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.
“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.