Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling

[shira]

This data doesn't fit with left wing ideology, so the data must be wrong.

The data is fine. But Watts is - as usual - playing right-wing political games, and trying to pretend that the data means something it doesn't mean.

 

[fskimospy]

This data doesn't fit with left wing ideology, so the data must be wrong.

This is awfully ironic in a climate change denial thread.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Here's an interesting article regarding our current cooling trend. Some think that it's primarily due to the La Niña event in 1998...but we really don't know at this point.

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

 

[DominionSeraph]

Take a series that's starting at a high point and conclude, "Ohs, it's getting colder!"

Here's the yearly mean temperature differential from mean from the period with 25 years of mean added in: (If you believe the data establishing the mean, as it will average to a zero differential from mean we can just add them as zero to establish our previous baseline)

Woohoo, look at that "cooling."

 

[Thebobo]

Also that mentions only surface data.

 

[werepossum]

No, Watts is doing his own calculations, and then claiming that the data shows a decrease in mean temperature over the past 10 years. And has been pointed out in a previous post of mine, his calculations are erroneous.

With regard to adjusting data: Naturally, it's not possible that a better understanding of sources of errors in data might be identified and corrected over time. Just like - years after the fact - data on the U.S. economy is never tweaked by federal agencies as more information becomes available. Clearly, any modifications to data must have a nefarious political purpose.

And with respect to your stupid point about the hottest month: Please note that the temperature record has continued to be modified. Right now, the difference in the mean temperature for July 1936 (76.80 degrees) and July 2012 (76.77 degrees) is so small that it's entirely possible that the relative rankings of the two might "flip" again. But, according to Anthony Watts, any such flip must be announced with a fanfare and publicity; otherwise, it's proof that there's fraud afoot.

Edit: And just think about the absurdity of your point about which month was the hottest on record: If NOAA were playing political games with the numbers, why on earth would they "apply special sauce" and reduce July, 2012 to second place? Clearly, they'd dry-lab all data and make all new data the hottest and all old data the coolest. But they tweaked the data and made July, 1936 the hottest! And that proves they're playing a political game with the data? Even you must realize how twisted into a pretzel a mind must be to draw that conclusion.

Watts made a very limited point - that these new "pristine" weather stations, implemented because of the apparent problems with many of the existing weather stations (e.g. the surrounding areas getting paved), show cooling since their establishment. There are no calculations as such beyond very simple math and comparison.

As far as NOAA tweaking the data and making July 1936 the hottest month, they did not. Having been caught repeatedly lowering historic temperatures, NOAA was to an extent un-tweaking the data.

 

[Paratus]

This data points to surface temperature in the US.

Climate change, at its heart, is an energy balance equation.

If you want to show that there really is cooling going on then you also have to show the following:

• Global surface water temperature are decreasing
• Global deep water temperatures are decreasing
• Global ice mass is increasing

You also want to show it's not caused by something obvious like decreased solar output.

Otherwise it's just some guys incorrect opinion.

 

[Jaskalas]

Take up my challenge. If the pause lasts for another 6+ years, then CO2 is proven to be quite harmless. If temperatures rise again, then Climate Sensitivity may be demonstrated. If Climate Sensitivity is greater than 0.5c, I'll join your crusade against CO2.

 

[werepossum]

Take up my challenge. If the pause lasts for another 6+ years, then CO2 is proven to be quite harmless. If temperatures rise again, then Climate Sensitivity may be demonstrated. If Climate Sensitivity is greater than 0.5c, I'll join your crusade against CO2.

CO2 has other effects besides climate change, e.g. aquatic acidification and increased erosion from more acidic rain. Also, while plants use CO2 in photosynthesis let's not forget that plants also breath oxygen and CO2 is inherently toxic to plants as well. Excess CO2 is good for plants up to a point, but beyond that point it's actually inhibitory. If plants have more CO2 than they can break down for carbon and oxygen, then they must use energy to safely dispose of that excess CO2. That energy must either lower the amount of photosynthesis that can occur or lower the amount of energy that goes into forming secondary and tertiary compounds. You really can have too much of a good thing, especially if some other factor such as iron or micronutrients is limiting growth.

I'm pretty agnostic toward CAGW, but that doesn't mean I don't see problems with ever-increasing CO2 production. Clearly the Earth has seen much higher CO2 levels without becoming Venus so obviously there are quite effective negative feedback loops we don't really understand, but that doesn't mean that living through some of those negative feedback loops will necessarily be pleasant.

 

[Paul98]

Take up my challenge. If the pause lasts for another 6+ years, then CO2 is proven to be quite harmless. If temperatures rise again, then Climate Sensitivity may be demonstrated. If Climate Sensitivity is greater than 0.5c, I'll join your crusade against CO2.

You continue to post this over and over as if it has some merit. Your assertion is wrong.

(If other things stay the same and there isn't some major event.)
The pause in the rise in both sea surface and atmospheric temperature WILL continue, as long as sea surface mixing with the deep ocean continues to bring deep ocean cool waters to the surface. It's this from the trade wind strength causing the "pause". The atmosphere and ocean surface temperatures transfer heat between each other, warming one and cooling the other. It takes a lot more energy to change the temperature of water compared to air. You have a massive amount of cool water being put onto the surface, thus cooling the atmosphere and warming that surface. But that surface water keeps on getting circulated and continuing to bring up cool water.

Once this changes and the trade winds weaken and the ocean stops mixing in the way it is currently the temperatures will increase rapidly again.

So your assertion that the pause lasting for 6+ years proves CO2 isn't causing much global warming is incorrect.

 

[Paul98]

10 years, where a single year can change the trend from positive to negative. Starting from a year with no frame of reference. Less than 2% of the earths area. Doesn't do anything with ocean temperatures.

Trying to use this to disprove global warming is absurd. When it's warmer for a couple years will this then prove global warming is real?

 

[Matt1970]

My issue is pollution, so I still favor carbon credits/taxes/etc.

A cooler planet isn't going to make it easier for asthmatics to breathe.

Cap and trade just compensates the government for pollution.

 

[fskimospy]

Cap and trade just compensates the government for pollution.

Where did you get this silly idea from?

 

[dphantom]

10 years, where a single year can change the trend from positive to negative. Starting from a year with no frame of reference. Less than 2% of the earths area. Doesn't do anything with ocean temperatures.

Trying to use this to disprove global warming is absurd. When it's warmer for a couple years will this then prove global warming is real?

I am not proposing that at all. What I was interested in is the results from these new weather stations that are "unpolluted" from surrounding structures and the results they show over the first 10 years of their operation. I found it interesting. I then posed the question of what our temperature data may look like if we were able to extend the network over the entire globe.

If others want to try to extend the argument that is their prerogative. I said and meant nothing more.

What I find interesting as well is how vociferous the AGW supporters are when presented with data that even hints that warming is not rising at the rate they think it should and that man may not really be the primary cause.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What I find interesting as well is how vociferous the AGW supporters are when presented with data that even hints that warming is not rising at the rate they think it should and that man may not really be the primary cause.

I find this interesting as well. Here we are 17 years into this lull and it's taken this long for a some of the more rational folks here to finally "get it". As for the rest...I have little hope.

 

[Paul98]

I find this interesting as well. Here we are 17 years into this lull and it's taken this long for a some of the more rational folks here to finally "get it". As for the rest...I have little hope.

get what?

 

[Paul98]

I am not proposing that at all. What I was interested in is the results from these new weather stations that are "unpolluted" from surrounding structures and the results they show over the first 10 years of their operation. I found it interesting. I then posed the question of what our temperature data may look like if we were able to extend the network over the entire globe.

If others want to try to extend the argument that is their prerogative. I said and meant nothing more.

What I find interesting as well is how vociferous the AGW supporters are when presented with data that even hints that warming is not rising at the rate they think it should and that man may not really be the primary cause.

And what do you think this data shows other than the temperature variability of the last 10 years? Your title seems to imply some sort of long term cooling trend, while as I stated simply changing the start year, or end year, or having a hot or cold year will change this "trend".

 

[dphantom]

And what do you think this data shows other than the temperature variability of the last 10 years? Your title seems to imply some sort of long term cooling trend, while as I stated simply changing the start year, or end year, or having a hot or cold year will change this "trend".

I believe the article pointed all that out or was implied in it. Anything else was clearly speculation, a perfectly valid jumping off point for discussion. It is when speculation is delivered as fact that there is a problem.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

get what?

Perfect! Too funny!

 

[fskimospy]

Perfect! Too funny!

Have you considered the possibility that "getting it" would involve the rejection of an enormous amount of contrary scientific data? Who would want to do such a silly thing?

 

[Paul98]

Perfect! Too funny!

Did you both to read my post above giving the reason why not only temperatures aren't rising, but why they won't in the near future?

 

[Babbles]

Analyzing climate data is complicated stuff. The most powerful computers in the world need to be used for these types of analyses.

It drives me nuts when people with absolutely zip, zero, zilch training either write articles or make critiques on the Intrawebz attempting to 'interpret' the data. If I had to guess most people don't understand statistics or design of experiments which is rather fundamental to be able to even determine, "Hey, is this important or not?"

I do not want to go down the road of if you aren't a trained expert therefore you can't make informed opinions; but, again, this is arguably one of the most complicated topics in the world. As such, opinions need to be tempered.

I suspect neither Forbes or Anandtech would write an article on how to do a total hip replacement surgery, but that procedure is crazy 'easy' and well understood in comparison to global climate analysis.

If it is worth anything, I am a trained scientist; 15 years now in analytical chemistry. Analytical science, not climate science. Arguably one of the most important thing a trained scientist can say is, "I don't know crap about this, let's grab a subject matter expert." So, I just wait for the subject matter experts in global warming to distill the info for me.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Have you considered the possibility that "getting it" would involve the rejection of an enormous amount of contrary scientific data? Who would want to do such a silly thing?

What contrary scientific data are you talking about which refutes the fact that we've been in a prolonged temperature increase lull the past 17 years?

 

[fskimospy]

Analyzing climate data is complicated stuff. The most powerful computers in the world need to be used for these types of analyses.

It drives me nuts when people with absolutely zip, zero, zilch training either write articles or make critiques on the Intrawebz attempting to 'interpret' the data. If I had to guess most people don't understand statistics or design of experiments which is rather fundamental to be able to even determine, "Hey, is this important or not?"

I do not want to go down the road of if you aren't a trained expert therefore you can't make informed opinions; but, again, this is arguably one of the most complicated topics in the world. As such, opinions need to be tempered.

I suspect neither Forbes or Anandtech would write an article on how to do a total hip replacement surgery, but that procedure is crazy 'easy' and well understood in comparison to global climate analysis.

If it is worth anything, I am a trained scientist; 15 years now in analytical chemistry. Analytical science, not climate science. Arguably one of the most important thing a trained scientist can say is, "I don't know crap about this, let's grab a subject matter expert." So, I just wait for the subject matter experts in global warming to distill the info for me.

I have also found this to be incredibly strange. People with zero scientific training would never pick up one of your analytical chemistry projects and declare that you're an idiot/lying/that they know better than you. For some unfathomable reason people seem perfectly content to do just that with climate science.

To me it seems that it has become a culture war/political constraint issue. Elites and ideology tell people that climate science is a lie and if you fall on their end of the spectrum you are powerfully incentivized to believe them.

For a good example, this study on the vaccine-autism link found a similar thing:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...in-believing-things-that-just-arent-true.html Not only did science not convince those who believed differently, in some cases making people aware of the science made them believe wrong things even more strongly.

Humans are strange creatures.

 

[fskimospy]

What contrary scientific data are you talking about which refutes the fact that we've been in a prolonged temperature increase lull the past 17 years?

It's already been mentioned in this thread!