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.
David Ball (07:41:57) :
I am meaning the full article.
Gary (09:42:22) :
Could you fill us in a little on Seth Borenstein’s political views?
FWIW, the data set used to make this pronouncement is not given as near as I can see. If they used GISS, then their statistics are built on a heaping steaming pile of poo. If they used GHCN, well, those folks have lost 90% of the USA thermometers
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/
AND the same amount in Canada.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ghcn-up-north-blame-canada-comrade/
Though, oddly enough, Canada is cooling despite that.
http://sites.google.com/site/elliesgraphs/canada-and-russia
Must be a “global” thing. Oh, and Argentina is in a gentle cooling trend too.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/argentina-cool-on-the-pampas/
(All this is based on the GHCN data, without the machinations of GIStemp).
So we have a severely damaged data set from thermometer deletions (GHCN) feeding into a broken software dream machine (GIStemp) on which someone is making statistics…
I think I’ll just look out the window at the cold, thank you…
Gene, (18:18:57)
I don’t really know his political views, but when I asked him why he felt it necessary to *make* news, and then report it, he answered that he was simply fact-checking against recent “internet memes” and that it was no different than Calvin Woodward (AP) fact-checking Obama’s misrepresentations about insurance company profits. What I found most interesting is that he said he got his data from Dr. Christy. I have not asked Dr. Christy to verify this, because I don’t really want to pester him with this, especially since the claim was only in email to me, and not in the article.
Says it’s his job to fact-check “false story”s published by skeptics.
danappalooupe (13:53:58) :
The earth is in a cooling trend.
Al Gore, Ban Ki Moon, JH (trains included), Mann et hockey stick, should preach to martians:
Warming on Mars and other planets
A global increase in temperature has also occurred on Mars. NASA researchers, after tracing changes on its surface from 1999 until 2005, discovered melting ice at Mars’ south pole and warming of the Martian climate, a natural event that occurred without any contribution by Martians or greenhouse effect driven by Martians. Analogous processes have also been observed on Jupiter, Neptune, Triton, Pluto and other planets of the solar system. These can only be the direct consequences of the action of one and the same factor – the prolonged and extraordinarily high level of the energy radiated by the Sun.
http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gao.spb.ru%2Fenglish%2Fastrometr%2Fabduss_nkj_2009.pdf
Gary (18:43:48) :
Well, he can fact check his own work.
danappalooupe (14:07:26) :
Check the data.
Gary (18:43:48) :
I don’t question that the data could have come from John Christy. He handles data from all over the world. But the data in question originated at NOAA and NASA.
James Hansen is the department head of GISS/NASA temperature data. James Hansen is a radical environmental activist. This can give the lucid appearance that NASA data is biased.
And I see that Seth Borenstein didn’t bring up James Hansen’s environmental activism. This is a ‘fact’ that he should have ‘checked’.
The ‘fact’ that Seth Borenstein didn’t mention anything about James Hansen’s radical environmental activism could lead one to believe that Seth Borenstein was biased in this column.
I absolutely agree with Smokey (06:06:36) : 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?
However, I think there are three additional critical questions. (1) is GW on the whole bad? (2) If GW is bad, is there anything we (man–single “n”) can do about it? And (3) if GW is bad and we can do “something” about GW, is that “something” worse than the GW?
E.M. Smith:
I don’t know why nobody else is looking at your analysis of the 90% reduction of GHCN thermometers in the US. Has this been covered already by someone else? It seemed obvious to me that what you have uncovered would cause an automatic upward trend in temperatures recorded. Great work!
Adolfo Giurfa (18:47:36) :
NASA researchers, after tracing changes on its surface from 1999 until 2005, discovered melting ice at Mars’ south pole and warming of the Martian climate
From 1999 to 2005, solar activity was decreasing.
For the other planets, the changes are either urban legends or ordinary seasonal changes.
Adolfo Giurfa (18:47:36) :
NASA researchers, after tracing changes on its surface from 1999 until 2005, discovered melting ice at Mars’ south pole and warming of the Martian climate
since when has six years been ‘climate’?
Gene Nemetz, I am not certain what link you are asking me for. I took the quote from the end of the post. Sonicfrog nailed the reason for the AP piece. Damage control from the Mcyntire depth-charge. I’m certain that Gavin et al’s ears are still ringing. There isn’t enough iodine in the world to cleans that wound.
Leif Svalgaard (21:40:21) Just curious as to what aspect of solar activity you are referring to? Interesting that the sun has been shown to have influence beyond the orbit of the planets, even though neither of the Voyagers detected it during their sojourn through that area. Unexpected. Humbling to think about how little we know.
E. M. Smith, I took a quick look at the stuff you are doing, and I have to say…. WOW. Impressive. You must have a lot of time on your hands. You are a braver man than I Gunga Din!.
I suspect you’re going to get a lot more traffic in the very near future.
I recall reading some stuff from Nasa about changes in the Neptune atmosphere. http://seds.org/hst/NeptDS.html. Were Hammel and Lockwood incorrect? They have been measuring since 1980. Is that long enough to qualify as “climate”?
David Ball (22:18:18) :
Just curious as to what aspect of solar activity you are referring to?
All aspects of solar activity vary pretty much in concert so any will do, sunspot number or 10.7 radio flux, for example.
Interesting that the sun has been shown to have influence beyond the orbit of the planets
The solar wind flows to more than twice the orbit of Pluto, so no wonder there.
David Ball (22:31:43) :
They have been measuring since 1980. Is that long enough to qualify as “climate”?
No, the time since then corresponds to only a sixth of the Neptunian year. We wouldn’t call 2 months of Earth weather ‘climate’.
Richard (15:39:42): I’m not disagreeing with you; I’m just trying to figure out what happened with the IPCC in 1990-1995. I understood your point about what they said in 1990 which is exactly what I found interesting, but I’m not quite finished with it. Something happened from 1990 to 1995 to make them change their minds without getting rid of the earlier warming episodes, and I’m wondering what that “something” was.
When statistics experts look at the data and find anything that doesn’t agree with Algore and friends’ predictions, nobody should pay attention because they’re not climatologists.
But wait! The AP goes and chooses some non-climatologist statistics experts who happen to plot some trend lines on hand-picked data that *do* agree with Algore and friends – and we’re supposed to pay attention after all these years of the drumbeat that we should spurn anything said by any non-climatologist?
“when I asked him [Borenstein] why he felt it necessary to *make* news, and then report it, he answered that he was simply fact-checking against recent “internet memes””
The primary “meme” here on WUWT and CA has been that the globe has been cooling slightly for the past five years or so. Borenstein merely knocked down a strawman (a caricatured version of an opponent’s argument) by pointing out that the globe has not been cooling since 1880 and 1979. The fact that this obvious dissembling hasn’t been caught demonstrates the CAWGers lack of critical thought.
Richard
All four data sets still show negative trend from Jan 2001 to july 2009 [ 134 months]
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2010/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2010/trend/plot/wti/from:2001/to:2010/trend
EARLY TEMPERATURE RECORDS: I notice ALL the datasets talk as if the temperature records start in 1880 when at least here in Australia our Bureau of Meteorology’S records go back to the 1850’s and earlier. I have observed that the rural sites which have these early records have their highest temperatures in this period by a long shot, eg 2 degrees Celsius or more as compared with the last thirty years.
You can easily see that for example at the Cape Otway (Vic) Temperature Record 1864-2009 at:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_stn_num=090015 Click: Highlight data in table: Highest.
or the Wilsons Promontory Lighthouse record at:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_stn_num=085096 where you will notice that all the warmest monthly temperatures on record occurred in the 19th century.
You can find out the same thing for yourself by going to all our oldest sites: Goto: Weather Station Data:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/weather-data.shtml Long record
temperature sites, Open (in Microsoft Excel), Click top left box between 1
& A which will highlight all boxes, Choose: Data, Sort, Column F, OK which
will sort them from oldest to newest.
Find the station number you wish to check and type it into the space on this page: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/weather-data.shtml Be sure to sort for temperature. When you go to the next page Highligh: Highest to show the hottest months on record.
You can look at the NASA/GISS records for the ‘same’ sites by going to:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ typing in the Station Name at #2, hit return, be sure you have the right one by latitude and longitude (You can check it against the Bureau of Meterology’s record).
You will see that NASA/GISS are deliberately ignoring the oldest records in order to avoid this very much warmer period (than now) in the 19th century.
Obviously if the world has cooled as Australia has by 2 degrees Celsius as CO2 has risen over the last 150 years, we are in for an enormously colder period in the future as CO2 rises even further! Is CO2 heading us for the next ice age?
Dagfinn (23:52:56) : .. I’m just trying to figure out what happened with the IPCC in 1990-1995. I understood your point about what they said in 1990 which is exactly what I found interesting, but I’m not quite finished with it. Something happened from 1990 to 1995 to make them change their minds without getting rid of the earlier warming episodes, and I’m wondering what that “something” was.
Dagfinn, Dr Pielke Senior I think was involved in the infamous second 1995 report.
In the original version it was stated: ‘No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.’ And in the final version, the following text was inserted in its place: ‘The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate.’
Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute (Washington), wrote in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996: ‘[But] this [IPCC] report is not what it appears to be – it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.’
‘A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. … Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the scepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.’
According to Marcel Leroux, ‘Global Warming: Myth or Reality. The Erring Ways of Climatology’, the first report already contained the core ideas of what is known as ‘global warming’, but its tone was moderate and did not say that humans were responsible for it. The second report contributed nothing scientifically new, but suddenly and surprisingly, the human race is held responsible for global warming.
The previous warmings however still were a thorn in the AGWarmists side. Hence in 2001IPCC report the hockey stick ruled supreme.
The bottom line is AGW is founded on a lie.