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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@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.
@ur momisugly 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?