Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Last 10 years period warmest on modern record

The AGW denier canard that the earth has been cooling since 1998 is taken apart by Seth Borenstein in AJC.

The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

No more cherries now, deniers.

Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped — thus, a cooling trend. But it's not that simple.

Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.

The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.

"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."

The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

Whammo, some ammo for the noggin of the next denier dumb enough to pull the "but, it's-cooling" caper on me. Some other useful links to load up on:

H/t: Climatespin


VangelV said...

What nonsense. Take data that is incomplete and adjusted by NOAA, which adds about 0.6F to whatever readings are noted and it is no wonder that you get the warmest decade. But NASA/GISS has admitted that the 1930s were warmer than the 1990s and that 1934, not 2005 or 1998, was the warmest year for the US. If you use the CRU data you have to assume that it is valid because the data keepers have said that they destroyed or lost most of the original records. But the records that are available show a lot of missing information that is filled in by CRU. Compounding the problem is the CRU adjustment for the UHI effect, which is only 0.05C/century, about 20 times less than the what CRU's own Phil Jones has found to be the necessary adjustment in his latest paper. (That paper still has a lower effect than is indicated in most of the literature. If the proper adjustment were made there would be no warming since the 1930s, just as is the case for the US data.)

The warmers need to figure out how to spin temperatures that are about the same level as those 80 years ago as a warming crisis. Given the turn in sentiment I doubt that they will be able to pull off the deception for much longer.

Anonymous said...

I seriously doubt that global warming can be stopped or reduce by eleminating the space shuttle launches. How much additional heat is added to the admosphere each time a space shuttle launches. I would also say atmospheric heat could be reduce if the oil refineries and the oil fields did not burn off the excess natural gas trapped in the oil. These fires burn 24/7/365. I have never seen any reports about the gulf oil fires from Iraq. How much pollution and heat did those fires add to the atmosphere. Here is a link to a picture of natural gas burn off from an oil field in Iraq. Please check it out for yourself and decide if any of what i've said has any merits. Thank you for your consideration and attention in this matter. Link: http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/natural-gas/photo//091103/photos_wl_me_afp/f6f187a4d57b909061e1a12ba0cd6840//s:/afp/20091103/wl_mideast_afp/iraqenergyoilcompanybpcnpc

David Samson said...

Geoscientists know that the reason for the cooling and warming has to do with cycles in the intensity of the sun and not variation in the amount of carbon dioxide in the greenhouse gases. Current research is focused on whether cycles in sun spot activity are an indication of the variation in the sun’s intensity and, therefore; an indication of the earth’s changing temperatures. Sun spot activity has been very low during the last 10 years, during which time the earth has been cooling, not warming. 98% of all energy comes from the sun. The other 2 percent is from the interior of the earth, i.e. volcanism. The trivial influence of all human activities is not significant by comparison. Can we do anything about climate change?? Thank GOD, no!! If we could, there’s no telling what horrendous unintended consequences might result.