backtop


Print 118 comment(s) - last by christojojo.. on Jan 30 at 7:49 PM

James Hansen puts an interesting spin on reports of the ninth warmest year on record

2012 was a kind of glass-half full, glass half-empty year in terms of global temperature.  

I. Climate Chief: Don't Worry, We're Still Doomed

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) in-depth analysis of satellite and other forms of climate data ruled the year was the ninth warmest on record.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) independent analysis of ground and sea-based climate stations reported that the year was the tenth warmest on record.

The NASA report states that the average global temperature was 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit (14.6 Celsius), which is 1.0 F (0.6 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline, or 1.4 F (0.6 C) warmer than the earliest comprehensive observations from the 1880s.

Still, the year marks the fifth year of a relative flatline in global temperatures after a decade in which the record was regularly broken.

Global warming proponents like James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, blame this deviation from their "doomsday" calculations on a specialized cooling phenomenon called "La Nina", which lowers temperatures in the Eastern Pacific.

Surface temperatures
Despite flat-lining surface temperatures over the last five years, some climate researchers insist we're headed to doomsday warming and should keep our fingers on the panic button.
[Image Source: GISS]

The climate official claims that aerosols, which reflect solar radiation, also had a cooling affect on temperatures.

Mr. Hansen argues that the public shouldn't just look at the numbers, but look at more nebulous and abstract observations, which he sees as supporting his beliefs of runaway warming.  He writes, "The observant person who is willing to look at the past over several seasons and several years, should notice that the frequency of unusual warm anomalies has increased and the extreme anomalies."

He and other global warming advocates have pointed to the summer's drought in central North America and high temperatures in the Rocky Mountains as such "extreme anomalies".  

II. A Hot Year for the U.S., Arctic, but a Cool One Elsewhere

2012, according to a separate NOAA report, was the hottest year on record for the U.S. The year did mark a new low for summer Arctic sea ice, according to NASA.  However, that could bring some benefits for mankind, such as opening up oil resources.

NOAA map
Parts of the globe cooled, others warmed in 2012. [Image Source: NOAA]

And temperatures for the year were actually cooler than average in several regions -- Alaska, far western Canada, central Asia, parts of the eastern and equatorial Pacific and parts of the Southern Ocean.

California meteorologist Anthony Watts, a known critic of doomsday predictions from folks like James Hansen, casts the U.S.'s record year in a different light, commenting, "If anything, U.S. temperatures are warming at a slower rate in recent decades compared to the early warming period, even with all of that lovely warm weather last year."

He points out that the recent increase (1980-2012) in U.S. surface temperatures was dwarfed by a sharp rise between 1919-1934, which was followed by a period of cooling.

In a follow-up piece, he argues the overall flatline may indicate that natural forces (including in a cooling direction) have a greater impact on global temperatures than human ones, based on his independent analysis over the last half decade.

Sources: NASA, NOAA, Jame Hansen [note]



Comments     Threshold


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

By Captain Orgazmo on 1/16/2013 6:01:26 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly.

All science depends on reliable and reproducible empirical evidence, demonstrable cause and effect, and lack of bias on the part of the scientist (i.e. the willingness to accept that the hypothesis is incorrect in light of the evidence).

True scientific research is done for the sake of knowledge, not for grants and job security.

Not one of these greedy quacks will explain why the data from weather stations constructed in farmland in the 1950s, now located in the middle of black asphalt parking lots, is valid, while stations in the middle of Siberia or Alaska that show cooling are discounted.


By Mint on 1/16/2013 9:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
So what's your excuse for satellite data?

It almost perfectly matches the surface data that you insist has been manipulated by "greedy quacks".


By JediJeb on 1/16/2013 10:05:13 PM , Rating: 4
Can you compare satellite data from today to satellite data from 1900? The big problem is that without using a lot of massaging of data with statistics you can't compare the total history of temperatures. Satellite data from the same area that is now asphalt paved compared to the ground data from that same location today will compare quite well if both are methods are correctly calibrated, but that still doesn't correct for the fact that temperatures at that spot will be warmer today than they were 50 years ago simply because the landscape has changed and that skews the data for determining rise of temperatures over history.

Sound science would reject the data from those sample points across the entire time because the measuring conditions are not consistent. In my work as a chemist data is not considered reliable unless the measurements are taken under the same conditions(unless you are quantifying the effect of the changing conditions). The only thing that data proves is that if you pave the area around a monitoring station the average temperature will increase.


By Mint on 1/17/2013 7:40:01 AM , Rating: 2
We're never going to be able to truly verify historical measurements. The best we can do is look at natural proxies, and so far the limited sources correlate well. Moreover, there has been plenty of changing landscape and economic growth in the last few decades, so if there was some sort of flaw in this correction methodology, it would have shown notable deviations from the 34 years of satellite data we have.

But this article is talking about "flatlining" in the last five years. The accuracy of data from 1900 isn't a factor here.


By TheEinstein on 1/17/2013 5:12:00 AM , Rating: 5
Allow me to correct you

1) There are weather stations then there are Weather Stations. www.SurfaceStations.org shows the stations in use by the NOAA (and NASA) are in error at 92% of the Stations.

2) This gets compounded by "Forcing" fake weather station locations (this is a laymans description, I can get more technical). They act as if the weather at a few thousand locations will match up to their algorithm. Algorithms that have never successfully patterned weather.

3) Statisticians, Politicians, and Truck Drivers. They all lie at times. Especially when it can get them money, fame, or otherwise benefit them. In any event this is fairly easy to lay out for a layman.

Politics... the surverys and polls always come with a 'margin of error'. There are several reasons for that, suffice to say sampling methods are imprecise to that degree. Sampling methods on humans can sometimes be way off but I digress.

Our sampling methods on temperatures is using computer (erroneous at that) generated samples, erroneous base samples (see point #1) and they come up with figures where temperatures fall definitively within a natural variability range adjusted with a margin of error.

4) Natural Variability and time of recordings is also interesting. The weather in X, Y, and Z locations may tend to be similar in nature across the entire spectrum of time. However their record temperatures on given specific days will vary. Even though, say perhaps, Z has had a high of 103 degrees on July 15th for a record for 100 years, Y may never have passed 100 degrees. Now suddenly Y has a 101 degree day and a new local record is made. This is still within natural variability.

5) Mounting evidence shows extreme efforts have been made to shut out opposition voices, to work together (by the cheaters) to create falsifications, to rig as much of the game as possible. They hide samples, evidence, methods, and formulae as much as they can. Normal scientists will be very open, will not stop peer review by critics, will provide methods and evidence if scrutiny shows it may be flawed and will not attempt to force others to comply with their outcome.

6) The scientists who are open to peer review have done significant work which disproves AGW (Man Made Global Warming) and man made Climate Change. Specifically let me name CRU as one of the parties which has done peer reviewable science which shows how clouds get formed and their effects upon our climate. Their work shows an outside source, Cosmic Radiation, plays a most significant role in cloud formation.

7) Solar requires use of rare earth metals currently to make effective panels, that or other costly methods. Wind power kills more birds that hunters do annually. The fact is a few new people are getting rich on Government Pork to make these projects.

8) The Northwest passage was first navigated in 1906. Since then a number of ships, including a Canadian War Ship, have navigated the passage, prior to claims of Global Warming. There is a famous picture of 3 submarines surface in the exact North Pole... in the 60's as well. The fact is the passage is accessible via improvements in ship hull designs and the usage of Ice Cutter vessels.

9) It was claimed Polar Bears would die out or at least become endangered... instead most groups are actually thriving.

10) Efforts to claim huge and significant ice loss in the Artic were undone by using actual NASA (and Google in one famous incident) images which showed typical melt in the summer followed by typical icing in the winter.

11) Efforts were once made to use ice berg counts to support AGW claims. "Look a tenfold increase!". This was found to be a situation where previously Ice Bergs were only noted if they entered shipping lanes... but as of (I forget the year) we were counting ALL Ice Bergs (interesting note... since we started counting them all there has been no cries of increases).

12) .... meh... if you want to bring up more points I will show them to be false as well.

Don't think of this as an attack.. think of it as me showing you were duped and start to want to destroy those who duped you.


By Captain Orgazmo on 1/17/2013 7:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
You can lay out the obvious over and over, but people like to imagine crises that don't exist. Makes 'em feel special, like something important is happening. First world problems, as they say.

The most important point you make is about the politics. Clearly, these discussions are entirely political. They were from the start, when Margaret Thatcher used the dubious theory of CO2 causing runaway global warming as a weapon against the striking coal miners in Britain. Coal production was virtually stopped, and the unions couldn't strike once their jobs were gone.

The whole bunch of BS was almost forgotten about (although I remember hearing some crap about the greenhouse effect and CO2 in school in the early 90s - same teacher who claimed the moon had no gravity), until Maurice Strong (former CEO of the hated state entity Petro-Canada who moved to Beijing) realized that the CO2 theory could be used as a weapon against the capitalist west, to the benefit of his new allies, the Chinese Communists.

He got the UN on board, and had most western nations sign the Kyoto Accord. Of course none of the nations that signed even came remotely close to their promised goals of CO2 reduction, and surprise surprise, I don't see Kevin Costner with gills swimming down the street.

Al Gore came in afterwards to make a buck, and ended up with a few hundred million more. In the process his ridiculously exaggerated claims (proven in court in Britain to be propaganda), scared the piss out of millions of dupes, who now call you names and say you are a "denier" for attempting to engage in a civilized discussion of scientific study.


By Paj on 1/18/2013 8:08:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
5) Mounting evidence shows extreme efforts have been made to shut out opposition voices, to work together (by the cheaters) to create falsifications, to rig as much of the game as possible. They hide samples, evidence, methods, and formulae as much as they can. Normal scientists will be very open, will not stop peer review by critics, will provide methods and evidence if scrutiny shows it may be flawed and will not attempt to force others to comply with their outcome.


If youre talking about the CRU emails, multiple enquiries have cleared them of any falsification, misinformation or scientific impropriety.

Not something the deniers can attest to unfortunately:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/false-balan...

Could you give us information of this mounting evidence to shut out any opposition? Personally, I have yet to see any deniers have their families persecuted, their property damaged, death threats sent to them, or be pilloried on major world media, as has happened to legitimate climate scientists the world over.

That sort of action takes organisation.

The science is thoroughly peer reviewed, which is why its the AGW is the currently held position of virtually every major national science academy worldwide, including the US, and multiple global NGOs and the UN. Sure, mistakes are occasionally made, but that is the purpose of peer review in the first place.

Lol @ forcing others to comply with the outcome. You make it sound like the climate gestapo are driving around to deniers in the dead of night and making them an offer they cant refuse. Instead its very much the other way around.


By Mint on 1/19/2013 8:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
Good God, how much misinformation can you put in one post?

1, 2) So why do surface measurements almost match satellite measurements for 34 years if the former is so flawed and corrupt as you allege?

3) Please, you can use this lame argument to discredit any scientist in any field.

4) Just because some fools think local records are evidence of GW doesn't mean you disprove the theory by disproving that strawman.

5) BS. There is nothing more hidden here than elsewhere. The tree-ring hockey stick was discredited through availability of the data and algorithms.

6) Nothing significant has been proven about cosmic radiation:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-detailed-look-at...
Svensmark's theory has been debunked with data since he published it.

Cosmic radiation has gone up in the last 25 years, which is supposed to increase cloud cover and cause cooling. It's rather telling that you chose this "specifically" as your best debunk of AGW, because it failed hard.

7) The one thing I agree on. I think rare earths and birds are the least of the problems with solar and wind. Their intermittence means they do not reduce the fossil fuel capacity we need. Moreover, they make that backup power ramp up and down, making efficient CCGT operation difficult and increasing maintenance costs. That results in higher costs and CO2 per kWh from the backup power. Until we figure out cheap energy storage, solar and wind are bad ideas.

To all AGW advocates, go nuclear or go home. Even Patrick Moore (cofounder of GreenPeace) knows that, which is why he left.

8, 9, 11, 12) Irrelevent. See #4 above.

10) Uhh, what? Sea ice coverage after each summer melt has been receding even faster than projected. In the winter, its been getting thinner. What on earth are you talking about?

You guys are all focusing on the wrong part. All predictions going against AGW have been proven wrong in the last decade. The science there is highly unlikely to be wrong.

The weakpoint in the AGW argument is with the cost-benefit analysis of taking action. You can use the IPCC's own figures to show that it costs $1 trillion per 0.02 deg of prevented warming even if you only spend 2 cents extra per kWh for CO2 free energy (e.g. the wind production credit), and that's under the generous assumption that we figure out how to efficiently run CCGT plants while ramping them up and down.


By TheEinstein on 1/22/2013 7:58:04 AM , Rating: 3
Oh no you didn't!

Time to pull my can of woop ass out. Prepare for link hell.

1) So why do surface measurements almost match satellite measurements for 34 years if the former is so flawed and corrupt as you allege?</> First I want you to provide proof of a satellite in 1978 which accurately measures ground temperatures. Then show continous recordings. Then show margins of error. Why do I demand this? Because if we had such satelites in the Cold War the Russians would have gone coockoo for cocoa puffs right then. This specious, unbacked, claim of yours dies here and now.

3) Please, you can use this lame argument to discredit any scientist in any field. I was not aware all scientists used flawed mathematical formula's, based on errenous sample data, with failed modeling past a single year. Why thank you for your broad assertion.

4) Just because some fools think local records are evidence of GW doesn't mean you disprove the theory by disproving that strawman. AGW is premised upon all local region's having a temperature. Ergo all local issues are relevent since they also contribute to the whole. Your claim of a strawman is in fact a strawman argument.

5) BS. There is nothing more hidden here than elsewhere. The tree-ring hockey stick was discredited through availability of the data and algorithms.
First I end the consensus lie: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968
Second I prove my point: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chri...
For those wary of links the first shows that scientists reviewing the IPCC Report often disagreed but were edited out by those in control. The product included reviews and dissents but only what the Editors wanted got in the final report.

The 2nd link shows how the worlds best expert on Polar Bears was excluded from International AGW conferences about Polar Bears.

6) Nothing significant has been proven about cosmic radiation:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-detailed-look-at...
Svensmark's theory has been debunked with data since he published it.</>
CERN validated his work with their CLOUD unit. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-new...
Not only are your wrong, your way wrong.

7) The one thing I agree on. I think rare earths and birds are the least of the problems with solar and wind. {Snip}
Ignore the pork,make a politicql statement of your own. Nice...

8, 9, 11, 12) Irrelevent. See #4 above.
Aka ignored cause you cannot reply

10) Uhh, what? Sea ice coverage after each summer melt has been receding even faster than projected. {Snip}
Actually this is a misdirection fallacy. http://m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?i... The ice, paraphrasing, was at the largest known levels ever recorded. This was in 2011. The problem is more complex than 'it melted fast' or it melted more. In fact you did not specify a time limit but I will not take it to mean 100,000 years. The commonly quoted number is usually 8 years on awkward claims such as this. We suffer two equations, quicker and stronger. You chose quicker alone which makes this easier. Nominally a 2^8 outcome for quicker would result. This wouod normally be a once in 256 year result. However we also know about the 1910 to1920 temperature highs, which would indicate a 80-100 year cycle. Knowing of the past and that it is cyclical in nature allows us to refine our result to approximately 2^3.5 for any given 8 year period.

You guys are all focusing on the wrong part. All predictions going against AGW have been proven wrong in the last decade. The science there {snip} It is far more correct to say all AGW predictions have not come true.

I highlighted the best funniest ones. Child let us who do science lead, you stay quiet. I just knocked ALLof your statements down. Ifyou wish to learn, to become better... http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/inde...

The truth will set you free


By TheEinstein on 1/22/2013 8:03:55 AM , Rating: 2
Wow posting while sick.

Italics and bold not closed properly, lol


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home














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