backtop


Print 154 comment(s) - last by Frances.. on Apr 26 at 4:57 PM


The WMO attributes La Nina currents for cooling world temperatures  (Source: NASA)
Cooling Trend expected to continue throughout most of year

Earlier this year, DailyTech ignited a firestorm of debate with a pair of articles that demonstrated global temperatures had dipped sharply, along with predictions from scientists that the trend would continue.  The stories were picked up by hundreds of other news agencies and blogs; some even accused us of chicanery and fraud.

Now, the United Nations World Meteorological Association has somewhat ruefully weighed in to agree with what climate researchers have been saying all year: global temperatures have indeed dropped, and are expected to continue to do so throughout most of 2008. The cool spell means global temperatures have been on the decline for a full ten years, since early 1998.

WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud chalks up the cooling to La Nina effects, and says it doesn't mean global warming isn't a serious problem. "When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming." Adam Scaife, lead scientist at the UK's Hadley Center for Climate Modeling, says he's confident that "within a few years" a new record temperature will be set.

However, some are calling the UN's stance nothing but spin control. Paleoclimatologist Bob Carter of James Cook University says the IPCC is in "full panic mode" and positioning themselves to "explain away" declining temperatures. Lord Monckton of Brenchley, science advisor to the Thatcher administration and a regular commentator on climate issues, tells DailyTech none of the IPCC's computer models can explain a decade of cooling.

Monckton, who considers the reporting on global warming to be the latest in a lengthy list of "needless and scientifically unjustified" environmental scares, says warming "may resume in future years [but] is self-evidently less than official forecasts, and very likely to be harmless."

Regardless of the cause, many are hoping the cooling ends soon. The past year saw dozens of nations struggle through record low temperatures and massive amounts of snowfall. If the trend doesn't reverse quickly, next year will be even more bitterly cold.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

slick
By TheDoc9 on 4/5/2008 8:15:24 PM , Rating: 4
Now the UN is trying to ease us over into Climate Change instead of Global Warming since they can't explain a damn thing. I guess it'll be icy in hell before they admit they were wrong.




RE: slick
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/5/2008 8:37:31 PM , Rating: 3
That's pretty normal for the UN. They will never admit they were wrong.


RE: slick
By B3an on 4/6/2008 2:39:27 AM , Rating: 2
So exactly the same as the US government then.


RE: slick
By lompocus on 4/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: slick
By Ringold on 4/6/2008 4:09:07 AM , Rating: 1
Well, to be fair, NATO allies have peacekeepers in a lot of places, and some times they manage to not make things worse and actually accomplish something, however small.

And the African Union has troops in various places, same story.

Of course, neither can hope to ever accomplish as much as we could if we were doing the same task, but better then nothing.


RE: slick
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/6/2008 10:17:45 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Well, to be fair, NATO allies have peacekeepers in a lot of places, and some times they manage to not make things worse and actually accomplish something, however small.

As long as their objectives are clear from the start yes. NATO has problems when politicians start calling the shots and adjusting the mandates, just like the U.S. (See Iraq/Afghanistan)

quote:
And the African Union has troops in various places, same story.

The only reason they have troops anywhere is because the UN and old Koffi put them there. Frankly they don't measure up next to real troops of most other countries.

quote:
Of course, neither can hope to ever accomplish as much as we could if we were doing the same task, but better then nothing.

Politics in one country trying to accomplish something militarily is difficult. Involving several (NATO) makes it far worse if they don't have a fire lit under them. Due to U.S. power projection we haven't had to fight a war in our back yard in a very long time. This helps us correctly by keeping our civilians and infrastructure out of dodge but causes a detachment from the battles the military fights. This leads to all these peace type movements that have no place in the modern world. Peace is something the world is not ready for, and will not be ready for anytime soon.


RE: slick
By lompocus on 4/6/2008 12:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's good to promote peace, and to promote living so as to promote peace everywhere, but what is NOT acceptable for any power is anti-war movements in the middle of an ongoing war. Pulling out of war is essentially like, I dunno, investing 3 months into a Crysis SP map and then deleting the file before the turn in date.

You're right on every other point, unfourtunately. That's what happens when the military isn't allowed to totally obliterate it's objective. The job still gets done, I guess...it just takes way too much more time than it should need.

Remove politicians from any military venture for the US and tada world peace in 10 years!


RE: slick
By Manch on 4/6/2008 11:59:50 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah it's pretty sad about how politics and their lawyers have undermined the current operations and some of the more previous ones.

Pretty much anytime you have any kind of OP going their is a lawyer appointed whose sole purpose is to determine whether or not it violates LOAC or ROE.

Unfortunately more often than not they do not understand enough of WTF is going on. Also because of the current political climate their are a lot of knee jerk reactions over nothing and the delays and bullshit get in the way of getting the damn job done.


RE: slick
By Ringold on 4/7/2008 7:17:29 PM , Rating: 1
I'm no valiant defender of multi-lateral left-wing feel-good group-hug peacekeeper missions that accomplish little (like the UN peace keepers in south Lebanon that will only get in the way the next time shooting starts), but I was really trying to get to the idea that other people asides from ourselves have at tried to do good in their own neighborhoods, and some times they've even been half successful. I agree with you on all points.


RE: slick
By lompocus on 4/6/2008 8:35:09 PM , Rating: 1
lol, so funny, this post started with a rating of 2 and went down to 0. Isn't funny how anything saying the opposite of a previous post, and when providing a small amount of information regarding teh subject matter (The US does not suck), it gets rated down, but when its any non-us country it's rating goes sky-high! How funny.


RE: slick
By sweetsauce on 4/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: slick
By Jim28 on 4/7/2008 11:04:05 AM , Rating: 1
That is quite funny let me know when you find weapons of "math death". I doubt you find them but I always hated math anyway!.
If you are European, it is quite astonishing out how short your memories are. I guess Europeans did no wrong eh? If you think so how about read some history for once, instead of opening your mouth to spew hot air.
If you are an American, god help you.


RE: slick
By Spuke on 4/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: slick
By Spuke on 4/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: slick
By phattyboombatty on 4/7/2008 1:19:44 PM , Rating: 1
I think you get automatically rated down for the use of certain language.


RE: slick
By Maluno on 4/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: slick
By Maluno on 4/7/2008 8:52:31 PM , Rating: 2
Huh... Doesn't appear to be the case. o_o.


RE: slick
By lompocus on 4/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: slick
By eye smite on 4/9/2008 6:39:51 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, I'm sure Iraq would have been better off with Sadam in place continuing to kill people cause they didn't obey his little rules. Oh yeah, would have been better to keep the UN in there as well so that Dutch companies could charge for 31 days worth of work in the month of February, yeah.


RE: slick
By jcrash on 4/10/2008 5:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
Actually you are correct. The WORLD and Iraq would've been better off.

Just because democracy works here, doesn't mean it will work everywhere. If the average person has a 2nd grade education, is brought up on hatred and violence, then guess what? The democratic process is lost on them. They only want to kill whoever they are currently feuding with.

What we did was remove the barriers to said feuds and throw them back into the dark ages in terms of food, clothing and electricity.

Further, back on the actual subject - OF COURSE THE WORLD WILL COOL DOWN WHEN YOU MELT THE POLAR ICE CAPS. Do a heat balance - all that cold water entering the oceans will TEMPORARILY cause cooling, but eventually, you will warm up even more because the caps will keep warming while the rest of the world enjoys the slight cooling spell. The Northwest passage is already open. Once you run out of icecubes, guess what? Your drink WARMS UP!


RE: slick
By jbartabas on 4/6/2008 12:26:05 PM , Rating: 1
They were wrong about what exactly here? Some models have been wrong before and improved, so I don't think that there is any denial of uncertainty in the IPCC. That's how it should work anyway.

What does the fact that 2008 will be 'slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific' (to use the exact words of the BBC journalist) has anything to do with proving the UN wrong?

Is there something like 'it is certain that yearly averaged global temperature will continuously increase without any short term modulation due to climate variability' in the IPCC report? Would you be kind enough to quote it?


RE: slick
By rsmech on 4/6/2008 5:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some models have been wrong before and improved, so I don't think that there is any denial of uncertainty in the IPCC. That's how it should work anyway.


So if you admit that the models have been wrong, have been changed, how can you say now that they are right and they won't be changed again? YOU CAN'T.

So why should I have to pay more, get taxed more, or change my lifestyle over a guess that easily cost billions if not trillions of dollars? I dislike universal health care, but with this kind of money being wasted it sure sounds like a better idea to waste it on then what you just admitted to as UNCERTAINTY.


RE: slick
By jbartabas on 4/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: slick
By masher2 (blog) on 4/6/2008 6:57:53 PM , Rating: 5
The difference here is that the theory of gravity was a model that instantly gave us accurate, verifiable predictions which we could test the model against. The model had both utility and predictive ability.

Global Climate Models, on the other hand, have never once been able to predict future climate conditions In fact, the IPCC is even now positioning themselves to ensure that their predictions can never be used against them, as in this recent quote from Kevin Trenbarth, lead author of the IPCC's Climate Change section, AR4:
quote:
I have often seen references to predictions of future climate by the ... In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been . The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” ...None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.

Still worse, many CAGW proponents are now shifting the debate from a falsifiable theory that can be proven or disproven, to an unfalsifiable one that chalks up any extreme weather event -- be it warming, cooling, drought, or flood -- to mankind's influence. This isn't science, it's blind faith...and a very dangerous one at that.


RE: slick
By Murst on 4/7/2008 4:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Global Climate Models, on the other hand, have never once been able to predict future climate conditions

In 2000, a comparison between measurements and dozens of GCM simulations of ENSO-driven tropical precipitation, water vapor, temperature, and outgoing longwave radiation found similarity between measurements and simulation of most factors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model

Sure, wikipedia has been wrong sometimes, but your statement just seems absurd.


RE: slick
By phattyboombatty on 4/7/2008 5:17:09 PM , Rating: 4
The study referenced by the wikipedia link you cited didn't predict any future events. The author simply punched in several known variables from the past into multiple GCM's and looked to see whether the GCM's accurately spit out the corresponding variables known by the author.
The ironic thing about you citing to that study is that the main focus of that study was to see how well the GCM's modeled precipitation intensity, and the author found that the GCM's were way off.


RE: slick
By rsmech on 4/6/2008 9:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to have missed my point which is why should this be costing me anything? Why am I taxed? Why are politicians proposing to limit or change my behavior? I don't discount the fact that science is progressing. The difference is why are people hellbent on an immature field of science as we should both be able to agree that from the disagreements within the field itself it has far to mature. Just because on side is louder doesn't make them right.

I must apologize for your misunderstanding of religion; I receive no scientific certainties from church. This is where I find FAITH & it's not faith in man.


RE: slick
By robinthakur on 4/7/2008 9:45:04 AM , Rating: 5
The whole point of the Global warming confidence trick, now conveniently renamed as Climate change to save the UN's blushes, is to extract as much money out of you as possible into the hands of government.

In the UK, this translates as Carbon Credits, congestion charging, more car controls and surcharges, Home Environmental Efficiency Packs, the price of petrol (in the UK 80% of the price of petrol goes to the government as Tax!), green taxes and mass guilt about flying.

I have nothing against improving the condition of the sea or reducing pollution, as a goal in and of itself, it benefits everybody with more recycling and less landfill.

However this seeming new climate change faith, in common with all mass religions was devised purely for mass control of the populace through fear. As noted above it will be interesting to watch people gradually spin the truth into a new far more deadly thing to be afraid of when this prohecy is not fulfilled.

That this particular cult is lead ostensibly by 'scientists' only makes the entire field of science look like utter hokum and is deeply embarassing. At one point in the early 90's when the whole environmental death plan changed from an incoming Ice Age which was going to kill everybody to Global Warming, it was possible to ignore the vocal minority and go about your business. Now this is not the case as their mouthy lobby has invaded government and succeeded in convincing sharp operating politicos that people are actually very willing to pay good money to try and change the way that the earth's climate behaves. Its just not possible. At what point did we all lose the plot here? People should be worried enough about oil running out and environmental pollution; climate change is a natural cycle.

Paying more money to the government and then expecting it to be used to change the ecology of the planet would insult the intelligence of a child. Where's your extra money being spent? Some of it is being used to kill people in Iraq and Afghanistan, alot of it is used up funding Politicians and their family's expenses and the rest is either used to plug the inefficiencies in government spending or kept safe in the central bank to shore up the currency. If politicians were so concerned, why do they fly to environmental summits in polluting aircrafts?

All it seems to take to induce mass panic is a few shots on the anecdotal news of a dead polar bear, anecdotal video of ice sheets collapsing (which we're helpfully informed "never normally happens") anecdotal opinons of people stating that they've never witnessed this sort of weather etc" and some very dodgy interpretations of 150 year climate data, which seem to omit the basic fact that the temperature of the earth has been cooling since the 1930's when the peak was recorded. One of the reasons politicians take this so seriously now is that polls and research have suggested that voters take it seriously. I would instead posit that we've all been force-fed mass hysteria through a straw by the very people we place our collective faith in.


RE: slick
By dever on 4/7/2008 4:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
I, too, am amazed at how so many people want to fine businesses. How can you not realize that these fines are just additional taxes on you, the individual when you consume products.

Instead, if companies are truly participating in harmful practices, your choice as a consumer is to not purchase what they are selling. If you everyone believes the AGW hype, they have the choice to limit their carbon output. Politicians instead override the collective will of their consuming constituencies and impose coercive restrictions on their consumption, because they believe they are superior.


RE: slick
By mkrech on 4/8/2008 1:31:34 PM , Rating: 1
RE: slick
By clovell on 4/14/2008 1:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
The current La Nina has been in effect since 2006. The place where this 'report' falls apart is that the global temperatures decreased from 1998 to 2005 - even through a record breaking El Nino.

These schmucks need to realize they can't have it both ways. First, they claimed AGW was responsible for the increase in tropical cyclone activity during the last El Nino event - completely ignoring ENSO. Now that everyone sees they're full of crap, they're running to use ENSO to explain away the temperature decline, and praying that nobody thinks about what happened in the other 7 years before our current La Nina started.


RE: slick
By Paul David on 4/6/2008 3:37:37 AM , Rating: 2
I would suggest all involved in this blog to check BBC's correction to this story, which is found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799....

Basically it was an example of sloppy journalism. The TV piece that accompanies this story was accurate. The premise that you are al fixated on (that temps have not risen since 1998) is incorrect, and BBC fixed it. Fact is 11 of the past 12 years are the hottest on record, with 98 the warmest. Just because subsequent years have not been as hot as 98, does not mean temperature warming is not continuing. Those subsequent years are still above than the long-term historical average, which means temps are rising. All La Nina has done is cool things for this year. Imagine what would the temperature be if La Nina had not hit?

So, please the read the story and, like BBC, consider correcting this blog.


RE: slick
By lompocus on 4/6/2008 3:41:56 AM , Rating: 1
It has been raining like mad at uncommon times here. In previous years it was warmer, but anyone with an iq better than a mentally retarded idiot can notice that it has been noticeably cooler in at least the past 3 years.


RE: slick
By Ringold on 4/6/2008 4:30:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Imagine what would the temperature be if La Nina had not hit?


But what of all the other years after 98 that have failed to be as warm?

Is La Nina the excuse every year?

How many years must pass without breaching the 98 high before theories get reconsidered?


RE: slick
By porkpie on 4/6/2008 10:57:32 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Fact is 11 of the past 12 years are the hottest on record
Don't exaggerate. It's actually 8 out of 10. And its funny that whenever people say this, they never mention "the record" only stretches back less than 150 years. It also begins right at the end of the Little Ice age, when the planet was already warming up. It certainly wasn't man that started that warming trend.

Now, some inconvenient facts. The planet is still COOLER than it was during Medieval times. And temps have been going down since 1998. Yes the values are still above a "baseline" average, but the trend points down.

You can't explain away 10 years of cooling (soon to be 11) with a bunch of hand-waving about El Ninos. The models all predicted we'd be 2-4 degrees warmer than we are by now. They certainly didn't predict a decade or two of cooling.


RE: slick
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/6/2008 12:35:26 PM , Rating: 3
Paul,

I did not see a retraction or correction in the link you posted. It's the same link that we posted so I'm guessing you just hit paste on the wrong link.

I'm all for posting a retraction but I haven't seen anything that disagrees with what we or the BBC posted.

"Imagine what would the temperature be if La Nina had not hit?"

As discussed in the BBC article and various other climate blogs, some suggest La Nina might be a feedback mechanism.


RE: slick
By nstott on 4/6/2008 9:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
So, if the BBC couldn't get it right before, why should we trust them to get it right now?


RE: slick
By rcc on 4/10/2008 5:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yet, if we expand the window from 11-12 years, to 1000, 100,000 or 1 million years, I think you'll find we are still cooling. Data is really great, if you apply the filters properly you can pretty much dictate the results.


RE: slick
By clovell on 4/14/2008 1:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
Or, please consider that our current La Nina started in 2006 and global temperatures decreased through the last El Nino. Maybe you should imagine how much cooler it would be now if El Nino had not hit a few years back?


RE: slick
By gmw1082 on 4/6/2008 11:12:31 AM , Rating: 2
"I guess it'll be icy in hell before they admit they were wrong."

Here's the beauty of the global warming argument. They can just say Al Gore's $300 million ad campaign caused people to become aware of global warming. Then they can blame dropping temperatures on people being "aware" and taking steps to reduce global warming.


RE: slick
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/6/2008 3:05:12 PM , Rating: 2
But if it fails they can also say that we were too late, the damage was done, we can only contain the magnitude of damage now.

I love how their argument has its cake and eats it too. Yet somehow people accept this.


RE: slick
By theflux on 4/6/2008 5:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
I have to admit Global Warming has been great for the UN. For an organization that exists solely to manage nations working together, nothing helps them remain relevant like a global "crisis" that is nearly impossible to prove or disprove. Throw in some publicity seeking politicians (Gore), and environmentalists who care more about keeping the environment as they want it to be than they do letting it progress through its normal cycles and you've got a great made-for-tv movie. Except unfortunately it's real.


RE: slick
By JustTom on 4/7/2008 9:56:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now the UN is trying to ease us over into Climate Change instead of Global Warming since they can't explain a damn thing.


How can you deny Climate Change. Everyday I wake up go outside and THE WEATHER IS DIFFERENT!!! Sometimes it is sunny, sometimes cloudy, and sometimes it even rains. Anyone who denies Climate Change is denying solid empirical observation.


RE: slick
By Justin Case on 4/12/2008 3:28:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

Now the UN is trying to ease us over into Climate Change instead of Global Warming since they can't explain a damn thing.


FYI, the term "climate change" (as an alternative to "global warming") was coined by a GOP advisor (Frank Luntz) in the late 90s. And I actually agree with him. While technically correct (because the global average temperature is rising), the term "global warming" gives the impression that the entire globe is getting warmer, which is not true. Some parts get hotter, some parts get colder. The actual problem is the increased energy in the atmosphere, which can manifest itself as heat (causing ice to melt, etc.) but also (more immediately) as stronger and more frequent storms. So the term "climate change" is more descriptive.

In any case, the UN's role is hardly to forecast the weather; they simply compile and publish studies made by climate scientists. And the (vast) majority of climate scientists seems to agree that it is possible to influence the weather through the selective release of certain gases. There is a noisy (but very small) minority of conspiracy theorists, but those pop up in any field.

The issue is not if climate change is "natural" or not; ice ages are "natural" but if one was about to start, I'm pretty sure no one would argue for sitting still and freezing to death.

In the long run (decades, centuries), climate change costs lives and millions of dollars to the global economy. Most private companies care only about the short term (months, years), because they are driven by market speculation and administration board cycles.

When some governments (cough, cough) are essentially controlled by a handful of CEOs (and by religious nutters who think that a) God will protect them and b) the world is going to end soon anyway), maybe the UN, with its many flaws and snail's pace, is the best chance we have.

Scary, isn't it?


RE: slick
By masher2 (blog) on 4/13/2008 9:54:50 AM , Rating: 2
> "FYI, the term "climate change" (as an alternative to "global warming") was coined by a GOP advisor (Frank Luntz) in the late 90s. "

This is not correct. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988.

> "the term "global warming" gives the impression that the entire globe is getting warmer, which is not true. Some parts get hotter, some parts get colder."

No. Basic GW theory implies a rise in the mean temperature of the entire planet. While true that circulatory changes can in theory lead to cooling of some areas, that means other areas have to get even warmer still to compensate -- the total heat content of the entire system is rising.


RE: slick
By Justin Case on 4/14/2008 6:18:30 PM , Rating: 2
And my grandfather used the term "climate change" one morning in 1933 after he noticed his joints hurt a bit. Read what I wrote: as an alternative to "global warming", see? It's there. You even quoted it.

I repeat: It was only after Frank Luntz specifically advised the GOP to replace "global warming" with "climate change" in any documents it sanctioned (because it sounded "less scary", according to him) that the term gained mainstream popularity as an alternative to "global warming". I'm not claiming Frank Luntz invented the words "climate" and "change" or that he was the first person to put them together or to realize that climate does, in fact, change.

In any case, as I said, I think it's a much better term (and I don't think it sounds "less scary" at all; "warming" actually sounds kinda nice). In fact, it's probably the only useful thing Frank Luntz has done in his entire life.

As to your second paragraph: duh! That's pretty much the definition of average, isn't it...? And in any case your wording is misleading: the parts that get hotter don't need to get "warmer still" than the parts getting colder. If 90% of the globe rises by 1 degree and 10% of the globe falls by 8 degrees, the global average temperature has gone up, although the highest local increase was 1/5th of the decrease.

And yes, the total energy content of the entire system is rising.


RE: slick
By Michael01x on 4/14/2008 3:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now the UN is trying to ease us over into Climate Change instead of Global Warming since they can't explain a damn thing.

Actually the term "climate change" was coined by a Republican politician, Frank Luntz, as a PR effort to soften the discussion of "global warming", which, in his opinion, sounded too frightening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio


Continue insulting our inteligence
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2008 3:23:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming." Adam Scaife, lead scientist at the UK's Hadley Center for Climate Modeling, says he's confident that "within a few years" a new record temperature will be set.


Same old BS. So when temps go up a degree or so one year it means the sky is falling and global warming is a fact. When they go down despite their predictions, its time to slow down and look at the big picture ? Just wait a " few years " for that record high !!! Hes confident !!!

I think people are finally getting the real big picture : Temps go up and down and always have been, and nobody really knows why.




RE: Continue insulting our inteligence
By computergeek485 on 4/6/2008 8:20:35 AM , Rating: 2
Has anyone considered that it might not be us thats causing the problem and that it could be outside sources such as solar activity. Like the fact that up until recently the sun has been in a hightened state of activity and that it is currently going down in activity and will continue to do so for the next couple decades.


RE: Continue insulting our inteligence
By jbartabas on 4/6/2008 12:13:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it's been considered, studied and quantified for a while now. For most scientists, the numbers don't add up, particularly for the second part of the 20th century. There are some scientists suggesting that the Sun impact on climate is underestimated, though. However, they don't necessarily discard or minimize the impact of 'other' factors. There's an article about it in the March issue of physics today. The whole issue is discussed in the IPCC reports.

As for the 'hightened state of activity', TSI variability for the past decades can't explain the increase in temperature for the last decades (since the mid 70's).


By 16nm on 4/8/2008 1:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
Re-read what the original poster quoted.
quote:
WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud chalks up the cooling to La Nina effects, and says it doesn't mean global warming isn't a serious problem. "When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."


The planet has been in a warming trend since the last great ice age. Infact, it has been in a warming trend for millions of years.

Al Gore is a doofus.


RE: Continue insulting our inteligence
By Schrag4 on 4/7/2008 6:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
What problem? I still have yet to see any evidence that higher temperatures are a bad thing. If I remember correctly, there's evidence to suggest that significantly higher temperatures than what we're seeing even now could benefit us greatly.

From my perspective Gore and his followers have at least the following 2 things dead wrong:
1. That we're capable of causing any climate change.
2. That a rise in temperature would cause any significant 'problems'.


By dluther on 4/11/2008 2:03:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I still have yet to see any evidence that higher temperatures are a bad thing.

One particular aspect of climate change that will adversely affect humans -- although not necessarily you in particular -- is the rapid retreat of mountain glaciers due to increased temperature. Mountain glaciers that are the primary fresh water sources for large segments of the population, including the glaciers of Mt. Ranier (http://glaciers.pdx.edu/MRNP/Res00.html ), Mt. Kilimanjaro (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/09... ) and many, many others are already rapidly retreating. (http://earthtrends.wri.org/images/glacier_retreat_... )

Also of note is that some Antarctic glaciers melting at an uncharacteristically rapid pace:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/08022...

These alone can account for some of the floods already experienced (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080411/ap_on_sc/chile... ) and droughts (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/kilicores.htm ) which climate researchers have predicted based on core sample analysis near such water source glaciers.

Ultimately, it doesn't take a great leap of logic to conclude that once water source glaciers are gone, the areas supplied by these glaciers will face a drought.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080411/ap_on_re_eu/cl...

Socio-economic impacts are just as important, as downstream resources reliant on glacial melt water such as crops and livestock will displace large sections of population, creating massive refugee crises for those areas not affected.

quote:
1. That we're capable of causing any climate change.

If human activity can produce a cooling effect, namely by the radiating of heat into space due to anthropogenic aerosols in the atmosphere (http://scienceweek.com/2006/sw060120-6.htm ) then one must disavow themselves of the notion you bring in point 1. And if human activity can lower temperature, then it also stands to reason that human activity can also increase the temperature.

quote:
2. That a rise in temperature would cause any significant 'problems'.

Let's ignore the more alarmist predictions such as rising oceans, more frequent and intense storms such as tornadoes and hurricanes, and concentrate on the more logical, practical and observable issues such as the ones I've presented.

While you can say these are problems are 'insignificant', to those affected, even tangentially, these situations are cataclysmic.


RE: Continue insulting our inteligence
By jbartabas on 4/6/2008 5:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
A similar argument could be made regarding the 'skeptics' i.e.:
The skeptics remind you all the time that temperature records and the global increase is only ~100 years old, and that we would need more time to make sure that something is happening. But let the temperature drop for a few months and here they go with their 'proof' that there is no GW.

quote:
When they go down despite their predictions, its time to slow down and look at the big picture ?


And for your information, there is no global climate prediction preventing the global temperature to decrease at a scale of a few month or a few years.


RE: Continue insulting our inteligence
By phattyboombatty on 4/7/2008 10:44:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And for your information, there is no global climate prediction preventing the global temperature to decrease at a scale of a few month or a few years.

This is a nonsensical statement. A temperature prediction that predicts the temperature could rise or fall is a worthless prediction. Obviously a prediction doesn't prevent anything from happening--its just a prediction. But if a prediction predicts one thing, and another thing occurs, the prediction is flawed.

Show me one climate prediction model from the IPCC that predicted in 1998 that temperatures would decline for the next 10 years.


RE: Continue insulting our inteligence
By jbartabas on 4/7/2008 11:31:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is a nonsensical statement. A temperature prediction that predicts the temperature could rise or fall is a worthless prediction. Obviously a prediction doesn't prevent anything from happening--its just a prediction. But if a prediction predicts one thing, and another thing occurs, the prediction is flawed.


It is nonsense because you have not understood it. Now if you read in context (2008 being colder than 2007), maybe you'll figure out what was meant.

quote:
Show me one climate prediction model from the IPCC that predicted in 1998 that temperatures would decline for the next 10 years.


It is inaccurate to say that temperature declined for the last 10 years. Here is a projection made in 1988 (note that there is a lag in assumed volcanic eruption).

http://www.pnas.org/content/vol103/issue39/images/...

If you are observant, you'll find the answer to the first point, about climate projections exhibiting a decrease in T for a year or more. You can note also that the high frequency variability is not well captured by the model, so what you call a decrease since 1998 due to an exceptionally large warming that year, is not reproduced simply because the peak itself is not there.


RE: Continue insulting our inteligence
By phattyboombatty on 4/7/2008 12:06:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you are observant, you'll find the answer to the first point, about climate projections exhibiting a decrease in T for a year or more.

I had asked for a prediction made since the temperature spike in 1998, but I'll run with the 1988 one. Although it accounts for periodic temperature dips from one to three years, it definitely doesn't predict that the temperature from any one year remains the high temp for a decade (discounting Scenario C, which assumes a "drastic curtailment of emissions").

quote:
It is nonsense because you have not understood it.

I did not understand it because you didn't write what you meant. You said the predictions do not "prevent" cooling, but what I think you meant to say was that the predictions predict short-term variable cooling over a long-term warming trend. Its not my burden to figure out what you really meant to say when your words say something different.


RE: Continue insulting our inteligence
By jbartabas on 4/7/2008 12:59:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I did not understand it because you didn't write what you meant.[...] Its not my burden to figure out what you really meant to say when your words say something different.


I think I did, but that's the problem here: my general opinion about that is that language is ambiguous in nature, and this kind of misunderstanding are unavoidable. This is why it is interesting to debate instead of having a monologue, that helps to clarify points. So sorry if I was unclear.

quote:
I had asked for a prediction made since the temperature spike in 1998, but I'll run with the 1988 one. Although it accounts for periodic temperature dips from one to three years, it definitely doesn't predict that the temperature from any one year remains the high temp for a decade (discounting Scenario C, which assumes a "drastic curtailment of emissions").


First you'll note that the GISS temperature data do not support your statement that 1998 was the warmest T for a decade. Now if you discard 2005 as being warmer 1998 (eg Hadley data), you are just stating that GCM do not render high-frequency variability, and you are putting undue weight on one particular year. If you'd accept the idea that one isolated yearly average have some validity in the interpretation on long term trends, then you could also say that the large and fast increase in T between 1996 and 1998 (2 years) has not been projected by models, and therefore we will surely observe much faster warming than projected. Again, if we go back to few years averages, the trends are consistent, at least for now ...


By phattyboombatty on 4/7/2008 1:17:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not disputing that 1998 represented an anomalous year, and I'm not claiming that any climate model accounts for such high-frequency variability. But the jump in temperature in 1998 was still not so extreme that the climate model you linked to would not have "caught up" and exceeded the temperature after a decade. In other words, there wasn't ten years worth of temperature gains in 1998, so by 2008, according to the model we should start seeing temperatures rising above the 1998 level.

Keep in mind that I'm not even arguing that global warming isn't occuring. My point is that the present temperatures we are seeing was not predicted by the old climate models, particularly given that GHG emissions have significantly increased in the last decade.


RE: Continue insulting our inteligence
By werepossum on 4/8/2008 1:55:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is a nonsensical statement. A temperature prediction that predicts the temperature could rise or fall is a worthless prediction.


Not at all. It's been worth tens of millions a year to Al Gore.


By phattyboombatty on 4/8/2008 2:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
touche


By clovell on 4/14/2008 2:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
How about for a decade (1998-2009)? At what point do you recalibrate your conclusions in light of the data?


By Scottar on 4/6/2008 4:20:23 AM , Rating: 2
This Scientist has a very damning paper against the IPCC's claim that CO2 emissions are accelerating warming. It has very good graphics and claims. The Scientist is one of the most cited in climatology and has gotten more awards then Hansen of NASA.

http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/Earth_rec...




By BernardP on 4/6/2008 7:26:18 AM , Rating: 2

Here is another report by the Non-intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Well worth printing and reading while sitting in your favorite chair:

http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/22835....


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/6/2008 12:37:06 PM , Rating: 3
Neither of the above papers have been published in a peer reviewed journal, FYI.


By BernardP on 4/6/2008 7:43:21 PM , Rating: 2
True.The paper by Syun-Ichi Akasofu is quite objective and factual. It is only dated Feb 27 2008. It would not be surprising to see a version of it published in a peer-reviewed publication.

The document from the NIPCC (Fred Singer and co-conspirators) is more of an editorial-type document. It quotes many peer-reviewed studies however. It is an alternative Summary for Policymakers.

Speaking of which, have the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and its Summary for Policymakers been peer-reviewed?


By jbartabas on 4/7/2008 10:44:20 AM , Rating: 2
The assessment report is, I don't think the summary for policymakers is. I guess the latter has to be approved by politics, so it probably 'loses' a lot of its substance before everyone agrees on it.


By ElFenix on 4/7/2008 3:51:30 PM , Rating: 2
not that peer review doesn't have it's own problems


By 1078feba on 4/8/2008 10:30:20 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly.

Isn't that the crux of the problem here? The mind-bending asshattery of the politically motivated "scientists" with Messianic complexes doing everything they can to bend us to their will.

Chicken Little, we hardly knew ye...


AGW Hypocrisy
By phattyboombatty on 4/7/2008 10:30:21 AM , Rating: 3
Global warming proponents explain away the projected cooling of temperatures in 2008 by stating that its not appropriate to look at any one year, while in the same breath continuously bashing everyone over the head with the 1998 temperatures.

They say we need to look at long periods of time to properly assess global warming, but don't look too far back because then we are cooling.

Anytime somebody points out an area of the world that is seeing cooling effects, like record snowfall or low temps, the global warming proponents criticize them, stating that its not appropriate to look at any one specific area in the world. Yet, they release monumental press releases and proclaim disaster from the tops of mountains anytime any data shows warming effects in particular regions of the world.




RE: AGW Hypocrisy
By jbartabas on 4/7/2008 10:58:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Global warming proponents explain away the projected cooling of temperatures in 2008 by stating that its not appropriate to look at any one year,


It is appropriate if you really want to look at one year ... then you will see that almost half of the years for the last 150 were cooler than the previous one. That did not prevent warming. So what would you conclude about 2008 being cooler than 2007? Why should it be an embarrassment for GW theory when this has been happening all along the last 150 years?

quote:
while in the same breath continuously bashing everyone over the head with the 1998 temperatures.


I don't think anybody is focusing only on 1998, at least not among scientists. What is important is that the latest years have been significantly warmer than the last 150 years, even if the record goes back to 1998. 1998 is definitely a year worth studying as it is the warmest since ~150 years, but it is certainly not the silver bullet of GW and is obviously recognized as exceptional, even in the context of warming.

And how does the warmest year on record since 150 years compare to 2008 being colder than 2007 anyway? At least if 2008 was going to be the coldest on record, or for the least the coldest since ~1960-1990, you could have a beginning of a point. But for that you'll have to wait for the final numbers ...


RE: AGW Hypocrisy
By phattyboombatty on 4/7/2008 11:36:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why should it be an embarrassment for GW theory when this has been happening all along the last 150 years?

I don't recall saying anything about a cooling year being an embarrassment. I agree that you shouldn't look at any one year to analyze long-term climate trends. My point was that god-forbid a year is warmer than the previous year every news publication is full of stories proclaiming the woes of global warming because of it.

quote:
And how does the warmest year on record since 150 years compare to 2008 being colder than 2007 anyway?

Not much difference in my opinion. Again, you are still looking at two isolated examples. Anytime in the history of the Earth, whether cooling or warming, if you look at a 150 year period, one lucky year gets to be the warmest. Now it just so happens that the warmest year the past 150 years, 1998, happens to fall in the recent past, which gives it all sorts of attention and ammunition for global warming claims. But as it falls further and further into the past without any new higher-temp years, will those same global warming proponents switch their story and claim that cooling is occurring? If, in 2025, 1998 is still the warmest year on record, it will be extremely difficult for anyone to claim global warming is occurring on any significant scale.


RE: AGW Hypocrisy
By jbartabas on 4/7/2008 12:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, so I guess we are more or less on the same wavelength actually (let's say that the 'non-sensical' characterization did not set me in a good mood ;-) ).

I do agree with the year-by-year analysis being close to non-sense in terms of general trend.

I do agree with the problem of some media over-reacting to some punctual facts. Although 1998 was an important year anyway (scientifically), but not everything could be said about it (see last point).

I do (obviously) agree that if in 2025, it happens that 1998 is still the warmest year on record (i.e. T has stalled or even decreased over ~3 decades), then GCM projection have a big problem. Now will it be with models themselves, or scenarios (i.e. change in solar activity, major change in volcanic activity), something would have to change. But I do not see anything suggesting that will happen for now.

I disagree that 1998 should be regarded the same as any year marked by a decrease. Again, what will make 2008 exceptional (and potentially comparable to 1998) or not will be the amplitude of the decrease. Now of course, as interesting as 1998 could be, one should not base the GW argument on its sole amplitude (I do not know if it has been made, though). That means for example that computing an increase or a decrease between two unique years wouldn't make much sense (eg. the warming is Xdeg/decade because T in 1998 was that much higher than T in 1960). But as far as I know, T curves are usually smoothed for mitigating this high frequency variability (and the 'normal', or reference, is itself an average over a few decades).

PS: and what I meant in the first place with the 'models not preventing a decrease' is that models project climate variability (less than observed as far as I know, but they do), that can make T decrease from one year to the other one at several occasions, even if the general trend is up. So the concept 2008 being colder than 2007 is nothing new (in the real world or in the models) and does not tell much about GW going on or not.


RE: AGW Hypocrisy
By phattyboombatty on 4/7/2008 12:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
PS: and what I meant in the first place with the 'models not preventing a decrease' is that models project climate variability (less than observed as far as I know, but they do), that can make T decrease from one year to the other one at several occasions, even if the general trend is up.

Yeah, if you see my other reply that is what I figured. The "nonsensical" characterization was probably out of line. Sorry about that. It does bug me though when somebody writes something that means one thing, and then when you interpret it as written, they get all upset because they "meant" something else (obvious typos excepted).


RE: AGW Hypocrisy
By onelittleindian on 4/7/2008 7:33:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I do (obviously) agree that if in 2025, it happens that 1998 is still the warmest year on record (i.e. T has stalled or even decreased over ~3 decades), then GCM projection have a big problem
Rofl, so even if it keeps getting colder for the next 30 years, you're still going to believe in GW, and won't say any more than it "has a problem"? Talk about the power of faith!


Some La Nina information
By AlexWade on 4/6/2008 6:44:38 PM , Rating: 3
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitori...
I've been following this La Nina carefully because where I live it has been hot and dry because of the La Nina. And I hate hot. I knew it would be that way, almost every La Nina makes the Southeastern US warm and dry. This is actually a strong and persistent La Nina. Last autumn, they said it would be over by December. Then it became March. And now not until summer is over.

A while back, someone from the Church of Al Gore said to me in one was Michael Asher's blogs that El Ninos are related to global warming; well are La Ninas related to global cooling? Or maybe, just maybe, we know less that what we think? Maybe, just maybe, we should stop trying to make the facts fit our beliefs and let the facts shape our beliefs. I rather like that last part.




RE: Some La Nina information
By masher2 (blog) on 4/6/2008 6:49:14 PM , Rating: 5
It's a fact that we certainly don't understand the underlying causes of ENSO effects. The problem with chalking up all the cooling trend to La Nina is that heat cannot be destroyed. La Nina can't "erase" heat, it has to move it from the surface to deeper ocean waters...and so far, our monitoring of those waters hasn't detected any rise in temperatures there either (an upcoming blog will deal with this issue as well).


RE: Some La Nina information
By AlexWade on 4/6/2008 9:26:07 PM , Rating: 1
Feel free to use the line "Church of Al Gore" because environmentalism is a religion.

But make sure people don't miss my point. If A = B, then not A = not B. You can't have it both ways; either global temperatures affect El Nino/La Nina or they don't. You cannot say global warming is causing El Nino then say La Nina is not caused by global cooling.

And my other point, stop trying to make the data fit your beliefs.


RE: Some La Nina information
By clovell on 4/14/2008 2:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
Right on.


spin
By MadMaster on 4/5/2008 9:55:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The cool spell means global temperatures have been on the decline for a full ten years, since early 1998.


Year 1998 peak hot year, El Nino.

A 10 year decline to the statistically incompetent.




RE: spin
By grenableu on 4/5/2008 10:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
There have been 3 El Ninos since 1998, so what's your point?


RE: spin
By lompocus on 4/6/2008 3:17:03 AM , Rating: 2
Really? I live exactly where El Nino is supposed to hit and I don't recall anything remotely as strong as any El Nino from 1998 and prior years.

His Point: El Nino 1998 marks the peak height of the global climate warming, as evidenced by our lack of live-threatening west-coastal typhoons.


By lownslowav8r on 4/11/2008 3:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
http://mediamatters.org/items/200804090013

Title of the article:

Fox's E.D. Hill falsely claimed that "U.N. meteorologists" say "the planet may actually cool off for the 10th year in a row"

Amazing how this all so...coordinated.

This article goes into the actual data and explains the lies we are hearing, such as sunspots are causing all of this, or that the recent fluctuations in temperature puts us back to temperatures 100 years ago.

Oh how I wish this were true, then our childern wouldn't have to deal with the mess we have made. But it ain't so...
Enjoy the truth.




By jbartabas on 4/11/2008 4:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
All of that is actually obvious.

I don't know where some people got the idea that 'Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming', but they clearly haven't looked at the data.

First there hasn't been twelve-month drop, but more important, certainly, not enough cooling to wipe out a century of warming.

As for the 10th year in a row of cooling ... well that's not what's in the data ...


This just in:
By jhinoz on 4/6/2008 11:12:53 AM , Rating: 1
Scientists / infomaticians draw conclusions from analysis of gathered data. Aforementioned conclusions hotly debated on emotional / factual grounds.

To oversimplifying things, as i see it, we (humans) need cheap energy that isn't going to produce so much pollution that it kills us in the process. Can we please take stock of current technologies, pick one that best suits the requirement and get on with it?

I'm now going to go, do my job, do a good job, earn some cash and put some money back in the economy. Because, this is the only thing I can personally do to imrpove my situation when i wake up in the morning.

If more people could just get over it emotionally, pick what works (on the facts, not what makes them feel good) and get on with the task at hand the human race as a whole would be a heckofalot better off.

Thank you and goodnight, from one way pissed off aussie.




RE: This just in:
By Jim28 on 4/6/2008 1:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
What really bothers me the most about AGW is the people who promote it. Especially those who are thoroughly indoctronited with it. Most of them are wealthy or are not in a position in which they must worry about the necessities of life.(Meaining housing, food, transport for work, electricity) However they have no trouble making life harder on those who have to worry about the neccessities by making things more expensive by imposing taxation or more regulation that doesn't hurt themselves to much or they simply flat don't practice what they preach. (AKA Al Gore.) You want to reach the common person that has common sense? Practice what you preach. Don't be flying everywhere all over the world, don't have multiple homes or masions etc.etc and say no one else can have them. Basicaly I got mine, you can't have yours. As an American that grew up very poor and made something of myself, that just pisses me off! How about turn the lights off in LA, NY, DC, and selected European cities for one week and see how many people would then forget all about global warming.


The important point
By grenableu on 4/6/2008 11:48:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Warming may resume in future years [but] is self-evidently less than official forecasts, and very likely to be harmless.
That's the important point. Even if the planet does start to warm up again, there's no way it'll be anywhere near as much as what the alarmists predicted. Meaning GW isn't any sort of crisis at all.




RE: The important point
By Segerstein on 4/6/2008 5:02:12 PM , Rating: 1
I know, but the agnostic liberals need something to believe in. And there's also a lot of morality behind GW.


Carbon credits for sale!
By professor1942 on 4/6/2008 5:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
Hi I have 10,000 carbon credits for sale. I bought them from Al Gore last year for $10 each, and I want to sell the whole lot now for $5. Email me if you're interested.




Global Cannibalism
By nstott on 4/6/2008 9:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
Forget about global warming. The new trendy future cataclysm is global cannibalism (LOL):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSlB1nW4S54




I See What you Did There.
By clovell on 4/14/2008 1:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
> The cool spell means global temperatures have been on the decline for a full ten years, since early 1998... WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud chalks up the cooling to La Nina effects.

Right, because the current La Nina has persisted since 1998 - right? It must have spawned all those killer hurricanes in the 2004 & 2005 seasons, eh?

I can just see these idiots running around like a clip out of Blazing Saddles -'Quick, gentlemen! We've got to protect our phoney-baloney jobs!'




Temperature data from UAH
By Michael01x on 4/14/2008 4:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
Graphs of satellite temperature data from UAH.

Temperature data from 1978 to present
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh103/scentofpi...

Temperature data from 1978 to present, with 1998 removed
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh103/scentofpi...

Temperature data from 1998 to present
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh103/scentofpi...

Temperature data since 1998
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh103/scentofpi...




What about sun acticity?
By LyCannon on 4/14/2008 6:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
It seems that everyone is also forgetting about the lack of solar activity that is currently underway.

Researchers are predicting another Little Ice Age. Perhaps the reason that all the models are incorrect is that they do not account for the sun's activity.




2007 second warmest in a century
By mwnl on 4/20/2008 11:00:36 AM , Rating: 2

ScienceDaily: Your source for the latest research news and science breakthroughs -- updated daily
Science News

2007 Was Tied As Earth's Second Warmest Year

ScienceDaily (Jan. 17, 2008) — Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.

Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea ice temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years.

The greatest warming in 2007 occurred in the Arctic, and neighboring high latitude regions. Global warming has a larger affect in polar areas, as the loss of snow and ice leads to more open water, which absorbs more sunlight and warmth. Snow and ice reflect sunlight; when they disappear, so too does their ability to deflect warming rays. The large Arctic warm anomaly of 2007 is consistent with observations of record low geographic extent of Arctic sea ice in September 2007.

"As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases," said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS.

"It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature," said Hansen. "Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases."

The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

A minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth's surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century.

The data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record and the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states, the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis, 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (but not globally) by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the certainty.

Adapted from materials provided by NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center.
Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats:
APA

MLA
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center (2008, January 17). 2007 Was Tied As Earth's Second Warmest Year. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 20, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2008/01/080116114150.htm




2007 second warmest in a century
By mwnl on 4/20/2008 11:03:09 AM , Rating: 2

ScienceDaily: Your source for the latest research news and science breakthroughs -- updated daily
Science News

2007 Was Tied As Earth's Second Warmest Year

ScienceDaily (Jan. 17, 2008) — Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.

Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea ice temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years.

The greatest warming in 2007 occurred in the Arctic, and neighboring high latitude regions. Global warming has a larger affect in polar areas, as the loss of snow and ice leads to more open water, which absorbs more sunlight and warmth. Snow and ice reflect sunlight; when they disappear, so too does their ability to deflect warming rays. The large Arctic warm anomaly of 2007 is consistent with observations of record low geographic extent of Arctic sea ice in September 2007.

"As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases," said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS.

"It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature," said Hansen. "Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases."

The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

A minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth's surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century.

The data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record and the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states, the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis, 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (but not globally) by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the certainty.

Adapted from materials provided by NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center.
Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats:
APA

MLA
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center (2008, January 17). 2007 Was Tied As Earth's Second Warmest Year. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 20, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2008/01/080116114150.htm




Computer Generated Forecasts
By Frances on 4/26/2008 4:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, please, let's have a computer program forecast our 'global' furture.
Idiots




Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By dluther on 4/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By masher2 (blog) on 4/6/2008 8:17:55 PM , Rating: 5
Point of fact, the articles in question did ignite a huge amount of debate. One was picked up by a huge number of sources including the Wall Street Journal, the Drudge Report, Fox News (both on air and online), Scientific American, the US Senate EPW news site, liberal bastions such as DailyKOS, conservative pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and many others. I also was invited as a guest on several talk-radio shows around the country to discuss the findings.

Many news outlets didn't quote the story directly, but ran a response to counter the claims made, or to insinuate that I'd made an error, or even fudged the data. So now that the UN WMO itself is agreeing, perhaps you can forgive me a minor amount of gloating.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By dluther on 4/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By Andy35W on 4/7/2008 2:44:00 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with the above, the articles are not presenting the facts for people to read but are presenting them with a certain spin. However, it is his blog so he can do that if he wishes.

What should not be done is post false information which can happen. As an instance a while ago one headline claimed the UN had admitted to long term alarmism on global warming when in fact the person making that claim did not even work for the UN.

Here we see a claim that there has been global cooling for the last 10 years since 1998, however 2005 was the second warmest on record after 1998 and 2006 and 2007 were hotter than 1999 and 2000, so I am not sure if that can be claimed at all!

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/...

The problem I see as well is that not only does this blog post errors it also filters out information. It is like only getting blogs on AMD or Intel that are positive, all other information to the contrary is not posted. However I see other bloggers on dailytech do post those so maybe it evens out?

Finally, I find these blogs interesting to read, but I take them as opinion rather than news, but I think some people here do read it as reporting of news rather than reporting of news and then opinion. This is one of the problems with blogs, there is little or no editorial control on content and this is a problem if it is supposed to be news rather than opinion.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By dluther on 4/7/2008 1:38:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
However, it is his blog so he can do that if he wishes.

This is where the line between "DailyTech" and "Michael Asher's Blog" becomes blurred. The first sentence of this article clearly states "DailyTech ignited a firestorm of debate...". Not 'Michael Asher's Personal Blog', but DailyTech. It may very well be that I am the only person who is not lost on the distinction between personal opinion and company policy, and it may be that just because the word "blog" appears in the heading that people are willing to give Mike a pass on responsible journalism. Be that as it may, Michael has bound DailyTech to his own views.


By dever on 4/7/2008 4:45:32 PM , Rating: 2
dluther, you seem to be stating that we should all adopt your "ad hominem" policy of thinking.

If Asher's postings are useful or informative, this should be enough. He certainly does not need a particular degree, political position or other special acknowledgment from a handful of unknowns for me to listen to his ideas. I just need some logic and additional references. So far, you're a little short on both.

Combine all of the authority of the IPCC and what good has that done? They all just want substitute your freedom for a sense of security from their manufactured crises.


By jbartabas on 4/7/2008 10:37:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So now that the UN WMO itself is agreeing, perhaps you can forgive me a minor amount of gloating.


The UN stated(agreed, agreed to what?) that 'global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year', or more precisely that the decrease that started with La Nina is likely to continue until summer. So that makes 2008 less warm than 2007 ...

During the last 157 years, 77 years were cooler than the previous one (*) => the global temperature rose by ~0.8.

During the last 47 years (1960), 20 years were cooler than the previous one (*) => the global temperature rose by ~0.4 degC.

So where's the point here? A year colder than the previous one? At least wait for the final number to see if it is significantly cooler than seen previously ...

(*) yearly average computed from Hadley monthly averages.

So basically the UN and others have been harassed by questions about a decrease in yearly T, which is actually seen almost half of the time, they answer yes, you can read (data from Hadley and GISS (add your favorite T product here)), yes T is decreasing and will probably continue for a little while ... and you're gloating because you could write a blog about Watt's blog ... Good for you.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By Jim28 on 4/6/2008 11:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
I am new to this blog and I do not know Mr. Ashers credentials or yours so forgive me if this is spoken of previously.
But isn't it a little ironic that you would post on a blogger's site about HIS credibility? Especially when everything you accuse him of about having no credibility, is applicable to yourself as well. What are your credentials if any? Elaborate if you are to have any credibility at all after your previous statements about objectivity. It is fairly obvious from your post that you are judge others before you judge yourself.
I myself do not have formal training in climate science but I do have a Masters in Electrical Engineering so I am not the average lay person in regards to science either.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By dluther on 4/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By Spazmodian on 4/7/2008 9:18:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
...all he's really done is cull information from other sources and place it so others can see it.


Hi you must be new here, that's the exact prupose of this site...and every other news radio/television/website/paper in existance. You say Asher is biased, congratulations for stating the obvious. Everyone is biased. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar that should be ignored and ostracized...such people are a cancer on society.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By dluther on 4/7/2008 11:06:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
that's the exact prupose of this site

Point taken. Which makes it even more of a conundrum that DailyTech is often quoted as a "source", instead of the actual source.

quote:
You say Asher is biased, congratulations for stating the obvious. Everyone is biased.

Bias and objectivity are not synonymous. While Michael's bias has been evident and even self-proclaimed, his objectivity, until this point, hasn't really been a source of concern. And with the loss of that objectivity, Michael Asher loses the singular quality that made people want to listen to what he had to say on the subject, ranking him with the hundreds of others shouting at the rain. People like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly; all are passionate, intelligent, well-versed, and yes, completely and unashamedly biased. But they are completely unobjective, and as such are pocketed away to their respective corners where they can preach to the choirs as loud and long as the "amens" keep coming.


By phattyboombatty on 4/7/2008 12:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Point taken. Which makes it even more of a conundrum that DailyTech is often quoted as a "source", instead of the actual source.

DailyTech should not be quoted as a source. This is usually just lazy journalism. Every DailyTech article that I have read includes a link to the source article (which itself often refers to another source). I see DailyTech as a convenient assembly of news articles that I'm often interested in, with a brief rewording of the linked article and an opportunity to comment and discuss the article. I almost always read the source article if its a topic I'm interested in because the source article will be more in depth and more accurate.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By Jim28 on 4/7/2008 11:12:20 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for the response.

That was a good answer but you did not answer my questions directly. If you crave credentials, why don't you provide some yourself? Prove you have the credentials to judge someone else's. (If there can be such a thing as "proof" on this site anyway. As it is on the internet.)

Don't you think it is quite ironic to complain on an Internet Blog site (The whole point of which is anonymity for the posters) and you complain if verifiability and credentials?

In any case a quick google search sufficed for me to check some of his facts. If you complain of the type of media delivery remember this is not a peer journal, it is more like a newspaper, and I have never seen newspapers give sources, you have to check them yourself.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By dluther on 4/7/2008 11:53:27 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
you did not answer my questions directly. If you crave credentials, why don't you provide some yourself? Prove you have the credentials to judge someone else's


Okay. I have degrees in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, and Music. Was chairperson of the local Data Processing and Management Association, graduated Magna Cum Laude, and was unanimously voted Outstanding Graduate -- all way back in the mid-1980's.

I have worked in the information industry for over 22 years, and have worked for my present employer -- a large telecommunications provider -- for over thirteen years. My current certifications include: SCSA, CCNA, and MCSE. I've also made contributions to the codebase of ISC's BIND as well as the Apache project, and currently serve as an advisory board member for undergraduate curriculum development at an accredited university.

Now I put a question to you: Why must I provide credentials to ask a question? After all, I'm not the one purporting to be the expert or an authoritative source. I'm not quoted in Senate-level papers, and Rush Limbaugh doesn't know me from Adam.

I ask for these "credentials", because credibility is all that's left to a person who is self-admittedly biased and whose objectivity is called into question.


By phattyboombatty on 4/7/2008 12:17:37 PM , Rating: 2
Out of sheer curiousity, what University did you attend?


By Jim28 on 4/7/2008 12:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well just to reciprocate. I have a masters in Electrical Engineering. I also currently work in IT for a consulting company. I am CCIE 16695 (will be a dual CCIE by Sept.). I have worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory NHMFL for 2 years and was part of team that designed and built the the 60 MegaWatt 54 Tesla continous field magnet, and it's control equipment. The 900Mhz 33 Tesla Manget, and various other supercon magnets. I have personally designed and built the data and voice LAN/WAN backbones for 2 entire Universities, (consult with several others on a routine basis on the subjects of BGP and MPLS.) One State (State Government Network.), one MAN and 2/3 of the Government Networks in that state.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By Jim28 on 4/7/2008 12:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I hit the post to soon.

As to why you would need to post some credentials? Well it is simply to easy to be an armchair scientest on the Internet. Something you accuse masher of quite explicitly. I am not taking sides here but I wonder as to why you would hold masher to any standard of objectivity when sites like realclimate.org also have none, and also make clear their bias? What is the difference? They give links? Not always.


By jbartabas on 4/7/2008 1:09:29 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By dluther on 4/7/2008 1:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it is simply to easy to be an armchair scientest on the Internet.

Exactly.

quote:
why you would hold masher to any standard of objectivity when sites like realclimate.org also have none, and also make clear their bias?

Relevance, in any conversation or debate, is based upon three things:

1) Bias
2) Objectivity
3) Credibility

RealClimate certainly has a predisposed bias, and their objectivity can be arguably called into question. However, their credibility cannot as their chief contributors are all scientists working in climate-related fields, with links to individual, verifiable credentials. So when a SME gives a biased, nonobjective assessment of a situation, the relevance remains due to the credibility factor.

The reason I hold masher to this same standard is because he has vaunted himself to the position of SME on climate change, being quoted and cited by high-level sources with the ability to influence environmental policy. Given that, I would like to know what level of relevance masher brings to the discussion. Up until this particular article, he possessed a high level of objectivity; now that it's gone, we're left to determine his credibility, and I don't see him rushing to provide it.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By phattyboombatty on 4/7/2008 1:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
because he has vaunted himself to the position of SME on climate change, being quoted and cited by high-level sources with the ability to influence environmental policy

You seem to have more of an issue with the high-level sources than you do with Mike. I'm not sure how you can blame him for being cited by other sources.
quote:
Up until this particular article, he possessed a high level of objectivity

I disagree. It's commonly known by regular DT readers that you're going to get pro-AGW stories from Jason Mick and anti-AGW stories from Michael Asher. It's been this way for awhile.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By dluther on 4/7/2008 2:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You seem to have more of an issue with the high-level sources than you do with Mike.

I do indeed. But as I've said, relevance to any debate relies upon three principles: bias, objectivity, and credibility; only one of which is required to sustain relevance.

This article is Michael Asher patting himself on the back, which to me, represents a complete loss of objectivity. If anyone else had posted this "article", we wouldn't be having this conversation. That someone would have the temerity to call this into question should not come as a surprise; I just happened to be the particular someone.

quote:
I disagree. It's commonly known by regular DT readers that you're going to get pro-AGW stories from Jason Mick and anti-AGW stories from Michael Asher. It's been this way for awhile.

As a long-time reader of DailyTech (starting back in 1997 when it was AnandTech's news page), I'm well versed in the Jason Mick/Michael Asher point and counterpoint; it's one of the reasons I engage in such debate, since July of 2006.

However, let me be clear -- while Michael has definitely been biased, he has been, at least in my opinion, quite fair and objective. I suppose that alone is why this whole article is such a source of ... well, almost a feeling of loss.


By phattyboombatty on 4/7/2008 2:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
I see what you're saying, but I don't think its quite as bad as you make it out to be. Patting oneself on the back is not that uncommon in the news world. You hear it quite often when news outlets congratulate themselves for being the first to break a story.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By Jim28 on 4/7/2008 1:51:03 PM , Rating: 2
Your arguments are starting to diverge somewhat. I thought the issues at hand were objectivity and bias, not credibility. (The most important trait as you can agree.) In any case, reading through here, it was known be a few poster that asher had a Ph.d in the sciences, but as to what type and from where I was unable to find. I also agree to a point that he would need to establish some bona fides in this arena. (If you already have, my apologies.) I have to agree with you on principle, to publish scientific articles, one must have a scientific background in order to have any credibility at all. However absence of proof, is not proof of absence and the ball would be in Mr. Asher's court for this match. If he were to prove his credibility, what would the basis of your argument be at that point?
Lastly, It is still relavtively easy to check his facts yourself. Ah the magic of google!


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By dluther on 4/7/2008 2:13:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If he were to prove his credibility, what would the basis of your argument be at that point?

None whatsoever, and I would be the first to give Mike the mad props he deserves -- maybe even a bottle of 16-year old scotch.


By Jim28 on 4/7/2008 6:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
Very good answer! That scotch sounds good indeed!
If it twer me I would posting my c.v. just to get the scotch!


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By onelittleindian on 4/7/2008 7:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
You think the reporters writing environmental stories for CNN or the BBC are full professors in climate science? Think they have any credentials at all? No. But you don't mind quoting them do you? Of course they say what you want to hear.

Your real problem with these stories is you'd rather not have certain facts discussed. You like the MSM fiction that the "science is settled". Honest stories that tell both sides are a danger to that, aren't they?

Read the BBC story in the link above for a real example of a slanted story by a reporter with an agenda. As long as DT does better than that, I'll be happy.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By dluther on 4/7/2008 7:45:10 PM , Rating: 2
I think we should all be clear on this point: the journalists who report on these stories are exactly that -- journalists. They're specifically trained to report news, and this isn't something you can just attend a three-day workshop at your local Holiday Inn and get a valid journalism certificate and be on your merry way. Specialized journalists, such as those for science and politics have an even tougher time with their subject matter, because they not only have to know their craft but have a nodding familiarity with the one upon which they're reporting as well; which is why such journalists such as the late Miles O'Brien of CNN were so successful.

And my points made in earlier posts about credibility must have been entire lost to you, because you just absolutely made the case for why their reporting is "more" valid than others -- because they have credibility, if not objectivity and bias.

Let me put that into a more illustrative framework you may better understand: is Jeff Gannon a credible source for news on conservative Republican issues, and if not, why not?


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By onelittleindian on 4/7/2008 8:16:16 PM , Rating: 2
But those journalists don't have credibility. The lead environmental reporter for the NY Times spends his spare time singing about the "devil gas" CO2 and how Satan tempted us to use it. You really think someone like that is going to objectively report on global warming?

You get credibility by being right. Back when Asher was reporting temps would drop in 2008, those reporters were parroting the old record heat claims. When Asher was predicting 2007 would be a very weak hurricane year, they were saying it would be one of the strongest. That's probably why so many sources have started to cite him.

So why not stop with the FUD? It's obvious you don't like his viewpoint and equally obvious you can't find any real fault with his facts.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By dluther on 4/7/2008 10:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
You're trying to equate the terms "credibility" and "objectivity"; the two are not synonymous.

The reporter has "credibility" because he has credentials stating that he is a journalist, and has some formative education stating that he is accredited to perform such a task. If he were a janitor doing this in his spare time, then that credibility would be lost.

He may not be objective, and his bias may tilt toward the left. You may not like the way he parts his hair, dangles his participles, or just generally writes things you disagree with out of a fundamental difference of opinion. But the credibility issue stands, and as such, relevance is maintained.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By phattyboombatty on 4/8/2008 9:51:40 AM , Rating: 2
You ignore what onelittleindian correctly pointed out--that credibility can also be gained by judging the accuracy of previous stories. With an unknown author, a reader is forced to judge his credibility based on his formal credentials. However, after the author has produced a body of work, readers can judge the author's credibility based on that work product (and in fact readers should judge credibility more on work product than formal credentials).


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By dluther on 4/8/2008 8:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
credibility can also be gained by judging the accuracy of previous stories.

It is that statement exactly that can best describe what I see as one of the greatest problems facing this current generation, in that they are so complacent in their total acceptance of mediocrity that it has become the standard by which others are judged.

No, credibility cannot be gained by accuracy; even a broken clock is right twice a day. And to say that checking facts, providing supporting links, or even something as simple as running a spell-check is all it takes to gain credibility says... well, it says quite a bit, actually. Look, let's put it into perspective here; just because Walt the janitor's bursitis gets painful before a storm doesn't make him a credible meteorologist, even if he can predict rain.

By stating that Michael Asher has lost his objectivity, I have somehow become a pariah, accused of spreading FUD, essentially being asked what makes me qualified to ask a question, and being generally a "masher-basher", and in actuality nothing could be further from the truth.

The thing these people don't seem to understand, cannot grasp, or simply don't want to acknowledge, is that I want Michael Asher to be relevant.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By phattyboombatty on 4/9/2008 9:41:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, credibility cannot be gained by accuracy

Wow, you are either incredibly naive or just a fool.
quote:
even a broken clock is right twice a day.

And wrong the other 1,438 times in the day for a whopping 99.86% failure rate. I think that clock fails the credibility test based on prior accuracy. Nice example. If Asher was wrong 99% of the time, I doubt he would have any credibility regardless of if he was a triple PhD, pubished author, nobel prize winner, etc.
quote:
just because Walt the janitor's bursitis gets painful before a storm doesn't make him a credible meteorologist, even if he can predict rain.

If Walt the janitor consistently predicts rain correctly, and the leading expert on meteorology with all the formal credentials keeps getting it wrong, I would start going to Walt to get my rain predictions. You can foolishly follow the accredited meteorologist's prediction to plan your picnic and I will follow Walt's. Have fun in the rain.


By dluther on 4/9/2008 1:19:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And wrong the other 1,438 times in the day for a whopping 99.86% failure rate.

But, the clock is exactly correct 24 times a day when you take into account the varying time zones. Also, whose time standards are we comparing it to; wouldn't that allow for say, a minute in either direction? How about taking into account leap minutes? Additionally, while the time may not be completely exact, it's certainly in the top 3/4's, 75% of the time.

And on to Walt the Janitor... What happens when Walt doesn't predict rain, say, it just gets really cloudy. Does Walt get a mulligan for that because he's not accredited as a meteorologist? How about when it gets cloudy for just a little while then the sun comes out? How about when NBC's meteorolgist says it's going to rain, but ABC's says it won't, but it'll just get cloudy? Walt's bursitis predicts rain but it doesn't, so are Walt *and* NBC frauds and charlatans? So you believe in Walt's bursitis, but it isn't 100%. What's the "credibility threshold" for you?

</sarcasm>

I didn't just put either analogy there for cheap grins; these are essentially the same types of arguments used by proponents and skeptics of AGW alike. Any position can be supported by facts; lawyers do it all the time, stating the facts while telling a lie. And it's that particular aspect that ultimately drives whole AGW controversy, because thing is, no matter what happens, everybody gets to say "See, I told you so".

Let's take this "cooling". AGW skeptics get to say "AGW is hogwash and here's proof". Objective skeptics get to say "It could be, but this is only an anomaly; let's see if it develops into a trend before passing final judgment". Proponents get to say "2007 is still one of the hottest years on record, and when you normalize the data to compensate for the La Nina effects, it surpasses 1998 by almost 3 degrees. Celsius!" And objective proponents get to say "It could be, but this is only an anomaly; let's see if it develops into a trend before passing final judgment".

quote:
Wow, you are either incredibly naive or just a fool.

All evidence to the contrary, but you are certainly entitled to your opinions.

But you know, if you find style to be an appropriate substitute for substance, well, good for you; I hope it works out because "infomercials" are custom made for people just like you, who are completely oblivious to the fact they are selling themselves so short.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By Andy35W on 4/8/2008 1:43:50 AM , Rating: 2
>When Asher was predicting 2007 would be a very weak hurricane year, they were saying it would be one of the strongest.

Then they were both wrong, however Asher was still saying it was weak after as well when in fact it was about average.

The point dluther is making, and I have made is that when the BBC journalists present a story they try and be objective, whereas the complaint about Masher is that is his not, he applies spin and a level of sensationalism.

He also tend to lead even when he knows something is not a good argument, for instance recently he has been dropping in local examples of cold weather to paint a picture when he knows that local hot or cold spots are not relevant to trend prediction and cause. But he still does it.

However I still think that he has a right to post information here and he is a good intelligent writer to boot, the only problem is it's likely to be another 10 years before he has to admit he is wrong :p ho ho.

I'm really hoping that there is clear sea at the geographic north pole soon so he can ignore that story completely!


By nofranchise on 4/8/2008 4:37:08 AM , Rating: 2
Hats off to dluther.

Having a master in journalism myself, I shudder at the level of blatant disregard for good reporting practice at DT. I enjoy reading DT and have every day for many years. But I must agree with dluther - even though I am unsure whether I agree or disagree about AGW.

The fact of the matter stands: Michael Asher writes a blog in which he shares his views. This should be apparent in the way he writes it and the way it is portrayed. This is not the case.

We who frequent DT regularly, know he is biased and can always expect Jason to support the opposite claim. But organs in favor of Mashers views can use this blog argumentatively.

John Doe hearing about GW on Fox doesn't know Michael Asher, and is fed Michaels viewpoints as valid, credible and objective news - and might accept them as truths because hee is portrayed as an authority. Which is wrong - they are a point of view in a debate made by a random person who happens to have a blog... (just like Jason Mick has a point of view, and happens to write a blog).

Of course it's bad journalism by Fox et al. but that could easily be avoided if Michael Asher simply stated/made clear that his personal opinion reigns supreme on his blog. That he is not an authority, and that he as a firm critic of AGW, will not write blog posts which condone or support AGW.

But that is not what Michael Asher wants I presume. He has an agenda, and if playing credible, objective "scientist" helps this agenda, then fine. It only helps his cause if his position and practice is misunderstood.

Thank you dluther for voicing a concern that is valid here as well as on many other blogging sites. Hey - a blog is a great tool/toy and all, but there are reasons journalists are taught endlessly about integrity and objectivity (and have staffs of fact checkers on hand).

PS: I don't really care if Michael Asher is a ph.d. in climate sciences or whatever - he should still apply the rules of objectivity when posing as a journalist.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By masher2 (blog) on 4/8/2008 6:20:40 AM , Rating: 2
> "Then they were both wrong, however Asher was still saying it was weak after as well when in fact it was about average"

This is incorrect. From FSU's COAPS (Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies:

quote:
The 2007 Atlantic Hurricane season was below-normal and tied for 2002 as the most inactive since the El Nino depressed 1997 season in terms of storm energy...The North Atlantic was not the only ocean that experienced quiet tropical cyclone activity. The Northern Hemisphere as a whole is historically inactive. How inactive? One has to go back to 1977 to find lower levels of cyclone energy as measured by the ACE hurricane energy metric. Even more astounding, 2007 was the 4th slowest year in the past half-century (since 1958).
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/maue_2007....

Whereas outlets like NOAA were still repeating claims of an above-average season all the way up to halfway through the season:
quote:
NOAA is predicting a very high likelihood (85% chance) of an above-normal 2007 Atlantic hurricane season , a 10% chance of a near-normal season, and only a 5% chance of a below-normal season
(Aug 2007: http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurrican... )

Daily Tech got this prediction right. I understand your opinion of this column, but please don't distort the record.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By Andy35W on 4/8/2008 8:40:15 AM , Rating: 2
>Daily Tech got this prediction right. I understand your opinion of this column, but please don't distort the record.

I'm not distorting the record, true, ACE measurement was low but other statistics show the season was average or only slightly lower than average, for instance total number of storms.

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2008/hurr200...

Figures are 2007, average and maximum. As you can see the actual number of storms was about average, though again you can argue anthropomorphic factors made those numbers higher or lower than they should have been (remember the argument above how quickly storms are named in 2007?.

Either way, the message that should have been put across was that hurricanes should not be used for either proving or disproving man made climate change at yet, there is no evidence to show they are connected, but instead you just used it to disparage the other viewpoint and so overemphasised how quiet it was. It's you who are distorting the record.

Just out of interest, what's your forecast for 2008?


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By masher2 (blog) on 4/8/2008 12:58:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "true, ACE measurement was low but other statistics show the season was average or only slightly lower than average"

ACE exists to meaure total storm activity. If the ACE is historically low, then storm activity is as well.

Total number of storms is a very poor metric. ACE takes into account not just the total storms, but their intensity and their duration. And -- as you point out -- total hurricanes were below average also, though by much less than the ACE.

Attempting to portray the 2007 hurricane season in any way, shape, or form as "average" is distortion, plain and simple.

> "the message that should have been put across was that hurricanes should not be used for either proving or disproving man made climate change at yet, there is no evidence to show they are connected"

Again, you distort the record. My first column on hurricanes made just this very point. And it did so at a time when the rest of the media was still trying to tell us that it was "proven" that global warming equated to more, stronger hurricanes.

Since my original column, several new research papers have agreed that no link between GW and hurricane strength has been proven. But despite this, it is still common for the mainstream media to pretend the link is settled science, beyond doubt for all.

If you want to question credibility, I suggest there would be a good place to start.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By just4U on 4/8/2008 1:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
Michael, I'd like to ask why you post up these articles? I know their imensely popular (that's a given) and stir up alot of debate but I'm curious ....

Regardless of your answer thumbs way up! Definitely a fan of reading your blog entries. I wish we'd see more stuff like this in mainstream media.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By masher2 (blog) on 4/8/2008 4:10:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Michael, I'd like to ask why you post up these articles? I know their imensely popular (that's a given) and stir up alot of debate but I'm curious ....
Primarily because I have the misbegotten belief that I'm doing some good. When I first began writing about climate change, opinion was almost uniformly negative. Now, it runs about 50-50. While I'd like to claim some of the credit for that, the reality is just that a decade of cooling has exposed the cracks in the seams.

Alarmists like to point out that the cooling hasn't disproven the core basis of GW. Of course. No amount of cooling can ever do that. But cooling does set fixed limits on how strong the CO2-based warming influence can be. In fact, the last decade has *already* disproven the ridiculous figures once bandied about -- a 6-12C warming in 100 years? Utter nonsense...and even the IPCC has realized it, scaling back their estimates for climate sensitivity in their 2007 report. Their next report (should another even ever be produced) will have to scale it back still further, to accomodate the new data. We're already to the point that GW, whether true or not, has become no more than a mild annoyance. Certainly not a catastrophe.

Anyway, I digress. Thanks for the kind words, and I hope you'll continue to keep reading.


By just4U on 4/8/2008 8:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Primarily because I have the misbegotten belief that I'm doing some good. When I first began writing about climate change, opinion was almost uniformly negative. Now, it runs about 50-50.


I figured as much, and considering (from my point of view) there is still a reluctance to discuss both sides of the coin on the Global Warming issue (in all it's aspects) then yeah your helping with that by posting these articles.

Which is always a good thing. I mean we can take away from these articles what we choose, and they are never designed as a rant but rather just offering up information from the flip side so hey.. Its all good.

Thanks for the response.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By Andy35W on 4/9/2008 1:46:44 AM , Rating: 2
>the reality is just that a decade of cooling has exposed the cracks in the seams

There is no decade of cooling, so no seems have been exposed. 1998 was a very hot year so you are picking that and saying the years since have been cooler, well that is true, but 1999 and 2000 were cooler than 2005, 2006 and 2007 so there is no cooling trend there. Just fluctuations.

Here's the list of the last 10 years coldes to hotest

2000 -> coldest
1999
2001
2007
2006
2004
2002
2003
2005
1998 -> hottest

How does that show cooling over the last 10 years? The 3 coldest years were straight after 1998, then it got warmer again.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By phattyboombatty on 4/9/2008 9:17:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How does that show cooling over the last 10 years?

Because the temperature at the end of the 10 years was cooler than the temperature at the beginning of the 10 years.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By Andy35W on 4/9/2008 2:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
>Because the temperature at the end of the 10 years was cooler than the temperature at the beginning of the 10 years.

No. Trends mean taking all years into consideration I'm afraid, you cannot just cherry pick what years you want.

What happens if you take 1999 for instance rather than 1998?Hey, large scale warming.God Damn!

How about trying to plot a graph of all those years and then do a straight line to show it is cooling, ie going down....

Good luck.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By phattyboombatty on 4/10/2008 9:34:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What happens if you take 1999 for instance rather than 1998?Hey, large scale warming.God Damn!

Yeah, but you asked about the last ten years, not the last nine years. Ten years is not some unnatural, arbitrary length of time. We happen to be in 2008 and that means the starting reference point is 1998. Next year, when 1999 is the starting reference point, you can state that the last ten years show warming.


By jbartabas on 4/10/2008 10:06:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, but you asked about the last ten years, not the last nine years. Ten years is not some unnatural, arbitrary length of time. We happen to be in 2008 and that means the starting reference point is 1998. Next year, when 1999 is the starting reference point, you can state that the last ten years show warming.


He was talking about a warming trend over 10 years, you answered about variability.

Now you tell me in what branch of science one measures an underlying trend by making the difference between two points affected by short term variability (here month-to-month or year-to-year) larger than the expected trend, then I'll accept you definition.

And playing your little game, 10 years back would be March 1998, that was colder than March 2008 according to the GISS data. So this month we were in a warming trend, last month we were not ... does not sound like a robust metric to me.


By jbartabas on 4/9/2008 2:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because the temperature at the end of the 10 years was cooler than the temperature at the beginning of the 10 years.


Not quite. Even assuming you give credit to a 1 year average to represent a trend (which I though you didn't ...), if the yearly variability of the signal is of the same order of the underlying trend, this variability can mask the trend.

Here, the long term trend is of the order of 0.2 degC/decade, and the std of the variability (std of the difference over for yearly averages) computed for ~ 150 years is 0.11 degC.

Therefore, the average variation from one year to the other is 0.11 degC, the extrema being of the order of 0.3 degC. Assuming that the warming trend was effectively 0.2 deg C for the last decade (academic hypothesis here, which I don't defend), you could very well have the last year cooler than the first one.

Just shift you first year of reference a bit and you'll have an idea of the robustness of this approach.
2007 - 1998 = -0.14 deg C
2007 - 1999 = +0.11 deg C

This is why the trends are observed with several years running-mean, in order to filter out short term variability.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By Andy35W on 4/8/2008 3:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
>ACE exists to meaure total storm activity. If the ACE is historically low, then storm activity is as well.

>Total number of storms is a very poor metric. ACE takes into account not just the total storms, but their intensity and their duration. And -- as you point out -- total hurricanes were below average also, though by much less than the ACE.

>Attempting to portray the 2007 hurricane season in any way, shape, or form as "average" is distortion, plain and simple.

You keep going on about ACE being really low but it was not, it was low but not enough to make it a quiet year even by a technical measurement. According to NOAA

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/backgrou...

Below-normal season: An ACE index value below 66 x 104 kt2, corresponding to below 75% of the median or 71% of the mean.

Which 2007 did not dip down to, or the number of hurricanes which should have been between 2 to 5 for below normal but was actually 6. So neither ACE or number show a quiet year by the technical definition. It was only quiet for people who want it to be so and so then distort the truth with their own wishes on how they want things to be.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By masher2 (blog) on 4/8/2008 4:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
> "You keep going on about ACE being really low but it was not, it was low but not enough to make it a quiet year "

I don't know whether you're intentionally being disingenuous or not, but the link in my earlier post was correct. ACE for the North Atlantic only was 71% of normal -- quiet, but not exceptionally so. ACE for the Eastern Pacific, however, was only 40% of normal. That's nearly unprecedented.

For the entire Northern hemisphere, ACE was the lowest it's been in 30 years. That's a very quiet season, no matter how hard you try to deny it.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By Andy35W on 4/9/2008 1:38:28 AM , Rating: 2
Disingenious?

Read my link again

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/backgrou...

According to the people who developed and use ACE 2007 does not classify as a quiet year for north Atlantic hurricanes (which was what your blog was talking about).

In fact of the 4 regions your link pointed to only one did so, the other 3 were average. Stop cherry picking.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By masher2 (blog) on 4/9/2008 9:18:14 AM , Rating: 2
> "In fact of the 4 regions your link pointed to only one did so, the other 3 were average. Stop cherry picking. "

Oops, you have it in reverse. The actual data is:

Northern Hemisphere: 69% of average
North Atlantic: 71% of average
Western Pacific: 69% of average
Eastern Pacific: 40% of average

Strictly speaking, all four basins were below average. According to the NOAA, however, the "below average" rating is reserved for those at 70% or below the mean. This means three of the four basins qualified.

In any case, it's quite obvious NOAA is playing a little game with the figures here. A season thats a full 29% below normal still qualifies as "near normal"...but one that rises a mere 10% above is rated "above average". The gerrymandering in those figures is quite obvious.

> "Here's the list of the last 10 years coldes to hotest...How does that show cooling over the last 10 years?"

Quite simple. Import the data into any statistical package, and do a linear regression. The result is a slight cooling trend. In fact, if you start from the year 2001 or so, the trend isn't even slight -- it's an amazingly steep 0.4C/decade


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By Andy35W on 4/9/2008 2:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
No, below normal is 66%

So 3 out of 4 are normal. You got it wrong.

And as for you critisising NOAA on how they qualify their own results, that's very rich indeed. They designated 66% before you even came along and now you have the cheek to say they are playing games and gerrymandering. Use your own figures and descriptions if you don't like what NOAA has decided, you obviously know better than them as a blogger with Google at his disposal.

Then you quoted me and responded

"Here's the list of the last 10 years coldes to hotest...How does that show cooling over the last 10 years?"

>Quite simple. Import the data into any statistical package, and do a linear regression. The result is a slight cooling trend. In fact, if you start from the year 2001 or so, the trend isn't even slight -- it's an amazingly steep 0.4C/decade

Why do you start from the year 2001 when previously 1998 was the year from when the cooling started? I guess you don't like 1999 and 2000 as they were cold. Cherry picking again.

:>Quite simple. Import the data into any statistical package, and do a linear regression. The result is a slight cooling trend.

Can you explain that step by step what you did and what package?

How about you pick up a pencil and draw a straight line graph from 1998 and post it in this blog wso we can see the temp decrease with out own eyes.



By masher2 (blog) on 4/9/2008 2:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
> "No, below normal is 66% So 3 out of 4 are normal. You got it wrong."

From your own NOAA link:
quote:
Below-normal season: An ACE index value below 66 x 104 kt2, corresponding to below 75% of the median or 71% of the mean ...


By jbartabas on 4/9/2008 3:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you explain that step by step what you did and what package?


I've done it, I don't find the numbers quoted by masher (which come from Basil Copeland, on Watts blog, as far as I can tell). First he got the year wrong, it is from 2002:01, and it is worth noting as 2000-2002 exhibit a local increase that influences noticeably the final slope.

Second I am not sure that a linear regression was used by Copeland (even if he plots straight line on his graph), or he's used different data than I have.

If someone else could do the same exercise, I'd be curious to see the results.


By clovell on 4/14/2008 2:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
He said ANY statistical package because a linear regression is essentially the same regardless of what package you use (Excel, SAS, R, S, Derive, the TI-80 Engine, Matlab, Mathematic, MiniTab, your own homebrew [insert favorite programming language here]) - unless you want to argue the convergence of different computing alogrithms that make for the occasional 10^(-9) (if that)difference.

This is because such an analysis is mathematically defined. A linear regression gives the slope of a line with an unfixed intercept that minimizes the squared residuals.

The comments Masher made about using a starting point of 2001 or so are extra anlyses typically done to demonstrate the robustness of a particular chosen analysis. Since linear regressions are sensitive to outliers (which, depending on your strict definition, 1998 could be counted as one), it makes sense to use numbers from 2001 to present to reinforce the validiy of a linear regression from 1998 to present.

A straight line from 1998 to present is not a linear regression analysis - not by any stretch of the imagination. You seem to be missing some understanding of fundamental statistical concepts that are vital to any quantitative analysis and appear to be grasping at straws now.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By mattclary on 4/10/2008 12:43:46 PM , Rating: 1
If you wish to seek the comfort of fellow members of the Holy Church of Global Warming, you should head over to Arstechnica, they are rife with members. I for one welcome Michael's skepticism.


RE: Michael Asher has lost his objectivity
By dluther on 4/10/2008 10:32:28 PM , Rating: 2
Now that really was quite uncalled for. No, seriously fella, what kind of point is it you're trying to make with such a banal statement? It's apparent that you haven't read anything I've composed in this entire thread, so let me summarize:

I want Michael to be skeptical; more than that, I want Michael to be relevant. This article isn't objective, in any sense of the word. I don't think people read DailyTech for its high journalistic standards and strict adherence to ethical practices, but it is definitely a great place for at least intelligent counterpoint to AGW proponents, because it really comes down to this: if you're dumb, congregate with smart people. If you're smart, congregate with smart people who will argue with you.

I am always interested in learning, and as such am always open to intelligent conversation on a great number of subjects for which I hold interest. I ask questions because knowledge generally does not come unbidden. However I am also not one to suffer fools gladly. Whenever someone attempts to characterize me as a blind religious zealot for not holding the same opinions as they, or proselytize me with beliefs they themselves hold with an equally religious fervor, then the entire point of conversation is completely lost; any further communication will be held in contempt prior to investigation.


By clovell on 4/14/2008 2:49:52 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly, you can't really say you didn't bring a bit of this on yourself. You launched an ad hominem attack on Asher's credibility, when the facts bore everything he said.

It isn't really 'un-objective' for Asher to write a blog article that confirms his previous article to be true after the media accused him of all manner of bad things.

Just take this one on the nose, and keep on - you lost the high ground when you started this thread.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki