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.
AP = Associated Propaganda
Richard (05:05:59) : Thanks. Anyway, “suggests” is pretty weak, especially when you compare it to the “almost certainly” used in 1990 about the earlier warming episodes: “..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”
It seems that the essential point is totally not understtod in this article. It is not if global temps are now cooling or warming. It is which contributors affect to temperatures and in which order.
Current temperatures bahaviour is exactly what is expected to happen if solar activity is the main contributor, followed by rapid cooling when oceans fully react. And in contrast, behaviour is far from predicted by AGW believers.
Yes, it is true that in the uppermost layer of the oceans, warming has apparently halted if the data is accurate. However, one cannot just look at that and declare a halt to warming. See my page at:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/modern_day_climate_change.html
There I show a variety of observations that do show recent warming. These include:
1) Arctic sea ice extent declining
2) Arctic sea ice thickness declining
3) Glacier mass balances declining
4) Glacier retreat increasing
5) von Shuckmann, Gaillard, and Le Traon (2009) show that the heat content of the upper 500 m of ocean are subject to strong seasonal and interannual variations. However, when considering the heat content of the upper 2000 m of ocean, global mean heat content and height changes are clearly associated with a positive trend during the 6 years of measurements between 2003 and 2008.
6) Murphy et al. (2009) examined the Earth’s energy balance since 1950 including ocean heat content, radiative forcing by long-lived trace gases, and radiative forcing from volcanic eruptions. They show that the heat gained since 1950 is already quite significant.
The best analogy I can come up with is to imagine climate change as a staircase. As one heads upward but then pauses on a flat step, it is foolish to declare that there is no increase in elevation and that one might ignore the previous upward climb to that step.
Sources:
von Schuckmann, K., F. Gaillard, and P.-Y. Le Traon (2009), Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003–2008, J. Geophys. Res., 114, C09007, doi:10.1029/2008JC005237.
Murphy, D. M., S. Solomon, R. W. Portmann, K. H. Rosenlof, P. M. Forster, and T. Wong (2009), An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D17107, doi:10.1029/2009JD012105.
Scott, you posted:
There I show a variety of observations that do show recent warming. These include:
1) Arctic sea ice extent declining
2) Arctic sea ice thickness declining
3) Glacier mass balances declining
4) Glacier retreat increasing
The problem with using these as indicators of man-made warming indicators, caused mainly by increases in CO2, is two fold. All the examples you provide have been losing ice mass since the 1750’s. And they do not prove that the warming has not stalled. If the average temp has been 34 degrees for the last seven years, then global warming has indeed halted. But since the average temp is above 32 degrees, the freezing point of water, then the ice is still going to melt.
Temps are determined by the thermometers, not by secondary indicators.
Scott, you posted:
“There I show a variety of observations that do show recent warming. These include:
1) Arctic sea ice extent declining
2) Arctic sea ice thickness declining”
Declining sea ice over the last 2 years is due to unusual winds. This is acknowledged by NASA.
“However, when considering the heat content of the upper 2000 m of ocean, global mean heat content and height changes are clearly associated with a positive trend during the 6 years of measurements between 2003 and 2008”
Funny one this. Just about everyone, including Hansen accepts that there has been no increase in OHC. This has been shown by Cazanave using Argo, GRACE and satellite altimetry. Roger Pielke has been thumping this message for some time – there has been no increase in OHC since 2003 and this is a problem.
http://climatesci.org/2009/01/07/sea-level-budget-over-2003%e2%80%932008-a-reevaluation-from-grace-space-gravimetry-satellite-altimetry-and-argo-by-cazenave-et-al-2008/
This link will explain everything, including Hansen’s prediction of radiative imbalance, the expect anomaly in joules, and a link to Cazanave’s paper.
Dagfinn (06:51:18) : Richard (05:05:59) : Thanks. Anyway, “suggests” is pretty weak, especially when you compare it to the “almost certainly” used in 1990 about the earlier warming episodes: “..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”
It maybe weak but that’s not the point. The point is that the contributing scientists of the IPCC concluded in 1995 (as in 1990) that NO STUDY TO DATE HAS POSITIVELY ATTRIBUTED ALL OR PART [of the climate change observed to date] TO ANTHROPOGENIC [man-made] CAUSES
and this was changed by the working committee to The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate.
That is false. A lie. If scientifically NOTHING anthropogenic had been identified till date as having contributed to climate change, how could the balance of evidence “suggest” even, a discernable human influence on global climate?
The agenda of the IPCC was to prove the hypothesis. This they set about doing right from 1990, where the contributing scientists still had a say, to 1995 where the working committee stepped in to falsify the conclusions, to 2001 where the IPCC asked Professor Mann to review his own work.
Thus the IPCC progressed from NO anthropogenic influence – 1990, to a discernable human influence -1995, to likely – 2001, to very likely – Now. All based on a lie and biased and lying research where a small band of researchers “peer review” each others work and a small band of scientists decide what goes onto the final report.
Dr Plieke Senior “This small community of climate scientists is controlling the agenda with respect to the assessment of climate change. This is an oligarchy. ”
Professor Bob Carter lays out the inadequacies of the IPCC rather well here. And a fuller list of the criticisms here.
Correction a small band of politicians decide what goes into the final report
As someone pointed out above it matters not whether the Earth has continued to warm during these past 10 to 11 years (and it has not), but how much of that warming can be identified as due to man made CO2.
That is the point.
All the rest about the statistics is well known, well worn and irrelevant scoring of brownie points.
From Vincent (09:44:18) :
[I wrote:] “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.”
—-end Vincent pt. 1—–
Your obvious ignorance is on display here. (Not ad hominem, just a clear fact.) Anyone who has done a smidgen of legit research, on pro AGW and denier sites can see from the evidence that using ten years to disprove a 130-year trend is a distraction at best and a disinformation tactic at worst: a lie.
To lay it out: any ten year period within that 130 year period could be used to “disprove” such a long trend–but only to a sucker who cannot think and does not understand the scientific method. You don’t have one on the line here.
The general public, however, is full of them. That’s why Limbaugh, Hannity and the other deniers–who clearly care only for political agendas, not science–keep the disinformation flowing. Have you ever seen Limbaugh, Bush and other disinformers reveal their investments?
Do they ever use the term “full disclosure?” I don’t listen to tripe disinformation much–just enough to find out why so many know so little about something so important–so point me to a website or other legit source if you disagree.
This is why evidence is what scientists use to prove or disprove hypotheses–and relevant evidence is the key.
Use the scientific method to sort out the science. And please, stop recycling the lies. () If you consider yourself an adherent of science, why would you do that?
Unless you have….an agenda??
Here, check out the recycled denials: “Spot the recycled denial V – Prof Bob Carter”
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/12/spot-the-recycled-denial-v-%E2%80%93-prof-bob-carter/
“I focus primarily on the science content of the piece, except where non-science arguments are clearly false and demand correction.” –Barry Brook
—-continuing Vincent, pt. 2:—
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.”
——End Vincent——-
Asked why would AP be involved in submitting questions on global warming to statisticians. Huh? Duhhhh!
It’s a news organization! Do you know nothing about news agencies? The legit ones search for facts and truth. The non-legit–like Fox, with an agenda, and the continual laughingstock among news agencies–mix factual reporting with irrelevant, disinforming commentary based on personal ignorance, political and economic or financial agendas–and trust their audience is too stupid to tell the difference, or care. Sadly most of them are.
I STILL meet people who try to refute climate change with the “local weather is colder now” argument. Unbelievable stone dumbness.
It’s in the public interest, and newsworthy, to cover an investigation into claims about the veracity of anthropogenic global warming. It’s of GLOBAL IMPORTANCE. So why question AP’s interest???
Such buffoonery can’t fool educated people. I am a journalist, and I’ve studied and poked holes in gonzo journalism like what frequently passes for reporting at Fox (so-called) News. I know what can and should be done legitimately in journalism, and what is not legitimate. I understand how stats can be used to prove invalid, straw points and mislead in other ways.
Innocentious
You asked: “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… ”
This so-called argument is just dumb. Because it demonstrates INDEPENDENT analysis, not analysis according to any potential AP bias, which may well exist. The independence also comes from the analysts not knowing what the data was about or came from. Hence their analysis is THAT MUCH MORE VALID and FREE OF BIAS.
Richard, of course it _is_ relevant who are the better scientists, because some use real data (e.g. RealClimate.org scientists) while others recycle claims without even thinking. If only all scientists used the scientific method…we wouldn’t have a false public debate on this issue.
It’s clear that there may be some small doubt that global warming is caused by humans. What’s more clear is that evidence is mounting that clears that doubt–at least in those who look at facts and data.
Could so many of you please rent a bullshit sniffer? And use it?
It looks like too many of you really don’t want to learn the facts, you just have a political agenda to push. Sad, the state of humanity.
It’s why truth-seekers like me keep on writing. Visit my site for the latest hot political, ecology and social justice updates at 2bestworld.blogspot.com
Also: “US forests hold new evidence of global warming”: http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/22/us-forests-hold-new-evidence-of-global-warming/
Here is a good article for those of you who think sea ice decline in the past two years was “due to winds.” Yes it was but what made these unusual weather conditions: Long-term warming and ice thinning called “preconditioning”.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034005.shtml
Scott Mandia,
I stopped reading your link after the words “A model study has been conducted…”.
Computer models. What can’t they predict?
Thinklife’s typical argumentum ad ignoratum as usual attacks ‘climate change’ [by which he means human-caused global warming], as if the climate has only started to change when SUVs were invented by human climate manipulators.
But what he deliberately omits is any kind of testable, replicable and verifiable evidence that the ebb and flow of the climate is anything but normal and natural. And evidence means raw data, not computer models; models are not evidence of anything except human programming. They are a tool, not evidence.
In fact, the exact same climate fluctuations we see today have been going on for many thousands of years. The planet is currently well within its normal historical parameters. There is nothing unusual or abnormal going on, except in the deluded minds of the the true believers in the repeatedly falsified AGW conjecture.
Skeptics are the sole reason we don’t still use witch doctors to treat illness. The scientific method — which is completely disregarded, and deliberately avoided by the alarmist crowd, is the only tested and true mechanism for scientific and technological progress.
The undeniable fact is that the purveyors of AGW avoid the scientific method like the plague — which tells skeptics all they need to know about the lack of veracity of those trying to sell their bogus story based on superstition, not science, that human activity is the cause of the completely natural oscillation of the climate. They lack the raw data to make their case for AGW, because there is no such data.
The day that the self-serving purveyors of the AGW superstition make all of their raw data and methodologies transparent and available to anyone interested, is the day their shot credibility starts to recover. Until then, they’re just grant seeking scam artists trying to sell a gullible public a pig in a poke. And skeptics aren’t buying it.
ThinkLife,
Your arguments are so ignorant as to be little more than bile and propaganda. You are yourself no better that Rush Limbaugh and any of the others you excoriate. I have come across trolls like you on fanatical warmists sites that have not a smidgen of scientific argument to support their case, and attempt to intimidate by name calling.
Take your ridiculous statement that I attempted to disprove that warming has occurred based on the last decade of non warming. I did nothing of the kind. I stated quite clearly that the climate has warmed as it rose out of the little ice age. The fact that the climate has not warmed since 1998 is something that has not been predicted by the models.
I posted on the lack of OHC warming since 2003 which is recoginised as the most robust metric of climate change. I think it’s pretty obvious why AP gave a series of temperatures to statisticians – they have a political agenda, as have Fox news and any of the other media streams. But of course, in your predjudiced mind, AP is a credible collater of news, absolutely beyond reproach, but Fox is the one with an agenda.
If you aren’t even aware of the lack of increase in OHC since 2003, lack of surface temperature warming since 1998, lack of mid tropical troposphere hotspot as predicted must exist by models, the fact that climate has been warmer in the medieval warm period, roman warm period and minoan warm period, then I suggest that it is you who are ignorant. If you are aware of them, then please lay out your explanation why carbon dioxide is the only cause of the warming. Otherwise, you are just one of Stalin’s little useful idiots.
It’s a news organization! Do you know nothing about news agencies?
Can’t speak for the others, but I can speak for myself. I graduated with a telecommunications degree, which included a hefty dose of mass media. I worked in the local TV market off and on for two years. My sister spent eight years in the “news” industry, and her husband, who currently works for the “Tacoma Tribune”, has been in the industry for eighteen. Now I will speak for Anthony. He’s forgotten more about mass media than I and my family have ever known. I think he’s worked in media since the stone age! **just kidding – it was there and I had ti take it! 🙂 ** If you ask, I would bet that one of the reasons he started this site is due to the poor coverage of the full context of global warming research in the media.
I think a lot of the pro-AGW set mistake some small warming for evidence that 3.0C per doubling global warming is correct.
“Some small warming” could indicate 0.5C or 1.0C or 1.5C per doubling is correct but it actually calls into question the 3.0C per doubling proposition.
Many people like Scott Mandia fail to see this albeit subtle distinction.
Dagfinn (10:02:12) wrote:
“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.”
How so?
Please elucidate and educate me with evidence, not just claims about “backpedaling.”
Which points exactly, and in what ways do they backpedal–and the significance of this scientifically?
Vincent (07:13:56) wrote:
“…the lack of OHC warming since 2003…is recoginised as the most robust metric of climate change.”
and:
“I think it’s pretty obvious why AP gave a series of temperatures to statisticians – they have a political agenda, as have Fox news and any of the other media streams. \”
Are you completely missing the point? The statisticians didn’t even know what kind of data they were looking at. They merely looked at trends in the numbers, so no bias could possibly exist for or against AGW global warming for this analysis.
The drive to reach predetermined conclusions, bypassing even rudimentary analysis by some of these posters, is shocking. It reveals a lack of ability to reach the most rudimentary logical conclusions, a fatal flaw–and one that someone with the flaw cannot possibly himself see–that dooms such so-called analyses.
Could this be called “the Palin Effect”? Is Africa a country??? Is she an expert in foreign policy because Alaska is nine miles from a Russian border??? Did she really think that would impress anyone intelligent??
This recalls a wonderful quote (which I may have paraphrased–no time to look up an authoritative source): “If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn’t.” – Emerson Pugh
Second, to what do you refer when you say “they”–AP or the statisticians?
I understand mistakes because of quick typing and failing to double-check your work…but aren’t these the kinds of careless mistakes anti-AGW scientists seem to typically make in their scientific efforts as well??? The kind of mistakes easily found and exposed by real climate scientists like those at RealClimate.org?
The failures in your effort to rebut my statements reveal fatal flaws that show how your own limitations may doom your goals.
What are your goals, anyhow? Is it scientific truth, or something else. Just asking, not assuming.
And, do you have financial ties to coal, oil and other polluting industries? Full disclosure, anyone?
My goals include:
-reveal and publicize scientific facts and truth
-expose corruption and lies by vested interests
-prevent pollution and its dangerous effects
-support ecological and economic sustainability
In what ways does anti-AGW skepticism support any of those? (If it’s real and careful science, I can see how it supports only the first goal.)
Regarding:
“…the fact that climate has been warmer in the medieval warm period, roman warm period and minoan warm period, then I suggest that it is you who are ignorant. If you are aware of them, then please lay out your explanation why carbon dioxide is the only cause of the warming.”
I don’t claim it is the only cause, only that human activity that generates many chemicals, including CO2, methane and other chemicals released during fossil fuel burning, have tipped the climate change toward unnaturally and dangerously hotter–as determined by real climate scientists.
Have you noticed that most icebergs are much smaller since photos taken in the early 1900s and even the 1960s? Just saw a great documentary on it on LinkTV, can’t recall the name of it at this late hour.
Rebutting your minoan/roman/middle ages warming argument, there is no dispute on those warming trends vs. today’s–only the causes of it. Check out: http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/03/ray-evans-nine-facts-about-climate.html and
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group
Regarding:
“…Otherwise, you are just one of Stalin’s little useful idiots.”
Ad hominem abusive, anyone? Note that I didn’t call anyone an idiot, merely that some techniques used in the arguments of some were idiotic, stupid, retarded, etc. (If I offended you, I’m sorry. Not intended. But if anyone makes scientific arguments, at least use peer-reviewed, double-checked science and data–not the recycled arguments of the ignorant and those with a political or financial agenda, which are automatically suspect for good reasons.)
Focus on actions, not the person. There IS a difference.
ThinkLife: I thought you’d never ask. 😉
Studying the rhetoric at RealClimate.org is not exact science. It’s somewhat open to interpretation. But this is how I read it.
In November 2008, they said, “The misconception ‘the global warming has stopped’ still lives on in some minds.” (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mind-the-gap/)
In October 2009, they said, “It is highly questionable whether this “pause” is even real.” (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/)
So in less than a year, they went from “misconception” to “questionable”. It’s no clear logical contradiction, since “stop” and “pause” are not synonymous. But the spin seems different.
There’s not much scientific significance. It’s presumably a tactical change in rhetoric. They must realize that if temperatures don’t start rising in a few years, they will need to be seen as not having vehemently denied a trend that turned out to be real. They may have to move from “there’s no pause” to “the pause is only temporary”.