Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Miscellania on a Cooling World

Hagiograph has asked some interesting questions that I will try to answer. He says in a comment in the Mosy across Missouri post that because the temperature data is so bad that it is good that scientists have other means of measuring temperature. In reality they don't have too many other methodologies. Let's compare the satellite data from the University of Alabama, Huntsville with the temperature data.

The red dots are the yearly temperature anomaly. One can see it going up and down pretty much in sync with the satellite data, but it doesn't go down in 2008 and 2008 was a very cold year. I would point out that the thermometer data, the red dots are going up at .016 deg F per year (the regression slope) but the satellite data is only going up at the rate of .004 deg F per year. It seems that the land thermometers are being biased. We will see more of that below.

At this site one can find the weekly temperature anomaly for subdivisions of the US. In 2008, this is what the histogram of the US looked like

You can see that this is weighted towards the cooler temperatures, yet they say that 2008 was warm. It wasn't. There were multi-decadal temperature records broken all over the world in 2008. Do a google on it.

This same NOAA site allows one to get the temperature trend for central Greenland by making a map and then clicking on one of the dots. This is what I get for the temperature trend in central Greenland for 2003 to 2007.

I would like to ask anyone who actually believes in global warming how Greenland is going to melt when the temperature is getting colder? Today I read a Scientific American article where the author thinks that Greenland is going to melt in a few years. How can it do that if it is getting cooler?

Another means of looking at the temperature is via Global Climate at a Glance. It shows that the oceans have been cooling but the land warming since 2003. If there is a single cause of warming, CO2, then the oceans should be warming along with the land, but it isn't.

Note that the oceans are cooling since 2003 and the land warming, and that most of the warming is in northern Russia. I find this strange since the download of the data for Russia doesn't show the warming. I have lots of them fromthis Dutch site The Siberian temperatures all look like this, which show no warming.

Where in the world is that warming they are talking about. What a scam!

The dear reader should ask himself this: if CO2 is the main driver of climate, why does the temperature record at Amundsen-Scott station at the South Pole not show any warming given that the CO2 content of the atmosphere has risen by nearly a third since the 1950s.

Amundsen-Scott seems to be cooling slightly in a world of increasing CO2 and hysteria over the melting of the Antarctic ice.

One final picture to show the relative amount of carbon 14 as one goes deeper into the ocean. At 1000 feet in the North Pacific, the content of carbon 14 is about 60% depleted, meaning that water is over 5700 years old, and probably closer to something like 9000 years old.

In short, the data doesn't support the views of the Holocene deniers. There is nothing to fear.


  1. Just curious about the top graph:
    If I grabbed the right data from and I do an Excel plot of the year and month against the column titled GLOBAL I get a graph that looks a lot like the blue line on your top graph. You indicate it only has a slope of 0.004 but I got a slope of 0.013 which isn't too far off from what you say is the slope of the red dots. I couldn't find the data for the red dots. Could you post the direct link to the data set?

    I hope I'm not included in the "Holocene Deniers" club. I took a geology class back in college and I know the earth has had different climates throughout its history. I think that the real difference today is that we humans may be responsible for some if not all of the global climate change.

    In addition, during the holocene there weren't huge metropoli within sight of the shore. Like New York City. 8 million people displaced from NYC alone would cause significant impact on our society. Take that and multiply it many times over to see the effect it will have with global sea level increases over time.

    I don't know that global climate change would necessarily mean the end of all life, the earth has seen a lot of change over time, but it might be the end of human civilization or at least a serious debilitating blow. Certainly a disaster for our society and countless others.

    And the worst part is; if we don't do anything and we could have done something it's irresponsible on our part and pretty much "wrong" by any measure.

    If this is just a natural cycle and we can't do anything to stop it, then it doesn't much matter does it? I mean, if we learn to live burning less coal and oil, or with a more environmentally sustainable approach, isn't that a "good thing"?

    I'm not a scientist. I don't fully understand all of this, but it sure looks like it couldn't hurt to treat it with seriousness and maybe just a bit of "fear".

  2. One other thing, about the Oceans warming:

    Seems there's a few articles out from the past couple of years about this topic. Here's a quote from one:

    ‘The research, which will appear in the June 18 early online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, casts doubt on recent findings that the top 700-meters of the global ocean cooled markedly from 2003-2005.

    ‘“Our analysis shows that the 2003-2005 ‘cooling’ is largely an artifact of a systematic change in the observing system,” said Krishna AchutaRao, previously of Livermore’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI)’

    Seems like they found a “warm bias” in some of the older instrumentation (a topic, Glenn, you are no doubt fond of discussing) and that warm bias caused an appearance of cooling. They have deployed new “Argo Floats” which are apparently better instruments:

    ‘“This transition from a measuring system biased warm to a more realistic one appears as a cooling. Obviously, models can’t account for spurious variability caused by instrument changes,” AchutaRao said.’

    Also, an article in Nature apparently has found ocean warming: “The paper, published today in Nature, shows ocean warming and thermal expansion trends for the past five decades are 50% larger than earlier previously estimated.”

    Here’s part of what the Nature article says:

    “Our ocean warming and thermal expansion trends for 1961–2003 are about 50 per cent larger than earlier estimates but about 40 per cent smaller for 1993–2003, which is consistent with the recognition that previously estimated rates for the 1990s had a positive bias as a result of instrumental errors”

    As for ocean “cooling” since 2003, well, apparently a scientist whose work may have made it seem that that was the case, has found that, when compared with various other methods and means of measurement and associated processes, that it might have been made to appear like more of a cooling due to instrumentation error.

    I think this is an interesting article from NASA:

    I think this is the kind of thing that scientists gain from comparing one technique against another.

    It sounds like the models are still in development and the measuring systems are still getting established. But it does seem that while there are interdecadal trends, the idea that the ocean is “cooling” isn’t necessarily wholly accurate as an indictment against global warming.

    But again, I am not a scientist and I don’t fully follow everything in the articles. Maybe if you look at it with a more “scientific view” you will be able to address it more accurately.

  3. I have been super busy and out of town for the past couple of weeks, so I didn't see your two comments until now. As to the LLNL comment, they talk about 2003-2005. My data comes from NOAA and is from 2003 to 2007, so, whatever problem they have doesn't even cover the entire time of the cooling. No doubt someone will come up with something to claim that all is warming, as this is the religious zeitgeist of our times.

    As to your comment about the displacement of New Yorkers, that won't happen anytime soon. Dikes will be built and/or people will gradually move out of the way. I get variations of this worry when one shows that nothing unusual is happening to our weather. Suddenly it becomes a concern about the poor people who must move.

    Concerning being a holocene denier. You will have to judge that. But I will say that all I am doing is using the data that the government entities have on their web pages, and I don't see the warming they are all claiming. Clearly if the data is wrong, then so are my conclusions, but this is, after all, THEIR data, not mine. I just downloaded a lot of data from NOAA, the weather people, and none of the data shows any warming since 2003. Since ARGO floats don't work in Greenland, what do you think is the cause of the cooling in Greenland? Or should I ask what do you think their excuse will be?