Finally some recognition of all the anecdotal weather we’ve been talking about here – Anthony
World Meteorological Organization
Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:15am IST
LONDON (Reuters) – The first half of 2008 was the coolest for at least five years, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said on Wednesday.
The whole year will almost certainly be cooler than recent years, although temperatures remain above the historical average.
Global temperatures vary annually according to natural cycles. For example, they are driven by shifting ocean currents, and dips do not undermine the case that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are causing long-term global warming, climate scientists say.
Chillier weather this year is partly because of a global weather pattern called La Nina that follows a periodic warming effect called El Nino.
“We can expect with high probability this year will be cooler than the previous five years,” said Omar Baddour, responsible for climate data and monitoring at the WMO.
“Definitely the La Nina should have had an effect, how much we cannot say.”
“Up to July 2008, this year has been cooler than the previous five years at least. It still looks like it’s warmer than average,” added Baddour.
The global mean temperature to end-July was 0.28 degrees Celsius above the 1961-1990 average, the UK-based MetOffice Hadley Centre for climate change research said on Wednesday. That would make the first half of 2008 the coolest since 2000.
“Of course at the beginning of the year there was La Nina, and that would have had the effect of suppressing temperatures somewhat as well,” Met Office meteorologist John Hammond said.
Joel, Yes. I am glad you said that !!
Regarding Beck, et al:
As Dr. Beck has conclusively shown, CO2 levels have routinely exceeded 400 ppmv prior to the Industrial Revolution: click
As we can see, those CO2 measurements were taken in the middle of the ocean. The accuracy of those CO2 measurements, when compared with current CO2 measurements, is within +/- 9 ppmv. [Keep in mind that we are talking about a range of CO2 concentration up to 450 ppmv.]
Other CO2 measurements taken in southern Sweden in the early 1900’s showed CO2 levels of around 400 ppmv — easily exceeding today’s CO2 levels.
More CO2 measurements, taken on the Baltic sea, also showed levels exceeding 400 ppmv, which were significantly higher than current levels.
The Alarmist contingent is desperately trying to discredit Beck’s thoroughly reviewed history of CO2 measurements, which have been shown to be extremely accurate.
Why?
Because Beck shows that high CO2 concentrations have little or nothing to do with human activity. That is another big nail in the repeatedly falsified AGW/CO2/climate catastrophe hypothesis.
Come on Smokey, try to be reasonable, please. Joel is absolutely correct – that was a silly work. It is like measuring CO2 at the old busy train stations when they were using coal.
Hi Steven,
You wrote, “I am a little but puzzled by the way you seem to denigrate Hansen (for example) but assert the significance of Spencer in advance of publication.”
This is a convoluted sentence, Steven. I do not “assert the significance of Spencer in advance of publication”. I just pointed out that his physical observations demonstrate a strong negative feedback from clouds, and that this seems to validate a hypothesis postulated earlier by Lindzen. You apparently have a hard time accepting this, because it does not validate your own belief system that clouds should cause a positive feedback with higher temperatures.
As for Hansen: at one point in the past, he was still an objective scientist, but something happened. As his recent testimony before the US Congress as well as the never-ending disaster blurbs he sends out continuously show, he has become an alarmist and a political activist rather than an objective scientist.
Regards,
Max
Note to John McLondon
To simply write off Beck’s findings on historic atmospheric CO2 concentrations is foolish, John.
Just as it is foolish to assume that we know everything about what causes atmospheric CO2 concentrations to rise or fall, and to assume that this is all a function of human fossil fuel consumption.
I’m sure you know how to write ASS-U-ME.
Regards,
Max
Message to John McLondon
You wrote: “I do not really see a cooling, the five year average is still going up.”
Forget the “five year average”, just look at the data as they are published. All records show a cooling since 2001 (average is -0.08C per decade, satellite records show -0.13C per decade).
If you are unable to see this, I would recommend you go to your optometrist and get your glasses checked.
Regards,
Max
Beck’s work is truly remarkable – quite extraordinary, in fact. I hope that those who doubt the AGW story will do their very, very best to put it at the forefront of their arguments.
John McLondon:
In my post above I had deliberately used Beck’s CO2 measurements only from isolated locations such as a ship, taken during a scientific cruise crossing the South Atlantic ocean [see the description at the bottom of the page], and CO2 measurements over a seven year period taken from a sparsely populated island off southern of Sweden on the desolate Baltic coast, far away from any large town [see the picture of the location]; and CO2 measurements taken from the even more windy and desolate Ayrshire coast of Scotland.
Those CO2 measurements are comparable to the current temperature measurements taken using a properly set up Stevenson screen in a rural location. They have been replicated and compared with current CO2 measurement techniques. No one has credibly falsified their accuracy [argued about some details, which were routinely answered by Beck? Yes. Falsified? No].
For you to now claim that “…that was a silly work. It is like measuring CO2 at the old busy train stations when they were using coal,” displays either gross ignorance, or deliberate mendacity. In your case I suspect the former, after reading your worried response to the fantastic article that claimed the Earth might be running out of oxygen.
Mindlessly disparaging Albert Einstein’s contemporaries as ‘silly’ in their almost anal-retentive methodology — which has been recorded, replicated and verified — is the lamest and most desperate of arguments. Would you similarly disparage the results of the Michelson/Morley experiments in the 1800’s measuring of the speed of light, or those of Illingworth, who refined their accuracy to within .06 percent? Eighteenth century scientists were certainly more meticulous, and kept better and more detailed records, than the purveyors of the Hockey Stick, GISS, and the UN/IPCC — who still refuse to adequately archive their taxpayer-funded methodology to the public. Tell us, please: what are they hiding?
I really recommend that you study Dr. Beck’s methods with an open mind, if you can. Beck’s work is thorough and meticulous. It compares with modern measurements to within 3% [+/- 9 ppmv}, and it clearly shows that atmospheric CO2 levels have routinely exceeded 400 ppmv in the nineteenth century [and also during WWII, which is to be expected]. Naturally, the True Believers in AGW catastrophe can not abide credible information like this.
Making ad hominem attacks against the 19th century scientists who were extremely exacting in their measurements, and who did it out of scientific curiosity rather than for easy grant money, and who were known and judged by their peers, displays the closed mind typical of the AGW/CO2/climate catastrophe purveyors — whose defining trait is to promptly disparage any individual, or any scientific group, that doesn’t toe their AGW line. I had hoped you were better than that.
…it clearly shows that atmospheric CO2 levels have routinely exceeded 400 ppmv in the nineteenth century
Not only that, Smokey, but Beck’s work also clearly shows, from the 64,000 observations taken at the edge of the city of Bremen during an eighteen month period, that CO2 concentrations vary from month to month in excess of 100ppm! – a truly remarkable realisation, showing that our understanding of the atmosphere has been completely wrong. He is an extraordinary scientist who has, by the addition of a mere 6,000 observations from elsewhere, been able to demonstrate that this enormous and hitherto unrealised flux in CO2 has been a worldwide phenomenon over the centuries, at a scale and pace of variation which only came to an end in 1958, by curious coincidence at exactly the same time that Keeling started recording CO2 at Mauna Loa.
A little know fact, and one that offers obvious confirmation of Beck’s work, is that Keeling also found that the CO2 measurements he was taking before establishing his base at Mauna Loa showed a range of concentrations and rate of change from one month to another that would have confirmed Beck’s findings. Keeling had tried various locations for CO2 with the same extraordinary results, and it was only entirely by chance that the CO2 concentration established a steady monotonic rise once he started at Mauna Loa. Keeling’s earlier results have doubtless been suppressed by climate catastrophe purveyors, but now that Beck has demonstrated what he has the truth must come out. I urge you strongly to publicise this work as widely as possible.
Max,
Let us address issues one by one.
“If you are unable to see this, I would recommend you go to your optometrist and get your glasses checked.”
My eyes are just fine. Thanks.
“To simply write off Beck’s findings on historic atmospheric CO2 concentrations is foolish”
It is not that simple. I have gone through that manuscript many times, then only I came to my conclusion. I believe I had the manuscript almost six months before it was published. To summarize that work, quality control (which is one of the key requirements stressed in this very website) is almost non-existent and the methodologies could use lots of improvements. It is published in a journal that does not have any reputation. What makes me unhappy about some of the AGW skeptics is not about whether CO2 cause temperature rise, this is a scientific issue which we can discuss; but it is rather their approach where they generally dismiss mountains of published work in respected journals and openly talk about their disdain to the peer review process, and then they will tell us that Beck’s and Scott Armstrong’s work (telling that unless we use his marketing forecasting techniques in scientific predictions, the results are meaningless) published in Energy and Environment are so monumental that they changed (or will change) the course of climate science. Scott Armstrong’s paper is one of those papers, I believe, available way before its publication. At least Spencer’s work is in far better journals, but his claims are much more reasonable in his papers. But the specific papers you are using are not out yet, and he went Congress to influence policies based on a work that has not been scrutinized yet, and it seems to me that you are essentially taking his views without waiting for what other scientists have to say about it when you wrote “I just pointed out that his physical observations demonstrate a strong negative feedback from clouds, and that this seems to validate a hypothesis postulated earlier by Lindzen.” I think if we simply believed what Spencer and his group said when they came up with his first satellite observations years ago, we would have been in real trouble. In fact I believe Lindzen used those early satellite data and Spencer’s interpretation to claim atmospheric cooling for a while (even before 2001). It took years for scientists to find out the errors and to propose appropriate corrections, to get accurate interpretation, and the cooling went away.
“Just as it is foolish to assume that we know everything about what causes atmospheric CO2 concentrations to rise or fall, and to assume that this is all a function of human fossil fuel consumption.”
I do not assume that we know everything about anything (in general, I take Marvin Minsky’s position here). But the overwhelming scientific opinion about the recent rise in CO2 is clear, it is from fossil fuel.
“I’m sure you know how to write ASS-U-ME.”
?!!
“Forget the “five year average”, just look at the data as they are published. All records show a cooling since 2001 (average is -0.08C per decade, satellite records show -0.13C per decade).”
In such slowly developing processes, patterns will emerge only slowly, and although each component of the process may be deterministic, the interaction between them can make such systems highly complex, and to some degree, stochastic. That is why a long term average is necessary to understand the trend. There is nothing magical about the year 2001, and AGW does not say, year by year temperature must go up. As I wrote earlier, application of a simple controls theory will tell us that, not a monotonic increase but an oscillatory increase with long term regression pointing upward movement.
Smokey,
“Mindlessly disparaging Albert Einstein’s contemporaries as ’silly’ in their almost anal-retentive methodology..”
I did not disagree with Einstein, I only said that Beck’s work is silly.
manacker (00:05:19) in a note to John McLondon
“I’m sure you know how to write ASS-U-ME.”
I’ve never had a reason to write that, I’ve found I can debate people without resorting to sophomoric misspellings.
Steven Talbot says: “Beck’s work is truly remarkable – quite extraordinary, in fact. I hope that those who doubt the AGW story will do their very, very best to put it at the forefront of their arguments.”
I’ll second that…I think it is especially important to do this when you skeptical folks submit comments to places like CCSP. I can pretty much guarantee that the more you mention the work of Beck, the more likely that your comments will be given the weight that I believe that they deserve.
REPLY: I’ll agree. Personally I don’t put much stock in Beck’s work, because like the variability of the temperature measurement environment at surface stations, the variability of the environment in the chemical analysis methods also is questionable. Many of the CO2 measurements were taken in or near cities. We all know what cities do to temperature measurement, and given they are CO2 islands as well as heat islands, they should not be the primary place for globally representative measurements. – Anthony
Ric Werme (10:04:44) :
“I’ve never had a reason to write that, I’ve found I can debate people without resorting to sophomoric misspellings.”
Thanks Ric….
Strange!!
John
Note to John McLondon
Yes. I have gone through Beck’s study in detail, as well. It shows a lot of localized variances in a supposedly “well-mixed greenhouse gas”, and I agree with Anthony that we should not place too much emphasis on this study. It reflects some of the problems that can arise when you are taking measurements next to urban areas (as Anthony has documented well with surface temperatures).
As far as 5-year averages versus actual measurements. Each has its place I am sure. But if I want to know what is going on today, I’ll check the actual measurement rather than a 5-year average. I have seen “averaging” used too many times (outside climate studies) to ignore or gloss over a recent downturn.
The record shows that global average temperature at both the surface and the troposphere is cooling since 2001. Will it continue to do so? You do not know the answer to this question any more than I do. IPCC does not know the answer to this question either.
One thing appears certain. The IPCC prediction of 0.2C warming per decade in the early 21st century appears to have been off the mark. But even there, who knows what will happen?
Regards,
Max
John McLondon says…
‘Overwhelming scientific opinion’? John, please, we’re talking about planet Earth here, not a galaxy far, far away. Despite your undoubted true belief that the Earth’s five year [temperature] average ‘is still going up’, the official record contradicts you: click
Note that even NASA/GISS is forced to admit to global cooling. In total, at least five primary sources show continuous global cooling since 2002.
George Orwell would probably add to your statement that the planet’s five year average temperature ‘is still going up’: “…and black is white, up is down, evil is good, and wrong is right.”
I should know better than to make sense to the true believers whose minds are closed tight, impervious to reason, and which no physical fact could possibly change. So OK, John, just to make you happy, I hereby agree with you:
– That the planet is coming to a boil, and every day we’re closer to Al Gore’s and James Hansen’s ten year deadline leading to irreversible climate catastrophe [first put forth in 1988];
– That nothing happening to the climate is natural, and it’s all the fault of humans, especially those evil, ignorant Americans;
– That with enough money, climate change can be stopped;
– That all the ice at the poles is melting, and we’ll be able to kayak across the North Pole later on this year;
– That the planet is running out of oxygen;
– That the endless ad hominem attacks, present in every post by the climate alarmist crowd, are an acceptable substitute for actual science, and that these attacks legitimately take the place of your own [nonexistent] publications;
– That peer review is always legitimate when issued by the mutual back-scratching climate clique identified in the Wegman Report;
– That the many refereed and peer-reviewed skeptics’ papers falsifying the AGW/climate catastrophe hypothesis can never be legitimate, and that the endless nitpicking and ad hominem attacks by alarmist commenters here somehow discredits those papers, which have otherwise withstood falsification;
– That it is completely acceptable to deliberately hide the methodologies used to invent Michael Mann’s discredited ‘hockey stick’, even though public taxes paid for that information;
– That while climate skeptic sites routinely allow both sides to provide their input, pro and con, it is perfectly acceptable for Alarmist sites to delete any inconvenient posts that contradict their AGW orthodoxy, without any explanation;
– That it is acceptable for an apparent street vagabond at the head of the U.S. taxpayer subsidized UN/IPCC to hurl unprofessional ad hominem insults against scientists and others who disagree with him, calling them “flat earthers”;
– That the inconvenient fact that rises in CO2 follow rises in planetary temperatures is never to be acknowledged, because AGW orthodoxy requires the true belief that most, if not all, increases in CO2 are the fault of evil humans [but never the Chinese, Indians or Rusiians], and not due to ocean outgassing, and that increases in CO2 will certainly result in catastrophic runaway global warming;
– That there was no rise in CO2 during WWII, because the ‘silly’ Dr. Beck could not possibly be right;
– That the Greenland ice sheet is very close to melting;
– That the Sun has nothing significant to do with the climate, nor with the planet’s temperature, and neither do the oceans. Climate change is all due to human CO2 emissions;
– That other planets and moons in the Solar System have not heated up due to increased solar irradiance in the 1990’s;
– That plants do not benefit from any increase in CO2;
– That the current climate is not well within normal historical parameters;
– That the sea level is rising dangerously, and atolls like Vanuatu and Tarawa will soon be under water, if they aren’t already;
– That computer models, although always inaccurate regarding the climate, must somehow be correct;
– That there was never any Medieval Warming Period, and even if there was [not that we’re admitting it], temperatures could not possibly have been higher than they are now;
– That ‘the science is settled’ regarding the AGW/CO2/catastrophic global warming hypothesis, therefore, there should never be any neutral, moderated, public debates between climate alarmists and skeptics;
– That the Surface Station network is more accurate, and superior to satellites for determining global temperatures, and that the UHI effect is a mirage.
There are many other alarmist positions like these that I, a new alarmist convert, now subscribe to. You have convinced me, John McLondon, that these positions, which you have convinced yourself are either somewhat or completely true, must reflect reality.
So we have nothing to argue about now. We’re on the same page!
Global climate catastrophe, here we come!!
One thing appears certain. The IPCC prediction of 0.2C warming per decade in the early 21st century appears to have been off the mark.
We’re not even through 2008 yet! I suggest we wait and see what the next El Nino brings. And also, of course, if you are right that solar will diminish then we will have an ideal opportunity to judge whether or not solar is the smoking gun. If solar forcing diminishes but temperatures trend upwards, I trust you will be having a radical rethink? (By the same token, if the next El Nino does not coincide with a rising trend then I will be rethinking).
I have to acknowledge that I was wrong about one thing above: not all AGW believers engage in ad hominem attacks. Steven Talbot has been a gentleman, and sticks to the point, leaving personalities out of the discussion. That is a scarce trait, and admirable.
And in fact I agree with him. If the planet heats up [by that I mean, exceeds its previous peak, including the entirely natural MWP], I will certainly reassess my skepticism. Time will tell.
Oh my …. Smokey……
You have captured almost all the key issues!! I really enjoyed reading it!
But I think you have the wrong impression about AGW believers. I am innocent, if you look back when I first mentioned Ernst Beck I did not comment anything about his work, Joel said something about it possibly to help skeptics when they comment on CCSP. Of course, it appears you liked Steven’s comments. But none of what was said is an ad hominem attack, we only criticized the work for various reasons. We did not say that the work is bad because Beck did it, or it is bad because Beck is a skeptic.
By the way, the five year average is not the one for which you had a link.
Hi Steven.
“One thing appears certain. The IPCC prediction of 0.2C warming per decade in the early 21st century appears to have been off the mark.”
“We’re not even through 2008 yet! I suggest we wait and see what the next El Nino brings. “
You’re right, Steven. That’s why I added, “But even there, who knows what will happen?”
Regards,
Max
Max, “..I agree with Anthony that we should not place too much emphasis on this study.”
Great. Had you said that instead of “To simply write off Beck’s findings on historic atmospheric CO2 concentrations is foolish, John”, we wouldn’t have this lengthy discussion.
On the trends, if the temperature is still down for another 10 years or so, I am sure I and many others will start wondering about AGW. Time will tell. I agree that for calculation of budgets and profits, probably five year average is not a good way to go, certainly if the objective is to address a shortfall. But to understand the influence of a gradually varying parameter on budgets (like the influence of population), a multi-year average is more realistic.
In any case, we will wait and see whether Spencer has something interesting to say, and whether IPCC is correct on their predictions.
John McLondon (09:07:09)
‘As I wrote earlier, application of a simple controls theory will tell us that, not a monotonic increase but an oscillatory increase with long term regression pointing upward movement.’
Ok. What are the controls in the controls theory and how well do they match observed data?
Since the earth is not warming then there are three possibilities that could mask global warming from CO2:
1. the additional heat is being stored somewhere in the earth/atmosphere.
2. the earth/atmosphere’s albedo has temporarily increased.
3. received solar radiation has temporarily
decreased.
If these three reasons can be disproved , then AGW is disproved too?
Joel said:
Try
this
Doesn’t look very flat to me.
Oh, and further to my previous post, this is temperature at the same level.