Taking the long-view temperature trends since the Industrial Revolution. The data come from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. The red line teases the trend out of the ups and downs of global average temperatures. Global cooling started in the first decade of the 21st century? Certainly not in the context of the past century.
(NASA-GISS)Has global cooling begun?
By Pete Spotts | 10.20.09
Yikes! On Sunday, Oct. 18, the New England Patriots were playing at home, in Foxboro, Mass., in a snowstorm that made it look more like a January game! Global warming must be over!
So many people wish that global warming would just go away. But sorry. It ain’t happenin’. The atmosphere, if it could talk, is refusing to say: Uncle! At least to those wishing the issue would disappear.
The latest deuce in the global-cooling house of cards came recently via the BBC. One of The Monitor’s reporters recapped it here. What climate data actually has to say about the issue appears here and here.
But if you want to save a mouse click or two, here’s the upshot: The most that can be said is that natural variability may well have been strong enough to slow for the past 11 years any signal from human-induced warming.
Ironically, Britain’s Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research, the former employer of the local BBC weatherman who patched the BBC article together under the title of “climate correspondent,” has this to say about the current state of the climate:
The record-breaking temperatures in 1998 occurred after three decades of warming, starting in the 1970s. These decades saw an increase in global average temperature of about 0.45 °C. After 1998, however, warming slowed significantly — trends over the past 10 years show only a 0.07 °C increase in global average temperature. Although this is only a small increase, it indicates that there has been no global cooling over this period. In fact, over the past decade, most years have remained much closer to the record global average temperature reached in 1998 than to temperatures before the 1970s. All the years from 2000 to 2008 have been in the top 14 warmest years on record. (Here’s the link.)
Moreover, Hadley researchers asked themselves the musical question: How often would one expect a brief respite from rising temperatures? Jeff Knight, who contributed to an exhaustive State of the Climate 2008 report that appeared in the August in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, noted:
“We found about one in every eight decades has near-zero or negative global temperature trends in simulations which would otherwise be warm at expected present-day rates. Given that we have seen fairly consistent global warming since the 1970s, these odds suggest the observed slowdown was due to occur.” (Here’s the link.)
You can download a PDF of the 199-page report here. No subscription is required.
Part of the challenge in thinking about global warming is the time scale involved. Global warming is a century(ies)-long process. Temporal context counts for a lot trying to decipher what’s happening during any 10- or 11-year period.
This is illustrated by the temperature graph at the top of this post. It shows by how much global average surface temperatures have risen above or fallen below the 1951-1980 average each year.
The five-year running average (red trend line) from 1900 to about 1910? Oh, my gosh, global cooling! Maybe, maybe not. Looking at 1880 to 1910, not much of an overall trend there. Just ups and downs.
How about 1940 to around 1950? Oh, my gosh! Global cooling! Eh, not so much compared with the previous 60 years.
The cool spell from about the mid-1950s to around 1970? Global cooling! Eh, not so much compared with the previous 90 years; the trend is still up. And the bottom of the “trough” is warmer that the bottom of the preceding trough.
From around 1970 on? Temperature deviations from the norm continue to rise to a peak in 1998, then flatten for the ensuing period.
So, is there really enough in the last decade’s worth of readings to pronounce the end of global warming and the beginning of global cooling. Eh, not so much.
Another challenge? Location, location, location.
People tend to think about global warming in terms of what’s happening where they live or in their immediate region. That’s natural. But just as global warming requires temporal context, it also requires geographic context — we’re talking the globe here, not just Foxboro, Mass. (It was a pretty spectacular football game if you’re a New England fan!)
The global — there’s that word again — surface-temperature maps that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published at summer’s end (see second image above) show that much of the lower 48 states and up into Canada had a cooler-than-normal summer. It was the 34th coolest summer on record for the continental US as a whole.
But if you lived in Australia, you’d have quite a different take on temperature variations during the June-August period. There, it was much warmer than normal. The June-August period was the third warmest on record globally, NOAA reported.
El Niño undoubtedly played a role. But that’s one of the gotchas of global warming. Natural climate swings such as El Niño wind up being superimposed atop the much-longer-term warming trend.
So, global cooling has begun, eh? Not likely.
Added later by editor: Statistics experts reject global cooling claims.
You’ll find numerous articles about the environment on the Monitor’s main environment page,. Also, check out our Bright Green blog archive and our RSS feed.
<< Environmental problems need a holistic approach | Main
Comments
2. Jim Pruett | 10.20.09
It would be nice if we could “infer” temperature back in say 0-AD from plants or such… Then we could add more dots to the temperature graph perhaps…
3. Bill Butler | 10.20.09
The first 9 months of 2009 are averaging +0.54 deg. C which is right back up with the high readings seen before 2008. Thus 2008 was just one of those random cool years and not part of a trend reversal. Data source is: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
If anyone wants to see the GISS data plotted on a monthly basis, I have a chart of the above data at:
http://www.durangobill.com/SwindlePics/SwindleGISS.gif
Some of the Global Warming Deniers “cherry pick” a short time period from the HadCRUT 3V database to claim that the world has been cooling since 1998. This is willfully misleading for several reasons.
1) The short time period is not representative.
2) The starting date is obvious “cherry picking”.
3) HadCRUT 3V does not include the Arctic Ocean/North Pole area. GISS does include the Arctic. GISS is a better database as it includes a larger area. Warming has been greatest over the Arctic which is why GISS data shows more warming than HadCRUT 3V. There is more information on this difference at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mind-the-gap/
4. curious | 10.20.09
I sure hope “Rick in Canada” is not in involved in any sort of financial activity. His apparent inability to analyze a simple chart would sure be a disaster in the investment community. Doesn’t do any good to obfuscate with red herrings (like “hockey stick graphs”). Gotta deal with actual facts, actually in front of your eyes…
5. Jason | 10.20.09
#3, The reason why HadCRU does not have data for the most arctic areas is that there aren’t any thermometers there.
GISS uses an ever changing algorithm to model temperatures in the arctic. They assume (based on the same principles that guide global climate models) that the arctic will warm much faster than most of the planet.
Maybe.
But there are enough uncertainties in the measured temperature record that trying to add guesses to it is probably not a great idea.
6. Freezing in Minnesota | 10.20.09
Are you going to believe AL Gore and his disciples or your own Eyes. Open your Eyes and follow the money.
7. Mike Fischer | 10.20.09
“Part of the challenge in thinking about global warming is the time scale involved. Global warming is a century(ies)-long process. ”
So, it would be ridiculous to, for instance, try to predict temperature trends based on a little over 100 years of reliable surface temperature readings, then?
8. Chris G | 10.20.09
Sigh
OK,
@1, by discredited, do you mean refined? OMG, the first attempt wasn’t perfect; that most mean there’s been no warming! Umm, no.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/
@2, you’re joking, I hope. There have been _many_ proxy studies involving tree rings, pollen in mud cores, isotope levels in sea shells, ice cores, etc. They all pretty much agree something anomalous is going on now.
@6, you do realize that Al Gore was just a messenger, right? That climate change/gw has been an area of concern/research since before he was born?
BTW, I followed the money; I found a lot more of it in the fossil fuel industry than I found in (mostly) public funded research institutions.
@7, it would be ridiculous. That is why that isn’t what is done. Read a little more.
9. Josh | 10.20.09
What’s with the cutesy “Eh, not so much” baloney? Is this what passes for serious journalism these days? Why not add a few “OMG”s and “ROFL”s? Sheesh.
10. TTN | 10.20.09
The scientific prediction that there will no no ice in the North pole during the summers 20 years from now really tell it all…
11. Mark | 10.20.09
#5 HADCru and GISS data sets say virtually the same thing. The 100+ year trend is absolutely the same. Each has different data year to year, but taking data from different sources, that is to be expected. Plot the data on the same graph and then try to tell me than one of the data sets is bunk.
You seem to be saying that NASA and the open scientific community don’t know how to model data and that the GISS data is somehow inaccurate. If you have a genuine criticism about an “ever changing algorithm”, go to data.giss.nasa.gov and give them feedback. Perhaps you can contribute to the next algorithm, making climate data even more accurate.
12. Norm G Smith | 10.20.09
Sorry - but your graph only shows a snapshot of the temperature uptick since the Little Ice Age ended.
Here is the bigger picture: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png
That most recent upward blip on the right side of the graph is “global warming”. (your graph)
It is actually a very small increase compared to many of the previous “global warmings”.
Best Wished from Canada
13. steve1953 | 10.21.09
THIS IS THE SUN NOW
http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/images/latest_eit_304.gif
THIS IS THE SUN IN 1997
http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/eit/images/eit_19971207_0700_ratio.gif
Any questions why it was so hot in 1998?
14. Rick in Canada | 10.21.09
@4. curious | 10.20.09
“I sure hope “Rick in Canada” is not in involved in any sort of financial activity.”
The only financial activity of concern here is how rich Al Gore is getting from these Global Warming lies. Follow the Money….
15. Chris G | 10.21.09
@12
Norm,
Good link, bad interpretation.
The graph at the top of this page disappears into the vertical at the right of the large graph on the page you linked. From that same page, however, you can follow a link to this graph which does show it it context.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png
The current spike is much more than a small variation in comparison.
@13
It would be more informative to look at the total solar irradiance over time rather than a snapshot of the sun in some arbitrary bandwidth. Here is a pretty good discussion on TSI.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/VariableSun/variable2.php
Do all the studies agree on the absolute measures? No.
Are those differences significant enough to offer an alternative cause for the observed temperature trends? No.
16. Chris G | 10.21.09
Rick in Canada,
I’m curious. Just what is the relationship between Al Gore’s bank account and the absorption spectrum of CO2?
17. curious | 10.21.09
@ Rick in Canada –
My comment was directed at your apparent incapacity to analyze and understand a simple chart — which could leave you (in terms of, say, the stock market) with a somewhat underwhelming net worth.
Paranoid fantasies about Al Gore are no substitute for careful & thoughtful examination of actual evidence. As for “follow the money,” cf #8 above, and for “actual evidence” cf #3.
18. Rick in Canada | 10.21.09
@Curious
I appreciate your concern about my financial well being but please don’t worry. Please stick to the case at hand. I said (correctly) that stats and graphs provide by global warming enthusiasts should be accepted with more than a little bit of skepticism in light of their past record. I provided the infamous “Hockey Stick” graph by Mann (which has not been refined, it has been dropped like a hot potato) as proof of my argument. You called it a Red Herring and then proceeded to launch an ad hominem argument against myself by suggesting my analytical skills were lacking. I did not have to analysis anything. Eco Freaks have such a poor record of telling the truth and predicting the future that it is they who have to prove they are correct rather than me that has to show they are wrong. Anyone who reads Lester R. Brown’s past “State of the World” reports would know this. If Eco Freaks were correct we would have run out of oil and food back in the 80’s… and to point out the obvious, we haven’t. and I stand by my statement.. Follow the money…
19. Rick in Canada | 10.21.09
@Curious
I appreciate your concern about my financial well being but please don’t worry. Please stick to the case at hand. I said (correctly) that stats and graphs provide by global warming enthusiasts should be accepted with more than a little bit of skepticism in light of their past record. I provided the infamous “Hockey Stick” graph by Mann (which has not been refined, it has been dropped like a hot potato) as proof of my argument. You called it a Red Herring and then proceeded to launch an ad hominem argument against myself by suggesting my analytical skills were lacking. I did not have to analysis anything. Eco Freaks have such a poor record of telling the truth and predicting the future that it is they who have to prove they are correct rather than me that has to show they are wrong. Anyone who reads Lester R. Brown’s past “State of the World” reports would know this. If Eco Freaks were correct we would have run out of oil and food back in the 80’s… and to point out the obvious, we haven’t. and I stand by my statement.. Follow the money…
20. curious | 10.21.09
@ Rick in Canada –
Congratulations on knowing the absolute truth with such absolute certainty that “I did not have to analysis [sic] anything.”
22. David | 10.22.09
How do they determine the zero point of temperature, to be able to say that we are +0.45? Is it the average of a very noisy temperature record (0 +_10C from the ice core data)? Or is it some “optimum” for life — astrologists look for a range of 0-100C (liquid water) when looking for exoplanets that might have life.
Either way, it seems a bit arbitrary to assign so specific a value with so much noise on the graph, and so much variability and lack of control in the system.
23. Richard Levangie | 10.22.09
With one or two exceptions, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists* (numbered in the thousands) know that global warming is real, and that it’s occurring as we speak. We’re talking thousands of studies that support science and which have been published in the last 15 years. Deniers will be able to find five or six studies that do not support AGW, and those will be relegated to minor scientific journals.
We can make three possible conclusions:
1) An overwhelming majority of international climate experts are certain about global warming, and these scientists are honest.
2) An overwhelming majority of international climate experts are ignorant about their own expertise, and are making a huge mistake.
3) An overwhelming majority of international climate experts are conspiring to delude the billions of folks on the planet and just a very tiny percentage of them are trying to prevent a mass hoax.
It can only be #1 folks. If a scientist could prove that global warming isn’t caused by humans, he or she would win the Nobel Prize, and be immortalized alongside Darwin, or Einstein, and Newton.
_________________
*There are three or four scientists who once worked as climatologists and who argue against global warming, but they also routinely accept money from fossil fuel companies through consulting fees, and they no longer publish their findings in academic journals. Similarly, there are two or three climate scientists who dispute the premise, but recent studies show their work to be in error.
24. Bob | 10.22.09
@21
Actually, the warmest year on record was some 4.6 billion years ago when the dust cloud that was the earth collapsed into a solid mass, releasing the gravitational potential and liquefying the core — or at least so the models and evidence tell us (the same models and evidence, by the way, to determine the thermal record before the 1800s)
25. Richard Levangie | 10.22.09
Might I also add to my comments above. I actually hope that the deniers above take a few moments to read up on astroturfing — a targeting misinformation campaign run by big fossil companies (taking a page from tobacco companies). In a nutshell, the campaign is used not to deny global warming, but just to muddy the waters, and suggest that scientists are still trying to decide what’s happening with the planet.
They are not. How do I know this? Because I work in environmental publishing, read hundreds of global warming and clean tech stories every week as part of my job, and regularly interact with climate scientists.
So if the situation wasn’t so dire, the many uninformed comments here might be amusing. Lonnie suggests that 1934 was the warmest year on record, and it was — in the US, which represents just 2 percent of the planet. For tje planet, 2005 or 1998 set the record, depending upon which climate center data you use.
Rick in Canada suggests that the hockey was discredited and dropped, and persist in the belief even after being corrected by Chris G. The hockey stick was deemed correct by the National Academy of Science, and has been supported and confirmed by several studies since. It’s very solid science.
Steve talks about the sunspots, even though we’ve at a century-low minimum for more than a decade, and the planet continues to warm. (This year will likely be in the top five).
I’m going to be bold and inflammatory, but I can’t figure out why care more about your children and grandchildren than you do. We can start fighting global warming now, and it will take 1-2 percent of GDP. We can wait a generation, and it will consume 20 percent of GDP, and create millions of climate refugees.
26. Lu Galasso | 10.22.09
great article. its sad that more Americans’ believe that GW isn’t a pressing issue.
27. Tip O’Hat | 10.22.09
Thank you, thank you Richard Levangie for your clear, concise and accurate evaluation of our current situation. The deniers will, I fear, respond to you with sad citations from crackpot scientists, palpable ignorance of chemistry, misstatements of established evidence, and — as one poster put it — “paranoid fantasies” about Al Gore.
Reading what they write sometimes gets me kinda depressed about the human race…then I read postings by folks like Mr. Levangie — and I sure feel a lot better.
28. Laurent | 10.22.09
@Richard, and everyone
There is one problem with your argument — You are still basing the entirety of your defense of AGW on an ad hominem statement. If you want to add to the global warming debate interpret the science, not the scientists. If you don’t know enough science to do that, then any contribution you might add is spurious.
AGW is not scientifically supported because scientists cannot run a control experiment to determine the causation. We can’t remove the entire human population from the planet for 20 years or so to see how the climate responds without us here. Lacking a controlled determination of causation, we can’t make accurate predictions — we can only observe.
None of that changes the direness of the outcome. It only means that if we are going to make a change to try to save ourselves, its going to be a shot in the dark because science is intrinsically unable to find the cause.
29. Datadon | 10.22.09
While some state pretty decent arguments about global warming, perhaps someone could explain why temperatures are drifting lower since 1998 but where predicted to increase as C02 increased but C02 has increased at a faster rate than prior to 1998 and temperatures haven’t?
30. Olmec | 10.23.09
MYTH No. 1: The Earth is warming!
TRUTH: The Earth is warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the global average surface temperature increased about 0.6 degrees Celsius over the 20th century.
MYTH No. 2: The Earth is warming because of us!
TRUTH: Maybe. The frantic media suggest it’s all about us. But the IPCC only said it is likely that we have increased the warming.
Our climate has always undergone changes. Greenland was named Greenland because its coasts used to be very green. It’s presumptuous to think humans’ impact matters so much in comparison to the frightening geologic history of the earth. And who is to say that last year’s temperature is the perfect optimum? Warmer may be better! More people die in cold waves than heat waves.
MYTH No. 3: There will be storms, flooded coasts and huge disruptions in climate!
TRUTH: There are always storms and floods. Will there be much bigger disruptions in climate? Probably not.
Eighty percent of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels. The Kyoto accord would decimate just about every Third World country’s economy, and deliver a catastrophic blow to our own. Far better to keep studying global warming, let the science develop and adjust to it if it happens, rather than wreck life as we know it by trying to stop it.
31. Dave | 10.24.09
The Vikings colonized and planted vines in Greenland 1,000 years ago, now its all cover with ice. How do warmies explain this?
32. Chris G | 10.26.09
@29
Datadon,
No, personally, I can not give an explicit description of why temperatures have not increased much since 1998. I can ask
a) Why did you pick 1998 as your starting point?
b) Can you see the other 5 or 6 downturns in temperature since 1940?
c) Do you require an explanation for them as well or can you see that the temperature slope is generally positive regardless of the fluctuations?
My own, very tentative explanation/observation is that the solar cycle is about 11 years on average, and the TSI has been at a low in recent years.
33. Tip O’Hat | 10.26.09
Chris G. — while praising the intelligence & sweet common sense in Richard Lenvangie’s posts, shoulda included a nod of appreciation for yours as well. You guys are are the best — beacons of light in a sea of willful ignorance.
34. Richard Levangie | 10.26.09
Tip O’Hat: Thank you for the kind words!
Datadon: Sorry, I’m late getting back here, but you’re arguing a point that you believe to be true, but actually isn’t. The planet hasn’t cooled over the last decade. If you look at NASA data, you’ll see that this decade is significantly warmer than the 1990s. If you look at the Hadley dataset from the UK, you’ll find that the rise in temperatures is more gradual, with a slight dip in 2007 and 2008 (due to La Nina). But it’s important to note that Hadley omits the high arctic from its temperature record — the area that has warmed hardest and fastest in the last 10 years. Even Hadley scientists suggest that global warming is accelerating.
But the point Chris makes is also valid. We won’t set a record every year. It will just be a slow, steady climb upward for the next decade or two, and then comes **** and high water.
Laurent: Nice try, but your point is dead wrong. Since we can’t ethically subject humans to smoking experiments, how can we know that smoking causes cancer? How can we know that evolution is a fact when we can’t run evolutionary experiments in the manner you suggest?
We’ve known that CO2 has the potential to create a greenhouse gas effect for more than 100 years. It’s elementary physics. You just need to look to the planets, and understand that Venus is the hottest in the solar system, even though Mercury is actually closest to the sun. So we’ve known about Earth’s potential for a century and, in the 1980s, the signature of a warming planet due to carbon dioxide stood out from the background noise. There have been thousands of studies that have built on our understanding since that time, so you’re the one advancing the ad hominem.
Olmec: Your understanding of the IPCC is out-of-date. In fact, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, published in 2007, is already considered a wash. It, for instance, predicted Greenland would start melting in 2100… But it’s melting now, almost 100 years ahead of schedule.
A summary of the science since the IPCC report was just compiled ahead of Copenhagen by the same scientists. Among the NEW findings. We will see a 5° C world that will be wracked by floods, droughts, severe hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons, and desperate heat waves. The US Southwest will become a dust bowl. No more agriculture in California. The oceans will become far less productive, the corals will die, and extinction will take more than 50 percent of species. Up to 85 percent of the Amazon will die off, and sea levels will rise by more than 3 feet.
Does that sound like a world you want your children and grandchildren to live in? Especially since we can prevent it by cutting our GDP by just 1 or 2 percent over the next 50 years.
Dave: Greenland was never green. Eirek the Red — do you think he was actually red? — was just a marketing genius, selling Greenland as a promised land. If you read Collapse, by Jared Diamond, you’d know that Greenland has always been harsh and meager landscape. It supported the Vikings during the Medieval Warm Period (which was much cooler than now), but winters were always long, hard, and brutal.
Greenland is also melting now at a rate that is unprecedented, pouring 21 Chesapeake Bay’s into the Atlantic between 2006-2008.
35. Jeff W | 10.26.09
Goddard Space Institute with satellite data says something different. I trust satellites over thermometers of scientists would want to make a name for themselves. Also, I can hand pick scientist who I know will tend to analyze data the way I want them to.
See See http://www.proconservative.net/PCVol11Is108AveryGlobalCooling.shtml
FULL STORY: The global cooling trend that began early in 2007 continues. America’s official global reading for March, 2009, has been issued by Goddard Space Institute. The month was the coldest of this young century and colder than March of 1990. The satellite records show an even stronger recent cooling trend.
36. Laurent | 10.27.09
@34
Richard, please look up the definition of ad hominem before using it in a sentence.
We, in fact, run evolutionary experiments in controlled settings all of the time on bacteria and microorganisms. So yes, evolution has a controlled scientific basis.
As for smoking, we have easy access to statistically significant numbers of both smokers and non-smokers to make those arguments. We don’t have access to a statistically significant number of planets both with and without humans.
I’m well aware of the greenhouse gas effect and the potential of CO2 to cause this effect. However, the global energy flux balance is extremely complicated, and generating CO2 is not the ONLY thing that humans have done in the past 30 years that could cause surface warming. We dig mines deep into the earth, thinning the layer between us and the core. We rip holes in our ozone layer, exposing our planet to more UV radiation. We throw tons of particulate into the air, which tends to reflect light and cool the planet. All of these things have an effect on the global energy balance. This lack of control makes it impossible to scientifically say that CO2 is the culprit. There is no way to establish a baseline.
37. Tip O’Hat | 10.27.09
Laurent #1: “AGW is not scientifically supported because scientists cannot run a control experiment to determine the causation.”
Laurent #2: “As for smoking, we have easy access to statistically significant numbers of both smokers and non-smokers to make those arguments.”
Hm. I guess I missed the part where you ran your “control experiment” on smokers to “determine the causation” so “those arguments” could be “scientifically supported.”
Laurent, please look up the definition of sophistry before laying it on with a trowel.
38. Laurent | 10.28.09
@Tip o’ the Hat
def, sophistry: subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation.
First, I didn’t run experiments on smokers - I’m not a medical health researcher. But, in this case, I have read the experimental documentation:
def, statistically significant: enough people were gathered for the study that the smoking correlation to cancer was there despite all other variations in the test subjects that could be a cause for the cancer(male/female, age, lifestyle, etc.). Also, people who did not smoke could get cancer, indicating that cancer did not cause smoking, establishing the causation.
The numbers in the study were the control experiment, because they went through the perturbations necessary to rule out other factors. Neither this type of control, nor the standard control experiment are available for the planet.
39. Chris G | 10.28.09
@35 Jeff W,
Please excuse the ad hominem, but are you daft?
“Goddard Space Institute with satellite data says something different.”
Here, try reading something written by the people who actually get data directly off the same satellites. The actual data and statistics on the data say something entirely the opposite of what you are saying.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
Don’t trust the NASA scientists’ math? OK, there has been the same kind of math, reaching the same conclusion, by different people.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g3pZF3gbssfBNMkLR3ICMGGAVu-wD9BITVL01
But more simply, who cares if the recent trend is slightly up, slightly down, or whatever? Why does it matter if individual months at certain locations are record lows (or record highs for that matter)? It doesn’t matter and no one should care. The rest of the data outweighs these cherry-picked outliers.
Laurent, you’re right; it is complicated. That is why there is honest, scientific debate on how much warming will be induced by X increase in CO2. There is no honest debate about whether it will cause warming. All those factors you mention have been examined (Although, I’m pretty sure that bit on mining as a potential significant influence on global temperature increase is a new one on me.), and the other factors you mention are either in the wrong direction, or are orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed warming. For instance, you’ve mentioned that ozone absorbs UV. That is true, but you neglected to mention that it also absorbs IR, which makes it another greenhouse gas.
40. Chris G | 10.28.09
Oops, got interrupted and cut my post shorter than I meant.
Laurent, your argument that a control is needed in order to call it science is kind of pointless. True, we don’t have a control. The best we have is a proxy record of what the planet has done in the past under various conditions. However, saying that we have no way of knowing what impact our increase in CO2 will have is like saying that people who understand the basic physics of forces, motion, and drag can make no intelligent estimates about where a projectile will go because they can only fire it once and the measurements they have of the projectile’s mass, potential energy of the charge, the atmospheric conditions, etc. are not extremely precise.
Speaking metaphorically, please do not make the mistake of thinking that the disagreements on whether the humidity is 75% or 80%, or the angle of launch is 44 or 46 degrees, somehow invalidate the general conclusion that the projectile will travel downrange 3 to 4 miles.
Tip and Richard, thanks.
41. Laurent | 10.28.09
Thank you Chris G for an argument with at least some scientific merit. I will try to address your statements.
The reason that we understand the relationships between force, velocity, and mass is because these parameters have a history of scientific testing. These parameters have been observed time and again, under controlled conditions. That’s why we can extend our observations and make predictions about projectile motion that allow us to send space probes to Jupiter and beyond.
Climate change doesn’t have this history. We have been making observations for many years, but without controlled conditions that allow us make comparisons of the effect. The greenhouse gas effect has been observed in isolation, true. But, for example, CO2 has also been observed to be released from solution with higher temperature (warm vs. cool soda, for instance). We have a lot of ocean with dissolved CO2 — enough, in fact, for it to account for the effect. Which is dominant, and on what time scale? Which is cause and effect? These are what we don’t understand, because temperature has ALWAYS trended with CO2, and we can’t get a baseline on the planetary system, or on all of the myriad causes for both CO2 release and temperature swings in our enormous system. And yes, there is still lively scientific debate about the causal relationship.
And yes, you are right about orders of magnitude of effect. We can argue that the humidity doesn’t affect the space launch significantly because it is a small effect ONLY because we have observed over and over the space launch under varying conditions of humidity and found it not to cause an effect, much like the huge number of smokers needed for the cancer experiments. But again, without the history of experiment, we can’t establish what the scale of the effect is for the planet.
This is my last comment. I enjoy the debate, but I hadn’t intended to teach a short course. I encourage everyone to engage doubt, and make the argument with yourself over whether CO2 induced climate change is a religious belief or a scientifically-backed theory.
42. Rick in Canada | 10.28.09
“Laurent, please look up the definition of sophistry before laying it on with a trowel”
Never before has there been a subject more deserving of the description “sophistic” than “Global Warming”. The two were made for each other.
43. Smack MacDougal | 10.29.09
In spite of much protestation by far too many with too much emotional investment into the hatred of all things mankind, the earth has been experiencing a 4.6 BILLION YEAR COOLING TREND.
It was so hot 4.6 billion years ago that no life existed on earth.
Only the duped who do not know that the Sun is the source of heat for the earth as well as the other planets surrounding the earth fall for the self-loathing “man is evil and is causing global warming” story.
In those with at least a 100 IQ would stop and then start to think, they might wonder why they call it the Solar System and not the Man-made System.
During warmer periods, men have done great acts like build the cathedrals of Europe and grow grapes in norther Great Britain.
Those priests of the Church of Academia who push the “man-made global warming” story either are dumb or disingenuous.
Now, if only persons would get riled up over something important like pollution in the lakes and streams where they live or pollution of the soils where they live, then such persons would become useful and justify why they should live beyond living as eating and defecating machines that support wily politicians who seek only to reign with Officialdom and squash Freedom.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. Cool Green Morning: Tuesday, October 20 | Cool Green Science: The Conservation Blog of The Nature Conservancy | 10.20.09
2. Twitter Trackbacks for Has global cooling begun? | csmonitor.com [csmonitor.com] on Topsy.com | 10.20.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Rick in Canada | 10.20.09
Relying on statistics and graphs produced by advocates of the global warming theory is a dubious proposition at best, a stupid one at worst. The famous and now much discredited “Hockey Stick” graph (and its methodology) by Mann is a case in point.