Global Cooling Redux?
Not long after mmghosh's diaries on AGW skepticism, and while environmentalists keep missing global warming love-ins due to snowstorms, it looks like there may be new data showing a global cooling trend that swamps the changes human carbon emissions have supposedly wrought on our environment. If true, this could mean that all of the climate angst and those "the end is near!" signboards could get, ah, frozen out of the picture.
This article by Michael Asher in Daily Tech explains:
Twelve-month Long Drop in World Temperatures Wipes Out a Century of WarmingOver the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
Meteorologist Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Some scientists feel that sunspot activity (long derided by AGW believers) is the cause of the drop. Whatever is causing it, this certainly puts the "Man the Gaia-Killer" environmentalists behind the proverbial snow globe-shaped eight-ball.
This comparison of four independent global temperature monitoring sources shows a mean temperature decline over the last year of 0.64 degrees Celsius, an enormous and unprecedented drop. Here's the latest global temperature chart from the Hadley Observatory in England that might frost Michael Mann's nougats. (Perhaps he'll respond with a vague wave at this.)
Will the UN release IPCC 41/2 as part of an attempt to deal with these new temperature readings in a way that will leave its income redistribution agenda intact? I hope someone tells them to bring sweaters if they go to Bali again.
--
Don't be too clever to enjoy yourself.
--
Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- tomsyl's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Interesting.
h/t James Annan
- Login or register to post comments
)Mark Chu-Carroll at scienceblogs.com Bad Statistical Reasoning about Weather and Climate
DarkSyde at DKos - Sunstroke
Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy Here Comes The Sun...Again
None of these posts really gets out into the weeds and figures out what the heck Watts is actually calculating, although the likely explanation is that he's basing his data on an unusually cold January.
Of course, the real kicker is from the NASA GISS Site
So we are faced with either believing the climate scientists at NASA or a blogging weatherman. That's a tough choice, to be sure. Of course, Watts' discussion of "anecdotal evidence" for global cooling (snows in Baghdad, etc.) shows that he has not the foggiest idea what he's talking about.
I'm sure that the eggheads at RealClimate.Org or some similar group will do a full debunking of this sooner or later.
In the meantime, the right-wing blogs are en fuego, calling this blogger's calculations proof that global warming is a big hoax. The claim, by and large, is that the entire climate science community is, in concert with we left-wing, anti-capitalist, enviro-fascists, perpetrating a global fraud in hopes of cratering western economies and stopping the engine of the world.
It's the same kind of nutjobbery you see from creationists, holocaust deniers and people who believe the moon landings were faked. The weight of evidence on the other side is so overwhelming that the only way you can argue is to posit some kind of massive conspiracy to hide the real evidence from the general public.
Make no mistake, when you call yourself a global warming skeptic, these are the people you're getting into bed with.
--Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- Login or register to post comments
)Make no mistake, when you call yourself a global warming skeptic, these are the people you're getting into bed with.
What BS; but then, that's often true of any sentence beginning with "make no mistake."
Hard as it may be for you to accept, I'm not "getting into bed" with anyone on this or any other topic. I feel I've read fairly widely on both sides of the subject, and try to check out Michael Mann's blog as often as I do Steven McIntyre. I don't pretend to understand all or even most of what I read; I'm just making an effort, after seeing the sensationalist, pre-digested pap the media's been feeding the public on this subject for the past ten years.
One thing I don't do is go to so-called right wing blogs for science. (I don't go to dKos, either, though you obviously do.) I found out that they were trumpeting this issue after people like you and Harley made a big deal of that in this diary. And the more incoherent name-calling people do, the more I think that there might be something doubtful about the position they're so nastily defending.
Apparently you don't know that you're probably the fifth person to post and quote that GISS link here. For the umpteenth time, there are four - count them, four - temp charts shown; Goddard is only one of them. Your thoughts on the other three are - what?
As much as anything, the AGW debate here illustrates something that still mystifies me: the ability of otherwise rational and reasonable people to simply lose it because someone has the temerity to question the party line. Witness your thinly veiled insults above, HankP's holocaust denial comparison below, and about half of the comments in this diary. Simple skepticism has become an epithet.
It's not as if I haven't repeatedly said here that energy conservation and termination of oil use aren't the major issues of out time: I have, as much as anyone here. So why the bile?
In a 2004 MIT Tech article, Richard Muller said this in reference to his efforts to discuss McIntyre/McKitrick:
I'll leave you with a quote from Dr. Joanne Simpson, PhD. (Univ. Chicago, Woods Hole, MIT, NASA/Goddard [your GISS], etc.)arguably one of the preeminent meteorologists of the last fifty years:
Dr. Simpson believed (as I do) that significant actions have to be taken that will effectively reduce atmospheric CO2 have to be made, regardless of the strength of GCM-based predictions. Here are her exact words:
Geddit?
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )today should also come up with a consensus document, similar to the IPCC, summarising the anti-AGW position. That will be very useful, from the scientific point of view.
This should also have predictions and testable and verifiable hypotheses on the predicted scenarios on climate change.
It would have been useful to have had Dr Lindzen, Dr Simpson, Dr Pielke Sr, Dr Christy or even Mr McIntyre to have been participating, headlining and giving their imprimatur to the conference which will, presumably use their research and ideas in the conference.
Edit: It would, possibly, have also been helpful not to have included speakers such as Dr Calvin Beisner. From one of his articles:
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )at least as far as I can understand the data. The difference between the Hadley CRU data and NASA GISS data is probably because of using different 30 yr baselines; NASA uses 1951-80, Hadley CRU 1961-1990. Also, the Hadley Centre does not include polar temperatures while GISS does - as the poles warm more than the equator, the absolute values of the NASA data are higher than the Hadley data. However, as I said before, the underlying trend of temperature anomalies in both datasets are similar, and demonstrate warming.
With regard to satellite temperatures, I'm not sure I understand the problems with data collection as well as I do the standard temperature measurements. This post clarifies some of issues, other places where this is discussed are here, here and here.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )then write seriously, don't throw in the stupid crap that some of the more retarded AGW skeptics use. I know that you know that one snowstorm doesn't prove or disprove anything, so why do you put it in your diary? Throwing in little digs that make you feel better emotionally isn't going to help make your point and will invite the same type of response from others.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )And it's stopped being either fun or entertaining. I'll let you save your encores to "stupid crap" and "retarded" for a fight with the Black Knight.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but claiming that a single snowstorm proves or disproves anything is inane, even as a throwaway line. I can read that kind of stuff at any number of reality challenged sites, and it doesn't help make your argument that you're being objective and should be taken seriously. It's one thing in a political diary, where by definition pretty much everything is subjective, but it doesn't help make your argument here.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Like I said, there's four charts.
AFA being taken seriously, some below, like mmghosh, have. But ist machts nicht elsewise. I'll live, according to my doctor.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )similarly, there may be valid studies to be done on the exact number of Jews killed in the holocaust, but the holocaust deniers have made that a toxic area to work in.
The problem is that most global warming deniers (or AGW deniers) have spewed out so much garbage that anyone who really wants to take a fresh look at the issue is going to be assumed guilty by association with them. They've really made it an emotional rather than scientific discussion, with the key points being:
- those damn pointy headed scientists are wrong
- those damn hippie environmentalists are wrong
- that damn Al Gore is wrong
etc., etc. Unfortunately for them, this is not a political issue that can be won with 50% + 1 vote. Constructive action, though, can be blocked by these political tactics.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Hank, holocaust denial comparisons are worse than anything Gore's remotely said or done to try to marginalize the people that aren't buying his particular brand of fertilizer. I mean, c'mon. Some dingbat pulled that crap in the press once and was roundly and justifiably ridiculed by both sides of the debate.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )another timely reminder from NRO today!
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Since you violated Godwin's law, so can I.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )which is that so many idiotic "rebuttals" of AGW have been printed that they've poisoned the waters for almost anyone trying to do a legitimate and objective review of the data.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )First, I'm sure you know that Godwin's Rule is invoked when discussion degenerates to Nazi comparisons. So tag, you're it.
Second, I know you are not only a very smart guy, but that what you do for a living is as much science as climatology etc is. So why wouldn't you, or those here like you, be able to resist this undertow:
anyone who really wants to take a fresh look at the issue is going to be assumed guilty by association with [AGW 'deniers']".
Please read Dr. Simpson's quotes that I gave to Chuchundra above.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You honestly thought that was worth repeating? OK, I'll mimeo it and post it on my office wall.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )resolves to this: we've never been here before, climatologically. It's a roll of the dice, we're watching a car roll down the mountain, and betting on whether the car will come to a stop upside down or right side up. The theories are as abundant as the data, the quarrel is idiotic, we're all Blind Men feeling around a dangerous Elephant.
There's no question we're having an impact on climate. As Tomysl points out downstream, it's not just the industrialized world to blame. Who's destroying the rain forest, the rain engine of the world?
Nor can global warming be taken in isolation, it is bound intrinsically to pollution and desertification. Millions of wood fires generate pollution, destroy the forests, causing desertification and climate change. Raw sewage pours into rivers, creating ecological nightmares. The Kyoto Protocols condescends to these underdeveloped countries and it's wrong: Haiti has cut down its forests, its topsoil is gone, China's pollution issues are contributing to an epidemic of pulmonary disease. Nigeria's delta, once a refuge for river hippopotamus and elephants has become a polluted hell.
Perhaps the most frightening aspect of the problem is ocean acidification. The Great Barrier Reef is bleaching out. If our oceans acidify, all the bivalves and crustaceans are in trouble: the chemistry required for them to bind calcium into shell.
In summary: "Global Warming" is not the issue, it never was. It's a Riemann geometry: the geometry of the spherical real world. Parallel lines do intersect, and are of equal length. We simply cannot continue along this supposed straight line and expect no consequences.
- Login or register to post comments
)The direct correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and changes in ocean pH is not only impossible to contest, it (as I understand it, anyway) is relatively simply explained in terms of the chemistry at work. Its effect is also visible throughout the tropics in the form of dying or retreating coral beds. For some reason it barely is mentioned in the media or by environmentalists, who choose instead to focus on the far more difficult to understand, chaotic climatic processes. But it's there, it's real, and it's probably irreversible. The response of the world's climate to gas or vapor input is poorly understood, but the long-term effect on the food chain and life cycles of tropical oceans of the loss of coral isn't understood at all.
Humans have been at war with the earth since fire was discovered, but we upgraded our weapons stockpile substantially with the industrialization of the West, beginning with nineteenth-century England. The comments to this diary that are the most telling are those that say a huge one-year temperature drop is just as troubling as multi-year temperature rises.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )that's floating about in the blogosphere. If my country's government is any example (and I suspect similarly for China), then most governments actually wish global warming would go away, so that they wouldn't have to do anything about it. IIRC, Mr Gore didn't do a great deal when he was VP although I may be mistaken there.
The other somewhat curious meme is that consensus favours increased funding. In fact the very opposite is true. if a subject is controversial then it tends to attract more funding - somewhat like unanswerable philosophical questions generate the most discussion, precisely because there is no answer.
- Login or register to post comments
)supposedly there were twice as many non-scientists as scientists involved in the drafting of the various IPCC reports. Also, I think you are missing or underestimating the income redistribution efforts the UN has been engaged in for decades. Look at its various global carbon tax proposals for evidence of this; you might also consider how the Chinese economy will do as against that of the Us over the next twenty years if the US signs onto Kyoto Accord-type strictures on industrial development while China is exempted.
Your second point is not correct, at least in the US. If you search this government's various lists of grants available in climatology and related areas, you'll find that the great majority of them on their face presuppose that AGW is a proven fact. A researcher overtly questioning that would not qualify for those grants.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )you might start by not including comments like this
"Man the Gaia-Killer" environmentalists
I don't think it's possible to change your mind on this subject but I'm not averse to having a reasoned debate on it with you. But when you post things like that it really doesn't sound like you want a reasoned debate.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I take it you now admit that has virtually nothing to do with the subject of the diary.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )foundations. Its a pity, for example, that any industry grant - from Exxon for example, in this case would automatically be seen as advocacy, even though the grant may be funding non-controversial research.
I'm not sure why a government grant should necessary be linked to advocacy to AGW. At least, it shouldn't be.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...and the UN black helicopter programs. AGW research and black helicopter maintenance are actually the same byline in the UN and US budgets.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )for a deliberate double whammy - high cost of conventional fuel or high cost of switching to alternative fuels - severely braking industrial growth, just at the point in time that the economy looks set to take off to offer real competition in manufacturing and services.
Plenty of people here hold the US responsible for both - (1) driving up the cost of fuel with the Iraq war and (2) delaying investment in alternative energy programs.
Not being a conspiracy theorist, I don't agree, necessarily. What I do think is that the US needs to provide leadership in both fields - lead in the development of a political solution to end the ME crisis, and provide the massive governmental investment that then kick starts and pulls in private investment in the development of alternative energy technologies.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...that it is deliberate -- that the plan was to provoke a terrible crisis as an excuse for more intrusions.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but the appearance of cooling is, in fact, not correct when viewed in the light of the complete data.
- Login or register to post comments
)to the diary. I'm looking at the hypos in the article now and will comment further when I'm done. Interesting to note, though, that Hadley and Goddard don't even agree on which year in the last ten was the hottest.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...I guess. I mean, to take an extreme example, you wouldn't expect civil responses to a diary which had as its premise the fact that the world was carried on four large elephants, themselves standing on an enormous turtle.
Even if the diary was about finds of enormous fossil turtles.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Actually, I do expect civil responses to diaries on average. Odd-ball, often incoherent posts from fulminating commentators is a good sign they think their oxen are being Gored. You equate disagreement with incivility, using the former to justify the latter. I don't.
The diary has questions, not premises. See the question mark in the title? That's a sure giveaway.
Those comments which referred repeatedly to heffalumps, black helicopters and similar inanities are at least good for comic relief.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The oddball responses are due to our oxen being bored. There's no here here, and the folks you're linking to are actually just plain dishonest, and so I think the discussion of the Great Turtle A'tuin is actually appropriate.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I've seen no evidence of that. Who specifically is dishonest, and why?
And if you're bored, why bother commenting?
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )-o-0-o-
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Denis Dutton, long-time editor of Arts & Letters Daily, which is probably the best & smartest non-partisan site on the internet, is now hosting Climate Debate Daily - which keeps up with & links to all of the latest stuff from both sides of this issue.
Absolutely essential reading. Especially for anybody who thinks that there's no real debate, here.
--God help the while, a bad world I say.
- Login or register to post comments
)is the scientist-led AGW group lined up on the left side and the non-scientist dissenters on the right...I wonder if that was deliberate!
Good site btw.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But your characterization of the site: "the scientist-led AGW group lined up on the left side and the non-scientist dissenters on the right" left me scratching my head in puzzlement.
Ah, well. Anybody who's interested can follow the link and judge for himself.
--God help the while, a bad world I say.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Although the dissenters may be scientists in their own right (and there are some climate scientists dissenters too, though not many). The debate between the two sides is getting shrill, to the detriment of both sides of the argument; even though I happen to be on the pro side, I can see how rancour on the AGW side is increasingly harming their own case.
Here is an analysis of why this is so by the pro side: (h/t tamino)
and further
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )so decades long evidence of temperature rises are bad science, but a one year set of data showing cooling is not? A .6 degree rise is inconsequential, but a .6 degree drop is earthshaking news? I think someone has their finger on the scales here.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
)First, I've never said there isn't evidence of long-term temperature increases; it's the cause of those increases that's at issue in my view. Nor have I said that these new data are "earthshaking news"; to the contrary, you'll see the words "may" and "might" appear often in the diary. However, a trend-bucking temperature drop could be significant the same way as any substantial empirical findings that contradict a theory are.
The "finger on the scales" comment indicates how quickly this can become an emotional issue for those who are invested in it.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )This is Instapundit backwash? Ick. But hey, at least the dishonesty -- not yours, your link -- brought a new commenter along to state the obvious.
Mind boggling indeed.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
)Did you make certain you read and understood the diary before commenting? Did you read the links in the diary before commenting on those links? If so, point out the Instapundit connection you're eccking about. (Hint: there is none in either the diary or the links.) Then point out specifically what "dishonesty" you're referring to, followed by your summary of what you think is "obvious". Three strikes and you're out.
This is not the political arena you favor, where everyone gets to have an opinion and everyone's opinion is equally valid. So let's test the validity of the statements you just made. Unless, that is, you just want to stick with saying "and that goes double for me!" when someone else's comment takes your fancy.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Floater linked to a page that both debunked some of the nonsense in your own, and, JFTR, mentioned that this swizzle had been heartily pimped by many of the usual suspects as of late, including Instapundit.
Hey, stand up for your bookmarks, big fella.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )And proving you haven't read, or haven't understood, most of what's being discussed here. Floater linked to a page where on of five scientists referenced in a link says he was misquoted in an article I had not linked to, or even read. The link involved a subject at the far periphery of the diary, solar flares and sunspots, and had nothing at all to do with the temp figures and charts at the heart of the article. Instapundit is involved only to the degree you and he apparently read it.
You might want to put this particular chalupa on the ground and slowly back away to avoid further embarrassment.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Where to begin? How about the sunspot article which purports to quote Dr. Tapping. Lets see what Dr. Tapping has to say.
Tapping's comments
Was it stupidity or just dishonesty?
As for some places being really cold guess what? Some places were really warm. Australia experienced its warmest January on record. The southeastern US was quite warm. Most of northern Russia experienced extremely warm temperatures.
Global temperatures in January were not really out of the ordinary. It was the 63rd warmest January in 130 years of record keeping on land and the 17th warmest on record over the oceans. That's not scorchingly hot like most of the last 10 years have been but it's not particularly cold either. Its easy to find short periods over the last 10 years that are also cool. That didn't stop those years from being abnormally warm when the whole years was considered.
Typical global warming denial. It's pretty easy to find similar examples over the last few years whenever there was a cool spell of the same crowd spewing the same nonsense.
- Login or register to post comments
)You focus on something that was just an aside in the diary: my statement that "some scientists believe that sunspot activity" may be responsible for cooling temperatures. Surely you aren't going to argue that sunspots don't have a dramatic influence on weather patterns and global temperatures.
The link I posted in that sentence refers to five scientists; you selected one of the five, then linked to his denial of an entirely different article (the IBD piece Tapping attacks) which was neither mentioned nor linked to in my diary. I can't tell if injecting that complete red herring into the discussion was stupidity, or just dishonesty.
I don't accept any of your statements regarding global temperatures as fact because you have not given a single cite or link supporting anything you've said. I have no way of knowing whether your numbers come from a credible source, as opposed to a far-Left enviro site, Al Gore or your bookie.
Whenever I read a comment like yours from someone who has busted a cork over a perceived challenge to their cherished dogma, it makes attempts to work through some of the scientific issues all worthwhile.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You could verify what he said by just giving a cursory glance to one of the charts you linked to.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Here's what I said in the diary:
This comparison of four independent global temperature monitoring sources shows a mean temperature decline over the last year of 0.64 degrees Celsius, an enormous and unprecedented drop.
Here are the global temperature charts, together with a discussion of them, from Anthony Watts' website. (Don't tell Harley that Watts isn't part of Instapundit - it will just confuse him.) those charts all show a delta-T of more than a half degree Celsius for the year spanning 1/07 to 1/08. What specifically is your criticism of that metric?
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The NASA data is a comparison of Januarys, not a comparison of years. As I've linked before, on their site they say that 2007 was the 2nd warmest year on record. Look at a more complete graph (PDF).
During the 90s, as global warming data accumulated, we were told by the anti-GW crowd that we were reading too much into it... that there was such a thing as statistical noise and that we shouldn't see too much portent in the trend of only a few years. And now we are supposed to give credence to a much shorter period when there is a clear explanation for the drop (el nino/la nina activity?) Look at the chart... the metereological station data (exclusively from air readings) has held fairly steady, it's only been the land-ocean readings that incorporate sea temperature that has received any downward effect at all.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As I said above, I get your point about the GISS data, but you need to explain to me how it applies to the temp drop shown in all of the charts to that we're on the same page.
As to your point on statistical noise: I can't tell if you are referring to the McIntyre analyses or making a broader point, but will assume the latter. I don't know who is in the "anti-GW crowd" from the '90's; I just know I'm not, as I've never made a statistical noise argument except insofar as I think I understand (and on that perhaps shaky basis, agree with) McIntyre's statistical analysis of Mann's hockey stick.
Regarding your broader point: first, one year is not a "much shorter" period than a few years. More basically, though, Mann's claim that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium (now retracted, apparently) was given great publicity and credence, and was an oft-quoted part of IPCC 1 and 2. Yet now a potentially anomalous, but substantial, one year drop is being ridiculed and called a red herring. You can't have it both ways.
Also, and to be fair to Dr. Mann, I linked right in the body of the diary to his lengthy analysis regarding the pros and cons of global temp measurements over various time spans. No one seems to have even noticed that, maybe because they're too busy trying to ridicule the diary and diarist.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to your response. I'll repeat that I am just an amateur in looking at this stuff, and have no problem acknowledging that I'm wrong if someone points out why. That's why the diary title had a question mark after it.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I don't have time to look into the other data, but I assume that it coincides with NASA data showing a modest ocean cooling probably due to an unusual currents season. Again, my problem is the cherry-picking of the NASA data... I won't make any claims about the other data sets.
However, I will repeat: one year is too short a time to make a generalization. And I know nothing about Mann's claim, but "hottest year in a millenium" does grab my attention more than "cooler January than last January" or even "it's been getting a little cooler since last January". It's not just that the period is short, it's also that the context is short. All I ask is that you look at the NASA graph I linked to and ask yourself if that cooling is consonant with the history of variability, as a common sense matter. Neither of us are scientists, but we do have common sense.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )interest in the debate. And decisions made will also hurt our pockets directly so I think we all have a worthwhile view here.
I think you are correct in making the point about the 1998 El Nino effect having not been mentioned in the more popular accounts of the people selling the AGW story (I can't recall it being mentioned in the Gore film). However, the scientists and the IPCC certainly discussed this in detail.
The more significant story IMO is that we are in the middle of a La Nina effect and very quiescent solar phase, both of which should significantly cool the climate, and yet the underlying trend continues to rise.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Let me point out the very first sentence of your Daily Tech link.
Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun.
And then you spew this
The link I posted in that sentence refers to five scientists; you selected one of the five, then linked to his denial of an entirely different article (the IBD piece Tapping attacks) which was neither mentioned nor linked to in my diary
The IBD article and the Daily Tech article shared something in common which was the misuse of Dr. Tappings words. Thats not surprising since they were both part of the same disinformation campaign. I linked to Dr. Tappings response to the IBD article since he did not refute every distortion of his words generated by the right wing noise machine. He wouldn't have time for anything else if he tried. But hey you knew that. Just a little more obfuscation on your part. An uncharitable person would probably assume that your effort to pretend that multiple distortions of Dr. Tappings words are unrelated is dishonest. Since I'm a nice guy I'll just assume that you didn't know any better.
As for this
I don't accept any of your statements regarding global temperatures
I don't care what you accept. You and your fellows are losing the argument in the court of public opinion and losing it badly. The desperate and dishonest attempts to reverse this are ample proof of that. I'm not trying to convince you of course. Feel free to believe whatever you want.
Whenever I read a comment like yours from someone who has busted a cork over a perceived challenge to their cherished dogma, it makes attempts to work through some of the scientific issues all worthwhile.
Whatever. I'm glad you feel fullfilled.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Sheesh, reread the diary and my comments on your insults. You're perfectly illustrating how politicized the whole issue's been, and how angry True Believers get when someone has the temerity to post something that might challenge their dogma.
The IBD article was never cited or referred to anywhere in the diary; in fact, you are the one who raised it, not me. There are five scientists referenced in the Daily Tech link; for some reason you've gotten all steamed about one of them over a newspaper article that bears no relation to the diary. How high is your dudgeon?
The "you and your fellows" guilt by association theme is just that. The only people I've talked to about atmospheric carbon issues are professors and grad students affiliated with the University of Hawaii, and that was on the subject of oceanic acidification, an area in which they are the acknowledged experts.
AFA you rattling off a string of global climate numbers that supposedly contradict the diary and then refusing to post any links so your statements can be verified, sorry, you lose, Buckwheat.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )in the court of public opinion.
The message is not that simple to get out.
If you look at the absolute temperature data from 1998 to 2007, it does in appear that the world is cooling. The fact is that the high temperature in the1998 dataset because of an El Nino phenomenon. So if you start looking at the temperatures from the baseline of 1998, when the index is set very high - then 1998 to 2007 shows cooling - you know and understand that. And yet, from 1998 to 2007, the trend continues to show warming, although the absolute values show cooling. The correct analysis of trend can really only be done if you look at the 30 year cycle from 1975.
Now this is not a very easy concept to explain to everyone who does not understand statistics. I have tried to explain this idea to many educated people who just do not want to sit through the statistics involved. I have even linked them to a site where this is explained clearly, to no effect. I conclude, therefore, that this is not an easy concept to explain.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )That's why I put a link to Mann's detailed views on the same subject in the diary.
However, at some point the scientist that is claiming a trend has to define his baseline. And Mann did, in a way, when he famously and sensationally proclaimed in IPCC 1 that 1998 was the hottest year in the last millennium. If anomalously warm years are significant per Mann, it's certainly reasonable to say that anomalously cool years are equally significant.
(Of course, the IPCC had to back away from Mann's dramatic statement, reducing it to "the hottest year in the last fice centuries" to avoid having to take the Medieval Warm Period into consideration.)
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )anomaly graph started changing significantly. The IPCC was set up in 1988 to clarify the analysis of the results coming in from the satellite data in conjunction with the other land-based surface temperature data.
The other point is that both anomalously warm years and anomalously cool years do not change the story of the underlying trend. This is why the the massive Arctic ice melt last summer is not in itself a significant event. AGW proponents do their case much harm when they trumpet single events. The fact is both anomalously cool and warm years are not negated by the IPCC reports, similarly, neither is a cooling Antarctic.
A single volcanic eruption (Mt Pinatubo) was sufficient to alter the temperature anomaly significantly in the downward direction by an aerosol effect. Another, larger eruption in the next 20 years might well do the same.
Also, I do not think Dr Mann pronounced sensationally in IPCC 1 or 2. There was the usual hedging about uncertainties in the data record, and evidence pointing to strong possibilities.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )And setting the 30-year trend between 1940 & 1970 tells us what?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )- Login or register to post comments
| parent )seemed to be about using 30-year baselines to help weed out statistical anomolies. Where you start & end your baseline is important. At least that's what I gleen from the above thread... :-)
So, there are pros & cons at starting a baseline at 1975. What if we took a 30-year basline from 1940 - 1970. What would that tell us? Is that baseline (30-years) sufficiently long enough to weed out statistical anolomolies?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )sense.
World temperature data were collected by scattered meterological stations from around the world and recorded by the Met Office in Britain, since the mid 1850s primarily for shipping information required, for example, by Lloyds. To this was added meterological data from US and European stations roughly 50 years later.
Not all this data was collected rigorously in the sense that data is recorded and archived today. Nevertheless the underlying trend is the significant point.
For example, you could record the temperature outside your house using 3 thermometers - in the roof, in the garden and in the the garden shed for example. All three would show different readings because of some bias, instrument errors, incorrect readings, different exposure to wind etc. However, and this is what statisticians say, if you kept the thermometers in the same place for a minimum of 30 years, and recorded data diligently, your errors would cancel out statistically, and although each thermometer would show different absolute temperature values, the underlying trend would be statistically be the same - i.e. show warming, or cooling or no change.
Now, if you extended this study to all the thermometers all over the world, then you would get the overall temperature trend. The overall trend, mind, not individual area weather. So, for example, even if the overall trend showed warming, you could get large geographical areas to show cooling in those areas, that does not invalidate the total warming trend.
In fact as HankP pointed out downthread, if the Arctic ice melted and the Gulf Stream flow altered as a result, the western seaboard of Europe might see enough cooling to negate the effect of the overall global warming, or even note cooling in their geographical areas (although this is very hard to predict for sure in climate models, according to the papers I read).
Likewise, absolute temperatures higher than the predicted anomaly for one year, or even one decade does not "support" gobal warming trends, any more than absolute temperatures lower than the predicted anomaly "refutes" it. And in fact the temperature anomaly has stayed, in the past 10 years within the predicted errors in the the temperature anomaly - as predicted by the IPCC reports. And the warming anomaly trend has continued to rise in this period, although absolute temperatures - compared to the 1998 baseline - have in fact stayed flat, overall.
Coincidentally, in the last 30 years, satellite measurement of tropospheric temperatures have added a new and more exact dataset to the land temperasture measurement datasets - and the satellite data show overall conformity to the general trend of rising temperature anomaly. The problem, therefore, resolves to - why is this so? The answer by the AGW group is CO2 forcing theory. The answer by the anti AGW group, is that there is, in fact, no answer and further research is required. However, as the AGW group note repeatedly, there is no other natural cause that explains this anomaly, given the current state of knowledge. This is not a 100% proof positive argument, however, but as I said before, I'm more inclined to believe them than the other group who have no valid, testable hypothesis.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...the issue being debated (as I follow it) is whether the very recent cooler measurement is a statistical anomaly. The points being made about long baselines, is that you need to use a 30-year baseline to weed out "yearly" anomalies. While the same in concept, it's different than weeding out inddividual anomalies due to thermometer placement (as an aside, I think there's a whole issue about urbanization throwing off temperature readings at the indidivual sensor level).
So I'm still back to the issue of whether a 30-year baseline from 1940 - 1970 is sufficient to weed out anomalies (if 1975 - 2005 is enough, then 1940 - 1970 is okay, no?)...and therefore what does tell us about Global Temperatures and out understanding of it's causes?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )would not alter the current anomaly.
UHI effects are not a significant issue as trends are worked out from rural stations, and urban corrections are corrected with reference to that data. And it still doesn't change the underlying trend.
Current research suggests, from what I can make of it, we will have to wait at least until 2015 before we can really know whether IPCC predictions about the temperature anomaly can be said to be statistically correct.
Of course, by then, it may be too late to change the effect of climate change on the biosphere. Or then again, it might not if another volcano erupts, or the La Nina lasts for longer than it should.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )in the current anomaly. I'm interested in the years 1940 - 1970. What do those years say?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )here for NASA GISS, and here for the Hadley CRU, and here for the NCDC.
All the major climate data sets are linked here.
As you can see, the trend line is very similar for all three datasets.
As an example of methodology, you can look up this paper available from GRL. From the paper, with regard to your comment about 1940-1970:
There is a good discussion of the problems with baselines, and discussing some of the mathematical points that that you raise about baselines here.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Have similar trend lines. The third one...well...
But that's beside the point. We have a lot of discussion in this diary giving that a 30-year trend is statistically significant, and certainly overrides an anomalous 1 year data point.
The trend from 1940 - 1970 was a cooling trend. It's 30-years, and it's statistically significant.
What does that tell us?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )articles and discussion. The best explanation seems to be an effect of particulate aerosols - it is the explanation accepted by most of the scientists in the field.
I think the point you are making is the fact that the global CO2 concentrations continued to rise in the period of an absence of warming trend - is that a correct statement of your position? There is a considerable controversy in the literature, as far as I can make out, over the rate of temperature rise with CO2 rise.
The IPCC models have a variability from 1.5 to 6.0 if I recall clearly which is certainly a pretty wide fluctuation.
Part of the problem would appear to be the thermal inertia of the oceans and the degree of CO2 locked in them.
Of course, there is not a rectilinear correlation between CO2 rise from 1850 to 2007. However, most climate scientists, hedging their bets, are loking at a rise of a temperature anomaly more than 1.2 degrees. I think the point of the IPCC4 report is that even at the lowest level of change there is a significant possibility of adverse affects.
Not to forget, as well, that scientists do tend to be very conservative while making predictions (especialy true of a consensus of scientists).
And finally, if you look at the error bars, there is an even statistical chance of the temperature anomaly (and thereby adverse effects) being considerably worse.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )or in the pay of Exxon Mobil; many have science or math experience and/or experience in debate. In other cases, e.g. the case of people where I live, it would suit us much better not to have to cut CO2 emissions (expensively).
The fact is that the Antarctic ice is increasing, the Southern Ocean is cooling and in fact global temperatures, if seen starting from the 1998 baseline, are in fact cooling. So, in a sense, it can be true to say "global warming stopped in 1998". This is something that can be explained and understood quite clearly. To make the the point clear about rising about underlying temperature trends, you have to explain El Nino/El Nina effects etc. You have to explain how, actually, the IPCC reports do not negate any of these observations. To understand why the surfacestations.org work is intrinsically not significant you have to understand quite a lot about raw temperature data, data homogenisation, corrections etc.
Even after all this explanation, many reasonable people, especially non-scientists, will remain unconvinced, because the "global cooling" story is, on the face of it, quite a plausible one. Scientists do not always understand this, which is why they do sometimes take on a big brother attitude of I know best.
The "global cooling" issue is not obviously ridiculous, in the way say that Young Earth Creationism (which I learnt about from this site) is. To imagine that people will be convinced by appealing to their sense of the ridiculous will not work.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )over at the Corner are pushing this nonsense as well.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and I'll respond specifically. Till then, I'll just point you to that little box in your browser that tells you what site you've linked to; that may help you get your bearings.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It's probably not a good idea to continually suggest that those who disagree with you (Gabriel) or those who make fun of you (me) need to 'indicate you know what you're talking about'.
The 'If You Were As Smart As I Am You'd Agree With Me' rejoinder is thinwitted, unnecessary, and a posting rules violation.
Maybe you should check with a moderator.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'll point it out when I feel the mood. That doesn't indicate I know more than the commenter, just that the comment (his words, after all) lacks substance.
You, OTOH, are a special category of one. As you admit, your comments are intended to "make fun of . . .me." Your claim that I'm the one violating posting rules by ridiculing comments you admit are an attempt to ridicule me is - whoops, almost said "tin-witted" but that one's already been worn out.
Bottom line: your comments don't show the slightest evidence that you have read and understood the issues in this diary. (That's particularly true for lame rejoinders like your Instapundit defense.) You now admit your intent was to ridicule the diarist. Uncharacteristically for you, you're now calling for a referee (again, in way that is thin- oops, almost used that cliche again), suggesting you feel a painful singeing here because the diarist has ridiculed you back. That's the breaks.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The point remains the same. I'm not calling for a referee. I"m simply bored -- and I've made this comment many times before -- by the rather pathetic appeal to one's own expertise. Sometimes it's the 'Reading Comprehension' insult. Sometimes it's the "If You Were Only As Smart As I Am" insult. However you state it, it's awfully thin gruel, and beneath your own abilities.
And suggesting that you stove-piped this nonsense in from Instapundit isn't a 'defense.' It's an observation.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The Instapundit find (assuming there was one was entirely yours and Floater's not mine, so don't be too shy to admit you read that site. Kudos on your field of vision.
My expertise in the area is clearly limited, but when you reply with condescending drive-bys, don't complain about backlash (or backwash, for that matter). You've yet to discuss the underlying science in even a broad sense, so if you see the technical defects in the issues raised here, you are hiding it very well.
But I accept that, and bear the slings and arrows of your outrageously large fortune as a badger of honor. Or something. Anyway, as always, thanks for all the fish.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Save me from your ridicule! It's so....ridiculous. Wait, maybe I should respond to your comment as if I were you. Here goes....
When you've got something to say that isn't infected with wingtardy bacteria, get back to me. Until then stop wasting my time.
There. Much better.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )it.
Hey, I didn't see a copyright notice, so I'm slipping "It's so . . . ridiculous" into my quiver, to use against liberal in-laws this Easter. That will devastate them for sure.
I am, however, deeply offended that you would attribute the word "wingtardy" to me. Sounds like a slow eater at Kentucky Fried Chicken, which I am not. Keep it up and I will whip out the racism card so fast you'll think you're playing "Go Fish!" with Mike Tyson.
But seriously, you've blinded me with science.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )-o-0o--
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and it covered more than just one individual.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Absolutely right. It's a subset of the Reading Comprehension bon mot, and rarely of much use. And again, telling someone they're not smart enuf to recognize your intellectual force-itude is not only beside the point but, you know, sorta outside the lines.
That's right. Force-itude.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )if you are going to be reasonable about this you take away all the fun!
:)
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )