Comments On AP Story “Statistics Experts Reject Global Cooling Claims”
There is a news report titled “Statistics experts reject global cooling claims” by Seth Borenstein which appeared today.
The article reads
“WASHINGTON — The Earth is still warming, not cooling as some global warming skeptics are claiming, according to an analysis of global temperatures by independent statistics experts.
The review of years of temperature data was conducted at the request of The Associated Press. Talk of a cooling trend has been spreading on the Internet, fueled by some news reports, a new book and temperatures that have been cooler in a few recent years.
The statisticians, reviewing two sets of temperature data, found no trend of falling temperatures over time. And U.S. government figures show that the decade that ends in December will be the warmest in 130 years of record-keeping.
Global warming skeptics are basing their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. They say that since then, temperatures have fallen — thus, a cooling trend. But it’s not that simple.
Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, dropped again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998.
“The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record,” said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. “Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.”
Statisticians said the ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.”
This article, however, (which is not a true independent assessment if the study was completed by NOAA scientists) is not based on the much more robust metric assessment of global warming as diagnosed by upper ocean heat content. Nor does it consider the warm bias issues with respect to surface land temperatures that we have raised in our peer reviewed papers; e.g. see and see.
With respect to ocean heat content changes, as summarized in the articles
Ellis et al. 1978: The annual variation in the global heat balance of the Earth. J. Climate. 83, 1958-1962.
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55
and
Douglass, D.H. and R. Knox, 2009: Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. Physics letters A
trends and anomolies in the upper ocean heat content permit a quantitative assessment of the radiative imbalance of the climate system.
Jim Hansen agrees on the use of the upper ocean heat content as an important diagnostic of global warming. Jim Hansen in 2005 discussed this subject (see). In Jim’s write-up, he stated
“The Willis et al. measured heat storage of 0.62 W/m2 refers to the decadal mean for the upper 750 m of the ocean. Our simulated 1993-2003 heat storage rate was 0.6 W/m2 in the upper 750 m of the ocean. The decadal mean planetary energy imbalance, 0.75 W/m2, includes heat storage in the deeper ocean and energy used to melt ice and warm the air and land. 0.85 W/m2 is the imbalance at the end of the decade.
Certainly the energy imbalance is less in earlier years, even negative, especially in years following large volcanic eruptions. Our analysis focused on the past decade because: (1) this is the period when it was predicted that, in the absence of a large volcanic eruption, the increasing greenhouse effect would cause the planetary energy imbalance and ocean heat storage to rise above the level of natural variability (Hansen et al., 1997), and (2) improved ocean temperature measurements and precise satellite altimetry yield an uncertainty in the ocean heat storage, ~15% of the observed value, smaller than that of earlier times when unsampled regions of the ocean created larger uncertainty.”
As discussed on my weblog and elsewhere (e.g. see and see), the upper ocean heat content trend, as evaluated by its heat anomalies, has been essentially flat since mid 2003 through at least June of this year. Since mid 2003, the heat storage rate, rather then being 0.6 W/m2 in the upper 750m that was found prior to that time (1993-2003), has been essentially zero.
Nonetheless, the article is correct that the climate system has not cooled even in the last 6 years. Moreover, on the long time period back to 1880, the consensus is that the climate system has warmed on the longest time period. Perhaps the current absence of warming is a shorter term natural feature of the climate system. However, to state that the “[t]he Earth is still warming” is in error. The warming has, at least temporarily halted.
The article (and apparently the NOAA study itself), therefore, suffers from a significant oversight since it does not comment on an update of the same upper ocean heat content data that Jim Hansen has used to assess global warming.
So to find warming in a cooling climate?
Well first lets take another ‘look’ at the data shall we? Lets put this data through our super special data smoothing and cleaning algorerythem and then weld this data onto Briffas one tree yamal proxy and hand the results to Hansen who will adjust this product to reflect certain ‘realities’, after all this give the data to Mann who will then construct the finest most scary hockystick imagineable that proves beyond denial the planet is actually on fire and completely underwater.
typo in thread title, should read Borenstein.
[Thanks, fixed. ~dbstealey, moderator]
The agenda of that article was obvious.
O/T but you might be interested to know that the Met Office has published another of its famous seasonal forecasts. And there’s no surprise – we’re in for a “mild winter”
One interesting comment from the article – from a climate scientist at the Met Office: “long-term forecasts were difficult to make”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6439469/Mild-winter-forecast-as-part-of-El-Nino-effect.html
>>And U.S. government figures show that the decade that ends in December will be the warmest in 130 years of record-keeping<<
Surly we can all agree on that.
You have to wonder what AP’s motivation was?…
Perhaps something to do with Copenhagen?…maybe?…
JimB
We are being asked to give up meat (and presumably kill millions of cows) to ‘save the planet’.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece
Stern is not a climatologist, not even a scientist. He is an economist. As someone in the comments says, a leading authority on how to tax people.
A clear, unbiased assessment from the man who writes some of the most advanced climatology textbooks, and hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles that are not tilted toward a desired result. A breath of fresh air. I’ll believe the Earth is still warming when Dr. Pielke says so.
OT. I don’t know if anyone else is keeping an eye on this (I do) but there is some serious fiddling going on with the CET at the Met Office http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html
They keep changing the anomaly for October. By that I mean, when it was 11.3 they said the anomaly was -0.3. Now it’s 11.4 they’re saying it’s +0.4! They started this at the beginning of the month with a figure of about 12, saying that was something like +0.3. It then changed a few times and I contacted them asking them what the hell was going on and were they making it up as they went along. No one replied. With analysis like this they’ll be able to say the year’s anomaly was whatever they want it to be! The CET is already unrepresentative as it is, but making up the data is surely too much even for the Met Office? Can anyone else email them as obviously they don’t like my emails: enquiries@metoffice.gov.uk
This is on Tips and Notes and might be relevant
“E.M.Smith (23:42:41) :
It looks like GHCN, and thus GIStemp (and thus the world…) use all of
4 thermometers in California
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/
And three of them are in southern California (Santa Maria, LA, San Diego).
The only Northern California thermometer is in San Francisco.
That is why we had a “115 year record heat”, there are no thermometers measuring the cold an snowy mountains.”
There is more interesting reading re the rest of USA too. And won’t these sites have been used to back-adjust previous temperatures?
I wonder why AP chose not to sully their article with any actual graphs?
This piece is the best example of argumentum ad verecundiam that you could wish to see, truly text book stuff.
Just hide the evidence from people’s eyes and tell them what they would see if they were qualified to look.
“trends and anomolies in the upper ocean heat content permits”
should read
“trends and anomalies in the upper ocean heat content permit”
[Thanks, fixed. ~dbs, mod.]
The AP article carefully avoids mentioning a single paramount fact:
ALL warmists’ models and predictions have failed.
Nobody in his right mind will believe them crying wolf once more.
Surely the point is not particularly whether the temperature trend is broadly flat, or in mild decline; it’s the point that, on any reasonable statistical analysis, the argument for a significantly rising trend become weaker as the “flat” period extends.
The UK Met office, for example, is arguing that on their models about 1 in eight ten year period fails to show an increase in temperature (implying that 7 out of eight randomly selected will show an increase). Now, on a very simplistic model, I make that that if the trend extends to 12-13 years (i.e in approx 2012), at 95% confidence, the hypothesis that there IS an underlying rising trend has to be rejected.
Incidentally this – http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/breaking-records/.
– which is certainly not a sceptics analysis seems to come to a similar conclusion.
Any reasonably heavyweight statisticians out there to work this thoroughly?
It’s also be interesting to estimate how hot it’ll have to get in the next 2-3 years to justify even the lower bands of the IPCC forcasts…..
Dr Pielke thank you for pointing out that even as per the NOAA data there has been no warming in the past decade.
The NOAA data is suspect on a number of grounds. Even if we ignore 1998, as per the satellite data, and even the HADCRUT data, since 2002 at least, there has been a downward trend in the temperature.
In the article linked above, Ken Caldeira, climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford says “To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous”
On this:
1. It is NOT the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years. It is only the hottest decade if you fraudulently remove the Medieval Warm Period and the Holocene Optimum from the paleontology records.
2. Even if were the hottest decade as claimed, why is it ridiculous? Why can not global cooling start at the end of any warming?
In 1990 the IPCC stated “..A global warming of larger size has almost certainly occurred at least once since the end of the last glaciation without any appreciable increase in greenhouse gases. Because we do not understand the reasons for these past warming events, it is not yet possible to attribute a specific proportion of the recent, smaller warming to an increase of greenhouse gases.
This is utterly crucial. They have specifically given a reason why it was not possible to attribute a specific proportion of the current warming to an increase of greenhouse gases.
To overcome this reason they have to either explain the reasons for the past warmings OR remove the past warmings from the record. Since they have failed in the former they have fraudulently tried to do the latter. Hence the fierce battle over the temperature records and proxies spanning the Medieval Warm period.
Thank you for your post. Thank you for soldiering on. “In times of universal deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” – George Orwell
my posts keep getting swallowed
Looking at past trends is an expensive fool’s game. Ask any roulette player.
The AP’s “independent analysis” fails to even list what records their “statisticians” looked at, over what time frame those records were “analyzed” for any trend, and what “trend” (certainly a linear positive one!) they “wanted to get!
BIAS.
JimB:
I’m with you. Public support for AGW has been declining as the number of record cold temperatures around the globe have been increasing. Obviously the AGW crowd is desperately ringing the alarm bell again, trying to resuscitate their flagging support, and the timing couldn’t be better (for Copenhagen).
Ben (01:57:27) : O/T but you might be interested to know that the Met Office has published another of its famous seasonal forecasts. And there’s no surprise – we’re in for a “mild winter”
I couldnt find it on the Met Office Site. This is what I found on their forecast:
“Preliminary indications continue to suggest that winter temperatures are likely to be near or above average over much of Europe including the UK. Winter 2009/10 is likely to be milder than last year for the UK, but there is still a 1 in 7 chance of a cold winter. (they have given themselves an out)
..As you would expect, temperatures can vary quite widely over the winter. So we take an average for the whole season and measure against that. The UK average for December to February from 1971-2000 is 3.7 °C.”
Note that and lets see.
Well, my temperature anomaly right now is +2.16F or +1.2C (100.76F or 28.2C). I can’t blame it on ENSO or the seasonal flu because I had the vaccination 3 weeks ago. Yes folks, it’s swine flu. I’m taking Tamilfu and Augmentin which has stabilized me. Not much fun but it feels pretty much like normal flu.
AP – Assinine Paranoia?
Barry Foster (02:36:47)
When writing to the Met Office, its advisable to avoid any adjectives, criticisms or accusations. Pose the facts, and the anomalies and they would probably reply.
The article mentions talk of cooling that has been spreading on the internet. These seditious rumours must be crushed without delay.
And what were the temperature datasets they used in this study? Wasn’t there one that GISS recently adjusted upwards? It was reported on WUWT about a month ago. That clearly gave a slight warming trend. I think it was a thermometer based surface temperature record. It should be obvious that is the one they used, but it would be useful if they referenced the actual datasets.
In other news house prices are still officially rising because they haven’t yet dropped back to their previously low levels.
@UK SCEPTIC: How about AP: Agenda-driven Prats
Until we see the 13 mo average dip below 0.0 it’s going to be hard to really pound the table for cooling. Just like it’s hard to dispute “flat” when the chart doesn’t exceed 1998.
The old media has become a dinosaur
History will judge them harshly
This is a really hard sell to people who look outside the window and see that it’s colder (i.e. early skiing season start, many new record lows, etc.).
I’m sure it’s possible to find a “statistics expert” that will tell you that the Titanic didn’t sink, it merely met it’s “end of life” situation.
P Wilson. Thanks, I can’t help myself though! When you see a major organisation say that “Temperatures are continuing to rise” when their own data shows that not to be so, and when you see quite evident fiddling with the CET going on with no explanation then I robustly ask for answers! Thanks, anyway.
Anyone else noticed that the Science Museum’s Prove it vote counter looks to have been reset?
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
It was up to about 5000 against 4000 for (with the big leap on sunday night for the warmers) but now it’s showing nil and nil. Has it been reset or are the data being ‘adjusted’? We’ll have to wait and see.
100.76F is 38.2C. Doh
Certainly the energy imbalance is less in earlier years, even negative, especially in years following large volcanic eruptions.
The current decade is also the first decade in modern times not to have a major volcanic eruption.
The AP article says nothing about how large any of these temperature increases were, except curiously to quote Dr. Christy from UAH who says temperatures have gone down in the current decade.
“It pretty much depends on when you start,” wrote John Christy, the Alabama atmospheric scientist who collects the satellite data that skeptics use. He said in an e-mail that looking back 31 years, temperatures have gone up nearly three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit (four-tenths of a degree Celsius). The last dozen years have been flat, and temperatures over the last eight years have declined a bit, he wrote.
And if we look at the size of the temperature increase in the last decade even the Warmist HadCRU says +0.07±0.07°C decade for the last decade.
Of course, the AP article doesn’t mention that the temperature increase was so small it didn’t exceed the error in the measurements.
Update to my earlier post: It’s getting worse! Within the past hour the anomaly has now gone up to +0.5!!! http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html And still no explanation as to why they have been changing it every few days! When October began (damn, I wish I had taken a screenshot) they showed a temperature of about 12.1 and said the anomaly was (about) +0.3
Surely this is evidence that the UK Met Office is either grossly incompetent or actually is making the CET up as they go along.
@ Vincent
The datasets used were NOAA’s year to year data and UAH satellite data see, main article http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_sc/us_sci_global_cooling
Richard (03:01:57) : Dr Pielke thank you for pointing out that even as per the NOAA data there has been no warming in the past decade.
From what he wrote, I think he’s view is that ocean heat content is a more robust metric of warming and it hasn’t risen since mid 2003, not since 1998. Since the ocean heat content has risen significantly since 1998 I assume Dr Pielke believes there has been warming over the past decade.
Ban Ban Kimoon Report: Goreacle Report cancelled. manbearswineAGW has flown the coop; experts say, it has stress ‘fluen.
Ptttawkkkk caw caw …..
…-
“UN red-faced after visit from KFC’s colonel
Red-faced United Nations officials Monday admitted to a major security lapse after a UN guard helped Kentucky Fried Chicken’s “Colonel Sanders” gain access to restricted areas.
The guard escorted the white-suited intruder past security barriers, where he got a handshake from the UN General Assembly president, Dr. Ali A. Treki of Libya. The faux fast food chain founder also posed for a picture beneath the assembly’s giant UN logo.
“It should not have happened– that I will stress, and very strongly,” said Michele Montas, spokeswoman for UN secretary general Ban Kimoon.”
urlm.in/diac
…-
“Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet”
urlm.in/diad
…-
“UN signals delay in new climate change treaty”
urlm.in/diae
OK as for statisticians: Liars figure and figures lie. Enough said. They (AGWers) can’t have it both ways yet they keep trying.
By the way check out the forecast for Denver over the next couple of days and tell me that it’s weather or climate change. “Me thinks” it’s a lot of both if you compare to recent trends.
Don S. @UK SCEPTIC: How about AP: Agenda-driven Prats
That works for me too. 😀
Some info on our intrepid statisticians.
http://www.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/biodb?PROJID=3&mode=viewpersonname&name=john_grego
AP – Alarmist Propaganda
Richard (03:01:57) 🙂
Ah, but they let the scientists write that report didn’t they? That’s when the answers weren’t quite what the lefty greenies wanted to hear because they believed they were right, & that the scientists would prove it. Of course when they did’t, that was when science had to be fabricated to prove it. Of course when that didn’t work, they turned to good old fashioned lies & distortion of the scientific facts for the SAR SPM for the “greater good”! Just like Hitler & Stalin did with science. AND remember, if you’re going to lie, tell whopper!
OT. I have just received this morning an emailed response to my complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) regarding the UK Govt’s foray into scaring the public with their little horror story. This is a detailed follow-up of a written acknowledgement received a week or so ago. They are going to investigate this & all other such adverts placed in the msm by the Govt apparently. It is detailed in their complaints response that the ad(s) was misleading on at least two counts, potentially frightening to children, & not based on science but unsubstantiated theory only, etc. The letter requests all complainants to treat such communications as confidential, & so I will for the time being do so, but upon whatever findings are published, I will post it & any other correspondence here for all to view. We do indeed live in interesting times! I am so far surprised they are going to this length, it may just be perfunctory. It may well be one of two outcomes, a) the UK Government will be taken to task over this, & told to mend their ways immediately (unlikely), or b) the UK Govt will be exonerated & were only trying to motivate Jo public in the battle against Anthropogenic Climate Change based on solid irrefutable peer reviewed proof from the IPCC with barely 50 days to go before WAGTD, (likely IMHO).
Down really means up….
Even if you take that the longest period warming is driven by GHG’s, the flattening is significant in that it also will flatten any curve fit you do – thus reducing the net forcing one could legitimately attribute to GHG’s. If you do the math & do a logarithmic curve fit to the observed data, you will see it is already substantially below the IPCC’s forcing # (deg/ doubling) – and getting lower every year no substantial warming occurs. Thus, AGW, even if real, is not the crisis the Alarmists would portray it to be.
I’m not sure how you can possible draw any conclusions from ocean heat content at present in any case. A reliable buoy network has only recently (2003) been put into place. All other measurements are pretty much dipping a bucket into the water and sticking a thermometer into the result! As we keep being told, you need 30 years of data to even start to draw conclusions and in my opinion, several centuries to see longer term patterns. I’ll return to this thread to give you all an update in 2201.
When I go to ‘vote’ on the Science Museum site I get this message:
“The requested URL could not be retrieved
While trying to retrieve the URL:
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/
sendgov.aspx?action=out
The following error was encountered:
The requested object is INFECTED with the following viruses: HEUR:Trojan-Downloader.Script.Generic
Please contact your service provider if you consider it incorrect.
Generated:
Tue Oct 27 23:56:41 2009
Kaspersky Internet Security 2009″
?????????
Seth Borenstein is a leftist fifth columnist (Wikipedia definition: A fifth column is a group of people who clandestinely undermine a larger group, such as a nation, from within, to the aid of an external enemy) with longstanding ties to the UN. For those who know, his name says it all.
Barry Foster (05:06:37) :
Update to my earlier post: It’s getting worse! Within the past hour the anomaly has now gone up to +0.5!!! http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html…
Mean CET October is 10.5. This is only for the daily adjustment period.
This article reveals nothing more than a clear sign of cowardice and utter desperation on the part of the AGWers. Pathetic really.
Warming or cooling is not the right question; in fact it is a red herring as used here by Borenstein. The real question is: is there any measurable “A” component in GW? Does AGW even exist? If so, where is the real world data showing the portion of warming that is anthropogenic? And why has global warming stopped for most of the past decade? CO2 certainly has continued to rise, both the 97% that the planet emits, and the 3% that humans emit.
Human influence on the global temperature is only assumed, even though Borenstein wants to believe it to be a fact. But there is no empirical, measurable evidence for the ‘A’ in AGW. Rather, it is an assumption based entirely on computer climate models and the scary scenarios promoted by the climate science grant industry.
The Earth is still recovering from the LIA. Naturally, it is warming from that unusually cold event. But it has warmed even more than today in the pre-SUV times following the LIA. The current balmy climate is much healthier and more pleasant than it was in the 1700’s – 1800’s.
The recent conjecture that CO2 is the cause of global warming has no verifiable, real world evidence backing it up. But “carbon” [by which the scientific ignoratii mean CO2, a very minor trace gas], is on the lips of every science challenged know-nothing who believes that every warm day, and every local weather event, and every polar bear on an ice floe is surely a sign of impending doom.
There is nothing unusual about the current climate. Nothing. The raw data shows that the global climate is well within its natural historical parameters. Nothing unusual is occurring, except in the minds of the subset of the population that believes the pronouncements in People magazine by pretty movie stars trumps the thoughtful analysis of scientists like Dr Pielke.
When scribblers like Seth Borenstein babble on about “global warming”, keep in mind that the planet warms and cools naturally, as it always has. There is no proof, nor even any empirical evidence, that carbon dioxide emitted by human activity has any effect on temperature.
For each molecule of CO2 emitted by humans, 33 more molecules of CO2 are emitted naturally by the planet. Borenstein seems to be blissfully ignorant of that basic fact, which makes his AGW-based conjecture sound ridiculous to people who pay attention to the issue.
Am I right in thinking that if you climb a mountain and then fall off, you can console yourself, on the way down, with the thought that your trend is still upwards?
Sorry. Mean CET October 1971-2000 is 10,4C
There is remarkably little quantitative data in the AP article (I didn’t spot any).
I understand that there has been a long term upward trend in temperatures since the last ice age so would expect any statistical analysis to show that trend. The real point is whether there is any additional sustained warming and without figures who knows.
Apart from which, according to the warmists, if it is not peer reviewed it is worthless, just another species of populist science like blog science.
I also see that Gavin Schmidt was given the last word:
“The current El Nino is forecast to get stronger, probably pushing global temperatures even higher next year, scientists say. NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt predicts 2010 may break a record, so a cooling trend “will be never talked about again.”
Glad to see Gavin has got the message that CO2 is not the cause of higher temperatures!
If THEY insist in telling lies I must insist in telling some truths:
Facts about CO2:
CO2 it is not black, but trasparent and invisible
CO2 is the gas you exhale. You exhale about 900 grams a day of CO2
CO2 that you exhale is what plants breath to give you back O2 (oxygen) for you to breath. Then it is neither a pollutant nor a poison, it even rejuvenates!!!:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1485258/carbon_dioxide_therapy_carboxy_therapy_pg2_pg2.html?cat=69
CO2 is heavier than air, it doesn´t fly up, up and away CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, it is the 0.038 per cent of it, or 3.8 parts per ten thousand.
The atmosphere, the air you know, does not have the capacity to “hold” enough heat, it only “saves” 0.001297 joules per cubic centimeter, while water , the sea you know, has 3227 times that capacity (4.186 joules).
Would you warm your feet with a bottle filled with air or filled with hot water?
The so called “Greenhouse effect” does not exist, see:
http://www.giurfa.com/gh_experiments.pdf
But if you have been cheated to the core and still believe in it, think the following:
Svante Arrhenius, the guy of the greenhouse effect, said he thought CO2 acted as the “window panes” of a green-house, but as its concentration in atmosphere it is just 3.8 per ten thousand, you would have a greenhouse with 3.8 window panes and 9996.2 empty holes
If you succeed in decreasing CO2 you will have to walk naked because plants make Cotton out CO2 and water plus the Sun rays in a process called photosynthesis
So No CO2 = No plants = No Oxygen = No YOU FOOL!
In spanish:
Hechos acerca del CO2:
El CO2 no es Negro, sino transparente e Invisible
El CO2 es el gas que tu exhalas. Tu exhalas cerca de 900 gramos al día de CO2
El CO2 que tu exhalas es lo que las plantas respiran para devolverte el O2 (Oxígeno) para que tú respires. No es contaminante ni veneno, incluso rejuvenece!:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1485258/carbon_dioxide_therapy_carboxy_therapy_pg2_pg2.html?cat=69
El CO2 es más pesado que el Aire asi que no puede volar hacia arriba,
El CO2 es un gas TRAZA en la atmósfera, solamente es el 0.038% de élla, esto es 3.8 partes de DIEZ MIL
La atmósfera, el AIRE, ¿sabes?, no tiene la capacidad de “retener” suficiente calor, élla sólo “guarda” 0.001297 joules por centímetro cúbico, mientras que el AGUA, ¿el Mar, sabes?, tiene 3227 veces ésa capacidad (4.186 joules)
El llamado “Efecto invernadero” NO existe, mira:
http://www.giurfa.com/gh_experiments.pdf
Pero si te han engañado hasta la pepa del alma y aún crées en éllo, piensa lo siguiente: Svante Arrhenius, el tipo del “efecto invernadero”, decía que concebía al CO2 “como los vidrios de un invernadero”, pero como el CO2 es sólo 3.8 partes por 10000, tendrías un invernadero con sólo 3.8 vidrios y 9996.2 huecos vacíos.
Si tienes éxito en disminuir el CO2 tendrás que andar calato porque las plantas elaboran el Algodón con CO2, agua y los rayos del Sol, en un proceso llamado fotosíntesis
Asi que No CO2=No plantas=No oxígeno=Tú NO existes. Bobo!
Richard (03:01:57): The 1990 IPCC quote is indeed interesting. It kills the idea that the hockey stick is irrelevant (as promoted by RC, among others). Also the phrase “almost certainly” tells us that they’ve changed their minds about something that was almost certain. In the current circumstances, that is important. (If this were a normal, non-politicized scientific issue, it probably wouldn’t be.)
Well the 2010 El Nino MUST break the 1997 record, otherwise the trend is gone. Remember that the 1983 El Nino was cooled by El Chicon.
follow the monthy NINO34 index here:
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices
Interesting times indeed.
paulo arruda. Thank you for that, but the site says that the anomaly which is 0.5 for this month will be exaggerated in the first half of the month. So they ae saying that the 1961-90 figure is 10.9 – hence the anomaly currently is +0.5 (because the current temperature is 11.5)? If the anomaly was variable according to how far we were through the month then there would be no exaggeration – as the anomaly would be measuring like number of days with recorded like number of days.
Barry Foster (02:36:47)
Barry, they base their anomaly on the month to date, compared with the average of the same month to date for 1961 – 1990. That’s why it changes every day. I’ve checked it the past and it works out correctly. And I expect they’ve just updated with yesterday’s figures, which would account for the recent change.
Update: The October figure 1961-90 is actually 10.6 – which suggests that 11.5 is +0.9
O/T Breaking news on the ASA action over complaints about the AGW fairy story advert. Just received this from the ASA via email.
Dear Sir/Madam,
YOUR COMPLAINT: ACT ON CO2 TV AND PRESS ADS
We have considered your complaint and will take it up with the advertisers, the Department for Energy and Climate Change.
We intend to deal with your complaint under our formal investigations procedure, which means that we will ask Clearcast (the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre) and the Department for Energy and Climate Change to comment on the complaint and send evidence to support the claims. We will then refer your complaint to the ASA Council for adjudication. Once the Council has made a decision, the adjudication will be published on our website.
We have received complaints about advertising in the campaign that covers both broadcast and non-broadcast media. The different media are considered by separate Councils, but all the ads will be investigated together. This means that the investigation may take a little longer than usual but ensures that the decisions reflect all the available information and are appropriate to the media.
We will be investigating the following points (please note the order differs slightly from the list posted on our website last week) –
Complainants objected to the TV ad because they believed:
1. the ad was political in nature and should not be broadcast;
2. the theme and content of the ad, for example the dog drowning in the storybook and the depiction of the young girl to whom the story was being read, could be distressing for children who saw it;
3. the ad should not have been shown when children were likely to be watching television;
4. the ad was misleading because it presented human induced climate change as a fact, when there was a significant division amongst the scientific community on that point;
5. the claim “over 40% of the CO2 was coming from ordinary everyday things” was misleading;
6. the representation of CO2 as a rising cloud of black smog was misleading;
7. the claims about the possible advent of strange weather and flooding, and associated imagery in the ad, in the UK were exaggerated, distressing and misleading;
Some complainants objected to the press ad on the grounds of (4) and (7) above and we will also be investigating those complaints.
Points (1) and (4) in relation to the TV ad may be subject to Section 4 of the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code, which is administered by Ofcom. We will therefore be referring to Ofcom objections to the TV campaign raised in respect of “political” objectives. Ofcom will in due course be publishing a Finding of its determination. When both bodies have concluded their investigations we plan to notify complainants of both our and Ofcom’s decisions, and we will write to you again at that point.
Please treat all correspondence as confidential until such time as a decision is published on our website.
Due to the postal strike and the particularly large volume of complaints received, we regret that we have been unable to send personally addressed correspondence on this occasion.
Yours sincerely
Everything’s fine. Cold is the new warm, didn’t chya know?
Next, the AP will report that Santa has been found floating in the arctic ocean. He just couldn’t swim any longer.
Come to think of it, “irrelevant” is too strong. Stefan at RC does say:
‘The famous conclusion of the IPCC, “The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate”, does not depend on any reconstruction for the past millennium. It depends on a detailed analysis of 20th Century data. ‘
http://is.gd/4Ej4O
He also says that the IPCC position is from 1995:
‘In fact, this conclusion is from the 1995 IPCC report, and thus predates the existence of quantitative proxy reconstructions like the “hockey stick”.’
This would imply that the 1990 reasoning was invalidated in the 1995 report by the “detailed analysis of 20th century data”.
Looking at unlabeled stock market data statisticians claim no recession is visible to them, by eye. Being asked by a group of stock market analysts gave them no clue what the data might represent. Asking them if they saw a recent downturn as opposed to asking them a general question also had no effect on their opinion, they claimed.
What they need to do is ask little kids with crayons to reproduce the graph of 100 years of temperatures with as few lines as possible.
Connect the dots kids:
*
* *
* *
1 1 1 1 2
9 9 9 9 0
0 4 7 9 1
0 0 3 8 0
The AP used 1979 -2009 and 1880-2009 for their little experiment in how to lie with statistics. Using blind statistical analysis the statisticians were asked if there was a trend in the data. I agree with the results when using these data and methodology.
The earth is warmer today than in 1880. As it was in nearly every year since.
The earth is warmer than in 1979. Just not by as much as it was a decade ago.
I have said this before unless we have cooling for another 20 years the trend will always be higher on a 30 year trend or the entire record. It is a result of a data set with a peak, then plateau and a downward trend not as sharp as the upward one.
It is like jumping on the accelerator getting up to 100 as fast as possible shifting gears to show variations in acceleration taking 80 seconds, removing foot from accelerator and waiting 5 seconds then performing a slow braking stop. Take that data and cut it off 3 seconds after the braking starts and submit it for blind trend analysis, the results would be that the trend shows the car was still accelerating, statistically.
So should we believe that observations or the blind analysis?
How long will they cling? When there are a billion dead, governments fallen and WW3, due to cooling induced impacts, there will be mobs with pitchforks or worse, looking for someone to blame.
White space filtered out. Boo.
“2. Even if were the hottest decade as claimed, why is it ridiculous? Why can not global cooling start at the end of any warming?”
———————–
I would have thought that was self evident. The ONLY place that cooling can start is at the end of a warming period. If you measure that end then by definition, that would be the warmest period. So just because we have “allegedly” witnessed the warmest decade in the last 150 years, that does not mean that the future is going to keep warming the last 10 years may be a beginning of a longer cooling trend, OR it may be a blip in a 200 year+ warming trend, or it could be one of may natural variations within a 10,000 year record which has had several times with warmer and colder decades than the last one.
This is the fallicy in the fraudulent use og cherry-picking dates to make an argument and BOTH sides of the climate science community engage in this practice.
The one thing that IS certain, is that there is NO scientific consensus within the scientific community as a whole, on CO2 being the driver that will definitely cause catastrophic climate change if something is not done to stop CO2 emissions. This alarmist view is actually a very media friendly, yet extreme and rarely held view in science.
The station in Italy had the jet take off and put a lot of hot jet exhaust wash over it, thus confirming the global warming trend. These guys are going to form a new organization known as whores for science.
Regarding Pressed Rat’s “analysis” of Mr. Borenstein’s name:
It is enough to know that Mr. Borenstein makes journalistic, intellectual, and factual errors — repeatedly — in his career.
People with every kind of name on Earth make similar errors every day.
End of story.
longer, colder winters and cooler summers in most of the world, and people can feel it–but the the earth isn’t cooling
Let’s not lose sight of two some important facts:
1. The climate has been warming at about a degree per century as we’ve come out of the Little Ice Age, so it shouldn’t be any surprise that it’s warmer now than the cool period of 1880 to ~1915.
2. We’ve had two warming periods and two cooling periods since 1880, all of which match the PDO exactly (not random at all!). The warming from ~1915 to ~1945 occurred before the big jump in human CO2 emissions (1945) and the global climate cooled from 1945 to 1977 when it should have been warming if CO2 is the cause of warming. Warming is coincident with CO2 only from 1977 to 1999 so if it’s warming now than in 1880 it can’t all be due to CO2.
3. The most important point is overlooked in the AP story–the 1 degree warming per decade forecast by IPCC in 2000 hasn’t happened, so their climate models fail the reality test.
Probability wise, to say that this is the warmest decade recorded, doesn’t mean much. If we’ve only been recording accuracte temperature records for 12 decades, then that is only a 1 in 12 chance of it being either hottest or coldest decade recorded. I don’t know about you, but I like odds of 1 in 12. To really nail a hottest/coldest decade, you NEED to have much smaller odds that it would happen by chance. This can, of course, only be done by many more decades of climate recording, which by that time they will switch their time period in question for decades to half centuries, which will still mean nothing.
I suppose here is the problem. Surface temperature ( excluding the oceans ) have no longer been rising for nigh unto a decade ( in fact they have cooled so little for all intensive purposes it is flat ) So, and I may be mistaken, they are now pointing to another temperature gauge that shows warming is still occurring. Now, and please correct me if I am mistaken, does not ARGO show no warming as far as the ocean heat content is concerned where as the NOAA does show a heat increase? Not to say we really have very much history using the ARGO system ( to new to be used in a historical context ) but if one set of numbers is showing a significant increase and the other is flat then what is the reason for the anomaly?
Just questions that come to mind as I think about this stuff. It is strange that when one data source is not producing the desired results rather then the AP looking to understand what is different or can the theory be wrong they simply hire an ‘independent’ contractor to tell them there is no cooling occurring. Why would a news organization have to hire someone when a 6th grade education could figure out by simply graphing the temperatures…
Look the truth of the matter is that skeptics have NEVER claimed that over the last 130 years the temperatures have not risen. It is the cause that we doubt. CO2 CANNOT account for the warming that has occurred. IPCC agrees with this statement. What we as skeptics do not believe in are the ‘feedback’ effects that must occur to account for all the other warming. In this CO2 can only act as a catalyst causing an amplification of the real trouble maker, water.
This is where skeptics and believers differ. Not that CO2 will cause warming, rather that the warming CO2 causes is insignificant and therefore not WORTHY OF ATTENTION. We also do not hold with the THEORY that feedback loops even exist beyond the natural cycles that occur. This is not to say they do not or will not occur, we as skeptics simply have not seen them PROVEN.
Unfortunately this is not talked about among the population. The insignificant warming that occurs with Carbon Dioxide alone is said to account for all the warming that has occurred in the publics mind, hence the AP.
Gavin says “2010 may break a record”, and by golly, he’ll make sure that it does. The fox is in charge of the henhouse, ….
AP News:El Nino went away in a balloon filled with hot CO2 and disappeared.
He has left La Nina alone and crying and south pacific´s SST cold.
Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA ….chief Deke Arndt. “Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.”
You are being biased Deke. You discard all of the data sets from around the world. And you look at NASA. We ALL know the problems with GISTemp and James Hansen—they have been publicly corrected more than once.
Deke, you do know about James Hansen’s radical environmentalism?
conducted at the request of The Associated Press
Polls clearly show that most people do not trust the news media. And they have good reason to not trust. The AP is part of the news media that is not trusted.
The AP was not unbiased in this story. It’s just more business as usual!
Schmidt was foolish to use the phrase “never again” as it indicates a state of mind that is closed to debate and hence closed to future input that may run counter to his beliefs.
These spoken words also provide the public with good reason to be skeptical of his work product.
Clearly this “study” was flawed: we all know how little credit HADCRUT or similar curves should be given thanks to the work of Pielke Sr and others. Borenstein is an advocate and obviously a bad one.
Since RA Pielke Sr does not allow comments on his site, here it is:
Pielke insists that local land use changes the climate. His demonstration are solid. Yet it is to be demonstrated that the land use will change the strength and direction of the main climatic engines, the Mobile Polar Highs. In that sense Pielke is jumping the queue: indeed local land use will affect local responses to the climatic signal in my opinion just as UIH effect would. Yet these consequences are minor when faced with a 3,000km wide disc of polar air migrating form the poles to the equator.
In fact quantification of that influence on MPH would truly bring together two complementary aspect of meteorological and cliamtological research.
This brings to mind the Newsweek cover story that implied that skeptics were funded by big oil.
The Newsweek cover story didn’t change anyone’s mind. This story won’t either.
The gravy train runs on hot air, and Seth is trying to breath some life into the stalled engine.
Gavin going “all in” on this baby El Nino, with a negative PDO.
Interesting times.
This could be the “winter of discontent” for the AGW cheerleaders.
Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance
David H. Douglass and Robert S. Knox
Physics Letters A, Volume 373, Issue 36, 31 August 2009, Pages 3296-3300
Is cited in:
Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter
David R.B. Stockwell and Anthony Cox
arXiv:0908.1828v1 [physics.ao-ph] 13 Aug 2009
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. ???, XXXX, DOI:10.1029/
Abstract.
PeterT (01:58:05) :
>>And U.S. government figures show that the decade that ends in December will be the warmest in 130 years of record-keeping<<
Surly we can all agree on that
I would certainly agree that the poorly collected data that has been manipulated with little explanation shows that the decade that ends in December will be the warmest in 130 years of record-keeping.
“All other measurements are pretty much dipping a bucket into the water and sticking a thermometer into the result!”
Quite true.
Ships officer: Where’s able seaman Joe?
Sailor: He’s drawing up buckets of seawater from over the side.
Officer: Oh I see. Collecting the SST data?
Sailor: Actually, he’s using it to make a bath.
Officer: What!?
Sailor: That’s right sir, he reckons it keeps his skin young.
Officer. Very good. Make sure he records the temperature when he’s done.
Sailor: Yes, sir.
World climate report has another vivisection of the AP’s article (with a pretty graph, too).
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/26/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-global-cooling/
Though I’m not a fan, I just have to borrow a term often used by Rush and describe this article as a perfect example of the “Drive By” media. Now, the nice thing is, I can clearly ignore this entire piece of rubbish, as the good folks at Team headquarters have already stated the statisticians are not qualified to comment about global warming.
When this first popped up last night, I actually got a little angry. What sloppy journalism this is. But then it dawned on me that this is a clear knee-jerk reaction to the success of another statistician who has been poking holes in the sloppy scientific work of several climate scientists.
The earth is cooling so much it blew all the hurricanes away. Last night a tongue tied weather caster tried to explain where the hurricanes went and what was going on — Failed miserably as he tap danced around the science stage. A simple ‘we don’t know’ would have worked better, given Al Gore’s prediction of doom for earth by hurricane. The handy news person interjected that ‘Al Gore had said’ bit, to the chagrin of the weather caster.
Why do the TV Weathermen have to try and pretend they know … And wouldn’t everyone be better off if we went back to truth as our first scientific principle?
Asothers have suggested already: which datasets were provided to the statisticians? GIGO would still be operative.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
Unisys SSt’s this is not the hoped for “Super El Nino”…
Too late and too cold for they to suceed. It´s over!….Time to go back to work!
I think many of you need to review the refutations at RealClimate.org.
Most of the data you present has been refuted by real climate scientists. Check RealClimate.org for the facts and real science behind climate change.
WHen independent researchers refute claims by vested interests, when they have no idea exactly what data they have analyzed, thus making it a truly independent verification of facts, global warming deniers MUST agree with these facts.
Too do other wise are an ostrich’s head-in-the-sand antics.
The ONLY people with the dangerous agendas are the large oil and coal interests–like Exxon-Mobil who is funding global warming deniers for obvious reasons.
Scientists are after the truth. When researching and analyzing, look at as many pertinent facts as possible.
The trends are unmistakable: HUMANS CAUSED MOST GLOBAL WARMING INCREASES over 130 years.
Period.
We need to reverse the damage.
Period.
You state: “(which is not a true independent assessment if the study was completed by NOAA scientists)”
It was an independent assessment. Furthermore, it compared data compiled by the data compiled by University of Alabama at Huntsville often cited by anti-AGW global warming deniers.
NO TREND IN COOLING. TRENDS IN WARMING over 130 years found WITH CERTAINTY.
Peter T is hard for me to say that this has been the warmest decade in 130 years.Neither you nor any of these bloggers nor myself were here 130 years ago.If you read this site on a regurally basis you must have saw all of the reports on warm biased temps Tempurature sensor on roof tops,on asphalt parking lots,next to air condition units,just to name a few, and my favorite rural stations closed , cancelled or dropped.
I must say, I get a bit perturbed when linear trends are applied to inherently non-linear analog(ue) systems, particularly when the linear trend is applied to a discrete sample set, and those samples are debatably representative measurements of that system.
Barry Foster (02:36:47) :
They keep changing the anomaly for October. By that I mean, when it was 11.3 they said the anomaly was -0.3. Now it’s 11.4 they’re saying it’s +0.4! They started this at the beginning of the month with a figure of about 12,
Are you sure they aren’t working on the daily anomaly and not the entire monthly anomaly?
Let’s take it as written that October will start warmer than it finishes. That means the daily(October) anomaly temperature will grow cooler as the month draws on. So if the 1st of Oct was say 11 deg C and so was the Anom for that day and the actual temp stayed that way for 30 days then Anomaly would fall away so to speak (diverge) as the the month draws on.
This means if the 31st Oct Anom was 10.5 your 11.0 would now be +0.5 above.
ThinkLife (08:56:14):
“We need to reverse the damage.”
The damage is in your silly belief system. Humanity is much, much better off with the use of fossil fuels than without them. Try doing your laundry on a river rock, or a washboard. Try cutting wheat with a scythe. After one day you would be willing to trade your first born for the benefits a fossil fuels.
And please, take your trumpeting of the realclimate echo chamber elsewhere, until their petty censors allow skeptical points of view. Realclimate is incredible. Literally. They routinely delete skeptics’ comments for one reason: to hide the truth from the people reading their blog in their mom’s basement.
PuLEASE!, Realclimate?!?!? Hardly an objective website.
Talk to me when they stop censoring posts and start allowing actual debate (notice yours was not deleted on this site!)
ThinkLife:
“I think many of you need to review the refutations at RealClimate.org.
Most of the data you present has been refuted by real climate scientists. Check RealClimate.org for the facts and real science behind climate change.”
Hah! That’s so funny. I thought for a moment you were parodying the alarmists, so absurd were your statements. The liberal use of the word “denier” was a dead giveraway of parody, since most believers of AGW don’t stoop that low. But when I couldn’t find the punch line I re-read your words, and suddenly realised you were being serious.
LOL!
Robinson (05:54:27) :
“I’m not sure how you can possible draw any conclusions from ocean heat content at present in any case. A reliable buoy network has only recently (2003) been put into place.”
That means we’ve had a reliable ocean heat record for at least six years. If its trend has been flat, we can conclude that there’s been no warming over that period.
Thinklife,
Please learn to think for your self. What points were already refuted, be specific and be prepared to engage in a rational conversation.
So far you have said nothing of substance.
Seth Borenstein told me that the data he used was given to him by Dr. Christy. I wonder how much of that is true, considering he has mis-represented Dr. Christy before.
“NO TREND IN COOLING. TRENDS IN WARMING over 130 years found WITH CERTAINTY.”
We know there has been a warming trend averaged over 130 years (climb out of the little ice age don’t you know). Such a statement is a bait and switch. It is the last 10 years under scrutiny.
So let’s not get our knicker’s in a twist over all this. Some say there has been a cooling, some say they can still detect a warming. An honest answer would be that It is difficult to say if there has been any warming or not in that period, but a lot does depend on your starting point. The Argo network shows no OHC warming since 2003, which is what a lot of scientists use as a metric for global warming. Either way, whether you use thermometers, radiosondes or satellites, the trend is starting to looking pretty flat these days.
The point of this article is to show that it is a pretty pathetic attempt by AP to try and politicse something like that. Our scientists have proved there is still warming, our scientists are better than yours, yah booh sucks.
Very childish in my opinion, and in reality, has no scientific relevance.
ThinkLife (08:56:14) :
The ONLY people with the dangerous agendas are the large oil and coal interests–like Exxon-Mobil who is funding global warming deniers for obvious reasons.
Blimey, who’s getting my share?
BTW, many of us have examined the refutations at Realclimate which is exactly why we’re sceptical.
Lest we forget:
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” – Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
[From U.S. Senate Minority Report, December 2008]
And the list goes on and on…
ThinkLife (08:56:14) :
Talking of vested interests you need look no further than realclimate.org itself.
And it really annoys me when people blame big oil! Big oil exists only because the world needs it: if there was no market for oil, there would be no big oil.
ThinkLife: You’re right, it’s useful to read what RealClimate.org says about this. If you read their posts carefully, you’ll find that they’re backpedaling.
In other words, they are learning something and trying hard to hide it.
Let’s parse that AP article:
“The statisticians, reviewing two sets of temperature data, found no trend of falling temperatures over time.“
Strawman. 2009 is warmer than 1979 and 1880. But the period between those two start points is not what skeptics have in mind by “over time.” They are referring to the most recent trend.
“And U.S. government figures show that the decade that ends in December will be the warmest in 130 years of record-keeping.”
Another technically correct pseudo-refutation. Since the first half of that period preceded heavy manmade CO2, and therefore warmed from another cause, it indicates there’s a non-anthropogenic component to the long-term warming trend—a component that could still be active. (I.e., the rebound from the LIA.)
“Global warming skeptics are basing their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998.”
Another strawman. Most skeptics (here on WUWT, anyway) don’t choose 1998 as their starting point. Instead, they claim it’s been cooling during the present century, or since 2002, or 2004.
“They say that since then, temperatures have fallen — thus, a cooling trend. But it’s not that simple.”
A red herring (diversion). It IS that simple, because a short-term flattening and cooling trend falsifies the IPCC’s prediction for this decade, casting doubt on its models’ reliability; because it casts doubt on the implacability (and the urgency of the threat) of CO2’s alleged “forcing”; and because the PDO has flattened and turned negative at about the same time, which suggests that the PDO is the climate “forcer,” not CO2.
Please lets not get sidetracked by ThinkLife. Who ever TL is, unlike Joel or flanagan (?), he either doesn’t visit this site and was sent over to troll, or doesn’t care about the science, statistics, and debates that happens here, and was sent over to troll.
Either way, I’m not advocating censorship, just ignore the obvious troll.
Neo (04:52:35) :
“This [AGW] is a really hard sell to people who look outside the window and see that it’s colder (i.e. early skiing season start, many new record lows, etc.).”
Uh huh….no doubt.
And its an even HARDER sell because it is junk science.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Calling all sceptical scientists that have the skills:
This report needs to be analyzed and interpreted because all the “hysterics” are out shouting from the roof tops.
They are so hysterical, they rant, “no time for argument”.
Now, I’m no climatologist, but as Mark Twain said long ago:
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
I know where the hysterics is coming from: Desperation.
Still, if, after sound analysis & interpretation, an effective rebuttal can be made, one must be made…and loudly.
Because this report is being trumpeted to give resolve to their sagging hopes.
It would be nice to dash them.
Adolfo Giurfa (06:31:59) :
Great post, Adolfo. I wanted to bookmark your link on but the article ends mid-sentence without a period.
Is there more to the article? Let me know and thanks.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
ThinkLife (08:56:14) :
We need to reverse the damage.
Period.
And what damage might that be? What ‘damage’ is directly or indirectly attributable to Anthopogenic Global Warming?
Also, as a ‘global warming denier’, it would be most welcome if you could inform Exxon Mobil (aka. Big Oil) that I’m on their payroll and would ask that they drop a check in the mail, as it seems the previous ones must have been lost.
Seriously, though, so many people don’t understand that ‘big oil’ aren’t oil companies – they are money making companies. If the demand for oil is reduced and wind farms, solar, bio-whatever is the ‘new energy’, guess who you will be buying it from? All those evil coroporations selling you junk such as coal (electricity) and oil (gasoline), will be the same evil corporations selling you wind/solar (electricity) and ethanol/bio (transportation fuel), but they will be charging you twice as much.
Sue Smith. Thanks for that, and I see your point, but that would result in no exaggeration, surely? The fact that they say there IS exaggeration during the first period of the month would lead you to think that the tempearture changes every day but the anomaly should be what the difference is between the temperature of the month up to this day, surely?
If the month was 10 degrees 1961-90
And the current month is 9.5 (so far) then the anomaly is 0.5
If tomorrow it’s 9.1 then the anomaly must surely be 0.9
It’s the fact that they use the word ‘exaggeration’ which leads me to think that they show the anomaly on the first day, and it should surely continually show the difference between what the month is so far and what it should be (not so far, but what the entire month is).
Doing my head in!
savethesharks (10:22:37) : I gave two links, which one are you referring to?
If the one about Niels Bohr, it has just two pages.
I love this quote:
“The review of years of temperature data was conducted at the request of The Associated Press.”
Why would the Associated Press feel the need to request this (yes, I know the answer, I’m just asking rhetorically)? As a media major, one of the big no-no’s in news is to never insert yourself into the story. This certainly looks like that idea has gone out the window.
Personally, I love the posts from ThinkLife. They’re a great reminder of why we are here.
Most of the people in my personal life are either becoming educated (by me) or learned long ago to not spew their personal igorance at me. So some days, it’s entertaining to watch some of that naive ignorance getting sprayed around.
Khabibulo Abdusamatov on CO2:
Increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases is not the reason for global warming, but on the contrary, the natural consequence of an increase in the temperature. The increase of greenhouse gases occurs with a delay, the period necessary for the warming of the world ocean and melting of icebergs (200-800 years). The ocean serves as the basic depository of CO2, and since the solubility of gas in the water decreases with an increase in the temperature, the warming of the ocean leads to the emission of this large volume into the atmosphere. A further source of CO2 entering the atmosphere was revealed several years ago by the Far-Eastern Department of the Russian Academy of Sciences: the huge amount of algae frozen into the icebergs that drift in the Arctic and near the Antarctic coasts. Falling into warm water after the melting of ice, they rot, giving out carbon dioxide. Consequently, the widespread point of view of the determining role of industrial human activity on the global warming of climate is the result of substituting cause for effect.
http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf
Luke Warmer (05:00:12) :
Anyone else noticed that the Science Museum’s Prove it vote counter looks to have been reset?
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
It was up to about 5000 against 4000 for (with the big leap on sunday night for the warmers) but now it’s showing nil and nil. Has it been reset or are the data being ‘adjusted’? We’ll have to wait and see.
—
Yes the site has been updated with a confirmation of e-mail address added. You’ll have to vote again.
OT
ThinkLife: The ONLY people with the dangerous agendas are the large oil and coal interests–like Exxon-Mobil who is funding global warming deniers for obvious reasons….The trends are unmistakable: HUMANS CAUSED MOST GLOBAL WARMING INCREASES over 130 years.
Period.
We need to reverse the damage.
But sadly, my friend, it looks like the “large oil and coal interests”, which you so astutely expose as the only root of current evil, have long since managed to buy off even India and China, so as to ensure their own and our demise by way of their very own venal acts, as they seem to be dedicated toward burning as much fossil fuel as possible, and certainly not to save themselves from a greater disaster as they so cynically claim!
And the ipcc is in on it , too: hasn’t it always excluded India and China from having to follow its Kyoto Protocols, obviously in favor of receiving coal and oil money even in the face of its own proclaimed World disaster?
Why, it’s almost as if they are all evil deniers, too!
So, ThinkLife, it’s time we man-up and face current facts: no reversal of damage is possible. We’re already doomed I tell you, doooooomed!
The Science Museum is a law unto itself. The count has gone from 6-81 to 5429 – 6524 in about 30 seconds. Impressive data collecting.
SandyInDerby (11:57:19) :
The Science Museum is a law unto itself. The count has gone from 6-81 to 5429 – 6524 in about 30 seconds. Impressive data collecting.
And still no email confirmation.
Reply: I got an email requiring a confirmation this time. I’m not sure if I used the same email as the first time. That could be an issue. ~ charles the moderator
Adolfo Giurfa (10:57:29) :
savethesharks (10:22:37) : I gave two links, which one are you referring to?
If the one about Niels Bohr, it has just two pages.
It was the one about Niels Bohr. A sentence (or more) is truncated off the end. Just did not want to miss anything.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Since WWII is generally accepted as the starting point of significant CO2 emissions I wonder why 1940 (or thereabouts) wasn’t chosen as the starting point for the statistical study. Anything before that would obviously provide no information about MMCC. So, Seth let’s see the results starting in 1940. Anything before or after is obviously cherry picking.
So, what do we have … maybe .2-.4C warming across 70 years. Now throw in a smoothing function.
What? I can’t seem to hear anything over the “but … but … but”.
ThinkLife –
I am not a denier of AGW I am a skeptic. A denier states that something is impossible without evidence. I on the other hand am a skeptic because I look at the evidence. ThinkLife, how much warming should all of the CO2 have on the atmosphere? It is a simple physics calculation. IF you perform it I think you would agree that CO2 cannot be the cause of the current warming trend. This is of course a scientific approach…
Now start with the actual physical data of what we know CO2 can do and now try to understand that the only way that CO2 can be the cause of global warming is through the feedback effects that are HYPOTHETICAL. A Hypothesis in science is basically akin to a guess which you then try to PROVE by the accumulation of data.
The problem with the idea of feedback effects is they are really hard to prove because there is no real way to track in the atmosphere what is going on and be right. It is an immensely complex system. However this theory is popular, which does not make it right. Thinking that the earth was flat was at one time popular though it had little to do with reality. Now ‘Deniers’ as you have labeled people like me who are merely skeptical of accepting an unproven theory have also been labeled ‘flat earthers’ which is ironic because in reality I do not care in the end if I am wrong, I am only interested in making sure that whatever stance I take is based in science.
I am sure you also realize, if you have followed any of the charts and activities on this site that almost no graph shows that since the 70’s OR the turn of the century there has not been warming. Rather that the warming CANNOT simply be attributed to a CO2 increase and that the mechanisms involved in the warming is much more complex then the current theories have been able to demonstrate ( again lack of evidence ).
Now that is not to say that more evidence will not come forward, but until it does, should we not remain skeptical in an attempt to understand the science behind Climatic Events rather then close our eyes and ears and chant ‘The Science is Settled!’
Correlation is not ever necessarily causation and despite an ever increase in CO2 the temperature has not followed for over a decade. Don’t even get people started on the question of accurate statistical gathering which as we have seen from Anthony’s great effort to survey the temperature stations is a whole other issue when it comes to question of accurate and dependable measurements over time.
In the end when you come to a site like this one and spout emotional responses rather then actually attempting to have a conversation with those here I cannot help but feel sad for you. In many ways it feels like the Pot calling the Kettle Black. Please feel free to address any and all inaccuracies as you see them in this post. I will not mind the discussion.
ThinkLife (08:56:14) :
The ONLY people with the dangerous agendas are the large oil and coal interests–like Exxon-Mobil who is funding global warming deniers for obvious reasons.
As the duly self appointed representative of Big Oil, I want to
assure you that your checks will be in the mail soon. Though
currently stuck in Nigeria, and in the possession of the prince,
you will be contacted soon with instructions on how to release
the funds.
James Lovelock, the founder of the “Gaia Theory”, the beloved of the “greenies” and “journalists” said that oxygen is a toxic gas. So, the less we have of that toxic substance in our atmosphere, the better, right?
AP means “Ancient Pundits,” and has for millennia.
Leif Svalgaard (12:11:42) :
And still no email confirmation.
Reply: I got an email requiring a confirmation this time. I’m not sure if I used the same email as the first time. That could be an issue. ~ charles the moderator
Still haven’t gotten mine.
I think the point of this article is that 11 years of weather data are not enough to determine trends in climate.
It also demonstrates how one can selectively pick data in an 11 year period and lie with it.
It doesn’t talk about models, greenhouse gases or any other potential causes.
The earth is not cooling. There is really nothing else to be said on that matter. So now we can stop talking about that…. hopefully.
REPLY: Well here’s the deal Dan, its like weeds and invasive species. Nature grows them where you don’t want them. Same for cooling. Nature will do what nature will do, and nature doesn’t give a hoot about statistics. We’ll know soon enough what nature’s decision is.
Also, since you keep coming back despite my disinvitation, are you prepared to behave and not to hurl childish insults at Dr. Spencer anymore ? – Anthony Watts
ThinkLife sounds a lot like Foamin’ Joe. And that’s a scientific fact!
Best,
Frank
SandyInDerby (11:57:19) :
The Science Museum is a law unto itself. The count has gone from 6-81 to 5429 – 6524 in about 30 seconds. Impressive data collecting.
Two hours later, they had collected an impressive 3 more count me in’s
5432 counted in so far 6624 counted out so far
Re: Your peer reviewed papers:
How did the peer review process go? Did anyone question your findings?
Has anyone cited your paper for further research?
“However, to state that the “[t]he Earth is still warming” is in error. The warming has, at least temporarily halted. ”
You don’t get it, did you read the whole article or the papers published earlier in the year refuting cooling?. Someone said earlier “how many weathers do you need to make a climate”. The statisticians said that the 11 years of data was not enough to draw conclusions on climate. Even if the previous 11 years of data show no change, you can not use that to say anything about the over all long term trend of warming.
The warming of the climate has not halted, the warming on the scale of weather has slowed for the moment.
danappalooupe (13:53:58) :
“I think the point of this article is that 11 years of weather data are not enough to determine trends in climate.”
No, the point of the article and the ridiculous cherry picked date of 1880 was an attempt to refute the declining belief in AGW. However, this will fail because the reasons for this decline have nothing to do with statistics. It has to do with what people are seeing in their own back yards. It may not be scientific but it’s real and this article will do nothing to stop the decline.
ThinkLife (08:56:14): “…The ONLY people with the dangerous agendas are the large oil and coal interests–like Exxon-Mobil who is funding global warming deniers for obvious reasons…”
Well this can cut both ways, the only people backing AGW is Big Nuke and GE whose funding and backing from the Club of Rome and associated groups to pervert science to an alarmist cause of genocide and Eco-fascist new world order.
Period.
[apologizes for feeding troll coward]
Dagfinn (06:38:22) : Richard (03:01:57): The 1990 IPCC quote .. kills the idea that the hockey stick is irrelevant (as promoted by RC, among others). Also the phrase “almost certainly” tells us that they’ve changed their minds about something that was almost certain…
Dagfinn (06:57:14) :
Come to think of it, “irrelevant” is too strong. Stefan at RC does say:
‘The famous conclusion of the IPCC, “The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate”, does not depend on any reconstruction for the past millennium. It depends on a detailed analysis of 20th Century data.
‘In fact, this conclusion is from the 1995 IPCC report, and thus predates the existence of quantitative proxy reconstructions like the “hockey stick”.’
This would imply that the 1990 reasoning was invalidated in the 1995 report by the “detailed analysis of 20th century data”.
I’ll remind you of the IPCC statement “..A global warming of larger size has almost certainly occurred at least once since the end of the last glaciation without any appreciable increase in greenhouse gases. Because we do not understand the reasons for these past warming events, it is not yet possible to attribute a specific proportion of the recent, smaller warming to an increase of greenhouse gases.
This talks nothing of the analysis of the current data. “we do not understand the reasons for these past warming events”. The past warming events were greater than the present one, thus we cannot say the current warming event is not natural.
What the warmers have done is two things:
1. There were 2 identical warming episodes in the temperature data one from 1911 to 1944 and the other from 1976 to 1998 of ~ 0.45? (off the top of my head). Of this let us say that x is due to anthropogenic CO2 and a, b,c,d is due to other causes (warming and cooling so one or two can be negative in sign. They have said we know x and a and b and c and d perfectly. We have analysed them with our models and are perfectly sure of their values. x+a+b+c+d = 4.5 in the latter warming and x is far greater than any of the others
2. There were no other warmings so we do not have to explain anything
The first is highly debatable and the second false.
Global cooling has continued for the last 134 months at [-0.009/YEAR] The key current indicator in my opinion is NH SST . It continues with negative SST fourth month in a row
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2010/trend
I meant to say SH SST is the key current indicator.
Looks like the sea ice extent measuring devices have had another glitch.
I created a chart using NOAA’s Monthly Global Land and Oceans data. There are seven linear regression plots that end with September 2009. That can be downloaded as a pdf file using the SendYourFiles link here:
http://syfsr.com/?e=EC7AAECE-035C-43A2-9F62-61D880A9D720
No, the point of the article and the ridiculous cherry picked date of 1880 was an attempt to refute the declining belief in AGW. However, this will fail because the reasons for this decline have nothing to do with statistics. It has to do with what people are seeing in their own back yards. It may not be scientific but it’s real and this article will do nothing to stop the decline.
The focus was not on the date of 1880. It showed how if you use the date of 1998, it shows an different trend than data from a period of over 100 years. Again… how many weathers are in a climate?
Did we read the same article? Because they weren’t concerned at all with a decrease in support for AWG, they were disproving the misinformation that the earth has actually been cooling.
“it may not be scientific, but its real”
sigh…. so in your mind the opinions of people and their backyards are more important and science and statistics?
That there is a cooling trend from 2002 for at least 3 data sets is a fact as you can see here
You can substitute 2008 for 2009 – still a negative (cooling) trend
…the warming on the scale of weather has slowed for the moment.
And what has caused that dan?
It is good of the AP to point out and insist that is global warming and not climate change.
Good work AP. I guess you didn’t get the memo.
So let me take a guess :
The earth is cooling.
Global warming isn’t happening.
The AP doesn’t want to print that.
So, they hired someone to say what they wanted to hear.
They printed that.
How do you write that article and not mention that the reason a lot of people prefer the satellite record is because it includes about 2/3rds of the planet that the surface temp records don’t?
I have three points to make.
1. We have reached the point where news agencies commission their own research so as to reinforce their political agenda. When did we abandon the old mission to report news, not make it? But I suppose we can expect more of this kind of thing as we come up to Senate hearings and Copenhagen.
2. The phrase, “The earth is still warming” is not a statement anyone can make since we cannot measure the rate of change of the earth’s temperature. I will lay odds that this statement was not in the statistics report. It is an AP overlay that distorts the actual finding.
3. This report changes nothing. The statistics have been worked pretty hard by some good people. We know that there has been no statistically significant warming since at least 1998 and perhaps 1995, depending on whose data set you use. If you extend the interval to before that time and run it out to the present, you will get warming. So, what we really know is that, “It warmed before it stopped warming.” The tired old mantra that “the last decade was the warmest since measurements began” is also nothing new and is nothing more than a reflection of persistence in the climate.
Let’s move on.
danappaloupe (16:17:13) :
“The focus was not on the date of 1880. It showed how if you use the date of 1998, it shows an different trend than data from a period of over 100 years. Again… how many weathers are in a climate?
Did we read the same article? Because they weren’t concerned at all with a decrease in support for AWG, they were disproving the misinformation that the earth has actually been cooling.
“it may not be scientific, but its real”
sigh…. so in your mind the opinions of people and their backyards are more important and science and statistics?”
Are you really this naive? I don’t care whether you believe in AGW or not, you should be able to understand what is going on. This is not science, it is propaganda and you should object just as much as anyone else. It only serves to make believers look desperate.
Look at the headline. That is the point of the article. Of course, they tried to use some science but that was secondary. They needed something to plaster all over the MSM. BUT … they screwed up when they used 1880. They needed something where they could say that warming was occurring. They could not get that out of the last 11 years for the same reason you can’t claim any cooling (statistically). So, they cherry picked the start date. That invalidates the entire report .
I can’t believe I have to explain something so obvious.
Just so we don’t miss the point, whether it’s warming or cooling, man-made CO2 is probably not the cause.
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
~~Mark Twain
David Ball (07:41:57) :
Gavin says “2010 may break a record”, and by golly, he’ll make sure that it does. The fox is in charge of the henhouse, ….
Can I have the link to this?
David Ball (07:41:57) :
I am meaning the full article.
Gary (09:42:22) :
Could you fill us in a little on Seth Borenstein’s political views?
FWIW, the data set used to make this pronouncement is not given as near as I can see. If they used GISS, then their statistics are built on a heaping steaming pile of poo. If they used GHCN, well, those folks have lost 90% of the USA thermometers
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/
AND the same amount in Canada.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ghcn-up-north-blame-canada-comrade/
Though, oddly enough, Canada is cooling despite that.
http://sites.google.com/site/elliesgraphs/canada-and-russia
Must be a “global” thing. Oh, and Argentina is in a gentle cooling trend too.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/argentina-cool-on-the-pampas/
(All this is based on the GHCN data, without the machinations of GIStemp).
So we have a severely damaged data set from thermometer deletions (GHCN) feeding into a broken software dream machine (GIStemp) on which someone is making statistics…
I think I’ll just look out the window at the cold, thank you…
Gene, (18:18:57)
I don’t really know his political views, but when I asked him why he felt it necessary to *make* news, and then report it, he answered that he was simply fact-checking against recent “internet memes” and that it was no different than Calvin Woodward (AP) fact-checking Obama’s misrepresentations about insurance company profits. What I found most interesting is that he said he got his data from Dr. Christy. I have not asked Dr. Christy to verify this, because I don’t really want to pester him with this, especially since the claim was only in email to me, and not in the article.
Says it’s his job to fact-check “false story”s published by skeptics.
danappalooupe (13:53:58) :
The earth is in a cooling trend.
Al Gore, Ban Ki Moon, JH (trains included), Mann et hockey stick, should preach to martians:
Warming on Mars and other planets
A global increase in temperature has also occurred on Mars. NASA researchers, after tracing changes on its surface from 1999 until 2005, discovered melting ice at Mars’ south pole and warming of the Martian climate, a natural event that occurred without any contribution by Martians or greenhouse effect driven by Martians. Analogous processes have also been observed on Jupiter, Neptune, Triton, Pluto and other planets of the solar system. These can only be the direct consequences of the action of one and the same factor – the prolonged and extraordinarily high level of the energy radiated by the Sun.
http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gao.spb.ru%2Fenglish%2Fastrometr%2Fabduss_nkj_2009.pdf
Gary (18:43:48) :
Well, he can fact check his own work.
danappalooupe (14:07:26) :
Check the data.
Gary (18:43:48) :
I don’t question that the data could have come from John Christy. He handles data from all over the world. But the data in question originated at NOAA and NASA.
James Hansen is the department head of GISS/NASA temperature data. James Hansen is a radical environmental activist. This can give the lucid appearance that NASA data is biased.
And I see that Seth Borenstein didn’t bring up James Hansen’s environmental activism. This is a ‘fact’ that he should have ‘checked’.
The ‘fact’ that Seth Borenstein didn’t mention anything about James Hansen’s radical environmental activism could lead one to believe that Seth Borenstein was biased in this column.
I absolutely agree with Smokey (06:06:36) : Warming or cooling is not the right question; in fact it is a red herring as used here by Borenstein. The real question is: is there any measurable “A” component in GW? Does AGW even exist?
However, I think there are three additional critical questions. (1) is GW on the whole bad? (2) If GW is bad, is there anything we (man–single “n”) can do about it? And (3) if GW is bad and we can do “something” about GW, is that “something” worse than the GW?
E.M. Smith:
I don’t know why nobody else is looking at your analysis of the 90% reduction of GHCN thermometers in the US. Has this been covered already by someone else? It seemed obvious to me that what you have uncovered would cause an automatic upward trend in temperatures recorded. Great work!
Adolfo Giurfa (18:47:36) :
NASA researchers, after tracing changes on its surface from 1999 until 2005, discovered melting ice at Mars’ south pole and warming of the Martian climate
From 1999 to 2005, solar activity was decreasing.
For the other planets, the changes are either urban legends or ordinary seasonal changes.
Adolfo Giurfa (18:47:36) :
NASA researchers, after tracing changes on its surface from 1999 until 2005, discovered melting ice at Mars’ south pole and warming of the Martian climate
since when has six years been ‘climate’?
Gene Nemetz, I am not certain what link you are asking me for. I took the quote from the end of the post. Sonicfrog nailed the reason for the AP piece. Damage control from the Mcyntire depth-charge. I’m certain that Gavin et al’s ears are still ringing. There isn’t enough iodine in the world to cleans that wound.
Leif Svalgaard (21:40:21) Just curious as to what aspect of solar activity you are referring to? Interesting that the sun has been shown to have influence beyond the orbit of the planets, even though neither of the Voyagers detected it during their sojourn through that area. Unexpected. Humbling to think about how little we know.
E. M. Smith, I took a quick look at the stuff you are doing, and I have to say…. WOW. Impressive. You must have a lot of time on your hands. You are a braver man than I Gunga Din!.
I suspect you’re going to get a lot more traffic in the very near future.
I recall reading some stuff from Nasa about changes in the Neptune atmosphere. http://seds.org/hst/NeptDS.html. Were Hammel and Lockwood incorrect? They have been measuring since 1980. Is that long enough to qualify as “climate”?
David Ball (22:18:18) :
Just curious as to what aspect of solar activity you are referring to?
All aspects of solar activity vary pretty much in concert so any will do, sunspot number or 10.7 radio flux, for example.
Interesting that the sun has been shown to have influence beyond the orbit of the planets
The solar wind flows to more than twice the orbit of Pluto, so no wonder there.
David Ball (22:31:43) :
They have been measuring since 1980. Is that long enough to qualify as “climate”?
No, the time since then corresponds to only a sixth of the Neptunian year. We wouldn’t call 2 months of Earth weather ‘climate’.
Richard (15:39:42): I’m not disagreeing with you; I’m just trying to figure out what happened with the IPCC in 1990-1995. I understood your point about what they said in 1990 which is exactly what I found interesting, but I’m not quite finished with it. Something happened from 1990 to 1995 to make them change their minds without getting rid of the earlier warming episodes, and I’m wondering what that “something” was.
When statistics experts look at the data and find anything that doesn’t agree with Algore and friends’ predictions, nobody should pay attention because they’re not climatologists.
But wait! The AP goes and chooses some non-climatologist statistics experts who happen to plot some trend lines on hand-picked data that *do* agree with Algore and friends – and we’re supposed to pay attention after all these years of the drumbeat that we should spurn anything said by any non-climatologist?
“when I asked him [Borenstein] why he felt it necessary to *make* news, and then report it, he answered that he was simply fact-checking against recent “internet memes””
The primary “meme” here on WUWT and CA has been that the globe has been cooling slightly for the past five years or so. Borenstein merely knocked down a strawman (a caricatured version of an opponent’s argument) by pointing out that the globe has not been cooling since 1880 and 1979. The fact that this obvious dissembling hasn’t been caught demonstrates the CAWGers lack of critical thought.
Richard
All four data sets still show negative trend from Jan 2001 to july 2009 [ 134 months]
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2010/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2010/trend/plot/wti/from:2001/to:2010/trend
EARLY TEMPERATURE RECORDS: I notice ALL the datasets talk as if the temperature records start in 1880 when at least here in Australia our Bureau of Meteorology’S records go back to the 1850’s and earlier. I have observed that the rural sites which have these early records have their highest temperatures in this period by a long shot, eg 2 degrees Celsius or more as compared with the last thirty years.
You can easily see that for example at the Cape Otway (Vic) Temperature Record 1864-2009 at:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_stn_num=090015 Click: Highlight data in table: Highest.
or the Wilsons Promontory Lighthouse record at:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_stn_num=085096 where you will notice that all the warmest monthly temperatures on record occurred in the 19th century.
You can find out the same thing for yourself by going to all our oldest sites: Goto: Weather Station Data:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/weather-data.shtml Long record
temperature sites, Open (in Microsoft Excel), Click top left box between 1
& A which will highlight all boxes, Choose: Data, Sort, Column F, OK which
will sort them from oldest to newest.
Find the station number you wish to check and type it into the space on this page: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/weather-data.shtml Be sure to sort for temperature. When you go to the next page Highligh: Highest to show the hottest months on record.
You can look at the NASA/GISS records for the ‘same’ sites by going to:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ typing in the Station Name at #2, hit return, be sure you have the right one by latitude and longitude (You can check it against the Bureau of Meterology’s record).
You will see that NASA/GISS are deliberately ignoring the oldest records in order to avoid this very much warmer period (than now) in the 19th century.
Obviously if the world has cooled as Australia has by 2 degrees Celsius as CO2 has risen over the last 150 years, we are in for an enormously colder period in the future as CO2 rises even further! Is CO2 heading us for the next ice age?
Dagfinn (23:52:56) : .. I’m just trying to figure out what happened with the IPCC in 1990-1995. I understood your point about what they said in 1990 which is exactly what I found interesting, but I’m not quite finished with it. Something happened from 1990 to 1995 to make them change their minds without getting rid of the earlier warming episodes, and I’m wondering what that “something” was.
Dagfinn, Dr Pielke Senior I think was involved in the infamous second 1995 report.
In the original version it was stated: ‘No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.’ And in the final version, the following text was inserted in its place: ‘The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate.’
Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute (Washington), wrote in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996: ‘[But] this [IPCC] report is not what it appears to be – it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.’
‘A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. … Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the scepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.’
According to Marcel Leroux, ‘Global Warming: Myth or Reality. The Erring Ways of Climatology’, the first report already contained the core ideas of what is known as ‘global warming’, but its tone was moderate and did not say that humans were responsible for it. The second report contributed nothing scientifically new, but suddenly and surprisingly, the human race is held responsible for global warming.
The previous warmings however still were a thorn in the AGWarmists side. Hence in 2001IPCC report the hockey stick ruled supreme.
The bottom line is AGW is founded on a lie.
AP = Associated Propaganda
Richard (05:05:59) : Thanks. Anyway, “suggests” is pretty weak, especially when you compare it to the “almost certainly” used in 1990 about the earlier warming episodes: “..A global warming of larger size has almost certainly occurred at least once since the end of the last glaciation without any appreciable increase in greenhouse gases”
It seems that the essential point is totally not understtod in this article. It is not if global temps are now cooling or warming. It is which contributors affect to temperatures and in which order.
Current temperatures bahaviour is exactly what is expected to happen if solar activity is the main contributor, followed by rapid cooling when oceans fully react. And in contrast, behaviour is far from predicted by AGW believers.
Yes, it is true that in the uppermost layer of the oceans, warming has apparently halted if the data is accurate. However, one cannot just look at that and declare a halt to warming. See my page at:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/modern_day_climate_change.html
There I show a variety of observations that do show recent warming. These include:
1) Arctic sea ice extent declining
2) Arctic sea ice thickness declining
3) Glacier mass balances declining
4) Glacier retreat increasing
5) von Shuckmann, Gaillard, and Le Traon (2009) show that the heat content of the upper 500 m of ocean are subject to strong seasonal and interannual variations. However, when considering the heat content of the upper 2000 m of ocean, global mean heat content and height changes are clearly associated with a positive trend during the 6 years of measurements between 2003 and 2008.
6) Murphy et al. (2009) examined the Earth’s energy balance since 1950 including ocean heat content, radiative forcing by long-lived trace gases, and radiative forcing from volcanic eruptions. They show that the heat gained since 1950 is already quite significant.
The best analogy I can come up with is to imagine climate change as a staircase. As one heads upward but then pauses on a flat step, it is foolish to declare that there is no increase in elevation and that one might ignore the previous upward climb to that step.
Sources:
von Schuckmann, K., F. Gaillard, and P.-Y. Le Traon (2009), Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003–2008, J. Geophys. Res., 114, C09007, doi:10.1029/2008JC005237.
Murphy, D. M., S. Solomon, R. W. Portmann, K. H. Rosenlof, P. M. Forster, and T. Wong (2009), An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D17107, doi:10.1029/2009JD012105.
Scott, you posted:
There I show a variety of observations that do show recent warming. These include:
1) Arctic sea ice extent declining
2) Arctic sea ice thickness declining
3) Glacier mass balances declining
4) Glacier retreat increasing
The problem with using these as indicators of man-made warming indicators, caused mainly by increases in CO2, is two fold. All the examples you provide have been losing ice mass since the 1750’s. And they do not prove that the warming has not stalled. If the average temp has been 34 degrees for the last seven years, then global warming has indeed halted. But since the average temp is above 32 degrees, the freezing point of water, then the ice is still going to melt.
Temps are determined by the thermometers, not by secondary indicators.
Scott, you posted:
“There I show a variety of observations that do show recent warming. These include:
1) Arctic sea ice extent declining
2) Arctic sea ice thickness declining”
Declining sea ice over the last 2 years is due to unusual winds. This is acknowledged by NASA.
“However, when considering the heat content of the upper 2000 m of ocean, global mean heat content and height changes are clearly associated with a positive trend during the 6 years of measurements between 2003 and 2008”
Funny one this. Just about everyone, including Hansen accepts that there has been no increase in OHC. This has been shown by Cazanave using Argo, GRACE and satellite altimetry. Roger Pielke has been thumping this message for some time – there has been no increase in OHC since 2003 and this is a problem.
http://climatesci.org/2009/01/07/sea-level-budget-over-2003%e2%80%932008-a-reevaluation-from-grace-space-gravimetry-satellite-altimetry-and-argo-by-cazenave-et-al-2008/
This link will explain everything, including Hansen’s prediction of radiative imbalance, the expect anomaly in joules, and a link to Cazanave’s paper.
Dagfinn (06:51:18) : Richard (05:05:59) : Thanks. Anyway, “suggests” is pretty weak, especially when you compare it to the “almost certainly” used in 1990 about the earlier warming episodes: “..A global warming of larger size has almost certainly occurred at least once since the end of the last glaciation without any appreciable increase in greenhouse gases”
It maybe weak but that’s not the point. The point is that the contributing scientists of the IPCC concluded in 1995 (as in 1990) that NO STUDY TO DATE HAS POSITIVELY ATTRIBUTED ALL OR PART [of the climate change observed to date] TO ANTHROPOGENIC [man-made] CAUSES
and this was changed by the working committee to The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate.
That is false. A lie. If scientifically NOTHING anthropogenic had been identified till date as having contributed to climate change, how could the balance of evidence “suggest” even, a discernable human influence on global climate?
The agenda of the IPCC was to prove the hypothesis. This they set about doing right from 1990, where the contributing scientists still had a say, to 1995 where the working committee stepped in to falsify the conclusions, to 2001 where the IPCC asked Professor Mann to review his own work.
Thus the IPCC progressed from NO anthropogenic influence – 1990, to a discernable human influence -1995, to likely – 2001, to very likely – Now. All based on a lie and biased and lying research where a small band of researchers “peer review” each others work and a small band of scientists decide what goes onto the final report.
Dr Plieke Senior “This small community of climate scientists is controlling the agenda with respect to the assessment of climate change. This is an oligarchy. ”
Professor Bob Carter lays out the inadequacies of the IPCC rather well here. And a fuller list of the criticisms here.
Correction a small band of politicians decide what goes into the final report
As someone pointed out above it matters not whether the Earth has continued to warm during these past 10 to 11 years (and it has not), but how much of that warming can be identified as due to man made CO2.
That is the point.
All the rest about the statistics is well known, well worn and irrelevant scoring of brownie points.
From Vincent (09:44:18) :
[I wrote:] “NO TREND IN COOLING. TRENDS IN WARMING over 130 years found WITH CERTAINTY.”
We know there has been a warming trend averaged over 130 years (climb out of the little ice age don’t you know). Such a statement is a bait and switch. It is the last 10 years under scrutiny.”
—-end Vincent pt. 1—–
Your obvious ignorance is on display here. (Not ad hominem, just a clear fact.) Anyone who has done a smidgen of legit research, on pro AGW and denier sites can see from the evidence that using ten years to disprove a 130-year trend is a distraction at best and a disinformation tactic at worst: a lie.
To lay it out: any ten year period within that 130 year period could be used to “disprove” such a long trend–but only to a sucker who cannot think and does not understand the scientific method. You don’t have one on the line here.
The general public, however, is full of them. That’s why Limbaugh, Hannity and the other deniers–who clearly care only for political agendas, not science–keep the disinformation flowing. Have you ever seen Limbaugh, Bush and other disinformers reveal their investments?
Do they ever use the term “full disclosure?” I don’t listen to tripe disinformation much–just enough to find out why so many know so little about something so important–so point me to a website or other legit source if you disagree.
This is why evidence is what scientists use to prove or disprove hypotheses–and relevant evidence is the key.
Use the scientific method to sort out the science. And please, stop recycling the lies. () If you consider yourself an adherent of science, why would you do that?
Unless you have….an agenda??
Here, check out the recycled denials: “Spot the recycled denial V – Prof Bob Carter”
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/12/spot-the-recycled-denial-v-%E2%80%93-prof-bob-carter/
“I focus primarily on the science content of the piece, except where non-science arguments are clearly false and demand correction.” –Barry Brook
—-continuing Vincent, pt. 2:—
So let’s not get our knicker’s in a twist over all this. Some say there has been a cooling, some say they can still detect a warming. An honest answer would be that It is difficult to say if there has been any warming or not in that period, but a lot does depend on your starting point. The Argo network shows no OHC warming since 2003, which is what a lot of scientists use as a metric for global warming. Either way, whether you use thermometers, radiosondes or satellites, the trend is starting to looking pretty flat these days.
The point of this article is to show that it is a pretty pathetic attempt by AP to try and politicse something like that. Our scientists have proved there is still warming, our scientists are better than yours, yah booh sucks.
Very childish in my opinion, and in reality, has no scientific relevance.”
——End Vincent——-
Asked why would AP be involved in submitting questions on global warming to statisticians. Huh? Duhhhh!
It’s a news organization! Do you know nothing about news agencies? The legit ones search for facts and truth. The non-legit–like Fox, with an agenda, and the continual laughingstock among news agencies–mix factual reporting with irrelevant, disinforming commentary based on personal ignorance, political and economic or financial agendas–and trust their audience is too stupid to tell the difference, or care. Sadly most of them are.
I STILL meet people who try to refute climate change with the “local weather is colder now” argument. Unbelievable stone dumbness.
It’s in the public interest, and newsworthy, to cover an investigation into claims about the veracity of anthropogenic global warming. It’s of GLOBAL IMPORTANCE. So why question AP’s interest???
Such buffoonery can’t fool educated people. I am a journalist, and I’ve studied and poked holes in gonzo journalism like what frequently passes for reporting at Fox (so-called) News. I know what can and should be done legitimately in journalism, and what is not legitimate. I understand how stats can be used to prove invalid, straw points and mislead in other ways.
Innocentious
You asked: “they simply hire an ‘independent’ contractor to tell them there is no cooling occurring. Why would a news organization have to hire someone when a 6th grade education could figure out by simply graphing the temperatures… ”
This so-called argument is just dumb. Because it demonstrates INDEPENDENT analysis, not analysis according to any potential AP bias, which may well exist. The independence also comes from the analysts not knowing what the data was about or came from. Hence their analysis is THAT MUCH MORE VALID and FREE OF BIAS.
Richard, of course it _is_ relevant who are the better scientists, because some use real data (e.g. RealClimate.org scientists) while others recycle claims without even thinking. If only all scientists used the scientific method…we wouldn’t have a false public debate on this issue.
It’s clear that there may be some small doubt that global warming is caused by humans. What’s more clear is that evidence is mounting that clears that doubt–at least in those who look at facts and data.
Could so many of you please rent a bullshit sniffer? And use it?
It looks like too many of you really don’t want to learn the facts, you just have a political agenda to push. Sad, the state of humanity.
It’s why truth-seekers like me keep on writing. Visit my site for the latest hot political, ecology and social justice updates at 2bestworld.blogspot.com
Also: “US forests hold new evidence of global warming”: http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/22/us-forests-hold-new-evidence-of-global-warming/
Here is a good article for those of you who think sea ice decline in the past two years was “due to winds.” Yes it was but what made these unusual weather conditions: Long-term warming and ice thinning called “preconditioning”.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034005.shtml
Scott Mandia,
I stopped reading your link after the words “A model study has been conducted…”.
Computer models. What can’t they predict?
Thinklife’s typical argumentum ad ignoratum as usual attacks ‘climate change’ [by which he means human-caused global warming], as if the climate has only started to change when SUVs were invented by human climate manipulators.
But what he deliberately omits is any kind of testable, replicable and verifiable evidence that the ebb and flow of the climate is anything but normal and natural. And evidence means raw data, not computer models; models are not evidence of anything except human programming. They are a tool, not evidence.
In fact, the exact same climate fluctuations we see today have been going on for many thousands of years. The planet is currently well within its normal historical parameters. There is nothing unusual or abnormal going on, except in the deluded minds of the the true believers in the repeatedly falsified AGW conjecture.
Skeptics are the sole reason we don’t still use witch doctors to treat illness. The scientific method — which is completely disregarded, and deliberately avoided by the alarmist crowd, is the only tested and true mechanism for scientific and technological progress.
The undeniable fact is that the purveyors of AGW avoid the scientific method like the plague — which tells skeptics all they need to know about the lack of veracity of those trying to sell their bogus story based on superstition, not science, that human activity is the cause of the completely natural oscillation of the climate. They lack the raw data to make their case for AGW, because there is no such data.
The day that the self-serving purveyors of the AGW superstition make all of their raw data and methodologies transparent and available to anyone interested, is the day their shot credibility starts to recover. Until then, they’re just grant seeking scam artists trying to sell a gullible public a pig in a poke. And skeptics aren’t buying it.
ThinkLife,
Your arguments are so ignorant as to be little more than bile and propaganda. You are yourself no better that Rush Limbaugh and any of the others you excoriate. I have come across trolls like you on fanatical warmists sites that have not a smidgen of scientific argument to support their case, and attempt to intimidate by name calling.
Take your ridiculous statement that I attempted to disprove that warming has occurred based on the last decade of non warming. I did nothing of the kind. I stated quite clearly that the climate has warmed as it rose out of the little ice age. The fact that the climate has not warmed since 1998 is something that has not been predicted by the models.
I posted on the lack of OHC warming since 2003 which is recoginised as the most robust metric of climate change. I think it’s pretty obvious why AP gave a series of temperatures to statisticians – they have a political agenda, as have Fox news and any of the other media streams. But of course, in your predjudiced mind, AP is a credible collater of news, absolutely beyond reproach, but Fox is the one with an agenda.
If you aren’t even aware of the lack of increase in OHC since 2003, lack of surface temperature warming since 1998, lack of mid tropical troposphere hotspot as predicted must exist by models, the fact that climate has been warmer in the medieval warm period, roman warm period and minoan warm period, then I suggest that it is you who are ignorant. If you are aware of them, then please lay out your explanation why carbon dioxide is the only cause of the warming. Otherwise, you are just one of Stalin’s little useful idiots.
It’s a news organization! Do you know nothing about news agencies?
Can’t speak for the others, but I can speak for myself. I graduated with a telecommunications degree, which included a hefty dose of mass media. I worked in the local TV market off and on for two years. My sister spent eight years in the “news” industry, and her husband, who currently works for the “Tacoma Tribune”, has been in the industry for eighteen. Now I will speak for Anthony. He’s forgotten more about mass media than I and my family have ever known. I think he’s worked in media since the stone age! **just kidding – it was there and I had ti take it! 🙂 ** If you ask, I would bet that one of the reasons he started this site is due to the poor coverage of the full context of global warming research in the media.
I think a lot of the pro-AGW set mistake some small warming for evidence that 3.0C per doubling global warming is correct.
“Some small warming” could indicate 0.5C or 1.0C or 1.5C per doubling is correct but it actually calls into question the 3.0C per doubling proposition.
Many people like Scott Mandia fail to see this albeit subtle distinction.
Dagfinn (10:02:12) wrote:
“ThinkLife: You’re right, it’s useful to read what RealClimate.org says about this. If you read their posts carefully, you’ll find that they’re backpedaling.”
How so?
Please elucidate and educate me with evidence, not just claims about “backpedaling.”
Which points exactly, and in what ways do they backpedal–and the significance of this scientifically?
Vincent (07:13:56) wrote:
“…the lack of OHC warming since 2003…is recoginised as the most robust metric of climate change.”
and:
“I think it’s pretty obvious why AP gave a series of temperatures to statisticians – they have a political agenda, as have Fox news and any of the other media streams. \”
Are you completely missing the point? The statisticians didn’t even know what kind of data they were looking at. They merely looked at trends in the numbers, so no bias could possibly exist for or against AGW global warming for this analysis.
The drive to reach predetermined conclusions, bypassing even rudimentary analysis by some of these posters, is shocking. It reveals a lack of ability to reach the most rudimentary logical conclusions, a fatal flaw–and one that someone with the flaw cannot possibly himself see–that dooms such so-called analyses.
Could this be called “the Palin Effect”? Is Africa a country??? Is she an expert in foreign policy because Alaska is nine miles from a Russian border??? Did she really think that would impress anyone intelligent??
This recalls a wonderful quote (which I may have paraphrased–no time to look up an authoritative source): “If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn’t.” – Emerson Pugh
Second, to what do you refer when you say “they”–AP or the statisticians?
I understand mistakes because of quick typing and failing to double-check your work…but aren’t these the kinds of careless mistakes anti-AGW scientists seem to typically make in their scientific efforts as well??? The kind of mistakes easily found and exposed by real climate scientists like those at RealClimate.org?
The failures in your effort to rebut my statements reveal fatal flaws that show how your own limitations may doom your goals.
What are your goals, anyhow? Is it scientific truth, or something else. Just asking, not assuming.
And, do you have financial ties to coal, oil and other polluting industries? Full disclosure, anyone?
My goals include:
-reveal and publicize scientific facts and truth
-expose corruption and lies by vested interests
-prevent pollution and its dangerous effects
-support ecological and economic sustainability
In what ways does anti-AGW skepticism support any of those? (If it’s real and careful science, I can see how it supports only the first goal.)
Regarding:
“…the fact that climate has been warmer in the medieval warm period, roman warm period and minoan warm period, then I suggest that it is you who are ignorant. If you are aware of them, then please lay out your explanation why carbon dioxide is the only cause of the warming.”
I don’t claim it is the only cause, only that human activity that generates many chemicals, including CO2, methane and other chemicals released during fossil fuel burning, have tipped the climate change toward unnaturally and dangerously hotter–as determined by real climate scientists.
Have you noticed that most icebergs are much smaller since photos taken in the early 1900s and even the 1960s? Just saw a great documentary on it on LinkTV, can’t recall the name of it at this late hour.
Rebutting your minoan/roman/middle ages warming argument, there is no dispute on those warming trends vs. today’s–only the causes of it. Check out: http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/03/ray-evans-nine-facts-about-climate.html and
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group
Regarding:
“…Otherwise, you are just one of Stalin’s little useful idiots.”
Ad hominem abusive, anyone? Note that I didn’t call anyone an idiot, merely that some techniques used in the arguments of some were idiotic, stupid, retarded, etc. (If I offended you, I’m sorry. Not intended. But if anyone makes scientific arguments, at least use peer-reviewed, double-checked science and data–not the recycled arguments of the ignorant and those with a political or financial agenda, which are automatically suspect for good reasons.)
Focus on actions, not the person. There IS a difference.
ThinkLife: I thought you’d never ask. 😉
Studying the rhetoric at RealClimate.org is not exact science. It’s somewhat open to interpretation. But this is how I read it.
In November 2008, they said, “The misconception ‘the global warming has stopped’ still lives on in some minds.” (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mind-the-gap/)
In October 2009, they said, “It is highly questionable whether this “pause” is even real.” (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/)
So in less than a year, they went from “misconception” to “questionable”. It’s no clear logical contradiction, since “stop” and “pause” are not synonymous. But the spin seems different.
There’s not much scientific significance. It’s presumably a tactical change in rhetoric. They must realize that if temperatures don’t start rising in a few years, they will need to be seen as not having vehemently denied a trend that turned out to be real. They may have to move from “there’s no pause” to “the pause is only temporary”.