Global Cooling

[Anti-Mild]

GW, I wonder how NOAA's dot diagram indicating temperature anomalies would look when measured against the, more relevant, 71-00 base period.

Certainly, over the CET neck-of-the-woods there would be no dot whatsoever as the summer as a whole was only 0.1c above 71-00, whereas the diagram indicates that it was 2c above normal.

I cannot fathom out why they are using a base period that is 8 years out of date. Could it be because if the anomalies were measured against the more relevant period the results would appear much less impressive?

Edited September 17, 2008 by Anti-Mild

[weather eater]

The thing is with the global cooling arguement is it is circular in terms of concluding. Can we conclude that global warming in continuing if global temps drop? Can we conclude that global cooling doesnt exist if we only have a small time frame of data?

"How long is a piece of string?" is a phrase that often encompasses many of the discussions about cooling and warming with regards to enough evidence.

Nobody on either side of the argument would deny that warming has occurred the debate is by what mechanism. Even if we were to accept that the warming has leveled out for the last 10 years how do we know if this leveling out has occurred in the teeth of a natural downward trend that without human interference would have seen lower global temperatures as opposed to static ones for that period. Given what we know about greenhouses gasses it would seem to me to be highly unlikely that we are not having an impact. For those that think our impact can only be slight look at what happened re CFCs and the hole in the ozone layer and the impact that a ban on CFCs has had.

[eddie]

http://www.climate4you.com/images/EQUATOR%...201998-2006.gif

Not much warming going on here. Where's the heat energy gonna come from to turn that around - the sleeping sun,pockets of warmth hidden somewhere in the ocean depths,CO2 generating heat from nothing?

I don't think I have ever seen a 9 year baseline used in a chart like that before. I wonder why that is?

[Filski]

Indeed ! Yes, the long term average applies.

During a 'volcanic eruption event' period is the CO2 level still 1/150th of the human induced variety? Seems a strange claim to me, but then, of course, you forgot to mention the average ..... again. Unless, of course, you *do* mean over the 2-3 years you are talking about. But then is the 2-3 years an average life time of volcanic contributions, or not (you don't say) and which average do you mean? Mean, median, mode? You don't say - is it for us to imply? Over what time frame are you measuring the 'long life span' in the atmosphere? Guess work for us, again, maybe?

Might just be better for you to post your source, I reckon.

Me ... humble pie? Every day mate, every single day. I'm always glad to be wrong.

Quite clearly above I stated that CO2 has a life span of 80-100 years in the atmosphere. What good does it do to compare the output of a single massive eruption, that may or may not come along every couple of decades or even centuries, in a few days/weeks to the increase from humans over the same day/week period? None, none at all. Officially and as accepted by the scientific community and published widely, the annual volume of CO2 from volcanoes is around 150-230 million tonnes. This is several magnitudes below the contribution from humans at 27-30 BILLION tonnes.

This is just another 'look over there' tactic from the sceptic community. Imagine blaming the the co2 output from volcanoes, even Pinatubo didn't release enough CO2 to affect temperatures. You're confusing the issue (see comment about SO2 and dust).

[VillagePlank]

Quite clearly above I stated that CO2 has a life span of 80-100 years in the atmosphere. What good does it do to compare the output of a single massive eruption, that may or may not come along every couple of decades or even centuries, in a few days/weeks to the increase from humans over the same day/week period? None, none at all. Officially and as accepted by the scientific community and published widely, the annual volume of CO2 from volcanoes is around 150-230 million tonnes. This is several magnitudes below the contribution from humans at 27-30 BILLION tonnes.

This is just another 'look over there' tactic from the sceptic community. Imagine blaming the the co2 output from volcanoes, even Pinatubo didn't release enough CO2 to affect temperatures. You're confusing the issue (see comment about SO2 and dust).

[self-moderated]

Can you post a link for the amounts, please? I have a genuine interest. Presume that the conclusion is down to isotope analysis?

Edited September 17, 2008 by VillagePlank

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

??????

Hi W.E.!

you will find the same kinda thing over on the arctic ice thread this year. Because ice levels haven't dropped to the phenomenal lows of 2007 folk will claim 'recovery' even though it is the second lowest ice level ever monitored and the lowest ice volume ever monitored.

What use is it to pull up freakishly high temp years (or freakishly low ice levels) and make them some kind of 'mode' to measure all else by????

No fear, we recognise the unmistakable trends

Cherry picked or what!!!!! 4 months in 2008 have been below the 71-00 average and some fractionally above so those reds wouldn't be there. Produce a graph showing 80 - 08 average and the graph would be alomost ALL BLUE!!!!!!!!!

No fear I recognise the unmistakeable cherry pick

BFTP

BFTP

[weather eater]

Cherry picked or what!!!!! 4 months in 2008 have been below the 71-00 average and some fractionally above so those reds wouldn't be there. Produce a graph showing 80 - 08 average and the graph would be alomost ALL BLUE!!!!!!!!!

No fear I recognise the unmistakeable cherry pick

BFTP

BFTP

Fred 4 months in 2008 below the 71-00 average is proof of what exactly. I rpeat my challenge of earlier can anybody produce figures that show real global cooling in the last few years.

[osmposm]

http://www.climate4you.com/images/EQUATOR%...201998-2006.gif

Not much warming going on here. Where's the heat energy gonna come from to turn that around - the sleeping sun,pockets of warmth hidden somewhere in the ocean depths,CO2 generating heat from nothing?

As others have said, I don't think I've ever seen such as nakedly biased selection of time frame....it runs for um...9 years. Why not make it 10 by adding 2007? Because 2007 was the third equal warmest year gobally (NASA/GISS land-and-ocean figures). Why not make it 10 by adding 1997? Because 1997 was only the ninth warmest year. Either of which would have given a rather different picture.

By the way, it is often stated or implied on here and elsewhere that 1998 was the global temp high point from which we have now levelled or declined. Statistically-speaking, if you deliberately select 1998 as your start point, for the smoothed line that is true. But individual years are another matter.

For land-and-ocean, 2005 was warmer than 1998. And if you look at the land-only figures, 1998 was beaten by both 2005 & 2007, or if you prefer the slightly different NCDC/NOAA numbers, by 2005, 2007, and 2002 as well.

The reason, by the way, that 1961-1990 is used - frustratingly - when talking of global temps, is that it is still the internationally-agreed 30 year period for meteorological data by the WMO (World Meteorological Organisation). Although many richer countries, like the UK, can and do update the period every decade for their own data, I understand that many poorer countries do not have the resources to do so. Personally, I can't, for the life of me, see why that should affect the presentation of satellite-derived data, and I agree that it tends to allow an unnecessary apparent flaw in the argument - though one of relevance only to this limited, and probably pointless (since it's too soon to tell), discussion of whether or not there has been significant cooling in the last ten years.

Edited September 17, 2008 by osmposm

[0000]

As others have said, I don't think I've ever seen such as nakedly biased selection of time frame....it runs for um...9 years. Why not make it 10 by adding 2007? Because 2007 was the third equal warmest year gobally (NASA/GISS land-and-ocean figures). Why not make it 10 by adding 1997? Because 1997 was only the ninth warmest year. Either of which would have given a rather different picture.

By the way, it is often stated or implied on here and elsewhere that 1998 was the global temp high point from which we have now levelled or declined. Statistically-speaking, if you deliberately select 1998 as your start point, for the smoothed line that is true. But individual years are another matter.

For land-and-ocean, 2005 was warmer than 1998. And if you look at the land-only figures, 1998 was beaten by both 2005 & 2007, or if you prefer the slightly different NCDC/NOAA numbers, by 2005, 2007, and 2002 as well.

The reason, by the way, that 1961-1990 is used - frustratingly - when talking of global temps, is that it is still the internationally-agreed 30 year period for meteorological data by the WMO (World Meteorological Organisation). Although many richer countries, like the UK, can and do update the period every decade for their own data, I understand that many poorer countries do not have the resources to do so. Personally, I can't, for the life of me, see why that should affect the presentation of satellite-derived data, and I agree that it tends to allow an unnecessary apparent flaw in the argument - though one of relevance only to this limited, and probably pointless (since it's too soon to tell), discussion of whether or not there has been significant cooling in the last ten years.

So basically osmposm your saying that the data can be manipulated to tell a tale either way......then what's the point?

As you say it's too soon to tell globaly so maybe debating regional climate change would be the way forward?

[osmposm]

So basically osmposm your saying that the data can be manipulated to tell a tale either way......then what's the point?

As you say it's too soon to tell globaly so maybe debating regional climate change would be the way forward?

In a way, yes, though you would be surprised if I didn't suggest that the 'anti' camp does more manipulating than the 'pros'! The 'pros' use a minimum 30-year reference period, and generally much longer; the 'antis' are apparently currently reduced to looking at just the last 9 when looking for recent cooling, or in the case of those interested just in the UK, the last 18 months. Except that, of course, the 'antis' also like to draw attention to multi-hundred, multi-thousand or even multi-million year cycles, so in one sense we are all being selective, yes.

The point, if nothing else, is to help increase our collective knowledge. I knew next to nothing about the details of cooling & warming, ice cover, arctic webcams & buoys, Canadian Archipelago geography and the rest when I began tentatively posting in the Climate Change area some months ago. Everything I have posted since then has been recently-acquired knowledge (or misinformation according to some). It's often been hard and time-consuming work - no, really.....sourcing, extracting, processing, calculating, illustrating and then trying to explain in good English, has not infrequently taken me literally hours for just one important post - but then I am a bit of a pompous perfectionist. But whatever the frustrations of our circular arguments, and even if I've not changed the mind of a single non-posting lurker, I don't regret a minute of the time spent, because I rather archaically believe in knowledge for its own sake.

I'm not sure a purely regional climate change debate would be any more fruitful. The real problems, as I see them, are global. And besides, local climatic variations can obscure the overall picture, and are often used as 'proof' that something is or isn't happening globally. AtlanticFlamethrower, for example, confidently displays at the bottom of his Avatar "1934 joint-warmest year on record - NASA". Unfortunately that is only true of the contiguous (i.e. excluding Alaska & Hawaii) United States - 1934 does not even begin to feature in the list of record warm years for the planet (or the UK for that matter). And every year we hear of 'record-breaking cold' in one location or another as a demonstration that the planet isn't warming at all. Here in the UK the problem is more in the opposite direction - up to now we seem to have warmed more extremely than the world as a whole, and we 'pros' may have over-emphasized our own depressing experience in our arguments. But then if the British winter is at all colder this year (please, PLEASE can it be), we both know that there will be a host of posts celebrating the end of global warming.

I think it's safer to take a longer, wider view, but keep giving the picture as we see it all along the way - even though we may turn out to be wrong in some of the things we originally thought. No final answers, but our best informed and honest opinions - just like the best science, in fact.

EDIT: PS Thanks for your PM, Phil. It's easy to believe in one's paranoia that a debating opponent may be just winding you up, and your message was a thoughtful and much appreciated way of ensuring that I didn't. It's a good idea, and you're a good man.

Edited September 18, 2008 by osmposm

[0000]

In a way, yes, though you would be surprised if I didn't suggest that the 'anti' camp does more manipulating than the 'pros'! The 'pros' use a minimum 30-year reference period, and generally much longer; the 'antis' are apparently currently reduced to looking at just the last 9 when looking for recent cooling, or in the case of those interested just in the UK, the last 18 months. Except that, of course, the 'antis' also like to draw attention to multi-hundred, multi-thousand or even multi-million year cycles, so in one sense we are all being selective, yes.

The point, if nothing else, is to help increase our collective knowledge. I knew next to nothing about the details of cooling & warming, ice cover, arctic webcams & buoys, Canadian Archipelago geography and the rest when I began tentatively posting in the Climate Change area some months ago. Everything I have posted since then has been recently-acquired knowledge (or misinformation according to some). It's often been hard and time-consuming work - no, really.....sourcing, extracting, processing, calculating, illustrating and then trying to explain in good English, has not infrequently taken me literally hours for just one important post - but then I am a bit of a pompous perfectionist. But whatever the frustrations of our circular arguments, and even if I've not changed the mind of a single non-posting lurker, I don't regret a minute of the time spent, because I rather archaically believe in knowledge for its own sake.

I'm not sure a purely regional climate change debate would be any more fruitful. The real problems, as I see them, are global. And besides, local climatic variations can obscure the overall picture, and are often used as 'proof' that something is or isn't happening globally. AtlanticFlamethrower, for example, confidently displays at the bottom of his Avatar "1934 joint-warmest year on record - NASA". Unfortunately that is only true of the contiguous (i.e. excluding Alaska & Hawaii) United States - 1934 does not even begin to feature in the list of record warm years for the planet (or the UK for that matter). And every year we hear of 'record-breaking cold' in one location or another as a demonstration that the planet isn't warming at all. Here in the UK the problem is more in the opposite direction - up to now we seem to have warmed more extremely than the world as a whole, and we 'pros' may have over-emphasized our own depressing experience in our arguments. But then if the British winter is at all colder this year (please, PLEASE can it be), we both know that there will be a host of posts celebrating the end of global warming.

I think it's safer to take a longer, wider view, but keep giving the picture as we see it all along the way - even though we may turn out to be wrong in some of the things we originally thought. No final answers, but our best informed and honest opinions - just like the best science, in fact.

EDIT: PS Thanks for your PM, Phil. It's easy to believe in one's paranoia that a debating opponent may be just winding you up, and your message was a thoughtful and much appreciated way of ensuring that I didn't. It's a good idea, and you're a good man.

Well all I can possibly say to such a well presented and eloquently put arguement is I may disagree on a few points but you can't argue with the intelligence and heartfelt belief behind that amazing post!.

Thank you osmposm............I will certainly take that information onboard

You are an absolute Gentleman.

[osmposm]

You've embarrassed me, now.

Edited September 18, 2008 by osmposm

[0000]

You've embarrassed me, now. :o

Well played Ossie mate,top post.......................Phil

[laserguy]

I don't think I have ever seen a 9 year baseline used in a chart like that before. I wonder why that is?

Pure,unashamed cherry-picking,but at least it runs to the present date. All the fuss over warming essentially starts around '79,which just coincides with the end of the post-war cool period,and when the enviro types were getting over the ice-age nonsense doing the rounds at the time. Hey,if those tactics are good enough for the AGW mob... The said warming period is over,finished.Why use the period commencing 1998,you ask? Ah,that being allegedly the warmest year,it's all downhill from there -can't lose! Should really continue to rise according to the CO2 claptrap,but never mind. However,El Nino's are actually cooling events,where accumulated oceanic heat is imparted to the atmosphere. Since then,rising levels of CO2 have failed to retain that input,and the oceans themselves have exhibited a steady decline in temps. All the heat has probably cleared off to the Arctic! Speaking of which,don't accurate records for that only go back to...'79! What's going down there right now is nothing new whatsover,but this time round it is of course due to the actions of us insignificant specks of nothing.Sorry for the 'attitude',I'm in the grim period of a heavy cold bordering on 'flu,and shall now take again to my sweat soaked,electric blanket heated bed whilst enduring crashing headaches and achey everything amidst the alternating spells of shivering cold and high fever - just like the planet really!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Well, the fact is LG, if the climate showed a warming over the past 9 years, and a cooling over the last 30 years, you would be jumping on the 30-year cooling and arguing that the 9 years was just a blip. Because your viewpoint is that AGW is a myth; therefore "evidence" (fitted around the premise that AGW is a myth) is X, Y and Z, and therefore by X, Y and Z, it follows that AGW is a myth- circular reasoning.

You accuse the pro-AGW "camp" of ignoring natural variability, yet by dismissing AGW on the grounds that temperatures have been consistent since 1998 you are guilty of just that, because it stands to reason that if we have, say, 0.2C worth of AGW over a decade, and 0.2C of natural cooling forcing, we would end up with no significant change in global temperature despite the anthropogenic warming component still going strong.

[Chris Knight]

Cherry picked or what!!!!! 4 months in 2008 have been below the 71-00 average and some fractionally above so those reds wouldn't be there. Produce a graph showing 80 - 08 average and the graph would be alomost ALL BLUE!!!!!!!!!

No fear I recognise the unmistakeable cherry pick

BFTP

BFTP

This is the diagram GW should have been using, BFTP. It is so much more meaningful

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

This is the diagram GW should have been using, BFTP. It is so much more meaningful

Lol

Folks, indeed recent cooling isn't proof of the pudding however, it must be accepted that a trend has to start from somewhere and this last 10 years and last 8 months could...could be cooling evidence. We will ceratinly be in a clearer picture in 5 years time and it has to be agreed that time is ticking on.

BFTP

[0000]

Lol

Folks, indeed recent cooling isn't proof of the pudding however, it must be accepted that a trend has to start from somewhere and this last 10 years and last 8 months could...could be cooling evidence. We will ceratinly be in a clearer picture in 5 years time and it has to be agreed that time is ticking on.

BFTP

If the cooling trend continues for the next 18 months or so(if)then surely it will be accepted that we just don't know what's happening and our abiltity to interperate the complexities of the global climate are basicaly flawed,this period of time could be placed in the historical scientific footnotes as 'could/should have done better'

An honest unbiased graph of what's been happening temp' wise would be a marvellous read indeed,does such an item exist I wonder?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Global temperature, HadCRUT3, 1840-2007:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Note that the graph shows the levelling off since 1998 as well as the warming from 1975 to 1998. In the longer term context, it's worth noting that around 1998, most years were coming in at 0.1-0.2C lower than now, suggesting that although the trend line shows a levelling off, the real baseline is still going up.

There is no such thing as a completely unbiased graph of global temperature because of the vast uncertainties early in the record, but we can be highly confident of the trends over the last 20 years or so. The IPCC's suggested warming of 0.6C over the period 1861-2000, for example, is subject to an uncertainty of +/- 0.2C or thereabouts.

[laserguy]

There is no such thing as a completely unbiased graph of global temperature because of the vast uncertainties early in the record, but we can be highly confident of the trends over the last 20 years or so. The IPCC's suggested warming of 0.6C over the period 1861-2000, for example, is subject to an uncertainty of +/- 0.2C or thereabouts.

You can say that again. So let's work on the IPCC's suggested warming of 0.6C over a 140 year span with an error margin of +/- 0.2C. Jeez,this warming is really outta control. And why is it that the government funded IPCC is assumed to be the authority on climate change above everyone else? On their track record for failed predictions and manipulated data I would not give them the time of day. You're also saying that the plateauing of temps over the last decade or so,and the precipitous falls of the last approx 18 months do not a trend make. Fine,but they quash the CO2 forcing scenario stone dead. So if we've got to wait another 20 years to establish that a trend is going on,I'll most likely be dead by then - from the cold. You win,either way. As for right now,cooling has the upper hand,in spades. For some reason or another,as suggested in your earlier post,you seem to think I actually want global temps to fall borne of personal preference. Why,oh why should that be so? Cold= hunger,misery,death,resource wars. Warmth= life,prosperity,food aplenty.

[Red Raven]

You can say that again. So let's work on the IPCC's suggested warming of 0.6C over a 140 year span with an error margin of +/- 0.2C. Jeez,this warming is really outta control. And why is it that the government funded IPCC is assumed to be the authority on climate change above everyone else? On their track record for failed predictions and manipulated data I would not give them the time of day. You're also saying that the plateauing of temps over the last decade or so,and the precipitous falls of the last approx 18 months do not a trend make. Fine,but they quash the CO2 forcing scenario stone dead. So if we've got to wait another 20 years to establish that a trend is going on,I'll most likely be dead by then - from the cold. You win,either way. As for right now,cooling has the upper hand,in spades. For some reason or another,as suggested in your earlier post,you seem to think I actually want global temps to fall borne of personal preference. Why,oh why should that be so? Cold= hunger,misery,death,resource wars. Warmth= life,prosperity,food aplenty.

If only it were that simple. It is more correct to say climate change = hunger, misery, death, resource wars. Up or down any rapid change is very bad news for the world us humans have evolved to thrive in.

[Thundery wintry showers]

You can say that again. So let's work on the IPCC's suggested warming of 0.6C over a 140 year span with an error margin of +/- 0.2C. Jeez,this warming is really outta control. And why is it that the government funded IPCC is assumed to be the authority on climate change above everyone else? On their track record for failed predictions and manipulated data I would not give them the time of day. You're also saying that the plateauing of temps over the last decade or so,and the precipitous falls of the last approx 18 months do not a trend make. Fine,but they quash the CO2 forcing scenario stone dead. So if we've got to wait another 20 years to establish that a trend is going on,I'll most likely be dead by then - from the cold. You win,either way. As for right now,cooling has the upper hand,in spades. For some reason or another,as suggested in your earlier post,you seem to think I actually want global temps to fall borne of personal preference. Why,oh why should that be so? Cold= hunger,misery,death,resource wars. Warmth= life,prosperity,food aplenty.

I'm not saying you seem to want temperatures to drop, I'm noting that your arguments are primarily circular as you want AGW to be a myth (for whatever reasons), use that as a premise to fit "evidence" around, and then conclude from this "evidence" that AGW is a myth. It would be unreasonable of me to jump to conclusions as to the reason for this bias, but I've seen enough to convince me that much of the reasoning is essentially circular.

I would never claim that the IPCC is an infallible agency, and I doubt many of the scientists here at the Climatic Research Unit at UEA would either.

And, as I posted earlier, plateauing of temps does not quash the CO2 forcing scenario stone dead. If CO2 forcing contributed 0.2C to anthropogenic warming over a given period, but this period also had 0.2C of natural cooling forcing, we would end up with a change close to zero. Also, anthropogenic outputs are not limited to CO2, e.g. methane, deforestation, contrails, aerosols etc.

[stewfox]

If only it were that simple. It is more correct to say climate change = hunger, misery, death, resource wars. Up or down any rapid change is very bad news for the world us humans have evolved to thrive in.

Even worse for any potential future snowmen , they wont know where they stand or melt

I assume when we say ‘rapid’ we mean inadequate time for man to adapt ie what 10-50 years ??

[Red Raven]

Even worse for any potential future snowmen , they wont know where they stand or melt

I assume when we say ‘rapid’ we mean inadequate time for man to adapt ie what 10-50 years ??

Yep. Other species may see 500-1000 year time frame to be rapid.

[stewfox]

Yep. Other species may see 500-1000 year time frame to be rapid.

Like my grandmother getting her to change from Black and White to Colour TV, took years and years