Temperatures have not been falling for over a decade, as claimed by some

A NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) compilation of land and oceanic instrumental records of near-surface air temperature do not indicate a cooling trend in recent years, as recently claimed by Bob Wagner in public presentations

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Bear in mind that the red line indicates a multi-year average that smooths out year to year noise. The noise is the “weather” of the climate system. Climate trends should only be deduced from decadal averages or longer, not picking out individual years. Climate and weather represent different time scales. Shown here, the instrumental temperature data are aggregated in other ways, e.g. northern hemisphere, southern hemisphere. See, no cooling.

Independent analyses of the same instrumental temperature data (but with an independent/different cooling correction for growth of cities around some of the stations) have been made by the UK Climate Research Unit at School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia, Norwich. See an example below…

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

Here’s more information about the CRU analyses.

So, you think there’s ocean cooling?

Human-induced climate deniers have blown hard about a now obsolete study (Lyman et al, 2006) that identified a (now understood to be spurious) recent cooling trend in ocean heat content data. According to Gavin Schmidt -

“The ‘cooling’ was actually due to combination of a faulty pressure reading on a subset of the [oceanic] floats and a switch between differently-biased observing systems. The pressure error meant that the temperatures were being associated with a point higher in the ocean column than they should have been, and this (given that the ocean cools with depth) introduced a spurious cooling trend when compared to earlier data. This error may be fixable in some cases, but for the time being the suspect data has simply been removed from the analysis. The new results don’t show any cooling at all.”

Isn’t transparency nice! Sorry Bob. You’ve had it wrong. If you’d have stayed current with the science (the discrepancy was identified already nearly 2 years ago! 18 April 2007), you would not now have to retract your misleading statements.

Tags:

20 Responses to “Temperatures have not been falling for over a decade, as claimed by some”

  1. Robert Wagner Says:

    Dr Box, I hate to point this out to you, but your own chart shows temperatures falling from a decade ago. Unless my eyes are lying to me, 2008 is below 1998 on your own chart. That is unless I am standing on my head.

    “Temperatures have not been falling for over a decade, as claimed by some”

    [img]http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif[/img]

  2. Robert Wagner Says:

    “A NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) compilation of land and oceanic instrumental records of near-surface air temperature do not indicate a cooling trend in recent years, as recently claimed by Bob Wagner in public presentations”

    Dr Box, this is so easy to refute in so many ways:

    1) The chart to use to prove you point actually proves my point, it clearly shows cooling over the last 10 years.

    2) You are using the highly biased ground measurements that are not confirmed by satellite or balloon measurements.

    3) The data you select is a)biased by the urban heat island effect and b)”adjustments.” Just look at how this data is manipulated.
    http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/adjustments.gif

    4) By far the most accurate temperature measurements are from satellite, and they show no warming over the past 30 years, and sharp cooling over the last 10 years.
    http://www.ianschumacher.com/img/temp.png

    5) Your charts show that the oceans are warming. Infrared doesn’t penetrate the oceans, and therefore can not be the cause of their warming. Warming of the oceans would also release more CO2.

    6) Even if there is warming, recent studies show that more sun light is making it to the surface due to lack of atmospheric dust.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/27/atlantic_dust_temp_hurricane_study/

  3. Robert Wagner Says:

    Dr Box says: “Bear in mind that the red line indicates a multi-year average that smooths out year to year noise. ”

    Dr Box, look at your own chart. a) only 1 year was above the level of 1998
    b) current level is way below 1998 c) 7 of the last 10 years are above this year’s temperature and d) 9 out of 10 years are below 1998. Sure the moving average is high, but that is due to the way it is calculated and the clustering near 2008.

    The warming started in 1980 after 40 years of cooling, during which time the CO2 was increasing at nearly the same rate. Your chart shows both warming and cooling with a constant increase in CO2.

    The warming in the early half of the century is at the same rate as the second half, and yet the CO2 level is far higher. The rapid increase in CO2 didn’t change the rate of temperature change.

    The warming since 1980 can largely be explained by less dust in the air, and not CO2.

  4. Robert Wagner Says:

    “A NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) compilation of land and oceanic instrumental records of near-surface air temperature do not indicate a cooling trend in recent years, as recently claimed by Bob Wagner in public presentations”

    Dr Box, this is so easy to refute in so many ways:

    1) The chart to use to prove you point actually proves my point, it clearly shows cooling over the last 10 years.

    2) You are using the highly biased ground measurements that are not confirmed by satellite or balloon measurements.

    3) The data you select is a)biased by the urban heat island effect and b)”adjustments.” Just look at how this data is manipulated.
    http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/adjustments.gif

  5. Robert Wagner Says:

    4) By far the most accurate temperature measurements are from satellite, and they show no warming over the past 30 years, and sharp cooling over the last 10 years.
    http://www.ianschumacher.com/img/temp.png

    5) Your charts show that the oceans are warming. Infrared doesn’t penetrate the oceans, and therefore can not be the cause of their warming. Warming of the oceans would also release more CO2.

    6) Even if there is warming, recent studies show that more sun light is making it to the surface due to lack of atmospheric dust.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/27/atlantic_dust_temp_hurricane_study/

  6. Robert Wagner Says:

    4) By far the most accurate temperature measurements are from satellite, and they show no warming over the past 30 years, and sharp cooling over the last 10 years.
    http://www.ianschumacher.com/img/temp.png

    5) Your charts show that the oceans are warming. Infrared doesn’t penetrate the oceans, and therefore can not be the cause of their warming. Warming of the oceans would also release more CO2.

  7. Robert Wagner Says:

    6) Even if there is warming, recent studies show that more sun light is making it to the surface due to lack of atmospheric dust.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/27/atlantic_dust_temp_hurricane_study/

  8. Robert Wagner Says:

    Dr Box, your chart clearly shows the N Hemi warming far more than the S Hemi. How, when CO2 is evenly dispersed around the globe, can you explain the difference?
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

    Here is a clue, while CO2 is even, ie a constant, water vapor isn’t. Water vapor has been increasing in the N Hemi relative to the S Hemi.

    Also, once again you are relying on the bogus ground measurements. Just take a look at how flawed that measurement technique is.
    http://www.surfacestations.org/

    Here is the person responsible for that data:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPCFx1fMBeI

  9. Robert Wagner Says:

    Dr Box, your chart clearly shows the N Hemi warming far more than the S Hemi. How, when CO2 is evenly dispersed around the globe, can you explain the difference?
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

    Here is a clue, while CO2 is even, ie a constant, water vapor isn’t. Water vapor has been increasing in the N Hemi relative to the S Hemi.

  10. Robert Wagner Says:

    Also, once again you are relying on the bogus ground measurements. Just take a look at how flawed that measurement technique is.
    http://www.surfacestations.org/

  11. Robert Wagner Says:

    Here is the person responsible for that data:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPCFx1fMBeI

  12. Robert Wagner Says:

    Dr Box Says: “Isn’t transparency nice! Sorry Bob. You’ve had it wrong. If you’d have stayed current with the science (the discrepancy was identified already nearly 2 years ago! 18 April 2007), you would not now have to retract your misleading statements.”

    1) I never said the oceans were cooling, in fact is the glacers were in fact melting, that is what you would expect.

    2) AGW and Infrared doesn’t warm the oceans

    3) This research is just out as of a few days ago. It appears that it is you that isn’t current on your homework :)

    http://www.worldweatherpost.com/2009/03/29/atlantic-ocean-temperature-warming-trend-caused-by-dust/

  13. Robert Wagner Says:

    Dr Box, here are a few more problems with the chart that you select.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

    1) The data goes back 130 years, but the data sources are not consistent. From this video you can see that the early years were essentially all US, then Western Europe gets added, then Russia and some in the Southern Hemisphere, then the cold weather stations drop off. Clearly you can’t find a more inconsistent data sampling technique. Just watch the video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSRNeGFN2lE

    2) 2/3 of the globe is water, and yet for a majority of the last 130 years, few if any temperature measurements were taken consistenly on the oceans. It still isn’t covered very well in a consistent manner.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSRNeGFN2lE

    3) As you can see from this chart, what stations are included in the index makes a huge difference. When stations were dropped in 1990, the temperature spiked up. That is a data collection issue, not a natural phenominon due to CO2.
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/img/tempvstations.png

    As you can see, with the above highlighted errors in data collection and index construction you can make global temperature anything you want.

  14. Robert Wagner Says:

    Dr Box, here are a few more problems with the chart that you select.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

  15. Robert Wagner Says:

    1) The data goes back 130 years, but the data sources are not consistent. From this video you can see that the early years were essentially all US, then Western Europe gets added, then Russia and some in the Southern Hemisphere, then the cold weather stations drop off. Clearly you can’t find a more inconsistent data sampling technique. Just watch the video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSRNeGFN2lE

  16. Robert Wagner Says:

    2) 2/3 of the globe is water, and yet for a majority of the last 130 years, few if any temperature measurements were taken consistenly on the oceans. It still isn’t covered very well in a consistent manner.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSRNeGFN2lE

  17. Robert Wagner Says:

    3) As you can see from this chart, what stations are included in the index makes a huge difference. When stations were dropped in 1990, the temperature spiked up. That is a data collection issue, not a natural phenominon due to CO2.
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/img/tempvstations.png

    As you can see, with the above highlighted errors in data collection and index construction you can make global temperature anything you want.

  18. Nicole Says:

    I really like this blog good job.

  19. Todd Albert Says:

    Dr. Wagner,

    Your points above relate to weather and not climate, as Dr. Box has defined. Also, you should revisit your statistics — you cannot infer a trend from two points (1998, an anomalously warm El Niño year, to 2008, one of the 8th warmest year in the last 1000). If you would like to simply use trends between two points, why not arbitrarily choose 1995 and 2005? Then you would have the most abrupt warming you will likely find ever in the climate record.

    Reputable climatologists cannot cherry-pick their data. The trends are real and undeniable. And the science (test this for yourself in a lab: see how much longwave radiation is absorbed when it passes through a field of ever-increasing greenhouse gasses) is not debatable.

    As for there being less warming prior to the late 70s, again, you are a bit behind on your reading. It has clearly been demonstrated that prior to the passage of the clean-air act, increased aerosols in the atmosphere masked much of the greenhouse effect. Stop pumping out aerosols, they fall out of the air, and the real warming begins.

    The bottom line is that when you trap more energy in a system, it will heat up. Of course, much of the excess heat in our system has been absorbed by the oceans (look at trends in ocean heat content over the last 150 years), gone into melting ice, and into warming the atmosphere. The warming shown in these charts doesn’t reflect these other factors.

    Also, the supposed research that you are citing above is not from academic or peer-reviewed sources. YouTube? Seriously? And AccuWeather? Are you trying to thwart your own arguments?

    Again, cherry-pick data all you want. It won’t stop physical laws from working. I suppose you think that since satellites stay in orbit around the Earth, that must prove that gravity doesn’t work, eh?

    Anthropogenically yours,
    Dr. Todd Albert, Climatologist

  20. Todd Albert Says:

    Dr. Wagner,

    If you wish to ignore running means, let’s simply look at the data points and best-fit line:
    http://www.toddalbert.com/files/images/temp-record.png

    So, where’s this cooling you keep talking about? What will you say when next year is warmer? Are all of your weak arguments hinged on the fact that 2008 wasn’t as record-breaking warm as the few years before it?

    When you consider that the 1980s were the warmest decade on record in 1991, then the 1990s were the warmest decade on record, do you really expect this decade to be cooler? Have you seen this:
    http://www.toddalbert.com/files/images/gisstemps09.jpg

    Bored with pseudo-science,
    Dr. Todd Albert, Climatologist

Leave a Reply