.
Repost from Tim Channon’s blog.
This large article was composed some time ago, last edit Oct 2013 it seems but left unpublished, one of dozens.
There is a disturbing story behind the current CET dataset as will be revealed in Part 2. The above plot sets the scene, a straight illustration of the whole dataset with timeline.
This blog article is intended as a backgrounder covering a variety of information including links to official copies of the two historic Manley papers which are the basis of the CET dataset. In my opinion CET is misrepresented as more instrument based than it is in reality. More reasonably it is an expert opinion on weather.
The Met Office CET web page[1] mentions the whole data then plays pea and thimble silently showing a plot of the later subset. Reason to be revealed in part 2.
View original post 1,383 more words
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
If this data-set has any relationship to global temperature, then is shows just how good Earth climate is at regulating temperature.
II find it amazing that over the ~300y of the CET record the smoothed red line has only varied by around +/- 1K, which is about 0.35% – even more amazing is that the temperature today is almost exactly the same as it was back in 1650!
Once you factor in the various different errors inherent in creating and maintaining the temperature data-set and the geographic sparseness of the measuring points I think it is fair to say that there has been nor real change at all to CET for over 300 years. This has to mean that atmospheric CO2 levels have no effect at all on temperature, or it does have an effect which is nullified by climate feedback systems..
Tenuk mused: “If this data-set has any relationship to global temperature….”
Indeed it does track the global average:
Ah, Rog saved me the trouble of deciding whether to copy the post across today.
Although it might not be immediately obvious I’ve provided indirect links to the original Manley papers.
Never mind claims made, those are the originals. Morphing into the “longest instrumental” does not look wise. There are other long instrument records, eg. Germany, Sweden and a number of other regions, none are safe. This then gets into trying to produce a number on a modern scale and to an absolute value, where we don’t even have equivalent modern records for the same environment.
Careful observation can do well.
Tenuk, yes it is surprising how the world carries on much the same.
Again, strongly decreases the AAO. Could it be a repeat of last winter?
Tim C says: “There are other long instrument records, eg. Germany, Sweden and a number of other regions, none are safe.”
There are indeed a number of long records in Europe, some going back to the 1750s. The graphic below averages 25 of them into a single “Europe” record and compares them with the CET record. How do the two match up? Pretty darn well:
And when two independent temperature records match up this closely you can be confident there’s nothing seriously wrong with either of them.
Amazing chart and very informative. C02 does not only lag temperature, it seem to have little to no effect at all.
The Precambrian had high levels of C02 and Earth’s temps were cool. About 700 million years ago when land plants sprung from the Earth, C02 levels were regulated allowing more and more oxygen into the atmosphere. We know that decaying plants hold C02 for very long periods. Life suddenly ignites during the Cambrian with warmer temps but lower C02 levels. Could a surge in oxygen cause temps to rise rather than C02? The Cambrian suggests this.
Hi Linnea. Ray Tomes posted on the lag of co2 behind temperature here a few years ago:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/which-causes-which-out-of-atmospheric-temperature-and-co2-content/
The Cambrian period even with C02 levels lowered by the growth of land plants allowing for more oxygen, we see levels between 4000 ppm to 7000 ppm. Today we sit C02 starved at about 400 ppm. Even with C02 levels monumentally higher than today, Earth saw only a mild climate and a huge abundance of life spring from the Earth.
Thank you Tallbloke! I will check that out. The c02 lag sure shows the weakness if not criminality of their theories. I’m glad you know not all us Scandinavians are AGW zombies.
I read the lag report you sent, very informative. My professor told me that Frédéric Parrenin of France discovered it was only a 200 year lag. Have you heard about this? Here is the report.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/ They claim the longer lag time was an error in how air was trapped in the layer of ice. I was curious of your feelings or other more advance than me in physics and climate science. I am just starting!
Hi Roger
Happy to see that you are neither shaken or stirred.
Would appreciate link to the data file for your graphs, if you have one.
Thanks.
Hi Vuk:
And no license to kill either 😦
I downloaded the 25 Europe records individually from the GISTEMP GHCN v2 data some years ago; there is no data file per se. More complete v2 records are now available (Berlin now goes back to 1702, almost as far back as CET) and KNMI Climate Explorer is a user-friendly source for them. If I had your e-mail address I could send you what I have on my spreadsheet, but I think you might be better off to select your own records from scratch. I may have missed a few or maybe used some that you wouldn’t.
You might also want to look at monthly temps, which I didn’t. 250 years of annual means was enough.
Thanks Roger
Will have a go and be happy if I can find 4-5 gravitating to the Atlantic.
Slightly O/T, but how is TimC’s weather station project progressing? I haven’t seen anything for a while.
I have an extensive collection of these records, including the long missing Phil Jones version, identified by Warwick Hughes. This one includes the Berlin data but as I recall the fascination is in the edit and Fortran DB masks. Actual data, adds nothing.
GHCN V1 is also of interest, that does tend to differ without being sinister, for that try GHCN V3 (spit).
A further fun issue is database corruption from incompetence a matter I have yet to fully investigate. Trust nothing and no-one.
I might be able to extract CSV index files, make those available then you can point at what would be useful if I extract it,
If you look at any of these old records you will find an obvious mess. I suggest there is no safety in fixing them up and averaging.
http://www.gpsl.net/climate/data/berlin-th-annual.png (dated 2010)
linneamogrenSwedish2014,
That SciAm story appears to say that the authors claim the lag is less than previously reported (I’m keeping an open mind on some of this ice core data), but that CO2 still lags temperature and doesn’t lead it. So the issue remains.
Others, such as the notorious Shakun 2012 paper in Nature
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
have tried to disappear this problem in a different way.
By coincidence I wrote a comment about it yesterday at Bishop Hill, May 11, 2014 at 3:32 AM on this discussion thread http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/2347407
(It’s too long to repost here).
MH, I haven’t done any.
A few things were held back, high profile. What though is the point, gets no action or interest. Met Office are immune to brickbats of which there are many, far more than simply met stations.
I carry on doing.
This plot may be of interest to do with EPICA / Vostok CO2 vs. temperature proxy.
Probably on the server somewhere already, never mind, here is a copy.
It was Shakun, Marcott, Clark and Mix who produced the bladeless input data hockey stick of 2013 that garnered headlines and featured on the Rachel Maddow show:
About CO2 driving warming out of ice ages, what on Earth would be the mechanism for CO2 to suddenly burst, all the while it is well known that a warming ocean will release dissolved CO2 in abundance just like seltzer water does, and that planetary cycles trigger ice age events but they do not trigger sudden bursts of CO2.
Well it would seem if tropospheric oxygen levels were lower would it not be likely that ozone levels in the upper atmosphere would also be lower. Since ozone absorbs UV, and heats the layer of atmosphere where it is concentrated, perhaps the atmospheric temperature profile was significantly different in a lower O2 concentration atmosphere.
As atmospheric Oxygen increased I think it reasonable to suspect that ozone concentrations and upper atmosphere heating by UV absorption by Ozone would also increase. Is there any direct proxy for upper atmospheric Ozone?
I posted an update in the aerology forum but it did not show on the recent comments list…
So here goes again, the developer has gotten the program reloaded on a windows 7 machine,(would not auto upload multiple maps using windows 8) and there are currently maps posted to my site until 11-05-2015 in case you want to look at the long term weather patterns expected for North America, or Australia.
NikfromNYC said: ‘what on Earth would be the mechanism for CO2 to suddenly burst’
Volcanoes?
http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html
Tim:
FWIW, the GHCN v2 versions of the Berlin Tempelhof record you showed earlier and the adjacent Berlin Dahlem record show the same numbers for much of the time. I somehow doubt this is a real climatic effect. 😉
Quite, legwork is the only way to sort out data but after a long time and perhaps prior fiddling it’s hard to say, Down then to nature’s thermometers, often with a different scale, eg, the line of greening which flows north every spring here. Visible today to a traveller but in olden times few people moved far or fast enough. Relating this to an air temperature is not so easy. Neither is soil temperature a simple thing.
Manley pondered long.
Linnea,
That issues raised re: 200y lag, chimes with issues related with core data used as benchmark for assumed lower levels in past –
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm
My take is like many amends to records where aberrations (not fitting theory) are discounted/deleted too quickly whereas imo they should be kept – they may be wrong, they may not.
Also an older post from here where comments are of interest
“The lone fact that stomata data of the USA and Europe have the same timing of a CO2 wiggle which has also been recorded (but with a much lower amplitude) in two Antarctic ice cores is evidence enough that Co2 variability has been larger in the past millennium then assumed. If the variability would have been as small as the ice cores tell us, plants would never ever have picked up this signal on two different continents on another hemisphere”
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/tom-van-hoof-historical-co2-records/
You may know this already but the last link was new to me.
RA – nice chart.
Sadly the warm 1730s predates other records shown on there.
Does anyone have anything on this period which Hubery Lamb in 1958 said of
We in Britain do not (most of us) live near the climactic margins of our type of civilisation. The changes of the figures in the climactic tables from one period to another do not look very impressive. Nevertheless, they are significant in various respects, affecting for instance the geographical limits of cod and herring and birds and the thriving of crop plants and trees. With some of these the response to climactic shifts is very quick. The winter climate in Finland in the 1930s was no severer than that of Denmark in the last century. The winter climate of London in 1780-1820 was about the same as that of the Rhineland in our times. The summer climate of southern England (as far north as the line from the Fens to Hereford) in the early Middle Ages was similar to that of the Paris-Touraine region of northern France nowadays : between 1930 and 1949 our summer climate again approached this level (and I believe peach trees and other southern varieties did well accordingly) but since 1950 the figures in summer, as in winter, are back to late nineteenth century standards. We do not know whether the latest turn in our climactic fortunes, since the optimum years of the 1930s, marks the beginning of a serious downward trend or whether it is merely another wobble – one more of the semi-regular oscillations on a time scale of 20 to 60 years. There have been other striking ‘ameliorations’ before – even during the Little Ice Age : the mild periods around the 1630s, 1730s, 1770s and 1840s* must have been quite impressive. [1]
http://craigm350.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/the-dirty-politics-of-the-ipcc/
* not got a handle on this. cet at first glance seemed unimpressive but have not looked fully into accounts as yet to clarify.
michael hart Thank you for your help! Sorry for questions, I’m up against professors who are not very nice when it comes to opposition to stated AGW hypothesis. So, being armed helps.
Criag350
thank you for the links and info. It was just an observation regarding c02 being at much larger levels during the Precambrian ( with cooler temps ) and then being neutralized by land vegetation 700 million years ago causing more and more oxygen into the atmosphere by the Cambrian, as c02 levels still high, were regulated ( lowered enough ) allowing for life to spring in abundance.