Posted on 12/10/2003 10:03:37 AM PST by blam
Regarding Figure 1-3, it never ceases to amaze me that trained scientists will publish data like the chart you included. Are they really suggesting that they have the ability to measure temperature via tree rings, ice cores, etc. to an accuracy any where close to 1 degree Celsius?
Absolute temperature is a problem differences are more readily determined, through the study of the proxies used, specifically C14, Be10 and O18 created by the effect of solar activity on cosmic ray intensity.
The concentration of these isotopes and relation to temperature is demonstrated very well in the current era as well as going back in the paleo record. The temperature deviations are derived from correlating a multitude of such measures as well as growth rates of vegetation, sedimentary deposits and many other factors that are temperature related and not on the strenght of any single one of them.
Let me cover animals first. In a state of nature there are X number of cattle, and Y number of Bison on the planet. They pass methane, which is a greenhouse gas. Now, with humans and modern farming methods, the number of cattle on the planet is probably "X times 10,000", while numbers of Bison have plummetted to an insignificant fraction - though the flatulence of ill-fed cattle is higher than those that are well fed, and the cattle in India are among the most flatulent of all.
So it's the environmentalists fault?
And support more quantiful and diverse life.
There are two separate sources of error, accuracy and precision of the measurement. The accuracy relates to errors in offset from true temperature, precision errors deal with the scale factor associated with relative measurements.
It is relatively easy to determine where temperatures must lay between some relative range of values measurable by a proxy quantities such as Be10 or C14 concentrations. It is a more difficult to endow such measurements with an absolute precision.
One can know for example the coldest of temperatures could not exceed a certain value and from that establish a linear relation between temperature and the proxies used. Such a measure yields a values of certain percentage precision of the measurement.
Establishing the absolute value as a fraction of a degree absolute is a separate issue altogether especially in regard to assigning it to a global measurement when one lacks the means of making "global" measures at specific times to weigh and define whatever the average may be. Any local temperatures measured reflect the changes global values assume in relative terms, but the absolute value will remain indeterminate.
No record can be said to be accurate in an absolute sense. Though they all indicate relative trends in the displayed period.
figure 1. Comparison of proxy-based NH temperature reconstructions [Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999; Crowley and Lowery, 2000] with model simulations of NH mean temperature changes over the past millennium based on estimated radiative forcing histories [Crowley, 2000; Gerber et al., 2002--results shown for both a 1.5°C/2*CO2 and 2.5°C/2*CO2 sensitivity; Bauer et al., 2003). Also shown are two independent reconstructions of warm-season extratropical continental NH temperatures [Briffa et al., 2001; Esper et al., 2002] and an extension back through the past two thousand years based on eight long reconstructions [Mann and Jones, 2003]. All reconstructions have been scaled to the annual, full Northern Hemisphere mean, over an overlapping period (1856-1980), using the NH instrumental record [Jones et al., 1999] for comparison, and have been smoothed on time scales of >40 years to highlight the long-term variations. The smoothed instrumental record (1856-2000) is also shown. The gray/red shading indicates estimated two-standard error uncertainties in the Mann et al. [1999] and Mann and Jones [2003] reconstructions. Also shown are reconstructions of ground surface temperatures (GST) based on appropriately areally-averaged [Briffa and Osborn, 2002; Mann et al., 2003] continental borehole data [Huang et al., 2000], and hemispheric surface air temperature trends, determined by optimal regression [Mann et al., 2003] from the GST estimates. All series are shown with respect to the 1961-90 base period.
However, looking at a much longer period using glacial ice core data (e.g. Be10, C14, & O18 proxies) gives a clearer view of Norther Hemisphere climate trends overall.
Figure 1-2 Climate of the last 2400 years
Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years
The key to measuring trend of a changing signal is time to filter out shorter term fluctuations. Trend (direct of change) has little to do with absolute magnitudes or quantities. Given a sufficient time series relative values can easily be measured through the sort of variation & random measurement errors you refer to.
Don't make the mistake of assuming a lack of precision on an instantaneous measurement means we cannot determine the overall nature of a signal in relative terms. Trends are all about relative changes not absolute magnitudes and being a relative measure can be separated from short term fluctuations and random errors in measuring absolute magnitudes.
Let's ride with the family down the street. Thru the courtesy of Fred's two feet.
My original question - once again - is what is the level of confidence in these measurements
Which measurements? The Mann study shown above displays 2 Standard Deviation limits, approx a 95% confidence level for +-0.5oC. The others in comparison to the Mann "Hockey Stick" are within those limits.
and why were they not stated in the article?
Ask the author of the article, a "BBC science correspondent". I have rarely seen news/opinion article writers say anything about error or confidence limits about anything they write.
No measurement has 100% certainty and very few scientists would publish data without considering and reporting the level of confidence they have calculated.
True, but then you are looking at a popular news/opinion piece about a presentation made by a University of Virginia professor and interview with him, not a paper issued by the good professor.
The article is not mine, nor I do I support its conclusions.
If you can't answer that quantitatively then discussions of relative error and trends are really quite meaningless.
Obviously, I do not speak for the conclusions of the article. Only of the ability to establish general relative movements in temperature across multi-millenial time frames.
The conclusion of the article presumes CO2 concentration to be a prime driver of atmospheric temperature to come to the conclusion it does. A debatable presumption to begin with.
I do not make any such claim for CO2 or any minority gas. Water vapor and cloud cover in response to solar activity is a the dominant determinator of the overall temperature at the Earth's surface. Anything else is of marginal or short term importance.
As far as trends, and confidence limits and science involved, I suggest you go to the papers and studies published written for the scientific community for information not the second & third hand accounts of news/opinion piece writers for popular consumption.
My original question - once again - is what is the level of confidence in these measurements and why were they not stated in the article?
I suggest you check with the author of the study rather than the BBC's take on things:
The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era Began Thousands of Years Ago
William F. Ruddiman Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, U.S.A. E-mail: wfr5c@virginia.eduabstract & paper available here-> http://journals.kluweronline.com/article.asp?PIPS=5145667
If you're that interested in determining what Ruddiman actually did, buy his paper and let us know what he is saying that is so outrageous and whether or not he discusses the error limits of his methodology.
From what I can determine, he's telling us that CO2 and Methane have increased beyond levels accountable for by natural sources alone a reasonable result. Then he draws an inference based on the presumption that CO2 is the prime determiner of global temperature change. Which is based on a highly debateable presumption that CO2 is the prime driver of climate change.
As far as conclusions go. If one is to assume CO2 and Methane are the primary determinates of global temperature, then one is justified in assuming an anthropogenic source for global warming it has been going on since the institution of agriculture began.
If one does not accept the premise that CO2 & Methane are primary movers of climate, but rather see changing solar activity, water vapor concentration and cloud density as the primary determiners of global temperature then the conclusions ascribed to Ruddiman regarding global warming are essentially hogwash.
The following global temperature reconstruction is composed of the sum of the relative contributions of Solar & CO2 concentration as components of temperature.
The Solar Component(S) is the the solution of a linear regression of Solar Activity as measured by Lean '98 for (1956-1977) scaled and appended to the composite ACRIM Satellite data series (1978-2000) of total solar irradiance Frohlich and Lean '98 vs global instrumental land & ocean temperatures, Jones et.al '01.
Ts = 0.2685*S-366.95;
Stderror 0.17oC,
Correlation (R) 0.722
The CO2 component is the linear regression solution of the natural log of CO2 concentration from Law Dome ice core data serie(1865-1978) scaled and appended to Mauna Loa Atmospheric CO2 record (1979-2000) vs the residual of the global intrumental temperature series minus the Solar Component above.
Tc=0.6318*ln(CO2)-3.6324;
Stderror 0.17oC,
Correlation (R) 0.25
Global Temperature Anomaly, oC
Instrumental Global Temperature(T), Jones et al. '01 (black solid line)
Reconstructed temperature (Ts + Tc) from linear regression components(red solid line)
CO2 + Solar Temperature Anomaly Reconstruction, oC
CO2 contribution to temperature (blue area)
Solar contribution to temperature anomaly (red area)
From the above it can be seen that change in solar actrivity is correlated with over 70% of the change in global temperatures. CO2 contributions (natural + anthropogenic) comprise less than 15% of the total variation.
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe · |
|||
Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discover Dogpile Eurekalert LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only? |
|
||
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · |
Early visitors to SoCal/Lost Angeles Basin in the 1700s and before remarked about the ever-present layer of smoke over the area, from the local Indians’ camp fires.
The area held one of the largest populations of natives in the new world, due to the mild climate, good ground for crops, water for irrigation, coastal areas for fishing, etc.
The globe here has been warm all along.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.