Pielke Senior on the Borenstein AP statistics article

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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
193 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
LarryOldtimer
October 27, 2009 1:13 pm

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?

Indiana Bones
October 27, 2009 1:48 pm

AP means “Ancient Pundits,” and has for millennia.

October 27, 2009 1:50 pm

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.

danappalooupe
October 27, 2009 1:53 pm

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

Frank Kotler
October 27, 2009 1:54 pm

ThinkLife sounds a lot like Foamin’ Joe. And that’s a scientific fact!
Best,
Frank

October 27, 2009 1:54 pm

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

danappalooupe
October 27, 2009 2:07 pm

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.

Richard M
October 27, 2009 2:28 pm

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.

October 27, 2009 2:36 pm

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]

Richard
October 27, 2009 3:39 pm

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.

matt v.
October 27, 2009 3:52 pm

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

matt v.
October 27, 2009 3:54 pm

I meant to say SH SST is the key current indicator.

October 27, 2009 4:04 pm

Looks like the sea ice extent measuring devices have had another glitch.

Bruce Richardson
October 27, 2009 4:06 pm

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

danappaloupe
October 27, 2009 4:17 pm

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?

Richard
October 27, 2009 4:21 pm

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

October 27, 2009 4:31 pm

…the warming on the scale of weather has slowed for the moment.
And what has caused that dan?

Gene Nemetz
October 27, 2009 4:44 pm

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.

Gene Nemetz
October 27, 2009 4:49 pm

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.

geo
October 27, 2009 5:06 pm

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?

Noblesse Oblige
October 27, 2009 5:09 pm

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.

Richard M
October 27, 2009 5:50 pm

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.

October 27, 2009 6:03 pm

Just so we don’t miss the point, whether it’s warming or cooling, man-made CO2 is probably not the cause.

Gene Nemetz
October 27, 2009 6:04 pm

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
~~Mark Twain

Gene Nemetz
October 27, 2009 6:13 pm

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?