segalstad. And forgetting that the output of fossil carbon dilutes the background C14, which is mentioned in Weart’s history among other places, e.g. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981E&PSL..53..349S
Hugh // April 8, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Slightly OT but the Grauniad have just posted a link to a great Vulcan Project animation:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/2008/04/spotlight_on_us_co2_emissions.html
The 3D animation of >=2ppm above ambient is particularly clever I thought.
Miguelito // April 8, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Jebus, these people are really grasping at straws if it has come down to this as being evidence against anthropogenic global warming.
The Tuatara // April 8, 2008 at 9:07 pm
I call ‘em cranks.
Has the right tone, don’t y’know.
TCO // April 8, 2008 at 9:23 pm
I think you all might want to rethink the [edit] label. It is accurate* for Watts**, but he will hunker down if you use it. Personally, I think people should be able to follow and stay in analytical debates even with harsh comments. But I find that very, very few people are/will. And Watts is certainly not one of those. BTW, he realizes that he is not that sharp, but he persists. I’m actually not sure what the right course is with him. Pain until he learns. Or a more gentle approach. Or just give up. But I do know that he is sensitive. So you might want to lighten up. Leave the thuggishness to me.
*In the sense of poor thinking even to the point of not understanding his poor thinking.
**but not ffred or me or SM other SM.
[Response: I quite agree that you and fred and the SMs don't qualify as "[edit].” Watts does, and I’m starting to suspect that Lucia does as well.
Its use may well be ill-advised. But it’s the best laugh I’ve had in a while! Oh well… I guess I should put the cause ahead of my sense of humor.]
TCO // April 8, 2008 at 9:57 pm
dude, it is very funny and very apt.
TCO // April 8, 2008 at 9:58 pm
But it just cuts a little close. Like calling GP a pussy or you, Hansen’s bitch or Dhogza an attack dhog. (Actually all those are quite cute…)
fred // April 8, 2008 at 9:59 pm
You do not need a special name for us. We are, you know, just people, but ones who do not agree with you on every particular of every question regarding AGW. At least, not yet.
There are probably many of you who do not agree with me and my friends on every particular of every question regarding programming or Flemish poetry or the French nineteenth century novel.
I do not find it necessary to make up derogatory names to call you.
cthulhu // April 8, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Funnily enough I posted on Watts co2 post last night
http://skepticnonsense.blogspot.com/2008/04/retards-at-watts-blog.html
TCO // April 8, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Watts is very prone to expectation bias. I remember seeing him find a particular upward trending surface station with no micro site issues and say that it had a “classic UHI”. It’s as if he couldn’t even comprehend that there might be an alternative hypothesis (global warming). He’s sort of like some of the types on the other side that I know. He only has room for one possibility.
Dano // April 8, 2008 at 10:43 pm
It’s as if he couldn’t even comprehend that there might be an alternative hypothesis (global warming). He’s sort of like some of the types on the other side that I know.
You are describing human nature. That’s why we have Platonic and Cartesian systems of inquiry, to help overcome bias.
Which, BTW, impart their own bias and deemphasize important considerations, which is not surprising as they are human constructs.
Nonetheless, speaking of human nature, fred states:
You do not need a special name for us. We are, you know, just people, but ones who do not agree with you on every particular of every question regarding AGW…I do not find it necessary to make up derogatory names to call you.
This is also human nature, as the divisive wedge politics in America since the mid-1970s has preferenced marginalization phrases to attempt to ‘divide and conquer’, and the Luntz memos outlining the tactics for delaying AGW action were the culmination of that strategy. Indeed, use of marginalization phrases is a hallmark of denialist argumentation and is a marker for that “thought” process.
Best,
D
TCO // April 8, 2008 at 10:46 pm
I don’t have a problem with AGW types as long as they don’t date my sister.
Neil Fisher // April 9, 2008 at 12:09 am
Indeed, use of marginalization phrases is a hallmark of denialist argumentation and is a marker for that “thought” process
Hmm… What does this say about people who apply the “[edit]” label and why is this (or any other label) any different to the “alarmist” label? Short answer: it’s *no* different. Please avoid doing this - it may be funny, but it certainly isn’t helpful, and may be harmful - it certainly puts *me* off!
Ken // April 9, 2008 at 12:11 am
HB - I’ve really been enjoying these quick and simple to follow posts (the PCA series was a bit more taxing).
Just a heads-up, the March GISS temperature is out and it’s a whopping 0.67 C above baseline. So stand-by for some doubter (that’s my polite term for them) “analysis” that will demonstrate the March CO2 decline and the March temperature rise “proves” CO2 isn’t driving the temperature.
Rick // April 9, 2008 at 12:20 am
I normally just read and learn from Open Mind and other sites. But as the parent of a Down Syndrome son who’s accomplished much in his life I have to speak up in this case. “Skeptard” is deeply offensive in any of several ways. There’s no reason to denigrate those who can’t adequately respond to the ill-considered humor at their expense.
[Response: I apologize. I'll no longer use the term.]
Hansen's Bulldog // April 9, 2008 at 12:34 am
As Rick’s comment makes clear, the term “skeptard” is offensive to, and at the expense of, many who are completely innocent victims of undeserved ridicule. The fault for propagating its use is mine. Failure to realize this is a shame on me.
I won’t use the term any more, nor will I permit its use. Future comments containing the offending term will be deleted.
Hank Roberts // April 9, 2008 at 12:35 am
Stooge.
It’s _the_ right word.
“… a separate category, people who were interested in obfuscating the issue towards supporting their own agenda, as opposed to people that are interested in the scientific truth. This is an important distinction ….”
The word applies to people on all spokes at all distances from the center of the political wheel.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=857#comment-52757
Hansen's Bulldog // April 9, 2008 at 1:05 am
I don’t remove comments after having allowed them. But I have attempted to remove the offending word “skeptard” by replacing all its occurences with “[edit]“, except in the cases of Rick’s comment and my replies to his comment. If I’m informed of any I’ve missed, I’ll replace those too.
This is not to imply that those who used it in commentary are culpable for its use. They were following my lead, the fault is my own. Stupid is as stupid does.
Heretic // April 9, 2008 at 1:27 am
“The fault for propogating its use is mine. Failure to realize this is a shame on me.”
“I don’t remove comments after having allowed them.”
Was away for a while and had to catch up with everything. These 2 comments demonstrate your honesty and decency in a way that should be the envy of Watts and the likes of him. I’m even considering buying a recent text on statistics because of you. Keep up the good work.
[Response: I appreciate your comment, but admitting an offense isn't really cause for praise.]
Rick // April 9, 2008 at 1:56 am
Apology accepted, certainly, and very much appreciated. “Honesty and decency,” indeed.
I’ll look forward to continued reading, and learning, from what you and others have to say on Open Mind.
IANVS // April 9, 2008 at 2:29 am
Very informative blog, Tamino. thx
I have a Denydiot to thank for bringing it to my attention.
Apparently you neutered him a few days ago.
steven mosher // April 9, 2008 at 2:30 am
TCO,
I wouldnt date your sister with C14
Brian Klappstein // April 9, 2008 at 3:36 am
Jim Arndt:
“…Tamino, Now it would be significant if the annual numbers show a decrease, which is very possible. Why, because there has not been a decrease since the records started….”
I don’t think that is true, if you mean annual peak to annual peak. There was an annual peak to annual peak decrease from ‘63 to ‘65 (and also 64 but I’m missing April, May is normally the highest month anyway)
“…I do agree that it is simplistic to take a few months and wave your arms frantically….”
That might be true if were only a few months. In fact CO2 growth rates have been decreasing for the last couple of years. This is in line with (as Kim notes) the strengthening of the ocean sinks. It might not be statistically significant (yet), but the patterns of slowing sea level growth, and slowing CO2 growth point to ocean cooling.
Regards, BRK
EliRabett // April 9, 2008 at 3:37 am
I have to admit to having a slightly different opinion on [edit]. I know enough folk with Down’s syndrome to think of them as people rather than a class. Most of the ones I know are delightful to be with. Since people have a huge range of capability, they are just on one end of it (and for a lot of them not nearly on the far end). OTOH, the one’s labelled [edit] really are either idiots, and not very useful ones at that, or despicable (Seitz, Singer, and my very favorite, Roger Bate).
One can be oversensitive.
fred // April 9, 2008 at 8:15 am
The various epithets are just marketing. They are a debating tactic, at exactly the same level as the use of expressions like ‘right wing deviationist’, ‘fellow traveller’, ‘capitalist roader’, ‘anti-party clique’, ‘heretic’, ‘whore of Babylon’….
Their use has no place in the rational discussion of scientific issues on their merits.
John Cross // April 9, 2008 at 12:49 pm
[Response: I appreciate your comment, but admitting an offense isn't really cause for praise.]
In fact in today’s blog-o-sphere it is cause for praise. It may be a sad state of affairs, but it is true and I also commend you for it.
Regards
John
caerbannog // April 9, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Just a heads-up, the March GISS temperature is out and it’s a whopping 0.67 C above baseline. So stand-by for some doubter (that’s my polite term for them) “analysis” that will demonstrate the March CO2 decline and the March temperature rise “proves” CO2 isn’t driving the temperature.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
Jim Arndt // April 9, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Brian Klappstein,
Sorry, very simply you are wrong see her no decline in yearly CO2
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Ian // April 9, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Jim Arndt,
What exactly do you mean by “no decline in yearly CO2″?
- no decline in annual growth? true, there’s no decline there, either for Mauna Loa or the globe
- no decline in concentration? true, there’s no decline in concentration, for Mauna Loa or the globe
I assume you didn’t mean the last 2 months at Mauna Loa when you said “yearly” -there is a decline at Mauna Loa in the last 2 months centered on average seasonal cycles, but not for the globe.
If you didn’t mean any of these, please clarify.
Dano // April 9, 2008 at 6:56 pm
In fact CO2 growth rates have been decreasing for the last couple of years. This is in line with (as Kim notes) the strengthening of the ocean sinks.
It is not “in fact”. Maybe a fact made up in your subjectivism-adhering mind** to support your ideology, but not a “fact” out here on the objective surface of planet earth.
In fact, there’s a cute little dialog box with scrollbar on the right of Jim’s link that allows you to test your subjectivist “facts” against the rest of the planet’s objective facts.
Best,
D
**Golly, how does that square with obsessive Fountainhead and Objectivism followers?
Gaelan Clark // April 9, 2008 at 7:01 pm
caerbannog, and anyone else who can answer this for me—-yes GISS shows +.67 temp increase, but why does this contradict the RSS and UAH measurements?? RSS shows .079 and UAH shows .094 anomoly for same period. Is it because there are clever manipulations of the data over at GISS?—rhetorical question needs no answer.
Hank Roberts // April 9, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Gaelan:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-hadcru/
Try reading before posting your PR talking point and saying your “rhetorical question needs no answer” — appear smarter.
Thought so.
caerbannog // April 9, 2008 at 7:42 pm
caerbannog, and anyone else who can answer this for me—-yes GISS shows +.67 temp increase, but why does this contradict the RSS and UAH measurements?? RSS shows .079 and UAH shows .094 anomoly for same period. Is it because there are clever manipulations of the data over at GISS?—rhetorical question needs no answer.
If you can’t figure out why the RSS, UAH, and GISS anomaly numbers are different (and why the differences don’t matter), then you’ve got no business posting here.
Brian D // April 9, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Gaelan:
You’ve made exactly the same mistake that Watts recently made, dissected here. Simply put, the graphs are on different scales (that is, a different temperature baseline is used to compute “zero” anomaly on each), and Jim Arndt’s link is misleading by presenting them all together.
Jim Arndt // April 9, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Ian, I thought I made myself clear. Declining meaning if it is growing then the next year it decreases like 381 one year then the next 382. That is simplistic but that is what I mean. I did agree that you can’t take a few months and say AH HA. So if for 2008 NOAA puts up a negative growth number then that would be significant.
Brian D, if you think NOAA is misleading then you should take it up with them. I am only using what they provide and they are the providers and host of the Mauna Loa data .
Jim Arndt // April 9, 2008 at 9:40 pm
oooppps meant 382 to 381.
Brian D // April 9, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Jim:
My mistake; I was responding to a comment that appeared around yours and mistook the name. That comment linked to a [edit] page (one with the four temperature anomaly graphs plotted on the same axis with no conversion), so I assume it’s been removed.
Sorry for the false accusation; I spoke too soon.
Jim Arndt // April 9, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Brian D, No problem Thanks for the kind response.
Brian Klappstein // April 10, 2008 at 1:35 am
Jim Arndt:
“…Sorry, very simply you are wrong see her no decline in yearly CO2….”
Look closely at the peaks on Tamino’s graph. You can see if you squint that the ‘65 peak is lower than the ‘63. Or perhaps you didn’t understand my peak to peak measuring protocol, which is what I thought you meant.
Regards, BRK
Brian Klappstein // April 10, 2008 at 1:53 am
Dano:
“…It is not “in fact”…”
Month over minus 12 month growth rates in the period 2002 to nowtrend down. The data are noisy, and the trend is not likely statistically significant, but down it absolutely is.
From the objective “surface of the planet earth” the average growth rate in 2003 (month minus 12 month) was over 2.6 ppm per year. For 2007 that same number was 1.9 ppmv per year.
Regards, BRK
Ian // April 10, 2008 at 2:39 am
Jim Arndt,
I think I understand you now - I missed the reference to CO2 growth rate in the prior comment.
Hank Roberts // April 10, 2008 at 2:50 am
> not likely statistically significant,
> but down it absolutely is.
What kind of idiots do you take us for, sir, to publicly make such an unsupportable statement?
Oh, wait ….
Hank Roberts // April 10, 2008 at 2:51 am
Feel free to substitute the word “stooges” in my previous question above.
dhogaza // April 10, 2008 at 3:07 am
And - NEWS FLASH! - just last week I flipped a coin twice, and IT CAME UP HEADS BOTH TIMES!
Everything we know about probability and statistical theory was overturned, ya betcha!
Hansen's Bulldog // April 10, 2008 at 3:17 am
The data are pretty easy to find.
It would seem that in the early 1960s there were two consecutive years in which the annual peak CO2 level was less than the previous year. The 1963 peak at Mauna Loa is 322.24, the 1964 peak is 322.23, and the 1965 peak is 322.16. However, the annual low was steadily rising during that time, and the “smoothed” value (not the seasonally adjusted, but the short-term smoothed) is consistently rising.
Dano // April 10, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Ah. I get it: BRK is reading pre-chewed data to make his assumptions.
Brian, which think-tank is crunching numbers for it’s readers to make them feel better? Please name it so we can audit their data, complain loudly about their code and their motives, claim the author is being uncooperative to a set of ever-changing and undocumented standards, then sully the author’s name. H*ll, we could get a Congressional hearing or two in as well.
Anyway, the unreferenced numbers you gave don’t match what the folks here have provided. and what my little spreadsheet got. The first link given even does the work for you (denialists don’t like to follow links, which is what think-tank authors count on; I found this early on.).
Best,
D
steven mosher // April 10, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Gaelen , the difference between GISS and RSS and UAH after correcting for the different base period
is unusally large for march 2008. It’s large but not unprecedented. i think its about a 3sig event. (not doubled checked, so buyer beware ) nothing out of the ordinary.
Brian Klappstein // April 10, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Hank Roberts:
“…What kind of idiots do you take us for, sir, to publicly make such an unsupportable statement?…”
What part of my statement is unsupportable? The trend from 2002 to now, although not (yet) statistically significant, is down. It might be some natural variability, but it might not.
I strongly suspect if people were shown graphs of monthly temperature anomalies in the period 1990 to now, and were told they were the rate of teen pregnancy, they would say something like: “the overall trend was up, but recently it looks like we have turned the corner on this issue….” etc.
Regards, BRK
[Response: "... if people were shown graphs ..." is why I get paid to do statistics.]
Brian Klappstein // April 10, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Dano:
“…Ah. I get it: BRK is reading pre-chewed data to make his assumptions….”
Actually not. I assume I’ve got the same Mauna Loa database freely available that everyone else has. So your spreadsheet shows a higher CO2 growth for 2007 than 2003? Tell me how.
Regards, BRK
[Response: Noise exists. Those who take every wiggle as a reversal of trend ... well, that's another reason I get paid to do statistics.]
Dano // April 10, 2008 at 1:24 pm
You know, looking over at DotEarth and the maluse of data (cherry-picked statistics where starting/ending points are picked to best advantage), and BRK’s (surely innocent) misstatement of CO2 r here, I’m wondering if the denialist industry is trotting out a modified data manipulation tactic.
That kim bot sure does like to run the output routine that the globe is cooling, doesn’t it? The globe is cooling, CO2 growth rates are down, snow…hmmm…
Best,
D
Timothy Chase // April 10, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Regarding fluctuations in CO2 levels, obviously you will want to take into account climate oscillations — warmer temperatures mean less CO2 uptake. However, most of the CO2 uptake in the oceans (and oxygen uptake, too!) takes place in the polar regions. So I suspect that El Nino (which has its strongest effects in the tropics) won’t be as significant as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, for example, at least with respect to ocean CO2 uptake.
However, widespread drought is common during El Nino years. This greatly reduces CO2 uptake by plants. The case for this having played a major role in higher CO2 levels in 1998 is fairly strong, and it seems to have played a role in 2002-3 and 2005.
Dano // April 10, 2008 at 2:59 pm
The trend from 2002 to now, although not (yet) statistically significant, is down. It might be some natural variability, but it might not.
Perhaps you’d like to share with us the rate of change? What’s that number? What are the numbers “you” used (rather, what is the number the think-tank author is telling you)?
Anyway, the trend is not down from 2002.
I repeat: from 2002, the growth rate trend is not down.
To reiterate: the rate of growth of CO2 ppmv, from 2002, is not down.
It is up. Not down.
Up.
Up, not down.
Here are the data for rate of change.
Graph them yourself. Don’t trust the misinformation you are parrotting, do it yourself.
Use a trendline. Any one you wish. Moving average for any period.
Perhaps you’d like to share with us the rate you graphed, and tell us how that differs from the “information” you were given from the denialist website. Put the two together.
HTH.
Best,
D
Brian Klappstein // April 10, 2008 at 3:33 pm
“….Those who take every wiggle as a reversal …”
Actually sometimes those wiggles are reversals. And if it was just wiggles in one parameter, you might have a strong point. However, all major global climate parameters, be it sea level growth, lower and middle troposphere temperatures, CO2 growth, surface temperatures, and deep sea temperatures appear to have “flattened” starting in the period 2002-2003 (maybe a bit later for sea level growth which had a stepwise jump in ‘05). The major exception to these flattenng climate trends would be artic sea ice and other NH trends, but then these are not a global parameters.
You are to a degree hiding behind statistics, analyzing each parameter by itself, and finding that the hypothesis of a recent trend change fails significance tests, but ignoring how remarkably synchronized the change in the major global parameters was starting in 2002.
Regards, BRK
[Response: Hiding behind statistics? Misleading by applying statistical significance tests?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you make yourself look? I guess not.]
Brian Klappstein // April 10, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Dano:
I’m using the standard MLO dataset. For example my annual year minus year change for May of 2003 is May 2003 378.54 - May 2002 375.56 = 2.96 ppmv per year. Linear regression on those annual changes (by month) yields a downward trend of -0.06, between Jan 2002 and Feb. 2008.
I could be making a mistake somewhere, but I don’t think so. I’m not claiming this negative trend is statistically significant, just that it is what it is: negative.
Regards, BRK
[Response: The only thing you've done is give us a textbook example of cherry-picking.
Why not compute the trend from January 2007 to February 2008? Oops, that's positive at +0.28. Does that sound ridiculous? Or would you say it just is what it is?
You can't say that CO2 levels are dropping, because they're increasing. You can't even say correctly that the *rate of increase* has changed. But you're willing to take a result which fails statistical significance *miserably* (not just by a little) and use it to support, not what's true, but what you *want* to be true. You're in denial -- which makes you a denialist.]
Hank Roberts // April 10, 2008 at 3:55 pm
> not claiming this negative trend is
> statistically significant, just that it is
> what it is: negative.
And you know this “is what it is” how?
The basis for your belief?
Dano // April 10, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Oooh. OK, I stand corrected:
I cherry-picked the year with the highest growth since 1998, which is 2002. The slope of the intercept using that year is -.0809x+164.21.
Sorry. Not used to cherry-picking like that. You can’t eyeball the trend of the rate from, say, 1980, you must graph those few years.
Nonetheless, using the data over the long term, starting any other year, with a linear trendline or a moving average - 1980, 1990, 2000, is increasing.
Only when you purposely take the highest values does this happen - global cooling!
Best,
D
luminous beauty // April 10, 2008 at 4:13 pm
BRK,
You are confusing what is, to date, nothing more than a temporal fluctuation with a trend. The flattening you see is what in non-anthropogenically forced times would be seen as a real decrease from natural fluctuation.
Ian // April 10, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I think Brian is suggesting that looking at a simultaneous trend in a large number of measures could be more meaningful than individual analyses of each measure. Brian, in principle there’s nothing preventing this approach. But you should know that it too can, and ultimately should, be treated with a statistical approach. What you describe, for instance, could be tested with a “sign test” based the binomial distribution (null hypothesis would be that pos and neg trends are equally distributed, and you would be looking for a high proportion of pos values in the set of trend measures).
But what measures would you pick? How would you justify their inclusion – for starters, you’d have to be careful of redundancy across different measures, and you’d want some sort of global coverage for a representative range of forcings. It already sounds like the beginnings of a dissertation to me.
Next, you still need the statistical tests on individual measures so that you can confidently assign them a positive or negative trend! Brian, the statistics aren’t distracting you from the underlying issues, they’re giving you a principled way of examining the issues.
Michael Smith // April 10, 2008 at 7:12 pm
As I read this blog, and all the disparaging remarks and the hostility toward people like Steve McIntyre, I can’t help but wonder why I rarely see any of you over at Climate Audit.
In another thread, I asked Dano why he didn’t go to CA and refute Steve’s findings — since he’s so absolutely positive that McIntrye is wrong on some many different issues. The response I got from Dano was this (in part):
Noooooo, the issue is why doesn’t Galileo publish these compelling arguments for all the world to see? Why confine them to a small corner of the world?
And dhogaza responded:
Blogs don’t count in the world of science. Sorry ’bout that.
These responses don’t make sense.
The Climate Audit blog IS “for all the world to see” and McIntyre HAS published papers on his views. I see no grounds for claiming that he is trying to “confine them to a small corner of the world”; where is the evidence that he is trying to hide his views?
Furthermore, you are (apparently) willing to accept, as valid, Tamino’s works that are only published here — you don’t dismiss HIS views on the grounds that he hasn’t published them in a journal — you evidently think that THIS blog “counts in the world of science”. So why the double standard?
The tone of the comments at this site would lead one to believe that a number of you could utterly and undeniably refute all manner of McIntyre’s findings, thus humiliating him at his own web site.
I wonder why you don’t do it.
Hank Roberts // April 10, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Yawn. Seriously, must we do this again?
You want us to prove what he’s not doing by visiting the place he’s not doing it and arguing about whether he’s doing it?
Publish or perish.
Lee // April 10, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Michael,
I was a regular visitor and commenter at CA for a couple years. I left because of Steve’s habit of editing what he had said, changing its meaning and seeming intent, without noting that it was a change. It too often left things that had been said, seeming to respond to something different than what they actually responded to.
I left because Steve edited (not scrubbed, snipped part of without notice so that it changed the meaning) a comment of mine, and then denied doing it. This was part of a dispute where Steve was almost certainly wrong - and he deleted the comments after the fact, after responding to some of them.
At least one regular commenter here witnessed much of this.
I no longer trust CA enough to put my words into the care of that site.
Brian Klappstein // April 10, 2008 at 8:33 pm
“…[Response: The only thing you've done is give us a textbook example of cherry-picking...."
I don't think I'm cherry picking and my logic is that there appears to be an across the climate change parameters board trend change on or about 2002. And that also appears true of the rate of growth of CO2 also.
I think at the heart of our disagreement is this:
You believe that climate change is a slow steady signal underlying a lot of noise. In other words if the trend doesn't hold up over 20 or 30 years it's not real. So for you, no 5 year trend is of interest.
But I don't hold that to be true. I think climate changes in stepwise fashion, and the state changes in climate are apparent over much shorter time periods, like maybe even as short as 5 years.
The noise is the signal in other words. Maybe not the highest frequency noise (month to month), but certainly the year to year "noise".
And this noise is telling us something about climate, although clearly our inability to predict ENSO events shows, at least this stage, we really don't understand it.
If you think about it, the view that short term trends are just "noise" means the 2002 trend changes for all the major climate parameters is just a coincidence.
Regards, BRK
[Response: You say "The noise is the signal in other words. Maybe not the highest frequency noise (month to month), but certainly the year to year "noise"."
I say: you're drawing the line between month-to-month and year-to-year, because that gives you the result you wanted in the first place. I draw the line between what comes from mathematical analysis, and what doesn't. You have no observations, analysis, or physical theory to support your contention that year-to-year variations are anything other than noise in the climate system. You also keep harping on a congruence of trend changes in 2002, but you haven't yet provided even a shred of evidence that any of the trend changes you refer to actually took place.
Yours is just a dressed-up way of deluding yourself into thinking that noise in the climate system doesn't exist.]
Brian Klappstein // April 10, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Dano:
“…I cherry-picked the year with the highest growth since 1998…”
The fact that CO2 growth peaked in the “mother of all El Ninos” is not likely a coincidence. Tamino should do a trial regression analysis of the SO Index and CO2 growth.
I think the results would be interesting.
Regards, BRK
[Response: Relationships between CO2 growth and other variables (including weather phenomenon linked with el Nino) have already been studied; I posted about one such analysis here.
In addition to being deluded about "the noise is the signal," you also seem to be under the misconception that scientists aren't constantly exploring these possibilities.]
Dave Andrews // April 10, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Hank
You seem to be saying that only peer reviewed information counts but we all know there are plenty of problems with peer review and that often much of what gets published is later shown to be totally wrong.
Secondly - oh why bother because HB has taken a dislike to me because I was sarcastic about a comment of his and this won’t get posted anyway.
[Response: This is my house. I put up with a lot of abusive remarks in the name of free discussion, more than I should probably and more than I'm obligated to certainly. No more from you.
Peer review is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for quality control in scientific publication.]
dhogaza // April 10, 2008 at 9:18 pm
To paraphrase an old dutch CS dude, quality assurance can only show the existence of errors, not their absence.
So, yes, of course, papers with errors are going to filter through. That does not mean that ALL papers with error will make it through the peer review filter.
On the other hand, anyone can blog nonsense, there’s no filter whatsoever.
Now, are you really saying that your average denialsphere blog is as likely to be free of error as your average peer reviewed paper?
At least when the reviewers really are peers as the scientific community means it (working in the relevant field, not like at E&E where the reviewers are as ignorant as climate science as the authors)?
TCO // April 10, 2008 at 9:50 pm
If McInytre has stunning new ideas, than he should publish them in the literature. It is a bit rich to say propose contrary theories AND insist on putting them forward in an amateur format. Much of the hesitancy with Steve publishing is from HIM. At least in the past, he did not bother really writing up things. It’s a pity, because he has occasional interesting ideas, AND because properly written up results would be easier for readers to assess, AND because the discipline of writing things up would clarify some of his (rather divergent) thinking.
It’s really NOT up to the field to read Climate Audit, wandering through meanders and side points, dealing with improperly labeled graphs and poor citations, etc. etc.
Another part of the problem is that Steve very much confounds advocacy with explanation. He uses lawerly arguments, avoids being pinned down, allows misinterpretation to exist when they help him (but corrects when the opposite), etc.
I mean some of this stuff is just BASIC. Just for a normal professional! What impression is one supposed to get from the way he does talks (at the last minute, poorly organized, no time for questions, etc.). It’s an offence to the audience.
Dave Andrews // April 10, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Dhogaza
Of course peer review provides a better filter than blogs. But you have to accept that in peer review as in all walks of life there exists “group think” so that papers that don’t fit in never make it and authors who are not part of the “establishment” don’t make it either.
In those cicumstances they have no option but to try and publish in E&E or on blogs
TCO // April 10, 2008 at 10:21 pm
well…Dave, SM told me several years ago that he was not getting rejected, but that he wasn’t submitting. And if you have ever read his blog or his PPT talks, you will see how careless his presentation of ideas is. So, DROP the conspiracy theory crap. SM is too lazy to publish real papers and prefers to preach to the choir. I would say it to his face. To his [edit] face.
TCO // April 10, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Oh…and there are a LOT of journals out there. different fields (this is an interdisciplinary issue), different orgs, Climate of the Past (which actually in a sense allows “publishing” trial papers, different regions, etc. It is way, way RICH to say that one has to go to E&E. E&E is for Anthony Watts/Basil types. For hacks. For second raters.
Brian D // April 10, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Ah, yes, the Galileo complex again.
There’s a difference between scientific consensus and groupthink. Not every scientific breakthrough comes from a maverick, not every maverick is another Galileo, and not every dissenting opinion gets ’stifled’. In fact, in areas that follow proper scientific procedure, you end up with ‘maverick’ cases like Einstein — a brilliant idea that truly does stand on its own, submitted to peer review, and despite running contrary to convention, gets published anyway.
Let’s see now… how did it go again? oh, yes, I remember. You’ve just provided us with Point A, and from there, McIntyre provides us with C, D, and E. ALMOST a perfect score.
If I seem bitter or disrespectful, it’s that I find hiding on a blog and passive-aggressively insinuating fraud every third breath distasteful, especially since blogging’s in the public domain. This means that if the details of your argument are in the minutae that many don’t understand, you end up misinforming a LOT of people (a classic example is Seitz’ attack on Santer in the 1996 WSJ, where Santer was accused of changing the IPCC report… in response to peer review).
If McIntyre has a technical argument to be made against GISS (or whoever he’s targeting now), and his goal is getting to the truth instead of influencing public opinion, there are many peer-reviewed scientific journals waiting for his submission. If his goal is merely altering public perception, then he should at least admit it rather than hide behind an analytic façade.
Dave Andrews // April 10, 2008 at 10:51 pm
TCO,
I didn’t say there was a conspiracy theory just that there is group think.
As far as I know SM is not and has never been an academic. This therefore makes it so much harder for him to get anything published in mainstream scientific journals - witness his troubles with Nature. Journals like that just don’t look at any kind of research that comes from outside the mainstream.
TCO // April 10, 2008 at 11:17 pm
You don’t need to be an adacemic to write and submit a proper paper. there are Notices to Authors. There are books on this. McI is lazy and he is playing to a choir. A stupid choir.
Hank Roberts // April 10, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Dave, Google
academic rejection letter Nature Science
Fifth hit on first result page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092614.stm
———-
“When we believe ourselves in possession of the only truth, we are likely to be indifferent to common everyday truths.”
– Eric Hoffer
dhogaza // April 10, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Has it occurred to you that just MAYBE his submission isn’t up to Nature’s standards?
My understanding is that they treated his submission seriously, gave him review comments (not at all uncommon), and that he’s worked them into the paper and has resubmitted.
That’s not “trouble with Nature” that’s PROCESS.
TCO // April 10, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Just read his blog posts. Read his presentations for talks. They’re messes. McI needs to tighten up. If he does, it will be:
*easier to follow
*less dramatic things found wrong
*better science
Dano // April 10, 2008 at 11:30 pm
In another thread, I asked Dano why he didn’t go to CA and refute Steve’s findings — since he’s so absolutely positive that McIntrye is wrong on some many different issues…
These responses don’t make sense.
…
Furthermore, you are (apparently) willing to accept, as valid, Tamino’s works that are only published here — you don’t dismiss HIS views on the grounds that he hasn’t published them in a journal — you evidently think that THIS blog “counts in the world of science”. So why the double standard?
…
I wonder why you don’t [comment on CA].
Look back to prior to 2007. You’ll see me at CA. One gets tired of competing with all the ignorance and ideologues in comments and realizes one will never get that time back.
Nonetheless, you seem to want to wish that Dano goes around and points at Tamino’s blog as equivalent to journal publication. That is a big fat wish on your part.
Second, the scientific community empirically tests their findings via the journals. That’s how it’s done. That’s how Tamino does it.
Most scientists don’t go to blogs, read blogs, comment on blogs, as they work more hours than you do and have families. Some do occasionally to discuss.
It is a big fat wish on your part that the scientific community takes Stevie Mac seriously. Too f’n bad - after he played his gamie-game with Mann and the grad student and the dataset, he lost that option. He wants to be taken seriously, Watts, Errendipity, they can go publish. That’s how it’s done. If you don’t like it, too bad. Go pout somewhere else.
Welcome to the world, lad. It is what it is, not what you wish it to be.
Best,
D
Hansen's Bulldog // April 10, 2008 at 11:33 pm
The discussion has gotten very far afield from the topic. It’s time to let it go.
Hank Roberts // April 11, 2008 at 1:21 am
Well, back on topic, why it’s not shocking although people are shocked by it:
Poetry
by Marianne Moore
I, too, dislike it: there are things that are important beyond
all this fiddle.
Reading it, however, with a perfect contempt for it, one
discovers in
it after all, a place for the genuine.
Hands that can grasp, eyes
that can dilate, hair that can rise
if it must, these things are important not because a
high-sounding interpretation can be put upon them but because
they are
useful. When they become so derivative as to become
unintelligible,
the same thing may be said for all of us, that we
do not admire what
we cannot understand: the bat
holding on upside down or in quest of something to
eat, elephants pushing, a wild horse taking a roll, a tireless
wolf under
a tree, the immovable critic twitching his skin like a horse
that feels a flea, the base-
ball fan, the statistician– ….
Full text at:
http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15654
Brian Klappstein // April 11, 2008 at 5:10 am
“….Relationships between CO2 growth and other variables (including weather phenomenon linked with el Nino) have already been studied;….”
Yes, I did check your link out. The relationship between CO2 growth and ENSO looked interesting so I plotted data going back further than the start of the referenced study (1980). If your run a rolling mean of 12 months on the month minus 12 month annual growth rate for CO2 and a rolling 12 month mean on the SO Index (mine is from the ABOM), and you “de-lag” the CO2 growth rate by 10 months you get a reasonable fit.
The major exceptions being Pinatubo and another volcanic eruption in late 1963, where the relationship goes inverted (or non-inverted since the normal relationship between CO2 growth and SOI is inverted)
The best fit is between about 1970 and 1987 where the R-squared number is 0.65 for the rolling SOI vs “de-lagged” rolling CO2 growth. However the scatter plot has kind of a “weird” look to it.
In any case there is clearly some kind of relationship between CO2 growth and the state of ENSO.
Regards, BRK
Michael Smith // April 11, 2008 at 11:19 am
Dano wrote:
Nonetheless, you seem to want to wish that Dano goes around and points at Tamino’s blog as equivalent to journal publication. That is a big fat wish on your part.
Well, no, it wasn’t a “wish” — “big”, “fat” or otherwise — on my part; it was an observation that it is a double standard to accept, as scientifically valid, some blogs yet reject other people’s work on the grounds that it is “only on a blog”.
I also see that you chose not to support your earlier implication that McIntyre is trying to hide his work. May we assume, then, that you’ve withdrawn that contention?
Second, the scientific community empirically tests their findings via the journals. That’s how it’s done. That’s how Tamino does it.
Let me assure you that submitting one’s findings to a journal is NOT an “empirical test” of one’s findings.
However, the larger point here is that if you are asserting that only “the journals” can pronounce judgment on one’s work — and if McIntyre is guilty of failing to submit his work to journals — then the only thing you can conclude is that the validity of McIntyre’s work is unknown and unverified — which means that by your own argument, all of your railing and derision and hostility towards McIntyre’s work is unjustified.
Most scientists don’t go to blogs, read blogs, comment on blogs, as they work more hours than you do and have families. Some do occasionally to discuss.
Besides the obvious fact that you have no way of knowing how many hours I work or whether or not I have a family, I fail to see the relevance of “what scientists do” to the issue of why you people don’t routinely confront McIntyre directly and refute him — and thereby convince us that you are right.
It is a big fat wish on your part that the scientific community takes Stevie Mac seriously. Too f’n bad - after he played his gamie-game with Mann and the grad student and the dataset, he lost that option. He wants to be taken seriously, Watts, Errendipity, they can go publish. That’s how it’s done. If you don’t like it, too bad. Go pout somewhere else.
Welcome to the world, lad. It is what it is, not what you wish it to be.
Your repeated effort to dismiss my question as “a big fat wish” or as “pouting” is lame indeed. I’ve expressed no wish, nor have I given any indication of “pouting” — as if that were relevant to anything at all. I’ve asked a question: If McIntyre is as utterly and foolishly wrong as you claim, why don’t you confront him directly and prove that fact to the people like myself who read his blog regularly?
I’m open to being convinced that he is wrong — I’m open to being convinced by reason — but I won’t be convinced by insults, smears and name calling. Especially not when McIntyre routinely answers your criticisms by pointing our their flaws.
John Finn // April 11, 2008 at 2:01 pm
BRK is right about the reduced CO2 trend but, as he says, the reduction in trend is not significant, however it raises an interesting point which is sort of related.
Unfortunately I haven’t thought this through as much as I’d have liked, but to avoid the risk of the topic “dying” before I get round to posting, here goes:
It seems that the rise in CO2 concentrations in 2007 was ~2 ppm. The rise is in 1973 was also ~2ppm (sort of cherry-picking, I know, but this is justto illustrate ratherthan prove.)
But - human emissions in 2007 would be > 7 GT whereas they were only about 4.6 Gt in 1973. I’m quite willing to be corrected on this but I assume the ~2 ppm increase in 1973 is due
to some finite capacity of the various carbon sinks, so how come increases in atmospheric concentrations aren’t at least 50% more than they were in 1973. Or more generally,
based on what we are emitting now shouldn’t atmospheric CO2 increases be much larger than 30 or 40 years ago.
A final thought, human emissions in 1900 were estimated to be about 500 Mt (0.5 GT) yet this is supposed to be the time CO2 levels began to increase due to human activity. But if carbon
sinks were struggling to cope with half a gigaton (or even one Gt by 1930) - surely to-day’s levels should be much higher.
I will check this out in more detail, but at first glance the numbers don’t seem to stack up. Any (useful) comments would be appreciated.
[Response: I think you're reading way too much into a very noisy time series.
Also, it's simply not correct that 1900 is "the time CO2 levels began to increase due to human activity." By 1900 the increase was well underway; see this.]
L Miller // April 11, 2008 at 2:22 pm
What makes you think we accept this blog as “scientifically valid”? Tamino does a good job with his math which carries a lot of weight in the absence of contradictory peer review work (or when there is real debate in the peer review work). If/when Tamino decides to strike out on his own and use this blog to publish “original” work that contradicts the current peer reviewed science I know which side I’ll be on, and it will not be this blog. Fortunately this hasn’t been an issue thus far.
Bottom line, blogs that back themselves up with peer reviewed papers or are extremely valuable. Blogs that claim to disprove mainstream science yet never publics or cite papers published in reputable journals have much less value.
Submitting a paper to peer review doesn’t verify it, it only exposes it to falsification. That point aside, if McIntyre wasn’t prepared to have his work commented on he should have kept it to himself, if he was and the work was worthwhile he should have published.
That leaves us with him wanting to publicize work that that doesn’t make the grade scientifically, which is something that deserves to be criticized.
Hank Roberts // April 11, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Michael, look it up.
http://www.google.com/search?q=bbc+rejection+letter+science+journal+climate