Hadley Center to delayers (this means you Pielke): We’re warming, not cooling

Posted on  

"Hadley Center to delayers (this means you Pielke): We’re warming, not cooling"

The deniers/delayer-1000s cite recent UK Hadley Center data to promote their “climate is cooling” disinformation. Even Roger Pielke, Jr. is peddling this nonsense with his recent inanely titled post, “Update on Falsification of Climate Predictions.” Falsification? Gimme a break!

The 8 warmest years in the 150 global temperature record are, according to the Hadley Center, in order, 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2007 – those are also the 8 warmest years in the NASA record, in a different order, starting with 2005, then 2007 tied with 1998). Where the heck is the cooling trend? Shame on you, Pielke for lending your name and website to this delayer-1000 nonsense.

It is only fair to ask what the Hadley Center thinks its data shows (much as we’ve heard NASA explain that its data shows unequivocal warming). Answer: they believe it unequivocally shows we are in a warming trend, including this decade. They make one of the best analytical points I have seen in the whole discussion of this cooling nonsense:

Another way of looking at the warming trend is that 1999 was a similar year to 2007 as far the cooling effects of La Ni±a are concerned. The 1999 global temperature was 0.26 °C above the 1961-90 average, whereas 2007 is expected to be 0.41 °C above this average, 0.15 °C warmer than 1999.

[And this explanation doesn’t even note that total solar irradiance in 1999 was 0.3 W/m2 higher than in 2007, which might actually reduce 2007’s temperature relative to 1999 by some 0.1°C!]

This comes from a terrific page titled, “Climate Change Myths” by Prof. John Mitchell, Chief Scientist at the Met Office. One of the myths he debunks is “Myth 6 — 1998 was the warmest year in the global annual temperature record and this has led some to claim that temperatures have been decreasing ever since.” Here is his reply — it is worth reprinting and reading in its entirety:

1998 saw an exceptional El Ni±o event which contributed strongly to that record-breaking year. Research shows that an exceptional El Ni±o can warm global temperatures by about 0.2 °C in a single year, affecting both the ocean surface and the land air temperatures. It is therefore not surprising that 1998 appears as a warm outlier. Had any recent years experienced such an El-Ni±o, it is very likely that this record would have been broken. More recently, 2005 was also an unusually warm year, the second highest in the global record, but was not boosted by the El Ni±o conditions that augmented the warmth of 1998.

The fact remains that the rise in underlying surface temperature has averaged in excess of 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. The warming trend can be seen in the graph (right, top) of observed global temperatures. The red bars show the global annual surface temperature, which exhibit year-to-year variability. The blue line clearly shows the upward trend, far greater than the uncertainties which are shown as thin black bars. Recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Ni±a conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures.

hadley.gif

Prof. Mitchell then makes the comparison that 2007 was 0.15 °C warmer than 1999. Finally, he writes:

The diagram [below] ranks global temperatures for the last 150 years. It can be seen that the 17 warmest years all occur in the last 20 years.

hadley2.gif

So, yes, the planet is in a major warming trend whose dominant cause is human emissions — even recently.

Does anybody doubt that when we get out of the La Ni±a and the recent solar irradiance minimum, we will see a string of very hot years? And, indeed, a major article published in Science magazine this summer made this very point, which I blogged on. As I wrote, they noted:

Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.

They further predict the year 2014 will “be 0.30° ± 0.2°C warmer than the observed value for 2004,” which means they predict a 50% chance that the warming from 2004 to 2014 will be 3/8 that of the warming of the previous century!

By the way, the Hadley Center also debunks these myths:

  • Myth 1 – Ice core records show that changes in temperature drive changes in carbon dioxide, and it is not carbon dioxide that is driving the current warming.
  • Myth 2 – Solar activity is the main driver of climate change.
  • Myth 3 – There is less warming in the upper atmosphere than at the surface which disproves human-induced warming.
  • Myth 4 – The intensity of cosmic rays changes climate.
  • Myth 5 – Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change.

Anyone who still believes these myths — or wants to see a simple scientific debunking of them — should refer to the Hadley center website.

Tags:

« »

66 Responses to Hadley Center to delayers (this means you Pielke): We’re warming, not cooling

  1. Nylo says:

    “The 8 warmest years in the 150 global temperature record are, according to the Hadley Center, in order, 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2007 […] Where the heck is the cooling trend?”

    That series means that all recent years have been colder than 1998. 1998 was a hot anomaly, that’s right, a very strong El Niño. However we have not had recent strong anomalies, and since 2002, we have had 2 warmer years (2003, 2005) and 3 colder years (2004, 2006, 2007), averaging a cooling trend (the ones that were colder were also colder compared to 2002 than 2002 was to the ones that were warmer). Things may change as 2008 evolves, but as for now, with very low Jan and Feb temperatures, it looks unlikely that it will be hotter than the others. Just looking at the above graph of Global Average Near-Surface Temperatures 1850-2007 one can clearly notice a stop in the upwards trend since 2002. Also since 1998 but I will take that away because of it being an anomaly.

    5 years is too little to call for a trend in temperatures. However that works both ways. It is true that we shouldn’t call it general cooling, but it is even more true that we shouldn’t call it warming. It definitely isn’t. Temperatures have been very high in the last decade but it is a lie to claim that they have been going higher. They haven’t. The data are there.

    There you have your trend.

  2. Nylo says:

    (Look at it this way: if you want to create the biggest ammount of alarmism about GW, you have to stop at 1998 if you want the maximum slope in temperature change. In a scenario where the hockey stick seems to predict an everytime faster warming, this looks wrong…).

    By the way, I think your data is a bit out of date. NASA has made some recent corrections about temperatures in the 30’s and 40’s. They definitely disagree with your graphs.

  3. David B. Benson says:

    Nylo — Here is commentary about a recent “Science” paper on recent temperatures:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-IPCC-projections-to-observations.htm

    Do note the trend is up.

  4. Laurens Bouwer says:

    The main thrust of the discussion could be more appreciated here: which is I think the implication of any decline in temperatures for media and public perceptions of the problem.

    Also Lucia Liljegren made a relevant remark on Roger’s blog, saying that “… IPCC appear to over estimate the warming trend. This is probably because they understate the uncertainties in the trend at least in the near term.” There is no denying here, rather questioning how reliable projected temperature changes are in the short term and what implications this may have for communication on climate change.

    Caliming that such an attitude would pertain to denying climate change or delay action would be shortsigthed.

  5. David B. Benson says:

    Laurens Bouwer — Lucia is simply wrong. IPCC TAR in facts underestimates the warming trend. Follow the link in my previous post.

  6. exusian says:

    PGosselin said: “But if you look at the trend over the last 10 years, the temps are going down.”

    Since climate, by definition, is the average of weather over time, and since in climate science the agreed upon unit of time to use to separate any statistically meaningful climate trend from random weather noise is 30 years, 10 years does not a trend make. This is just standard statistical analysis well known to anyone familiar with science. Oops.

    PGosselin: “Arctic sea ice has grown 11,000,000 sq km. this winter alone – the most ever single winter growth since records have been kept!”

    Seeing as last summer was the largest ever single summer melt since records have been kept, this is a surprise? Oops.
    Here’s a tip for you: it’s not just the area you have to measure, it’s the volume. That 11,000,000 sq km. is by definition ALL new ice, while a significant portion of the record melt last summer, well in excess of 2,000,000 sq. km., was thicker, denser, less salty and structurally stronger multi-year ice. The two are not at all equivalent. Oops.

    PGosselin: “Temps for Jan and Feb are 0.70°C lower, wiping out all of the global warming that has occurred since the 1970s.”

    This one is just pure nonsense.

    PGosselin: “You can’t use surface stations, as the methodology and accuracy are horrendous”

    And this one is just standard denialist boiler plate. Never mind that obvious, known station bias is identified and compensated for during data processing, never mind that if you throw out all “suspect” stations the rising temperature trend is still there, never mind that if you use only rural stations the trend is still there. Oops.

    PGosselin: “Just to keep things in perspective, the earth is actually still in an ice age today.”

    Technically true, and at or near the peak of an interglacial, within a much longer era of alternating glacial and interglacial periods.

    PGosselin: “The earth has been warmer throughout its 4.5 billion year history 90% of the time. You can’t hockey-stick that real inconvenient fact away.”

    Why would anyone want to? You also can not wave away the inconvenient fact that humans were not around for the vast span of that 4.5 billion year history. On the contrary, everything you know as human civilization developed, is adapted to, and was built during the brief 10,000 year span of this most recent interglacial. Every last bit of it, from the wheat, corn or rice that you eat, to the language that you speak. It’s not built for or adapted to a warmer climate any more than it is built for or adapted to a glacialiateed climate. Oops.

    There, no venom required. Just the facts.

  7. Jenne says:

    The Hadley Centre notes on Myth 1:

    “Only the first part of this statement is true. Over the several hundred thousand years covered by the ice core record, the temperature changes were primarily driven by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun. Over this period, changes in temperature did drive changes in carbon dioxide (CO2). Concentrations of CO2 are now much higher and increasing much faster than at any time in at least the last 600,000 years. This should be a warning that what is happening now is very different to what happened in the past.”

    Thus, in the past, CO2 often lagged temperature. The only thing that is really said here, or at least that is my interpretation, is that what happened in the past cannot be used as an indication for what is happening now or will happen in the future. Fine, the Met office tells us to not use the paleoclimatological past to provide information about the present and future. So forget the hockeystick-controversy, it apparently is not relevant.

    This gets us to Myth 5: how then should the future predictions be evaluated? In order to provide a useful prediction independent verification of the prediction (a projection is nothing more or less than a conditional prediction) against real world observations is required (evidence based). But we have no laboratory to turn to to experiment with changed CO2 can be done in the full climate system, nor do we have observations from the past under similar conditions (and remember myth 1: what happened in the past cannot be considered representative for the current situation). So, the prediction/projection cannot be verified and we can only wait and see. This is very different from for example weather forecasting, where the forecasts can easily be verified and which provides an independent measure to estimate the accuracy of the forecasts.

    Continuing with myth 5, yes, climate models are based on physics, but no, that simple fact does not prove that they are correct (many processes can only be represented in a (very) simplified form). By the way, note that now suddenly the distant past can be used to say something about the current climate, according to the Met Office. The Met Office avoids the real question: what should a climate model be capable of in order to be considered to provide a sufficient representation of the real atmosphere. What paraemter set? Past variations? Climatological fields? Why specifically those parameters and spatio-temporal variations? What is the emperical evidence that this set of requirements is sufficient? This list of requirements simply does not exist. You can only take all the available observations and try to reproduce those, but that still is a limited set of parameters.

    Over to myth 3:

    The upper tropospheric temperature issue (myth 3) is not really reconciled according to the peer reviewed paper by Douglass et al. [2007]. Note that the focus is the upper tropospheric temperture in the tropics where all climate models clearly show most warming, not on global mean upper tropospheric temperatures.

    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/117857349/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

    Now you don’t have to believe this if you don’t want to (RealClimate.com, which is not peer reviewed, tries to debunk the story; their criticism basically means that the observations may not be of sufficient quality to say anything sensible about any trend difference; so it cannot be used to prove or disprove anything; however, according to the authors the RealClimate argumentation is nonsense), but if anything the tropical upper tropospheric temperature trends do not overwhelmingly agree with model projections.

    No, the question by Roger Pielke jr. is justified. He simply asks: we believe that global warming is real, but we know that future predictions are uncertain (see the IPCC reports but also the Roe et al. 2007 Science publication on the uncertainties of climate predictions). Can we think of an experiment or of an observation that falsifies the predictions? What observations would we consider to be inconsistent with the theory? That is very basic science. You try to come up with an experiment that tells you whether what is happening agrees or disagrees with theory. But remember, theories never can be proven, only disproven. If nowadays ANY observations seems to be consistent with global warming theory, in a way, you have a theory that cannot be tested. That is a very bad theory. (obviously, lack of warming for the next several decades would be inconsistent and thus a falsification, but that takes a long time…)

    Finally, the recent published short-term predictions which suggest that the warming will remain a bit stagnant up to 2009 and the continue afterwards could be interpreted as that the model – because of the use of an observational based initial state – is so much disturbed and shaken up from its own internal physical balance that it takes a couple of years to shake off the disturbance, after which is continues its ever present gradual warming. And, also those predictions can only be verified AFTER it has happened…

    Jenne.

  8. Jonathan says:

    Oh Jenne,

    You’re bad. Thinking for yourself rather than regurgitating AGW dogma is a no-no.

    The Hadley center makes their money off global warming hysteria. Look at the Hadcrut3 global graph, there is a downward trend at the end (gasp!) They are being disingenuous in publishing global surface temperature graphs alone to state their very much hoped for belief that global warming will continue.

    Climatology is the big cash cow now. Any nutcase can get a degree in climatology now days.

    Long live the Scientific Method, a measure of how true science moves forward!

  9. exusian says:

    The Hadley Centre note on Myth 1 has always bothered me because it is incomplete. It makes no mention of the fact that although CO2 does lag temperature in the ice core record, as CO2 (and water vapour) increased in the warmer atmosphere it became a feedback that added yet more warming. We know this because the increase in insolation from the orbital changes alone is insufficient to account for the degree of warming. It simply is not powerful enough by itself to end an ice age to the degree that it does.

    Thus the problem with the Hadley statement isn’t that it tells us that the paleoclimatological past is not relevant to the present, but that it fails to explain how it is relevant.
    Today there is no insolation-driven warming generating more atmospheric CO2, today it is us generating more atmospheric CO2. In either case the added CO2 will cause warming. That is how the paleoclimatological past is indeed relevant to the present.

    This, by the way, causes the premise of Jenne’s argument against myth 5, that “what happened in the past cannot be considered representative for the current situation,” to evaporate.

    Jenne’s closing argument, that global warming theory is a “bad” theory because of the length of time needed to confirm it’s long-term climate predictions, climate being defined as the average of weather over time, is bizarre. That it takes long-term observation to substantiate the predictions of a scientific theory is hardly unusual.

  10. exusian says:

    “The Hadley center makes their money off global warming hysteria.”
    “Climatology is the big cash cow now. Any nutcase can get a degree in climatology now days.”

    Care to cite any proof for these slanderous statements?

    For sure any nutcase can express an ignorant opinion about climatology, or about the scientific method, for that matter.

  11. Jay Alt says:

    Nylo suggests –
    By the way, I think your data is a bit out of date. NASA has made some recent corrections about temperatures in the 30’s and 40’s. They definitely disagree with your graphs.

    No. The Hadley Centre has their own data set, independent from NASA.

  12. David B. Benson says:

    Jenne — Modern science uses inormal and formal Bayesian reasoning. Various hypotheses are confirmed or disconfirmed by the data. Proof (and disproof) is done in mathematics (and high school chemistry).

    Roger Pielke, Jr., asks the wrong question. Rather, what evidence do we have that tends to confirm climate models and what evidence do we have that tends to disconfirm these models? I argued this out quite thoroughly on the Prometheis thread devoted to the topic. I’ll not repeat it here.

  13. Kevin says:

    Ok,
    Being computer illiterate, I’ll ask the stupid question. How do you paste or include a gif file into your comments. I can’t seem to get it to work. I would like to post a graph, but……….argh!!

  14. David B. Benson says:

    Kevin — Use tinypic.com to post the .gif file and provide a link to it here.

  15. Michael says:

    [IMG]http://i27.tinypic.com/2holq35.gif[/IMG]

  16. Mark Bahner says:

    “They further predict the year 2014 will “be 0.30° ± 0.2°C warmer than the observed value for 2004,” which means they predict a 50% chance that the warming from 2004 to 2014 will be 3/8 that of the warming of the previous century!”

    Are they willing to put a bit of money on that prediction? Are you? I’m not talking about anything major. Say, $50 that a 3-year average centered around 2014 will be at least 0.3 degree Celsius warmer than 2004?

  17. Kristy W says:

    True scientists are supposed to be neutral and unbiased in their studies. The field of Climatology is in its infancy. If you think humans have a grasp on the workings of the earth’s climate, you are seriously deluded. If a scientist has a bias towards the hypothesis he is investigating, then that bias can influence the outcome of his endeavors. For example, if a scientist studying the possible human influence on global warming believes that a warmer earth is a bad thing, that will taint his effort. The “good” or “bad” of it is should not be his focus at all.

    Now, back in the 70’s when scientists and environmentalists were on the global cooling bandwagon, the consensus was that such cooling would be catastrophic……crop failures, starvation…..you name it. Today, with global warming being in vogue, the consensus is that a warmer earth will be catastrophic….. blah, blah blah….we’re all gonna die. So which is it? That is just too funny. We’re doomed either way.

    Lastly, here are the yearly average Global Temperature Anomalies (HadCRUT3) directly from the Hadley Center’s website, for the last 15 years:

    1992 (0.061)
    1993 (0.105)
    1994 (0.171)
    1995 (0.275)
    1996 (0.137)
    1997 (0.351)
    1998 (0.546)
    1999 (0.296)
    2000 (0.270)
    2001 (0.409)
    2002 (0.464)
    2003 (0.473)
    2004 (0.447)
    2005 (0.482)
    2006 (0.422)
    2007 (0.402)
    2008 (0.125) (2 data points only)

    So, between 1998 and 2007, has it been warming or cooling? Are you smarter than a fifth grader? And right now, the February Global temperature Anomaly sits at 0.195 (and this value is not some one-time monthly fluke). So who’s being disingenuous and duplicitous?

    But, it doesn’t really matter, because you’ve got both bases covered. If we are indeed heading into another cooling trend, well, the cause is too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Which is why the term “Global Warming” has morphed into “Climate Change”.

    Kristy W

  18. exusian says:

    Kristy said: “Now, back in the 70’s when scientists and environmentalists were on the global cooling bandwagon…”

    Oh, not the 1970s global cooling meme again, the one that only a handful of actual scientists actually bought into and was mainly pushed by the media.

    See here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/langswitch_lang/wp

    Kristy: “So, between 1998 and 2007, has it been warming or cooling?”

    Do the math, Kristy. But be sure you use the same time interval that is universally accepted in climate science for detecting a long term climate change signal in year to year and decade to decade weather “noise.” That interval is 30 years, not ten, not 15. Talk about bias in climate studies.

    Kristy: “Which is why the term “Global Warming” has morphed into “Climate Change”.

    Apparently you are not aware that it was Republican strategist Frank Luntz who wrote in a memo to the party:

    “It’s time for us to start talking about ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’…
    “Climate change’ is less frightening than ‘global warming. As one focus group participant noted, climate change ‘sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.’ While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.”

    You must not have gotten the memo.

  19. Joe says:

    Kristy — with this comment joined the ranks of those who can be ignored. The 1970s cooling nonsense has been thoroughly debunked on this blog and elsewhere. One an anti-scientists/denier would keep repeating it.

    The Hadley center experts explain clearly what their data means. Anyone who comes to a 180° opposite conclusion should question his or her reasoning power.

    If you think it’s cooling, or it’s not warming, or it’s random, by bet should be a gimme. Since you don’t seem interested in taking it, or in explaining what whether you would do anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, I’m going to conclude that you don’t actually believe the nonsense you are writing and that you are a Delayer-1000. And that means your comments should be ignored.

  20. Joe says:

    Mark — I can’t see how taking a bet around a three-year period makes any sense. We could get a big La Nina. Or a volcano.

    If you don’t believe in AGW, then just take my 2-to-1 decade on decade bet. I’ll also take an even money bet on a 0.15C decade on decade increase.

  21. Ian Castles says:

    David Benson, In your postings of 18 March you cited a commentary about a recent article in ‘Science’ in support of a claim that Lucia was ‘simply wrong’.

    On the contrary, it is the commentary that you cited that is ‘simply wrong’. The article by Rahmstorf et al al in ‘Science’ (4 May 2007) was also wrong.

    The authors of this article misunderstood the basis of the ‘projections’ for 1990-2000 in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2000). As explained in the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (2000), ‘the 1990 and 2000 emissions scenarios were standardized in all the SRES scenarios, with emissions diverging after the year 2000′ (Box 5.1, p. 243).

    The SRES went on to explain that ‘The standardized scenarios share the same values for emissions in both 1990 and 2000′, and that ‘The 1990 and 2000 emissions estimates for all gases, except SO2, were set to be equal to the initial values in the unadjusted four marker scenarios.’ So, for example, the projections for emissions AND FOR TEMPERATURE for the A1FI scenario, which was not a marker, were set BY ASSUMPTION as equal to those of the average of the four markers.

    As an indication of the possible scale of the effect of this procedure, the A1FI scenario assumed that the global energy supply from coal would increase by 30% between 1990 and 2000, compared with an increase of about 5% for the A1B and B1 scenarios.
    .
    So when Rahmstorf et al concluded that ALL OF the IPCC projections underestimated the temperature rise, they were not in fact evaluating the performance of models against observations – at least as far as the 1990-2000 period was concerned (the greater part of the comparison). For this period, the outputs of the individual models were discarded in favour of an average of a subset of the models.

  22. David B. Benson says:

    Ian Castles — That was informative. I believe I follow the essence of your criticism. However, Roger Pielke, Jr., on his Promethesis site, states something to the effect that he and Lucia looked at the Rahmstorf et al. paper and found it to be consistent with Lucia’s results!

    So maybe you should communicate your objections in your prior post to him.

    In any case, attempting to say something about climate (and climate models) using less than 30 years of data now strikes me as rather dubious. Which is the main thing I think I have learned from this exercise (spread across at least three blogs).

  23. David B. Benson says:

    Ian Castles — Upon further reflection, surely there is a means for you to communicate your criticisms to the readers of “Science”, possibly as a ‘letter to the editor’ or something similar. I encourage you to attempt this.

  24. Mark Bahner says:

    “Mark — I can’t see how taking a bet around a three-year period makes any sense. We could get a big La Nina. Or a volcano.”

    Joe – OK, how about a 5-year average, centered around 2004 and 2014? Or a 7-year average, centered around 2004 and 2014?

    “If you don’t believe in AGW,…”

    I’m an agnostic. I don’t believe in anything. Beliefs are for religions. I don’t believe, I think.

    “I’ll also take an even money bet on a 0.15C decade on decade increase.”

    In this very post, you were selling a even money decade-on-decade (i.e., from 2004 to 2014) increase of 0.3C. What happened?

  25. Joe says:

    I wasn’t “selling” anything. I was reporting the results of a peer-reviewed study.

    I am offering a couple of immensely reasonable bets based on the current understanding of climate science.

    As for “believe” it is just shorthand so I don’t have to keep typing “if you don’t accept the well-tested theory and countless observational data points that support AGW as reflected in the IPCC reports (and elsewhere),” then just take my bets, which are the equivalent of a 10-year average around 2005 and 2015.

  26. Mark Bahner says:

    “I wasn’t “selling” anything. I was reporting the results of a peer-reviewed study.”

    But it’s apparently a result that you don’t actually “believe.” You probably should have told your readers that.

    In fact, I’ve just thought of something even better. More immediate. Per my calculations (feel free to check them) the NASA GISS surface temperature 5-year and 7-year average anomalies centered around 2004 are both 67 (hundredths of a degree Celsius):

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

    If they are going to increase to 97 by 2014 (i.e. 30 hundredths of a degree Celsius), that would be 03 (hundredths of a degree Celsius) per year, on average.

    How about a bet of…well, whatever you want, up to $50 a year…that the anomalies increase by 03 per year?

    That is, the 5-year or 7-year average anomaly centered around 2005 would be 70, the average around 2006 would be 73, the average around 2007 would be 76, the average around 2008 would be 79, the average around 2009 would be 82, and so on.

    We could work it so that we agree on a fixed amount each year, and work it so that only the person who is a a NET deficit can call off the bet. For example, suppose in the first year, you lose. Then I could not call off the bet, I would have to let you continue it (at that same amount) the next year. Then suppose you win the next two years…then I’d be at a net deficit, and only I could call it off.

    How about it?

  27. Ian Castles says:

    Thanks David Benson for your comments which I appreciate.

    In the ‘Notes to Editors’ accompanying their climate prediction for 2008 on 3 January (‘Global temperature 2008: Another top-ten year’), the Hadley Centre and CRU said that ‘The forecast value for 2008 mean temperature is considered indistinguishable from ANY of the years 2001-7, given the uncertainties in the data’ (EMPHASIS added).

    In the light of that statement, I don’t understand how Joe Romm can claim that the Hadley Centre believe that their data ‘unequivocally shows we are in a warming trend, including this decade.’ If the data unequivocally showed that the global warming trend continued in this decade, the more recent years WOULD be statistically distinguishable – in an upward direction – from the earlier years of this decade. That’s what a trend means.

  28. Kristy W says:

    Joe,

    Don’t depend on what the Hadley Center says. Do a little thinking and research on your own. I put out the data that shows we have been cooling since 1998 and for some reason, you won’t accept it. It ain’t my fault you can’t do the math. It’s not my data. It’s from the Hadley center, the HadCRUT3 data, the more complete picture. You are the one making a big stink that we are WARMING. You don’t have to go postal. Just look at the data. If you want to stick your head in the sand, be my guest.

    The thing is, if we heaven forbid go into a cooling trend, the American people will do a collective yawn, and all you guys will have nothing to do. Gore and his Chicken Little cronies will have to look for other means than making the millions that they do on their fear-mongering speaking tours.

    Lastly, I was an environmental studies major in the early 70’s before switching to the hard sciences, and you are enaging in history revisionism. One reason I left the environmental movement was because it was rank with the kind of fanaticism we see today in the GW movement. This Blog debunked that already? LOL. This blog does not carry any weight.

  29. Kristy W says:

    P.S.

    Here is the link to the HadCRUT3 Global Temperature Anomaly Graph. For some reason I am unable to post the graph.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

    But the graph’s trend line dips downward at about the year 2003, and continues downward thereafter.

  30. Joe says:

    Thanks Kristy — but I’ll stick with the Hadley folk interpreting their own data!

  31. Joe says:

    Kristy — I said “debunked on this blog and elsewhere.” Since you think the data proves we’re cooling, then take my bet already.

  32. Kristy W says:

    Talk about denial.

  33. Tony says:

    March 16, 2008 Had-Crut data shows not only that temperatures are declining rapidly, but that the drop over the last four years is unprecedented.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

  34. Joe says:

    And yet the Hadley scientists think we’re in a rapidly warming global trend.
    Gosh, they must be idiots compared to you all, since they can’t even interpret their own data correctly.

    On the other hand, since none of you deniers seem to be willing to take my bet, I can only assume that you don’t actually believe the nonsense you keep repeating.

    By the way, some of you deniers claim we’ve been cooling since 1998, some since 2001, some since 2007, and now you say its the last 4 years (i.e. since early 2004), which is kind of odd since Hadley reports 2005 was second hottest year on record. We had a cool January thanks to La Nina (and a solar irradiance minimum). We call that weather.

  35. Marie says:

    Had-Crut raw data shows current temperatures as the coldest since 1983

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.dat

  36. exusian says:

    Kristy said: “I put out the data that shows we have been cooling since 1998 and for some reason, you won’t accept it. It ain’t my fault you can’t do the math.”

    As I pointed out above, anyone involved in the hard sciences, like, say physics, should be familiar enough with statistical analysis to know that when doing the math to detect a trend in noisy data, you have to select a time interval long enough to detect that trend (climate) above the noise (weather). In climate science the generally agreed upon interval is 30 years. For some reason Kristy either does not grasp this or chooses to ignore it, hardly the mark of someone involved in the “hard” sciences.

  37. Marie says:

    Perhaps it is worth remembering the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”

    The experts kept saying one thing, even though the “raw” data indicated something quite different. Apparently the experts had an agenda.

  38. Joe says:

    I guess I don’t understand why people would cite data from “experts” who they believe are either too stupid or too corrupt to correctly interpret their own data.

    Or maybe their analysis is correct, since it is subject to peer review. And maybe your “analysis” is bunk, since you apparently don’t even believe it yourself.

  39. exusian says:

    Marie Said: “Perhaps it is worth remembering the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”
    The experts kept saying one thing, even though the “raw” data indicated something quite different. Apparently the experts had an agenda.”

    Thanks for the parable. Now do you anything relevant to say about science?

  40. David B. Benson says:

    I actually think the rather arbitrary figure of 30 years for climate is too short. Slightly better would be 33 years, three solar sunspot cycles. But even that is much too short to avarage over a PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation, some call it the PMO, Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation).

  41. Kristy W says:

    Hey exusian, Joe is the one who brought up the “so-called” ten year warming period from 1997 to 2007. Try reading Joe’s original post.

    The Hadley center was disingenous in posting their comments because the HadCRUT3 data, which includes BOTH Global land and sea temperatures (and which is referred to in the IPCC report) shows a cooling trend from 2003 and onward. The graph the Hadley center referred to was for land temperatures. I know it’s an “incovenient” truth, but the GW alarmists will go to great lengths to mislead and spin the data.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

    Click on the link if you have the courage.
    I
    P.S. Joe – you are good at citing the works of others, but try and check it out yourself before you open your mouth and insert foot.

  42. Paul K says:

    Once again appears the canard tat Frank Luntz coined the term climate change. It was first proposed by an English alarmist group and as related by Luntz intended to be more persuasive.

  43. Marie says:

    Dear exusian,

    The analogy is clear enough, as is the data. Had-Crut data shows that temperatures are the coolest they have been in 22 years. Which IPCC curve does that follow?

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.dat

  44. Joe says:

    You are aware that the 2008 data is based on two months and we have a strong La Nina?

  45. Marie says:

    Dear Joe,

    NOAA says that we are having a “moderate La Nina” not a “strong” one as you suggest.

    Moderate La Niña conditions are present across the tropical Pacific Ocean.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
    (Slide 30)

    Most of their models predict that colder than normal Pacific temperatures will persist throughout the year. (Slides 27/28)

    How does a “moderate La Nina” explain the coldest temperatures in 22 years, during a time of unprecedented CO2 increase?

  46. Joe says:

    Dearest Marie

    Read the posts, already. We don’t have “the coldest temperatures in 22 years” — you are comparing yearly data with a couple of months (otherwise known as weather, not climate)

    This winter has actually been a pretty darn strong La Nina, as the link you sent made clear. Plus we are at solar irradiance minimum. And yet we are still in a strong warming trend.

    Anyway, since you won’t take my bet, a gimme if you really think we’re in a cooling trend, I can only assume you don’t believe what you’re writing.

  47. exusian says:

    Marie said: “The analogy is clear enough, as is the data. Had-Crut data shows that temperatures are the coolest they have been in 22 years.”

    Are you innumerate, Marie? In the Had-Crut mean temperature anomaly data set you link to, the temperature anomaly for 2007 is plus .397, which is lower than the previous six years, plus 1998, while it is higher than 14 of the previous 21 years (1986 to 2007). You can not include the figure for 2008 since it consists of only two months, not twelve, as with all the other annual figures. To insist on repeating this “coldest in 22-years” assertion in your response to Joe demonstrates either sever ignorance or willful deceit. Which is it?

    In any case, what you fail to grasp is that year to year and decade to decade weather variability (noise) can produce a short term trend that can run counter to a long term climate trend (signal). That the anomaly for 2008 is lower than those of the previous six years, or that the last nine years have been lower than 1998 is not yet, by definition, a climate trend. It may turn out to be a trend, it may not, we will only know after enough time has elapsed to be able to detect the trend.

    I should add that those very anomaly numbers that you linked to are based on a thirty year mean. To quote numbers based on a 30 year trend comparison in support of a shorter term trend is disingenuous.

  48. exusian says:

    Paul K Said: “Once again appears the canard tat Frank Luntz coined the term climate change.”

    Paul, if my comment implied that Luntz coined the term, that is certainly not what I meant. For sure I did not state that.
    Actually, I have no problem with the term “climate change” as it accurately describes what happens as global mean temperature rises: climate changes. The rate of change, what type of change, and even the sign of that change will vary in different regions and at different times. I think it is a more descriptive and even a more honest term.

  49. Mary says:

    Dear Joe,

    Had to change my name, since the moderator started censoring my posts. I assume he will do the same again soon.

    A great way to control the flow of information.

    Marie

  50. Joe says:

    Mary, Marie quite contrary….

    The moderator is well aware of people who change their name, but the name has nothing to do with the (rare) deletion of posts. The terms of use are pretty clear that any comment can be deleted. The moderator deletes maybe 1 post in 100 (not counting the Xanax ads).

    I have made it pretty clear that pure disinformation, repeating long-debunked denier talking points, and extended ad hominem attacks are unacceptable. If you want to keep posting that kind of stuff, go to Pielke’s or McIntyre’s website.

    Also, I’ve said I won’t keep running stuff by delayers or deniers who refuse to tell us their plan to avoid 1000 ppm or who refuse to stand behind the words they write.

    Life is too short to waste everybody’s time — and while most of my regular readers can easily distinguish real science from denier talking points, I get plenty of traffic from people who don’t follow the debate closely, and it just isn’t fair to subject them to that crap.

  51. Mark Bahner says:

    “On the other hand, since none of you deniers seem to be willing to take my bet, I can only assume that you don’t actually believe the nonsense you keep repeating.”

    Heh, heh, heh! Look who’s talking!

    First, you write, “They (the Hadley Center) further predict the year 2014 will “be 0.30° ± 0.2°C warmer than the observed value for 2004,…”

    But when I asked you if you’re willing to bet on that (see my comment of March 20th, 11:16 pm), you haven’t responded. I can only assume that you think the Hadley Center prediction was nonsense. Why not simply be honest, and admit it?

    P.S. Your proposal for a bet on a decade-on-decade increase of 0.15 degrees Celsius is essentially equal to the prediction Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling made in their book, The Satanic Gases, published in the year 2000. On page 210 of that book, they wrote, “The earth’s average surface temperature will warm 0.65 to 0.75 degrees Celsius by 2050.” That works out to a decade-on-decade increase of 0.13 to 0.15 degrees Celsius.

    So when are you going to post, “I think that Patrick Michaels’ and Robert Balling’s estimate of 0.13 to 0.15 degrees Celsius per decade is probably more accurate than the Hadley Center prediction of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade (plus or minus 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade)”?

  52. Joe says:

    Mark — this is the last post of yours I’ll respond to. I don’t keep up a dialog with people who ignore my earlier responses. And I must ask you to stop the disinformation.

    as I said, I’m not going to take a bet over a few year period. There are too many short-term weather factors like La Nina.

    Everybody knows it but it HAS been warming .15°C per decade — but carbon dioxide concentrations are rising, to the rate of temperature rise will increase. Duh!

    That is so basic that I’m amazed you would bother with your silly comment.

    Since you are clearly a Delayer-1000, if we follow you, then in the second half of the century, we’ll probably be going up over 0.3°C per decade.

    Hadley did NOT say 0.3°C per decade. It just said 2014 would have a 50% chance of being that much higher BECAUSE of unusual factors that have been keeping global temperatures on the low side in the past few years.

    Explaining the obvious is a waste of time for me. You’ll need to do better, or better yet, stop wasting everyone’s time.

  53. Mary says:

    “Denier” is a term used normally to impune the integrity of people who attempt to deny historical events like the Holocaust. Using language like that against people who merely dispute the predictions of computer models is incredibly inappropriate and extremely disrespectful to both the audience and to people who suffered under the Nazis.

    Worldwide sea ice is 1Mkm2 above normal. Record NH snow cover this January. RSS shows the entire year so far below the thirty year mean.

    None of these were predicted, and indicate some severe flaws in the IPCC models. Your rude, bullying language can’t hide the truth.

  54. Joe says:

    Well, I’ve been quite clear on when I use denier and when delayer. But you are pretty clearly a denier. Actually, all of the climate trends have been predicted. Record NH snowfall does not contradict AGW. Shrinking Arctic ice and growing Antarctic ice are, again, consistent with AGW. Two months of weather ain’t climate.

    The IPCC models are flawed, as I’ve said many times. They omit key amplifying feedbacks and ice sheet dynamics, which is why actual climate change is on the high end of what the models have predicted.

    Again, your criticisms about the models are years and years out of date. We are plainly witnessing global warming NOW, even sooner and stronger than predicted.

  55. Mary says:

    [JR: Comment deleted because it is libelous.]

  56. exusian says:

    Mary, Marie, which ever your prefer,
    Denial is a perfectly good English word. It is used by physiologists and psychiatrists to describe one of the defence mechanisms humans use to deal with painful, threatening, or even merely uncomfortable events, situations, or aspects of reality, such as alcoholism or other addictions, the loss of a loved one, a diagnosis of terminal disease, or events that challenge their world view and belief system. For some people, climate change very much does the latter.

    The word denialism, to quote the definition from Wicipedia, “is a term used to describe the position of governments, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions on which a scientific consensus or widely-accepted historical evidence exists. Such groups and individuals are said to be engaging in denialism when they seek to influence policy processes and outcomes by illegitimate means. The term has been used to describe ‘holocaust denial’, ‘AIDS reappraisal’,’climate change denial,’ and the creation-evolution conflict.

    “Brothers Mark and Chris Hoofnagle describe the term as “the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.”

    Clearly the word most definitely is not restricted to denial of the Holocaust. However, by invoking this particular definition you come perilously close to violating Godwin’s Law, and thereby risk forfeiting any legitimacy your arguments may have.

    You have been cautioned.

  57. Joe says:

    Yes, there aren’t a lot of great words out there. I tend to use denier in headlines, since people know it, and to describe the people who are paid to spread disinformation. Otherwise I prefer delayers, but I know that term isn’t going to catch on.

  58. Dodo says:

    “So, yes, the planet is in a major warming trend whose dominant cause is human emissions — even recently.”

    Now that is a perfect example of a non sequitur. The warming itself does not tell us anything about the reasons for the warming. And similarly, noting that it has recently cooled does not automatically prove any hypotheses about the reasons for the cooling.

    Maybe the past ten years’ temperature development is just weather, a.k.a. noise. We’ll be a lot wiser in 2030.

  59. Joe says:

    Dodo — great name!
    No non sequitur. You just have to actually read the posts on this blog. Can’t cram all the same info in every single item I post.

  60. exusian says:

    Dodo said: “The warming itself does not tell us anything about the reasons for the warming.”

    No, it doesn’t. What we know about the physics of greenhouse gases, that we know greenhouse gases have increased in the atmosphere, that we know humans have been the source for most of that increase, and that every direct and proxy solar measurement ran counter to the warming is what tells us about the reasons for the warming.

  61. Mark Bahner says:

    “And I must ask you to stop the disinformation.”

    What “disinformation?” You wrote that the Hadley Center predicted there was a 50/50 chance of warming of 0.3 degree Celsius from 2004 to 2014. I asked if you were willing to put any money behind that claim. So far, you have not been willing.

    “As I said, I’m not going to take a bet over a few year period.”

    Do you not understand the proposed betting method? I’m proposing to bet on 5-year, or even 7-year, averages centered on a particular year. Particularly if it’s a 7-year average centered on a particular year, “short term weather factors like La Nina” don’t come into play. That’s because both comparison periods would presumably include such an event.

    But that’s OK. If you don’t understand the proposed betting method, that’s fine. Let’s go back to the original proposed bet. You said that the Hadley Center predicted a 50/50 chance of warming from 2004 to 2014. I asked you if you’ll put your money where your mouth is. One possibility I proposed is 7-year averages centered around 2004 and 2014. How about that?

    “Everybody knows it but it HAS been warming .15°C per decade…”

    Yes, we know what has happened in the past. But no one knows for certain what will happen in the future. The 2007, the Hadley Center predicted there is a 50 percent chance of warming of 0.3 degrees Celsius from 2004 to 2014. In 2000, Michaels and Balling predicted a warming of 0.15 degrees per decade to 2050.

    So which is it? Is there a 50/50 chance of warming of 0.3 degrees Celsius from 2004 to 2014? If there is, you should be willing to take the bet I’ve offered, i.e. seven-year averages, centered around 2004 and 2014. If the 7-year average centered around 2014 is 0.3 deg Celsius or more higher than the 7-year average centered around 2004, you would win the bet. If it’s less than 0.30 deg Celsius higher, I would win the bet. I’m willing to bet any amount, up to $50.

    Once again, how about it?

    “Since you are clearly a Delayer-1000, if we follow you, then in the second half of the century, we’ll probably be going up over 0.3°C per decade.”

    Heh, heh, heh! Is that the best you can do? Grade-school name calling and voodoo curses? Why don’t you stick to science, if you can?

    “Hadley did NOT say 0.3°C per decade.”

    OK…so we both agree the rate will be below 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade after the 2004 to 2014 period? Or don’t you agree that the rate will be below 0.3 degrees Celsius after the 2004 to 2014 period? Which is it? What, in your opinion, are the 50-percent probability values for warming from 2004-2014, and then 2014 to 2024, and 2024 to 2034, etc.?

    “It (the Hadley Center) just said 2014 would have a 50% chance of being that much higher BECAUSE of unusual factors that have been keeping global temperatures on the low side in the past few years.”

    OK. So the Hadley Center said there was a 50% chance that global surface temperature will warm by 0.3 degrees Celsius from 2004 to 2014. Do you agree that’s an accurate assessment? If you do, you should be willing to bet on 7-year averages centered around those two years (i.e., that the average from 2011 to 2017 will be at least 0.3 degrees Celsius higher than the average from 2001 to 2007).

    Do we have a bet?

  62. Gary E. says:

    150 years does not history make in a world that is 2+ billions years old. Arguing about a trned over that time is statistically and scientifically insignigicant weather (whether) its warming or cooling. If you’re going to argue warming in that period then the data has reversed the trend rather dramatically!

  63. Ken says:

    Can being afraid of rising sea levels and flooding/famine deaths to many make me stop driving to work everyday? Hell no it won’t.

    Selfish, but true. We’re here for our OWN survival. People are just beginning to realize that weather and climate is pretty cool stuff. So is being on the Earth, too. Lots of stuff to debate and wonder about.

    So let’s see where global warming exists on my life’s worry list:

    1. Happiness
    2. Health
    3. Family/friends
    4. Job
    5. Income
    6. Safety
    X.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    999,999,999,999,999. Global Cooling
    1,000,000,000,000,000. Global Warming

    Wow, what does that say? All the fuss in any direction seems rather futile.

    Let’s embrace the chaos of the future climate. At least it’ll be interesting.

    ;o)

  64. Donald B says:

    Ken: What about a tornado through your home when you are asleep? That might just fix your goal of happiness! Maybe the rising number of tornados, floods, strong hurricanes, etc. are flukes, but they are predicted as consequences of GW, and here they are rising in a year of (your) supposed global cooling!

    As for the debate on the “trend over the last 5- 10 years,” what part of the cooling effects of La Niña and minimum solar illumination, which will subtract from the other factors causing global warming don’t you understand? !! Each time these reasons for the Hadley group’s explanation of the trend is mentioned, you just come back citing the “raw data.” T That is why the data is classified as raw; the effects of all the forcing functions have not been accounted for. The REAL scientists do look for the FULL explanation, not just cherry-picking among the “raw data” for a subset that will fit their agenda.

  65. msn nickleri says:

    By the way, the Hadley Center also debunks these myths:

    Myth 1 – Ice core records show that changes in temperature drive changes in carbon dioxide, and it is not carbon dioxide that is driving the current warming.
    Myth 2 – Solar activity is the main driver of climate change.
    Myth 3 – There is less warming in the upper atmosphere than at the surface which disproves human-induced warming.
    Myth 4 – The intensity of cosmic rays changes climate.
    Myth 5 – Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change.