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.
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?