the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Nearly Two Teams of Hockey Sticks used in Massive Wilson Super Reconstruction

Posted by Jeff Id on January 16, 2016

So a Willis Eschenbach article at WUWT caught my attention this afternoon and cost me several hours. It is basically an average of 54 different tree ring reconstructions around the world. The sheer volume of data which went into each hockey stick and then was processed into the final hockeystick is huge.  Willis demonstrated the indescribable method used to combine the data turned out to be equivalent to a simple average. The result: Hockeystick!

53-proxies-wilson-2016[1]

Graph per Willis Eschenbach — WUWT article linked above

Last millennium northern hemisphere summer temperatures from tree rings:
Rob Wilson a, b, *, Kevin Anchukaitis b, c, Keith R. Briffa d, Ulf Büntgen e, g, h, Edward Cook b,
Rosanne D’Arrigo b, Nicole Davi b, i, Jan Esper j, Dave Frank e, Bj€orn Gunnarson k,
Gabi Hegerl l, Samuli Helama m, Stefan Klesse e, Paul J. Krusic f, k, Hans W. Linderholm n,
Vladimir Myglan o, Timothy J. Osborn d, Milos Rydval a, p, Lea Schneider j,
Andrew Schurer l, Greg Wiles b, q, Peng Zhang n, Eduardo Zorita

The data and articles are fully available on line here.

So knowing just enough about dendrochronology to actually produce work equal to those in publication, I must be an expert dendroclimatologist! Collect tree ring data, density, MXD, blue etc… Detrend by some random form of curve fit. Average or regress and compare to temp. If the comparison is not statistically significant, the bag of accepted statistical shenanigans is wide and nearly unbounded. You can correlate raw data with temp and discard data which isn’t strongly correlated. You can keep all data and use any number of multivariate regressions which functionally eliminate bad non-hockeystick data and amplify the “good”. You can use a huge variety of standardization curves and sorting criteria to create a hockey stick upslope at the recent end of the curve. You can select regions with trees of known warming signal and ignore adjacent trees to create the blade. You can even cut off data which doesn’t work out for you and paste temperature data right on the end. In short — guaranteed success every single time!!

So of course having 23 dendroclimatologists who take 54 separate tree ring reconstructions and put them all together with a nonsensical unjustifiable method that breaks down to a simple average is just par for the course and no surprise to anyone. In their minds, and the minds of various other dimwits, it is absolute proof of the robustness of their field.

D’Arrigo published a ridiculous comment which makes my point perfectly:

Several recent opponents of anthropogenically-forced global warming are familiar with statistics
but have not personally developed tree-ring or other proxy data or reconstructions themselves.
They claim that there are methodological artifacts that could bias, in particular, the Mann et al.
(1999) “hockey stick” reconstruction, and by inference, other reconstructions as well. Attempts
to refute this claim have been published by several authors (e.g. Mann et al. 2005, Rutherford et
al. 2005, Wahl and Ammann in press). However, the methods utilized by the various other studies
are often quite different and most are derived in a more straightforward manner than the much cited
“hockey stick” method (Mann et al. 1999). For example, the D’Arrigo et al. (2006)
reconstruction was developed using simple averaging of tree-ring records (after accounting for
differences in mean and variance over time), followed by linear regression. Care was taken to
evaluate the robust nature of the reconstructions developed in this case, rigorously testing for
model validity and potential bias. Thus, for the D’Arrigo et al. (2006) study and likely others,
there exists no “methodological artifact” which might have biased results in favor of a conclusion
2
of unusual recent large-scale warming. Therefore, we find the concern that there is “some kind of
methodological artifact that somehow reverberates throughout nearly all of the reconstructions
and that has gone unappreciated by people in the field” to be unfounded.
There has also been accusation of bias in site selection or so-called “cherry picking”, in which it
has been argued that dendrochronologists only include those sites that show global warming for
use in the tree-ring reconstructions. Instead, we maintain that we purposely select those trees and
sites which portray low-frequency information. Coherent trends between some tree-ring records
are indicative of a common response to large-scale temperature changes. We also pre-screened
the tree-ring records used in our reconstruction against individual station records and gridded
climate data, to evaluate their more localized response to temperature (D’Arrigo et al. 2006).
Only certain types of sites (e.g. due to their ecological characteristics) can provide large-scale
temperature information. This is by its very nature a subjective, non-quantifiable process and we
make no apologies for selecting these kinds of trees and sites to reconstruct temperature
variability. Such a signal can often be readily observed by examining core samples in the field (e.g.
increased growth in the 20th century, decreased growth during cold periods of the so-called Little
Ice Age, etc), or in tree-ring chronologies even prior to any calibration or modeling with
instrumental temperatures.

Right in the middle of the thing our resident genius admits to throwing out data which goes against the theory that the trees are measuring temperature. Those trees that DO correlate to temp, have some magic and unknowable property which binds them inextricably to temperature for all time.  Somehow this magic also doesn’t allow them to be identified any other way than after looking at the data.  Really old trees that exist prior to the temperature record are usually left unsorted.  We readers of such drek, typically have no idea how many trees must be examined before a magic ‘thermometertree’ is selected because the expert scientists don’t bother to tell us.  Now the sets are so predetermined that experts don’t even look at non-sanctioned data so we have a functional presort as a defacto standard.  D’Aroigo may make no apologies for the statistical scatology being peddled but it doesn’t mean that it is defensible or even remotely scientific. In fact, were the ‘scientists’ to do the job correctly the rejection vs acceptance of trees during sorting IS quantifiable and can be used to statistically determine if the trees have a valid signal, but a far less biased and more scientific person than Rosanne D’Arrigo is clearly required.

We have repeatedly covered how there is an infinite variety of variance amplification math available to dendroclimatology. The argument to the validity of hockeysticks due to the numerous methods are used to the same conclusion is complete nonsense for this reason. So in the superstick of Wilson 2016, I wanted to know what methods were used to create the curves eventually averaged together in our brand new Wilson 2016 hockeystick.

To that end, I took my time and read the method used in ALL papers used to create the 54 series in Wilson 2016. It took me all afternoon. I put the methods used by the authors in each series, in the table below so that readers could see the distribution of nonsense making up this new and improved hockey stick.  For each reviewed method, I determined if it was remotely reasonable. As you may know, there are plenty of hidden details in the dendroclimatology world that can only be uncovered by replication – and luck. SO…..If it even had a tiny chance of being the simple average suggested by D’Arrigo in the quote above, I put a resounding YES in the column with the heading “Statistically defensible”. If I couldn’t tell due to paper access or difficulty in understanding what was going on – I put a Maybe. Of the 54 series used in this hockey stick, that left an insane 43 big, fat, NO’s.

No way they could be defensible.

No way they would pass muster in a rational field.

No possible way that the series at the end of the paper has any use whatsoever. Yet our nearly two dozen ‘experts’ were perfectly happy to average them out just to show the world the robustness and amazingness of their cutting-edge field.

I had 4 yesses, 7 maybes and 43 No’s. If I was wrong on the No’s half the time, which I am not, that would leave 21.5 bad series still used. But the real answer is 43 or 80% of the data is complete and utter garbage having hockey stick blades created by mathematical artifact rather than actual data.

 

Article referenced Method used Statistically defensible method
D’Arrigo et al. (2004) linear regresssion produced hockey stick blade No
Wiles et al. (2014) regression analysis No
Davi et al. (2003); principal componenets — paywalled No
Anchukaitis et al. (2013) inverse linear regression No
Youngblut and Luckman (2008); paywalled Maybe
Szeicz and MacDonald [1995]; linear regression paywalled No
Wilson et al. (2014) regression analysis – paywalled No
Luckman and Wilson (2005) rcs and curve fit with average – no real hs Yes
Biondi et al., [1999]; curve fit to series and average — no hs Yes
Anchukaitis et al. (2013) inverse linear regression No
Anchukaitis et al. (2013) inverse linear regression No
Schneider et al. (2015) ad hoc regression:calculating weighted composites based on moving correlations with local temperature; extremely poor No
Gennaretti et al. (2014) linear scaling to local temperature No
Payette (2007); paywalled Maybe
D’Arrigo et al. (2003 (RW) and 2013 arstan RCS and average Yes
Rydval et al. (in preparation) not pubished Maybe
Dorado-Linan et al. (2012) regression and variance matching No
Buentgen et al. (2006). mean and SD scaling during temperature calibration period prior to reconstruction Maybe
Schneider et al. (2015) ad hoc regression:calculating weighted composites based on moving correlations with local temperature; extremely poor No
Zhang et al. (2015) RCS and something else — not sure exact method Maybe
Linderholm et al. (2014) linear regression No
Esper et al. (2014) and RCS and average -no hs apparent No
McCarroll et al. (2013) regression and variance matching – paywalled No
Büntgen et al. (2013) mean and SD scaling during temperature calibration period prior to reconstruction No
Klesse et al. (2014) paywalled Maybe
Helama et al. (2014) A unique intermixing of temperature information onto proxy data – ugly No
McCarroll et al. (2013) regression and variance matching – paywalled No
Schneider et al. (2015) ad hoc regression:calculating weighted composites based on moving correlations with local temperature; extremely poor No
Briffa et al. (2013) RCS and average — yamal HS, others not Yes
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Wilson et al. (2007) only use proxies which correlate to temperature others removed from usage – big joke No
Schneider et al. (2015) ad hoc regression:calculating weighted composites based on moving correlations with local temperature; extremely poor No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Schneider et al. (2015) ad hoc regression:calculating weighted composites based on moving correlations with local temperature; extremely poor No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Davi et al. (2015) principal componenets — paywalled No
Jacoby et al. (2000); RCS averaging, PCA first eigenvector only shows decline in warming years no HS No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
D’Arrigo et al. (2014) select region of positive correlation to temp, principal components regression of 6 favorite series with temp No
Hughes et al. (1999); paywalled Maybe

So instead of a validation of the robustness of the data, or the robustness of the field, what we have is is a paper demonstrating the robust willingness of climate scientists to sell trickery as science for both money and for the cause. These authors should be ashamed but even when caught truncating series, they simply push on producing ever more garbage for the small brained sheep in the media, politics and the public to use as propaganda for the government agenda.

 


70 Responses to “Nearly Two Teams of Hockey Sticks used in Massive Wilson Super Reconstruction”

  1. Jeff Id said

    Apparently all graphs on the blog are down for some reason.

  2. craigm350 said

    Reblogged this on CraigM350.

  3. Ben Palmer said

    Looking at the list of reconstructions, I gather that some authors appear multiple times, giving their questionnable methods more weight in the Wilson reconstruction.
    I’m also puzzled by the fact that these treemometers are consistently used although to my knowledge there is still no proof whatsoever that tree rings reflect temperatures ans temperatures only.

    • Jeff Id said

      There is definitely a preference for certain authors work in this. One thing I did allow as acceptable math was RCS standardization which when combined with elimination of young trees can have a strong potential bias to the most recent end of the graph. There are a large number of papers which eliminate data by tree age and it seems reasonable on the surface but creates a risk that the reconstruction will accidentally make artificial blades.

  4. The irony is of course that higher levels of carbon dioxide also help the trees to grow well. And you can’t get clear results in the tropics, and in cold regions (where there’s no growth in winter) you have no information about annual minimum temperatures. So you are not going to get any valid information about global mean temperature for land and ocean.

  5. ferdberple said

    I’ve re-analysed all 54 datasets for the period 1710-1998, the period where all sets have data. No statistical nonsense was applied. Calculating both the average and standard deviation, there is an interesting result!

    For the period 1710 to 1998, there is virtually no change in the 30 year average of the deviation. What this says loud and clear is that there is no evidence in this data for climate change being due to anything other than natural causes. There is no evidence that industrialization is affecting the variability of climate. Otherwise we should be seeing a statistically significant increase in the variance. But we don’t.

  6. […] Nearly Two Teams of Hockey Sticks used in Massive Wilson Super Reconstruction […]

  7. Willis Eschenbach said

    Jeff, thanks for a most interesting analysis. I didn’t have the heart to hack my way through the forest of the 53 underlying proxies, particularly after I saw that the much-vaunted reconstruction was virtually identical (except for the very final year) with the simple average of the data.

    Here’s the sad part from my perspective. I happen to think that there actually is valuable information in the tree ring widths. I just don’t think it can be unraveled by any of the methods I’ve seen to date.

    Best regards to you,

    w.

    • Jeff Id said

      Willis,

      The math behind these individual series is horrifically biased. Even a cursory review shows much of the problem. As to the valuable information, it is clear that trees respond to climate right!! Of course we all agree, but like thermodynamics or satellite temperatures, calculating the influence of a single variable among mulivariate responses (moisture, temp, cloudiness, humidity, bugs, soil, etc..) requires a very exact understanding of how the item being measured reacts each input or an accurate result will be impossible as be an ill posed problem.

      Currently the single variable calculation methods of moisture or temperature or in some cases either from the same tree ring width data depending on the scientists mood, isn’t even approaching the issue. For temp, tree line data is much better, although terribly sparse.

      Without some major breakthroughs in separation of various influences, we are in an unresolvable situation with respect to trees and climate understanding. I have often written how I wished it were not the case. It would be amazing to truly know historic climate. Blueness is the latest tree ring data, like MXD has replaced TRW. I need to read up on why it is supposed to be better.

  8. Steve McIntyre said

    Don’t forget D’Arrigo’s testimony to the NAS workshop in 2006 where she put up a slide about cherry picking and then explained to the dumbfounded panel that you had to pick cherries if you want to make cherry pie. She’s the last person who’s entitled to complain about readers being concerned about cherry picking.

    • Steve McIntyre said

      I just noticed that the linked D’Arrigo comment is from March 2006, right after her faux pas at the 2006 NAS panel workshop. The incident is also the topic of numerous March 2006 Climategate emails.

    • Jeff Id said

      It was her 2004 cherry picking listed first in this uber-scientific hockey stick. I ran across the quoted article while searching for the paper. I’ve seen it before but the date worked well with her referenced paper.

  9. igsy said

    As always, a healthy dose of common sense and straight talking at tAV. The articles listing is helpful to folk like me who can’t keep up but retain a morbid interest in the weird mutation of statistics practised in this field.

  10. 4TimesAYear said

    Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog and commented:
    “Right in the middle of the thing our resident genius admits to throwing out data which goes against the theory that the trees are measuring temperature. Those trees that DO correlate to temp, have some magic and unknowable property which binds them inextricably to temperature for all time. Somehow this magic also doesn’t allow them to be identified any other way than after looking at the data. Really old trees that exist prior to the temperature record are usually left unsorted. We readers of such drek, typically have no idea how many trees must be examined before a magic ‘thermometertree’ is selected because the expert scientists don’t bother to tell us. Now the sets are so predetermined that experts don’t even look at non-sanctioned data so we have a functional presort as a defacto standard. D’Aroigo may make no apologies for the statistical scatology being peddled but it doesn’t mean that it is defensible or even remotely scientific. In fact, were the ‘scientists’ to do the job correctly the rejection vs acceptance of trees during sorting IS quantifiable and can be used to statistically determine if the trees have a valid signal, but a far less biased and more scientific person than Rosanne D’Arrigo is clearly required”

  11. hunter said

    More made up crap seeking to justify the rent seeking of the climatocracy.

  12. Thanks Jeff. This goes right back to some of your original technical posts on shrinking the scale of climate signal variability of the ‘shaft’ of the hockey stick. New readers could click on the “Hockey Stick Posts” tab above to see how proxy screening tends to produce hockey stick shaped reconstructions.

    • Jeff Id said

      Lurk lives! Good to hear from you.

      It is an ugly mess they published. I’m thinking that because of the high qty of data, a pseudo-reconstruction using autocorrelated data using northern hemisphere crutem-p an MV regression or even CPS methods might produce an overlay so perfect that it would be a fun post.

  13. What hockey stick? Can you see it here?

  14. hunter said

    Meta studies like this are infamously unreliable and easily tuned to support the author’s desired outcome. The so-called “climate consensus” at nearly every opportunity demonstrates bad faith, bad science, uses unproveable claims, ignores failed predictions, and relies on circular or tautological arguments.

  15. itsnotco2 said

    There’s no valid physics which can in any way associate surface temperatures with carbon dioxide levels. The Earth is kept warm at night by the “blanket” of mostly nitrogen, oxygen and argon molecules that hold over 98% of all the thermal energy in the atmosphere.

    IR-active molecules acquire thermal energy in the same way as nitrogen, oxygen and argon and also by radiation, some from incident solar radiation and a little less from surface radiation.

    But these IR active “greenhouse” gases are the “holes in the blanket” radiating energy out of the atmosphere.

    A study of real-world temperature and precipitation data showed water vapour does indeed cool.

  16. stevefitzpatrick said

    Jeff,
    There may be credible ways to select sites where temperature has a strong influence on tree growth. For example, you could select the sites where the tree ring patterns match the instrumental temperature from 1900 to 1950, and then see how those same sites do from 1950 to 2000. Oh wait, there is the inexplicable divergence from temperature after 1960. Oh well, guess we’ll just have to take their word for it.
    .
    But seriously, it is a wacky field, and one that appears completely devoid of technical rigor. Actually reminds me a little of climate modeling.

    • Jeff Id said

      Anything warm seems to be the key- but seriously, this hockeystick nonsense is so blatant every one of them should be ashamed. At least failed attempts at climate modeling (aka, manual curve fitting) are obscure enough to look reasonable to those who want to believe in this particular governmentally corrupted science.

      • The whole radiative forcing GH garbage “is so blatant every one of them should be ashamed.”

        You would need a mean of over 450W/m^2 of variable flux to “explain” 288K mean surface temperature because of the T^4 relationship in Stefan-Boltzmann computations. And you can’t include back radiation because all that all the radiation between the warmer surface and colder atmosphere and space does is transfer thermal energy out of the surface to the tune of about 66W/m^2.

        Energy balance:

        Out of surface into atmosphere or space …
        Non-radiative: 102W/m^2
        Radiation: 66W/m^2
        Total: 168W/m^2

        Into surface …
        Solar radiation: 168W/m^2

        Problem: How do you get the surface temperature of 288K from that when you need variable flux with a mean of at least 450W/m^2 from an effectively hotter source – not multiple cooler sources?

    • It is always frustrating to read the BS claims by these people using flaky stats. When I was helping do biological research, all these variables would have to have been explained before any claim could be made. Yes one could limit it to the top 4 or 5, but still had to show with an acceptable method that deleted did not have a significant contribution to make. I wonder how many of these arer actually plant physiologists or even qualified biologists?

  17. The debate is over. The alarmists have no credibility.

  18. itsnotco2 said

    The whole radiative forcing greenhouse garbage “is so blatant every one of them should be ashamed.”

    You would need a mean of over 450W/m^2 of variable flux to “explain” 288K mean surface temperature because of the T^4 relationship in Stefan-Boltzmann computations. And you can’t include back radiation because all that all the radiation between the warmer surface and colder atmosphere and space does is transfer thermal energy out of the surface to the tune of about 66W/m^2.

    Energy balance:

    Out of surface into atmosphere or space …
    Non-radiative: 102W/m^2
    Radiation: 66W/m^2
    Total: 168W/m^2

    Into surface …
    Solar radiation: 168W/m^2

    Problem: How do you get the surface temperature of 288K from that when you need variable flux with a mean of at least 450W/m^2 from an effectively hotter source – not multiple cooler sources?

    Answer: https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com

    Reply

  19. itsnotco2 said

    This experiment proves you can’t add back radiation to solar radiation, so the whole radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture is proven wrong. One spot light raised the thermometer to 30°C. If you could add radiative fluxes and use the total in S-B then two spot lights should have raised it to 90°C, but only 46°C was achieved. So the greenhouse garbage science is refuted once and for all.

    • itsnotco2 said

      Similarly, do this experiment yourself: Place a small electric bar radiator at a distance where you just start to feel it warming your skin. Let’s say it makes an object (like a piece of steak with a steak thermometer) 40°C. Now place another three identical radiators surrounding your steak each at the same distance, thus delivering four times the flux. Stefan Boltzmann calculations used (incorrectly) as the IPCC do by adding flux then say the temperature of your steak should rise to 170°C. Try it! Does it? If not you have successfully refuted the whole greenhouse garbage science.

      • Jeff Id said

        Doug, you need to do your calculations from absolute zero.

        Jesus!!!

        Pay attention! I told you this in the last thread.

        • itsnotco2 said

          Garbage Jeff. Radiation from a hot plate facing a cooler one cannot warm the cooler one to a temperature warmer than itself. If the cooler one starts at 0K and the warmer one is maintained electrically at, say, 300K then the cooler one will get to about 300K also. Likewise if it started at 100K or 200K rather than 0K. It doesn’t matter Jeff. This is pretty basic physics, easily proven with standard computations that have been used by physicists and engineers for about a hundred years or so. Just use the difference in the S-B calculations then, as temperatures approach, the heat transfer process approaches zero. Elementary my dear Jeff. The initial temperature of the cooler plate makes no difference to the end result – only to the time taken to reach such.

        • itsnotco2 said

          Jeff. Radiation from a hot plate facing a cooler one cannot warm the cooler one to a temperature warmer than itself. If the cooler one starts at 0K and the warmer one is maintained electrically at, say, 300K then the cooler one will get to about 300K also. Likewise if it started at 100K or 200K rather than 0K. This is pretty basic physics, easily proven with standard computations that have been used for about a hundred years or so. Just use the difference in the S-B calculations then, as temperatures approach, the heat transfer process approaches zero.

      • Jeff Id said

        Shit I didn’t realize the knowledge gap. Use Kelvin!!

        • itsnotco2 said

          I did use Kelvin – but just converted the end result back to C. You didn’t check did you?

        • itsnotco2 said

          Effective flux for 40°C (313.15K) is 545.25W/m^2. Multiply flux by 4 = 2181W/m^2 for which effective BB temperature is 442.9K or about 170°C. It’s not a good idea to assume I’m wrong without checking such things, Jeff.

        • Jeff Id said

          Doug, I did not check I only saw the ridiculous magnitudes of your degrees C claims and realized it is complete nonsense. There is no reason to check your work because like everything else you do, it is full of cocked up math, misunderstood thermodynamics and demand driven conclusion.

          You are quite obviously wrong to use objects already transferring and absorbing heat at room temp through conduction, convection and radiation from other room objects and then ignore that influence. I don’t need to read your work to know that is what you did – because that is how the numbers look.

      • Jeff Id said

        And Doug has yet another Air Vent epiphany

        • itsnotco2 said

          No Jeff – these weekly general comments are copied onto a hundred or so climate blogs and social media climate threads – I don’t spend much of my time just for the Air Vent. Why do you think I have had over 110,000 hits on my websites and blog where the AU $10,000 (US $7,100) reward is offered for proving me wrong?

    • jinghis said

      Doug, I did your experiment using two halogen lights and the second halogen light significantly raised the temperature. The first light raised the target temperature to 30˚C 300K which corresponds to 480 watts, close to the bulb rating by the way. The second bulb raised the target temperature up to almost 80˚C which corresponds to a S-B wattage of around 900 watts.

      It took me about all of 10 minutes to prove you wrong, I am sorry.

      Incidentally the greenhouse effect is very real, it is just that it is primarily the absorption of short wave radiation by the ocean and that energy being released from the ocean via evaporation, not radiation.

  20. itsnotco2 said

    Carbon dioxide has no warming effect what-so-ever, and we now know this from valid physics ….

    The Stefan-Boltzmann law tells us that, for a perfect blackbody which has been receiving a steady uniform flux of radiation for a very long time the temperature achieved by that flux is proportional to the fourth root of the flux. But if the flux is variable (as with night and day for planets like Earth and Venus) we can show mathematically that the mean temperature achieved is always less than the temperature that would have been achieved by a steady flux having the same mean value as the variable flux. Hence the mean temperature of the whole Earth-plus-atmosphere system is not 255K but a lower temperature perhaps more like 240K. Likewise, even if there were a mean flux of 390W/m^2 reaching Earth’s surface, because it is variable, it would not achieve a mean temperature of 288K (15°C) but rather a mean temperature close to freezing point. However, even the net 390W/m^2 shown in those energy budget diagrams is not what can be used in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations: the solar radiation is only 168W/m^2 for which the blackbody temperature is 233K (-40°C) and we cannot combine that with back radiation (as they do in the energy diagrams) to “explain” a higher temperature close to freezing point. So it’s all wrong, and we need to go back to Square One.

    • itsnotco2 said

      Once you understand that the temperature gradient is the state of maximum entropy (which in physics is called “thermodynamic equilibrium”) then it follows that new thermal energy absorbed in the atmosphere each morning will spread out in all directions, just like new rain water falling only in the middle of a lake. Some of this new thermal energy actually moves up the temperature plot, meaning downwards towards the surface or core of a planet. The process involved is called natural (not forced) convective heat transfer and, in physics, this includes thermal diffusion. In solid regions it is called conduction and, in all cases, it involves the transfer of kinetic energy between molecules as they collide. The process continues even in the crust, mantle and core, and all temperatures above and below any solid surface in a planet are anchored by radiating layers in the stratosphere and upper troposphere where radiative balance is maintained with the insolation.

      And that is how and why a planet’s surface is hotter than the radiating temperature of the planet, and the necessary heat transfers are not by back radiation at all, but by this process that is entirely non-radiative.

  21. jim2 said

    The Cherry Tree temperature reconstruction.

  22. ferdberple said
    January 17, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    0.8 Kelvin warming in 250 years! That does not strike me as “Catastrophic” warming. Those poor folks in Canada could use an increase of at least 3 Kelvin.

  23. Dr Alex Hamilton said

    For any planet with a significant atmosphere, radiation reaching the base of its troposphere (or any solid surface there) is not the primary determinant of the temperature in that region. For Earth, the mean solar radiation reaching the surface is about 168W/m^2 and that is equivalent to what would be emitted by a black body that is at a temperature of about 233K which is -40°C.

    The only effect of all the radiation in any direction between a warmer surface and a cooler atmosphere is to transfer heat out of the surface at a rate which increases as the temperature difference increases. Hence all this radiation makes it even harder for the Sun to warm Earth’s surface. There may be some such warming where the solar radiation is about three or more times the mean, such as on clear days in the tropics, but the global mean temperature cannot be explained with radiation.

    It is irrelevant to discuss the rate of cooling of the surface when you have not explained how it got to observed temperatures in the first place. If the mean temperature was not attained by radiation, then you have no grounds for assuming that it will increase due to radiation from greenhouse gases. Clearly radiation from water vapor does not make rain forests hotter than similar but drier regions. What really happens is determined by processes other than radiation, primarily the effect of gravity as it forms a temperature gradient.

    All climate change is 100% natural and warming will turn to cooling in accord with natural cycles that are regulated by solar activity and planetary orbits.

  24. itsnotco2 said

    It is absolutely farcical to think that a few spectral lines of radiation from carbon dioxide that radiates such mostly at temperatures found only in the mesosphere could be effective in slowing the overall cooling rate of Earth’s surface. The density of carbon dioxide molecules in the mesosphere is minuscule, and it is doubtful that much of its radiation would get through the atmosphere below and reach the surface. Most of the other carbon dioxide in the troposphere is too warm to radiate much at all, because its main spectral lines don’t correspond with such temperatures.

    It is nitrogen and oxygen that hold over 98% of the thermal energy in the troposphere, and it is these molecules that slow surface cooling far more effectively via molecular collisions at the interface.

    Back radiation can only slow that portion of surface cooling which is itself by radiation, and that is less than 40% of the total surface cooling. The back radiation cannot slow non-radiative cooling because it does not deliver thermal energy to a warmer surface.

    The non-radiative cooling processes will accelerate if radiation slows surface cooling and thus the temperature gap between surface and atmosphere widens. This has a compensating effect so that overall cooling is significantly reduced.

    Furthermore, if warmer air exists at the base of the troposphere, there will be no net cooling other than that which corresponds to the cooling of that warmer air.

    Once the temporary energy of the day dissipates (after a clear day where the Sun passed nearly directly overhead and could raise the surface temperature) then the whole troposphere has to cool, maintaining the same temperature gradient, and that’s why cooling almost stops in calm conditions just before dawn or soon after.

    What really happens is explained in my blog where you may ask genuine questions after reading the heat creep hypothesis.

  25. itsnotco2 said

    It’s been a bit quiet here these last two weeks, Jeff – compared with threads of about 1,400 comments on Roy Spencer’s thread.

    • Jeff Id said

      Roy has a nice blog I think. I usually read but don’t comment there.

      • DJC said

        Yes there are over 3,000 comments on that thread and Roy, being unable to refute what I have said ther, has just deleted my comments on more recent threads and closed down all comments, as you probably know by now – one small victory in my campaign against the false physics promulgated by Alarmists and Lukes.

  26. I see via WUWT that our old friend Fredrik Ljungqvist has his name on a recent Nature paper. Method wise, can’t get much out of it other then this comment from one of the figures: “Normalized Alpine5 and Altai regional-curve-standardized TRW chronologies”. Given the dampened “Medieval Climate Anomaly” I like the chances of methods involving ‘proxy screening’ in these reconstructions. Although the appalling forced alignment of differing time segments in the Icefields mxd chronology shown in the latest CA post shows that there is ‘more then one way to skin a cat’.

  27. itsnotco2 said

    Roy Spencer defeats his own purpose in supporting the IPCC paradigm of radiative forcing.

    Statistically, the evidence in support of what I have explained sets the probability of my being wrong at millions to one against.

    Roy made a blatant mistake in physics in assuming (like James Hansen & associates) that isothermal conditions would evolve in a force field. If they did, no vortex cooling tube in the world would work, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics may as well be turfed. Sadly you don’t even know why that is the case because you have no correct understanding of entropy.

    D°ou°glas J C°ot°ton B.Sc.(physics), B.A.(economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
    Private researcher into atmospheric physics
    (awarded scholarship by Sydney University Physics Dept)

    • John Bills said

      Doug,

      vete a tomar por culo

      • itsnotco2 said

        Prueba que estoy equivocado

        No matter how many “peers” have reviewed greenhouse papers, or how many journal editors have published same, they ALL have overlooked the fact that a force field like gravity creates a stable equilibrium temperature gradient as it acts on molecules between collisions, accelerating their motion and redistributing kinetic energy so that the lower regions become warmer, as Josef Loschmidt said would happen in the 19th century.

        In the 21st century we have the technology that confirms this happens, and indeed we see it in any vortex cooling tube. Every planetary troposphere exhibits the expected temperature gradient and this in itself would be highly improbable if it were random. In fact, temperatures in planets build up from the radiating layers inwards towards the core, all supported by non-radiative processes, not radiation.

        In the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (that is, maximum entropy) in a column of the troposphere the pressure from above and below any horizontal plane is equal. Because pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density, and because there can be no transfer of energy or matter across any internal boundary when there is thermodynamic equilibrium, we can deduce that, for any horizontal plane, there must be equal numbers of molecules crossing upwards as there are crossing downwards, and the mean kinetic energy of each group while crossing the plane must be equal.

        For the numbers to be equal we note that the effect of gravity creates a greater than 50% chance that net downward motion will occur during and also between molecular collisions. This means that there must be a higher density below the plane and a lower one above.

        And, for the temperatures to be equal, this means that (because molecules gain Kinetic Energy with downward motion) there must have been lower mean molecular Kinetic Energy (temperature) above the plane and warmer temperature below.

        See http://climate-change-theory.com

  28. stan said

    Jeff,

    Meant to ask you about this when the English weather guy was featured on a post at Bishop Hill about the stat errors in carbon dating.

    Is it correct to say that the date produced by the methodology depends on what guess they start with? And if they start with a different guess, the answer changes?

  29. DJC said

    Copy of email to Roy Spencer showing why he is wrong about slowing radiative cooling supposedly causing warming …

    Roy

    Firstly, what you depend on is NOT the official IPCC explanation. Their energy diagrams very clearly imply that we can mathematically add the two fluxes (solar and atmospheric) just as if they have identical warming properties. It’s there in the figures: deduct the non-radiative cooling and you have 168+324-102=390W/m^2 which by coincidence (/sarc) has a blackbody temperature of 287.99K. This also assumes we have a flat Earth receiving a steady 390W/m^2 day and night.

    The Sun’s direct radiation reaching the surface is far too weak to explain the observed surface temperatures in nearly all of the surface of the globe except where the Sun is nearly directly overhead on a clear day. On Venus the solar radiation reaching its surface is never sufficient anywhere.

    So the rate of cooling is irrelevant. Unless you do it the incorrect IPCC way, you cannot “explain” the surface temperature at all, as James Hansen realized and thus assumed back radiation did it because he forgot what Loschmidt said about the gravitationally induced temperature gradient that explains what happens on all planets.

    Secondly, there is about twice as much non-radiative energy loss and, as I said in my 2012 paper, that cooling is not affected and it can accelerate to compensate. But what determines the minimum temperature that night is the supporting temperature in all the adjoining (mostly) nitrogen, oxygen and argon molecules. This is explained in my 2013 paper. Who cares if it takes an extra minute or so to get down to the supporting temperature in calm conditions in the early pre-dawn hours when we know cooling almost stops altogether? Do you ever wonder why?

    Increasing water vapor lowers the supporting temperature (by reducing the lapse rate = temperature gradient) far more than any slowing of radiative cooling could increase the minimum temperature.

    You, Roy, try to claim water vapor increases the surface temperature and lowers the upper troposphere temperature, thus making the lapse rate steeper, whereas in fact it becomes less steep, and my study (in the Appendix of my 2013 paper) shows more moist regions are indeed cooler.

    Yet again, Roy (and others) I refer you to “THE QUESTIONS THAT STUMP LUKES AND WARMISTS” towards the end of my blog https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com

    The electro-magnetic energy in radiation from an effectively cooler source (as even the Sun is, for example, just after dawn) is not thermalized in the surface as explained by Prof Claes Johnson, whose work I cited in my 2012 paper.

    Just because the IR thermometer reads warmer than the surface where you are when pointed almost parallel to the surface merely means that either the air is actually warmer over there (due to weather conditions) or the thermometer is not correctly calibrated for such measurements because it “assumes” the wrong emissivity.

    As I have pointed out, you simply cannot explain Venus surface temperatures (which would require radiation over 16,600W/m^2) with 20W/m^2 of solar radiation, even if you incorrectly add atmospheric radiation, because, with emissivity well below 1.00 and atmospheric temperature below that of the surface, there simply is not enough. Non radiative cooling losses would be several times the solar radiation, and atmospheric radiation could never exceed what would be required to explain a rise from about 732K to about 737K during 4 months on the sunlit side.

    The radiative greenhouse conjecture is thus wrong because …

    (1) You cannot explain surface temperatures with radiation reaching the surface

    (2) So you cannot explain changes in surface temperatures with such radiation.

    QED

  30. DJC said

    Explain the Venus surface temperature, Jeff …

    Solar Radiation to surface < 20W/m^2
    Non-radiative cooling uses all this and several times as much in fact

    that leaves atmospheric radiation (which in fact does no warming at all) but if you think it does, then it does not do enough …

    Emissivity of atmosphere of Venus << 1.0 and temperature of atmosphere < temperature of surface.

    Hence it is impossible to explain Venus surface temperature with radiation. (For a blackbody at 735K about 16,550 W/m^2 would be required.)

  31. DJC said

    This nails it and proves the greenhouse “science” false.

    There is nothing in any standard physics which requires input of the initial temperature of a blackbody in Stefan Boltzmann calculations pertaining to the temperature which a given flux of radiation will attain at equilibrium.

    This can only be consistent with the resonating pseudo-scattering explanation (in my 2012 paper) as to what happens to radiation that is too weak to raise the temperature above what it already is, for whatever reason it has got to that temperature.

    Hence, if on a clear day around noon in the tropics, solar radiation is sufficient to raise the surface to, say, 35°C, then, assuming the troposphere is cooler than this at all altitudes, radiation from that troposphere CANNOT raise the existing temperature already attained by the Sun.

    But the IPCC energy diagrams imply it does – all over the globe, no matter what, in order to attain a mean temperature of about 15°C. (In fact their 390W/m^2 of what is variable flux – even if from a single source like a much hotter Sun – would attain less than 5°C.)

    If the mean is determined by adding back radiation everywhere as the IPCC claim they can, then, to get 35°C from the solar radiation we need a certain flux, but if we add nearly twice as much flux from back radiation as the IPCC does, we would get temperatures over 100°C if you work it out. And we need that to contribute towards their mean of 15°C, which is overstated by at least 10 degrees anyway.

    So IPCC “science” is all based on a TOTALLY FALSE application of the laws of physics in a way which is just simply inapplicable for such laws.

    What happens is at http://climate-change-theory.com

  32. itsnotco2 said

    PROOF of GRAVITO-THERMAL EFFECT using Second Law of Thermodynamics and Kinetic Theory of Gases.

    In the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (that is, maximum entropy) in a column of the troposphere the pressure from above and below any horizontal plane is equal. Because pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density, and because there can be no transfer of energy or matter across any internal boundary when there is thermodynamic equilibrium, we can deduce that, for any horizontal plane, there must be equal numbers of molecules crossing upwards as there are crossing downwards, and the mean kinetic energy of each group while crossing the plane must be equal.

    Now, for the numbers to be equal we note that the effect of gravity creates a slightly greater than 50% chance that net downward motion will occur during and also between molecular collisions. This means that there must be a higher density below the plane and a lower one above. So this explains how the density gradient evolves as a result of maximum entropy production (that is, dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials) in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    And, for the temperatures to be equal, this means that (because molecules gain Kinetic Energy with downward motion) there must have been lower mean molecular Kinetic Energy (temperature) above the plane and warmer temperature below. Hence there is a stable equilibrium temperature gradient resulting from the entropy maximization process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.*

    Hence the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture is false.

    Hence Jeff, Roy Spencer, James Hansen and others are mistaken in thinking that temperatures at the base of planetary tropospheres (and in any solid surfaces there) are primarily determined by radiation of any form reaching that region.

    * Second law of thermodynamics: In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases.

  33. DJC said

    Of course you are not persuaded by such correct physics, Jeff, because you don’t deign to study it and the empirical evidence throughout the Solar System that makes the odds of my being wrong millions to one against. Every vortex cooling tube proves I’m right as explained at http://climate-change-theory.com

    Nobody who has addressed the physics I present has pinpointed any error. Your assertive “last resort” type comments are water off a duck’s back, and you are out of your depth, probably still thinking entropy can always be computed from a single term reflecting only the kinetic energy and ignoring gravitational potential energy. If it were right to do so, a ball would not bounce to a stop on a level floor with entropy increasing in each upward and downward motion until it does stop.

  34. Researcher said

    No new post for two months Jeff?

    A vortex tube (see Wikipedia) demonstrates how a force field (centrifugal in this case) forms a radial stable equilibrium temperature gradient as it acts on the mass of individual molecules. So too does gravity in every planetary troposphere and even in the crust and mantle. And that is why there is no need for back radiation to violate the Second Law and heat the surface. Hence the greenhouse “science” about carbon dioxide is totally incorrect. The gravitationally induced temperature gradient is in fact a direct corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which is all about processes which are tending towards a state of maximum entropy. See http://climate-change-theory.com and https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com

  35. Researcher said

    Explain quantitatively the surface temperature of Venus and how a location on the equator obtains the necessary thermal energy to rise in temperature by about 5 degrees from about 732K to 737K over the course of four months on the sunlit side. Solar radiation reaching the surface is less than 20W/m^2. Non-radiative cooling is greater than that and so, with your “runaway greenhouse” false science, you should be able to explain how atmospheric radiation supposedly supplies the necessary flux of over 16,500W/m^2. Solar radiation reaching the planet’s top of atmosphere is less than a sixth of this. Does the atmosphere amplify energy? The emissivity of the atmosphere is well under 1.0 and it is less hot than the surface, so how could atmospheric radiation raise the surface temperature to compensate for the inevitable cooling during the previous Venus night? I have been first in the world to explain such with correct physics. Your answers may be used against you in a court of law one day.

  36. Ray Toster said

    A totally different topic. What do you think of Trump and is he likely to become the next President.

    I ask this as I value you opinions and I have been impressed with Trumps media savvy and his anti political correctness.

    Ray

  37. itsnotco2 said

    As I predicted in 2011, the “pause” will continue until at least 2027 and 500 years of cooling lies ahead starting later this century. Dr Spencer’s March 2016 temperature data is now available. Note that the red line (the annual moving average that eliminates seasonal effects) is still not as high as the maximum in 1998 and the El Nino spike is past its maximum. Click the link below to see details.

    Don’t be misled by the data from ground based weather stations. Those that have not warmed get eliminated, whilst those that have not been affected by urban crawl warming have their rate of warming adjusted upwards. It is all FRAUDULENT science. Trust only Dr Spencer’s satellite data.

    Reducing carbon dioxide will not help the environment because it cools rather than warms and it enhances agricultural production and growth of everything from flowers to forests. There is no valid science supporting the radiative forcing greenhouse garbage for the gullible.

    The Second law of thermodynamics says: “In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases.”

    Hence, for the natural thermodynamic process that is a one-way pencil of radiation from a cooler system (a region of the atmosphere) to a warmer system (a region of the surface) there can be no decrease in entropy, and hence no heat transfer.

    This Second Law applies to every independent process, so a reduction in entropy cannot be excused by a subsequent larger increase in entropy. For example, water cannot flow up a mountain to a lake at the top (reducing entropy) just because it will subsequently flow down further (increase entropy more) on the other side. Net effects of two or more non-dependent processes do not excuse a violation of the law.

    Hence GH radiative forcing is FALSE. For more detail see http://climate-change-theory.com .

  38. There is a new posting at http://www.ecofascism.com containing a list of 356 climate sceptical and/or enviro-critical websites; plus additional information on the enviro-critic community and its funders.

  39. itsnotco2 said

    Go away Doug.

  40. Gigih said

    Nice post guys.. thank you for shared this article, hockey stick.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: