Meltfactor.org

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

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…

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.

Let me explain why I’m debating anthropogenic (human-induced) global warming (AGW) deniers…

1. The deniers’ main arguments don’t hold water. In other words, there have been no acceptable arguments by AGW deniers that human activities taken globally, on (usually decadal) average (not shorter), can not significantly influence climate.
2. I am a credible expert. I have a PhD certificate in atmospheric and oceanic science. I have taught numerous university-level courses in meteorology and physical climate science. Lemme tell you, a great way to understand the science is to teach it over and over! I am a tenured professor of climate science. I am a contributing author to the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report. I have published 26+ peer-reviewed publications directly related to climate science.
3. While the vast majority of climate scientists and national policy makers have dismissed human-induced global warming deniers attempts at debunking (human-induced) global warming science, there remain many undecided folk. Thus, some debate is worthy of my time.
4. Given the maturity of the science and what’s at risk (the livelihoods and economies of present and future generations), policy makers must act, even accepting the apparently very small odds catastrophic climate change won’t happen. Civilizations weigh the odds while hoping for the best yet prudently prepare for the worst.
5. I want to help civilization achieve sustainable development. Putting the deniers in their place (evidently as pseudo-scientists) makes the world a better place.

Let me warn you that I cannot justify spending more than some fraction of my time engaging the deniers. If it weren’t for the chance of helping the non-scientific as-yet undecided folk, I’d also dismiss the deniers. They are so last-century. Yet, do not take any delays in responding to counter points to mean that I’m stalling or have given up. I just don’t have all my time to devote to this cause. So, be patient. Also, alternatively, please read the science for yourself and see what I consider to be highly credible alternative sources of scientific discourse and some unequivocal truth…

• The IPCC Fourth Assessment Reports and in particular the rather dense IPCC FAR 2007 Summary for Policy Makers. Please beware that while most of the earlier IPCC reports’ conclusions have not changed, you should consider the advancements in science since earlier reports to supercede the earlier results.
• realclimate.org

Finally, be aware that there remain uncertainties. Understand that predicting future climate is a very complex problem that has engaged many of the worlds brightests atmospheric and climate scientists. Me stating that uncertainty exists does not mean that climate scientists lack crediblity, the ranks of climate scientists contributing to international assessment reports include Nobel prize winners, national science medal winners, heads of academic and governmental departments, and many who are deeply patriotic, skeptical, and caring for the world’s challenges. Me stating that uncertainty exists does not mean that climate science has not made major advancements in knowledge, climate scientists have. Don’t let the 1970s global cooling scare discredit advances in science since! Me stating that uncertainty exists does not mean that climate science has not provided projections of future climate worthy of policy response, climate science has made useful and honest projections, again, see the IPCC FAR 2007 Summary for Policy Makers. Again, given the maturity of the science and what’s at risk (the livelihoods and economies of present and future generations), policy makers must act, even accepting the apparently very small odds catastrophic climate change won’t happen. Civilizations weigh the odds while hoping for the best yet prudently prepare for the worst.

Since deniers don’t trust scientists to be careful, which they are on Mauna Loa, let’s just  throw out the Mauna Loa data for the sake of argument…  “There are dozens of other sampling stations scattered all over the globe, including one in the Antarctic, far from cities, SUVs, cement plants, and active volcanoes. It also shows the same rise [PDF], though the southern hemisphere tends to lag a few years behind the northern hemisphere, where the majority of the CO2 is produced. Here are eight others — same results.

Sorry, its all of us Joes, not the volcanoes.” – Grist