WUWT reader Steve Hales writes in Tips and Notes:
Thought you might get a chuckle out of my letter to our local bucolic paper.
Story from The Chronicle-Independent
“Whatever the cause of climate change – and there are healthy debates going on about that on a regular basis – one thing can’t be denied: the planet is heating up at an alarming rate. Worldwide, it was the warmest November on record, and so far this year, we are tied with 2002 as the fourth-warmest year on record. Last month was the 345th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th-century average, and that’s a statistic that’s hard to argue with.” – Noted and passed Chronicle Independent 12/23/2010.
My letter in response:
December, 30, 2013
Chronicle-Independent
Martin L. Cahn, Editor
Camden, South Carolina 29020
Dear Editor:
“So all of this adds up to no warming for almost 17 years now. And climate scientists are still debating and trying to figure out what’s going on. We have some subjective explanations and possibilities for what’s going on, but something quantitative or having the models actually be able to predict something like this–well, no, we’re not there yet.” — Dr. Judith Curry on the pause in global warming
In your paper’s “Noted and passed” feature, December 23, 2013, I discovered that “the planet is heating up at an alarming rate.” This surprised me for global temperatures have remained remarkably unchanged on a trend basis for the past 16 years. This phenomenon has received a bit of notice because it shows how complex the climate is and how difficult it is to make predictions. It also shows that there are natural factors e.g., the “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” (PDO) which negatively swamp the effects of greenhouse gasses for perhaps decades. These negative factors get precious little attention because they would lessen the urgency felt by some policy proponents to currently begin to curb emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuels. The political difficulty of convincing electorates of the problem seems to have enabled an attitude of being less than truthful about the problem’s urgency.
NOAA’s monthly report “State of the Climate” bases its warmest or coldest month claim upon an instrument record for land based stations, which in 1880 through the first 40 years of the instrument record was extremely sparse. Based on that sparse network, then that claim of the warmest November is accurate but incomplete. What would be more helpful would be to more fully explain the pause in global warming that has occurred since 1997 and then place that warmest month claim in that larger context.
Consider for a moment if the economy had failed to grow for the past 16 years but over the last century had increased in size by 5% you could make the claim that economic output for November was the highest it has ever been since recordkeeping began (bumps and wiggles in a time series don’t influence trends) and it was the 345th consecutive month that economic output was above its 20th-century average. At the same time, government statisticians ignored that economic output had remained unchanged for the past 16 years. I am sure you would be screaming from the highest point in Camden that this deceitful practice of reporting economic statistics must end at once. But yet when this exact same practice is preformed upon climate data you are alarmed at a trend that doesn’t exist.
Steve Hales
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A great letter, but it seems it is 3 years late?
It’s not a pause, it’s a peak.
Perhaps late on that specific instance, but I still see the exact same argument from climate alarmists, so it’s still relevant.
Your local newspaper might redeem itself and show that it is an honest broker of the news by publishing your letter.
We know that climate always changes and does stand still, we also know it is not getting colder, what is the third option?
I wonder if it will be published.
“I am sure you would be screaming from the highest point in Camden that this deceitful practice of reporting economic statistics must end at once.” – If you scream in Camden does anyone hear you?? http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/apocalypse-new-jersey-a-dispatch-from-americas-most-desperate-town-20131211?print=true
Perhaps some resources could be better directed to the here and the now of real problems. Or does CO2 cause total degeneration of what used to be a good city into what is now basically unmentionable in polite society?
Good point John Silver, there is plenty of evidence based on long term trend data that we’re in a Holocene Climactic Optimum.
Nice analogy!
Well…are we not in an interglacial period? In which the earth warms until a point beyond which it doesn’t? Then back to an ice age. Am I wrong?
one thing can’t be denied: the planet is heating up at an alarming rate
Have they talked to the people at “New Scientist”? The “New Scientist”, 7 December 2013 cover story was: CLIMATE SLOWDOWN IS IT TIME TO STOP WORRYING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING?
The only problem Steve is that you have inadvertantly schooled them how to report stagnated life expectancy numbers after Obamacare takes hold – “Under Obamacare, US life expectancy has remained at or near the highest level it’s ever been!”
@ur momisugly Gareth Phillips –
“We know that climate always changes and does stand still, we also know it is not getting colder, what is the third option?”
As for the third option? – well not making false correlations would be a start don’t you think?
As for it not getting colder – I am old enough to remember the Global Cooling scare story that preceded the Global Warming one. I also suspect that the temperature was not getting any warmer just before the Maunder Minimum.
So if the climate as defined by the temperature of the earth remained exactly at the same level as Nov 2013 for the next 100 million years and never exceeded this value, but was 0.1 degree warmer in November of the Year of our Lord 100,002,013 you could then claim it was the warmest November since the one in 2013 and continues the sequence of the 12,000,000,345th consecutive month stretch that exceeded the 20th century average.
The problem with warmists is that – like a 3-year-old who doesn’t want to go to bed – they will only hear what they want to hear. Anything not conforming to the agenda is to be ignored.
An excellent letter, as has been said above and many times on this website, the warmists don’t want to know the truth!
My analogy is if climate scientists were watching a marathon race and their favourite runner dropped down dead half way round, they’d still all be convinced that all was going well because statistically for the last hour their runner is still at the furthest point from the start that he has ever been.
The cause of the warming, and end of it, are no longer a mystery.
Curiosity resulted in the discovery of the two primary drivers of average global temperature that explain the reported measurements with 90% accuracy. http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/. CO2 is not one of them.
Common motivation can result in activity very similar to conspiracy.
Gareth Phillips says:
December 30, 2013 at 9:21 am
We know that climate always changes and does stand still, we also know it is not getting colder, what is the third option?
Since we also know that the climate isn’t statistically warming and hasn’t for the last 17 years or so, the next possible option is that the Earth could be slipping into the next 100,000 year ice age cycle which has instead has been moderated/stabilized by current CO2 levels
Outstanding. But as mentioned, we don`t know if this is a pause, peak or what.
Anthony Watts posted: “WUWT reader Steve Hales writes in Tips and Notes:
“Thought you might get a chuckle out of my letter to our local bucolic paper. Story from The Chronicle-Independent:
‘Whatever the cause of climate change – there are healthy debates going on about it’.”
. Over the last 10 years, the Northern Hemisphere SST is declining, the Southern Hemisphere
” one thing can’t be denied: the planet is heating up at an alarming rate. ”
What nonsense ! One time regional events do not translate to the globe heating up long term nor anywhere near at an alarming rate
Sounds like the author who writes the TIPS & NOTES for the CHRONICLE -INDEPENDENT does not do his homework . H e or she is likely in for a big surprise in the coming decades.
There has been no heating up of the planet for some 17 years .
North Atlantic Ocean SST and AMO are declining, the Pacific Ocean SST is flat and the North Pacific Ocean SST is flat and possibly declining. The PDO index is also declining but this is just a pattern change indicator and indicates that there is now more colder water at the eastern side of the Pacific than in the western or central part of the Pacific than we had 10 years ago. There are also fewer strong El Ninos. I don’t see another strong El Nino for some time yet. [3-4 years?] These factors all combined to keep the global temperatures flat and now slightly declining as they did 1880 to 1910 and again 1945-1975. The decline in global temperatures is likely to continue as ocean cycles tend to be long [65-70 years]. so the cooll cycle will likely last 30-35 years.
Winters during the upcoming years will get colder and most likely by 2018/2020 will be much colder than today. Already the winter temperatures of Northern Hemisphere , Contiguous US, Europe and UK have been declining since 1998
The winters could stay cold for the next 2-3 decades. Land locked areas like Central US, Central Canada (especially the Prairies); Central Europe and Asia which do not get the moderating effect of the oceans could have colder winters than the coastal areas.
The attached graph illustrates the cold weather in North America which is likely to continue all Janauary
http://www.findlocalweather.com/weather_maps/temperature_north_america.html
We do know a couple things, either warming is not accelerating as would be necessary for it to be dangerous or natural variability is greater than figured. Or a combination of the two.
The implications are the same, the rate and duration of warming aren’t unusual. Claims about “unprecidented” are certainly wrong.
Bryan A says:
Since we also know that the climate isn’t statistically warming and hasn’t for the last 17 years or so, the next possible option is that the Earth could be slipping into the next 100,000 year ice age cycle which has instead has been moderated/stabilized by current CO2 levels.
Amazing, isn’t it? For seventeen years, the steadily rising CO2 concentration has exactly counteracted what, at the same exact time, has turned into global cooling! It’s as if “carbon” has been calibrated precisely to the approaching ice age, which is now cooling the planet at exactly the same rate as rising CO2 is warming the planet…
…or, maybe CO2 just does not have the claimed warming effect.
Bryan, let me introduce you to William of Ockham, of Occam’s Razor fame. Which explanation above do you think is the more likely one?
In what way does that “global temperature above the 20th-century average” consider that we didn’t start burning much oil until 1950, and there was quite a bit of warming before 1950? How is the 20th-century average relevant as something to compare to? Why not the average of the 1800s?