Click on image for WUWT story. Was pretty much dealt with right after it was released. Even BEST data confirms a stalling of temps. So they got half way to the truth. Not bad for government apes.
Posted on 11/08/2011 10:44:54 AM PST by QT3.14
At Watts Up With That, data from the National Climatic Data Center are reviewed. The results are quite startling. Every region of the continental United States has shown a cooling trend during the winter from 2001 to the present, and five of the nine regions have also had a cooling trend during the summer. With respect to annual mean temperature, only one of nine regions–the Northeast–has gotten warmer; the other eight have gotten cooler.
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
Not when all these studies source the same data set. All you have done is confirm that they analyzed the data correctly. Not that the data was valid in the first place. And any data that does not show the 1970's as cold, is highly suspect.
It is not the differences that matter. All that matters is the magnitude of the influence. And you cannot warm the Earth with increased CO2 significantly at this point without a positive water vapor feedback. And to get that positive feedback in your models, you have to ignore clouds and rain.
Perhaps you should try eating something else for a change. Land temps are horribly corrupted and significantly limited. This is primarily a water planet. Best to use sat temps of atmosphere and sea temps across depth. What apes think the temperature might be in their trees, is immaterial to the energy budget of the planet sun biosphere.
I still don’t believe.
The BEST project made the data public. Skeptics have not had the chance to plow through the data.
Click on image for WUWT story. Was pretty much dealt with right after it was released. Even BEST data confirms a stalling of temps. So they got half way to the truth. Not bad for government apes.
Right.
I feel like we here in Texas took the rough end of the stick for all those who had a cooler/wetter Summer.
We broke every damn record there was....seems.
So what we have is 1 degree of warming per century with no sign of positive feedback from water vapor increases. That makes sense, CO2 is well mixed and warms evenly, that is the 1 degree per century. Water vapor is all over the place, controlled by weather which is mostly controlled by the sun (blocking patterns starting in the stratosphere modulated by solar ultraviolet). The ocean cycles are another form of weather that will control temperatures mostly regionally, also globally, with no effects from CO2. Some of the 80's and 90's warming is from decreased longwave radiation to space from the effects of those long term weather patterns.
The BEST analysis is a "skeptical" analysis of the new aggregate data set, and it agrees pretty closely with previous findings.
IMO, it's very unlikely that additional analysis is going to much alter that finding.
Aggregated from the same data set. They just applied additional filters to the same data set. If does not show significant cooling from the 60's to the 70's, which is impossible. Any accurate data set must show that cooling because the world knows it happened. Later.
BEST was funded by a501(c)(3) called "Novim", to which the largest contributor was Charles G. Koch (via the Charles G. Koch foundation), and I don't think Mr. Koch funds communists.
This was the home team, and IMO it's quite telling that it ended up providing strong support for the "consensus view" of the climate trend over the last hundred years.
BEST was funded by a501(c)(3) called "Novim", to which the largest contributor was Charles G. Koch (via the Charles G. Koch foundation), and I don't think Mr. Koch funds communists.
This was the home team, and IMO it's quite telling that it ended up providing strong support for the "consensus view" of the climate trend over the last hundred years.
- justa-hairyape
The graph does not attempt to suggest that warming (or cooling) was "stepped", the point of that presentation is that you cannot legitimately conclude anything about longer-term trends from decade-long shorter term temperatures; for example you could easily cherry pick portions of the same data set to construct a similar "demonstration" that the temperature record consisted of a series of decade-long warming periods.
This was exactly Curry's complaint in the article linked above about some comments on the BEST analysis (or any such analysis); based on the last ten or fifteen years of data you can not demonstrate with reasonable confidence that warming has stopped or that it has continued, in fact you cannot anything at all about long-term climate trends from less than around thirty years of data.
And this is always the case (on a purely statistical basis) about the last thirty years of data.
(Of course, if things change radically - if the snow on the ground in Chicago does not melt in June three years in a row, or ocean circulation patterns suddenly change and adjacent land masses average 3F warmer three years in a row, - then all bets are off, and you can reasonably conclude the novel factors are affecting climate over very short time-frames).
And if the last twenty or thirty years or data cannot inform our judgement of longer-term trends with statistical confidence, how can we proceed?
Our best method is to look back over longer time periods, attempt to determine the causes of climate changes during those periods, and extrapolate forwards, the logic goes:
1) We know that over the last hundred years or so, average global temperatures have been rising.
2) Based on our understanding of atmospheric physics and chemistry, we can provide a reasonable explanation of how human activity could have caused much or all of this longer term trend.
(3) This activity is continuing (in fact, its accelerating).
(4) Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude (though we cannot demonstrate it on the basis of shorter-term data) that the longer-term warming trend is continuing.
Statistically, no one can do any better, you cannot discern anything meaningful about changes in the long-term trend from the shorter term data, and it's a complete waste of time to argue over what the short-term demonstrates about the longer term trends, because it does not demonstrate anything.
So when you read someone going on about how "the earth has been cooling for the last decade" or "last(whatever it is) month is the warmest in the last (whatever it is) years", blah, blah, blah... ignore that part of the argument, it's just "noise".
Instead, concentrate on the debates about underlying causes of the longer term trend, that's were the action is.
If you cannot step 10 years to determine a 30 year trend, how can you step 30 years for a 100 year trend? And what does a 100 year trend mean for a planet that has seen climate change over 100,000 year periods? How can you step 100 years to determine a 1000 year trend?
And what would make anyone think we know the average temperature of the entire earth for the year 1812? Or 1513? To within 1-2 degrees? That is hubris.
No need for steps. The satellite 32 year trend is 1-2C per century. The lower end may be more accurate since El Chichon hit in 1982 after satellites started measuring global temp in 1979. The glut of El Nino conditions during the 80's and 90's appears to have caused diminished outgoing long wave globally (due to clouds??) and thus some global warming. There were lots of local variations and various natural cycles and quasi-cycles during the 32 years, but not enough natural change to affect the 1C per century average (e.g. the sun did not increase its radiation that much, etc)
But the bottom line is that the best explanation of 1C rise per century over that time period is CO2. I realize there is some dispute over the role of CO2 and I have read most of the alternatives. But those fall into a small percentage of scientists. What follows from recognition that CO2 may cause a rise of 1C per century is that there is no long term positive feedback; weather will do it's own thing, driven by solar, and may provide subtractions or additions to global warming. There is some evidence for negative feedback, strong and more frequent storms, increased water cycle, etc. But the Arctic will not "melt" in the next century or even a few centuries even if CO2 keeps increasing, due to diminishing returns on CO2 warming.
Again, this is a "time-frame" issue, the data does show that the temps for portions of that period were "stable" or "even" "declining", and as that first graph I posted demonstrates, there have been several periods in the last hundred years when this was the case.
However, those periods are not long enough to be statistically significant for determining the longer term trend.
Think of it as the difference between "cooler” and "cooling" (or “warmer” and “warming”).
In the last week there have been several days here in Chicago that are considerably warmer than is “normal” for the first week in November – the weather has been ”warmer” than expected on the basis of historical records.
Now, I’m happy to enjoy the warmer weather, but it did not stop me from buying a new snow thrower, because I know that it does not mean the weather is “warming” over the July to December time-frame; what I “intuitively understand” is that a week of warmer than expected November weather is not “statistically significant” for projecting the longer term temperature trend.
Same thing with 10 or 15 years of “warmer” or “cooler“ weather: the time-frame is not long enough to determine if there is a longer term “heating” or “cooling” trend.
The last couple of years have been the worst ocean fishing in so cal. Colder water than normal means the fish that migrate up from mexico don’t get up here to so cal. Global warming my a$$!!!
Global warming is so 20th century, didn't you get the memo? It's now "Climate Change."
Again your post is basically correct. The only thing I would add is that the both the length and amplitude of the natural variation need to be considered to evaluate significance. If the global temperature drops by 2 degrees in the next 5 years, that would be significant (nothing like like ever happened before). It would not necessarily invalidate CO2 warming, but it would punch a big hole in the mitigation arguments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.