Statisticians Confirm: No Global Cooling Despite Skeptic Spin

In a massive blow to the climate skeptic movement, the Associated Press has conducted a blind test of statisticians that unequivocally confirms that no global cooling trend exists. Despite the best efforts of a small handful of climate skeptics, who argue that the globe has cooled rather than warmed since the record hot year of 1998, no such cooling trend has taken place.

The Associated Press conducted the blind test by sending global temperature data from NOAA and NASA to four independent statisticians who were not told what the data represented, but simply asked to perform a common statistical analysis to look for trends in the data.

The statisticians "found no true temperature declines over time," and in fact identified "a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers," the AP reports.

Several statisticians quoted in the AP piece slam the climate skeptics who "cherry-pick" data in a "particularly suspect" attempt to denounce global warming. Efforts to portray a global cooling trend since the record hot year of 1998 are "not scientifically legitimate," and are the result of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," according to David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor who analyzed the data for AP.

"To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous," said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford.

"Ridiculous" indeed, but that has not stopped the handful of loud-mouthed climate skeptics from spreading this false claim. Their efforts have proven successful at confusing the public, thanks in large part to the Drudge Report, FOX News and lazy journalists who fail to fact-check the skeptic arguments, providing oxygen to their baseless claims.

The Associated Press conducted a simple exercise that any self-respecting news outlet concerned with the facts rather than the confusionist spin could duplicate easily. Don't expect this news to silence the skeptics, but if you are a journalist, please let the skeptics talk amongst themselves, rather than polluting the public discourse any further. And if you are a concerned news consumer, please do hold accountable any news outlet that continues to ignore this starkly obvious fact: there is no global cooling. There definitely is global warming.

It really is that simple. Now can we talk about the critically important matter of how to address climate change with just a few weeks left until the Copenhagen Climate Summit?

Follow Brendan DeMelle on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bdemelle

Comments

[talkinhedz]

So its ok to Cherry Pick 1985 and 2005 as evidence of Global Warming..or is it Climate Change? I wonder what happened to all the Alarmists who claimed Katrina was just the beginning of the end? We sure didn't hear much about Killer Hurricanes this year? What is going on? The only thing I think is a crime is destroying Rainforests worldwide with abandon! We do need the trees to absorb Co2 ..and return O2 to us. But if Higher C02 levels lead to temp increases..then why was last year cooler than most..and don't forget this past summer very cool on the East Coast.
I'm just asking.

[saneman82]

This year?
El Nino year.
Its not cherry picking when every other year give the same/similar trend.

[GHO]

I think the article and the comments I see here miss two important points.
1) While there is no cooling trend found, there is also no warming trend. The AGW argument is that increasing CO2 levels lead to increased temp. The lack of an upward trend in the past decade, despite steadily climbing CO2 levels, IS significant in the AGW debate.
2) None of this discussion about the temp trends answers the actual question - causality. By now you've realized I am what you call a skeptic or "denier". That does not mean I dispute the increase in global temps from ~1979 to 1999 (though I wonder about a "global mean temp" on a planet that regularly exhibits >50 decree C temp ranges across it on a single day). It means I dispute that mankind's behavior is responsible - or more importantly, that a change in mankind's behavior will change anything. Simply looking at temp trends only tells you what the temp did, not why, and why is the key question in the debate.

[Radical Pirate]

1) is not true. The warming trend was mentioned in the article.

2) ignores that there is plenty of evidence for the greenhouse effect.

More to the point, even if one were to ignore global warming, there are many good reasons to reduce fossil fuel consumption. CO2 accumulation disrupts natural biological systems, and the other pollution associated with fossil fuels is toxic.

So not only are you spreading falsehoods - you are also ignoring the obvious. Congrats - that's hard to do.

[GHO]

Let's first get our terms straight - no one is denying the "greenhouse effect". That effect is the very reason we have an environment suitable for human life. What we so-called "deniers" dispute is the existance of "enhanced" greenhouse effect in which the addition of more CO2, by human activity, could produce a "runaway" greenhouse effect in which temperatures would continue to climb out of control.

I never said we shouldn't reduce fossil fuel consumption, did I? Did I say on ebad thing about clean energy? No again. Typical problem with those who support the AGW theory - any failure to agree wholeheartedly with the premise is met with hostility.

I am all for alternative energy because I think we need all the energy we can get for a robust economy and for security.

None of this changes my earlier statement that temp trends do not constitute proof of causality.

[Richard2]

When a serious supporter of Global Warming is reduced to writing an article to prove that "global cooling" isn't occurring, it is clear that mother nature is grinding away at the pillars of support for "global warming."

Two years ago every event on the news was blamed on Global Warming. Hurricanes, tornadoes, rain storms, draughts. You name it, global warming caused it.

Today there is very little of that kind of talk going on. Most knowledgeable people doubt that man-made Global Warming, from CO2 releases, is real.

[lightningbolt]

1998 was a statistical anomaly in temperature. One needs to look at the entire picture to make a conclusion.

[Richard2]

Good point. If this is the case, then the people who create so called climate models should have taken this into account, yes? Their forecasts for the first decade of the 21st Century should have noted that the entire decade would be cooler than 1998. They didn't. How do you explain this oversight by the climate modelers?

[realpolitic]

This decade is much warmer than the last and 2005 was the warmest year of the decade and 2007 tied with 1998 as the second warmest, according to NASA.

R2 says: "Their forecasts for the first decade of the 21st Century should have noted that the entire decade would be cooler than 1998." Wrong! "The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.""

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910260029

"Using NASA’s data, it looks like the climate story of the decade is that the 2000s are on track to be nearly 0.2°C warmer than the 1990s And the temperature jump in the 2000s is especially worrisome since the 1990s were only 0.14°C warmer than the 1980s. Global warming is accelerating, as predicted."

http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/22/new-york-times-andrew-revkin-suckered-by-deniers-to-push-global-cooling-myt/

[realpolitic]

Now deniers are rehashing the tired argument that NASA surface stations inaccurately measure tmeperatures because of an urban heat island effect. Depend on them to always resurrect buried, dead arguments.

NASA controls for any urban heat island effect by comparing urban surface stations to rural ones. According to NASA: "We find larger warming at urban stations on average," said Hansen, "so we use the rural stations to adjust the urban records, thus obtaining a better measure of the true climate change. They estimate that remaining urban influence on the global record is not more than about 0.18°F (0.1°C)."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011105/

Actually in North America, most of the warming has occurred because of higher nighttime temperatures and not daytime, when the heat island effect would be most prominent. Also, it hardly matters what the initial temperatures are because it is the temperature trend over time that matters. Also, most of the warming has occurred at the poles where there is no urban heat island effect.

"A 2003 paper ("Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the contiguous United States: No difference found"; J climate; Peterson; 2003) indicates no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures."

http://www.grist.org/article/warming-is-due-to-the-urban-heat-island-effect/

[realpolitic]

(cont.)

"The surface temperature trends is also confirmed from multiple, independent sources:"

-Surface temperature analysis by NASS GISS find strong correlation with two independent analyses by CRU's Global Temperature Record and NCDC.

-Weather balloon measurements have found from 1975 through 2005, the global mean, near-surface air temperature warmed by approximately 0.23°C/decade.

-Satellite measurements of lower atmosphere temperatures shows temperature rises of between 0.16°C to 0.24°C/decade since 1982.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

[realpolitic]

"Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data."

"The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend."

"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."


http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910260029

[1will]

I suspect that in a week or two information will be released detailing how yet again, the temps came from measuring stations were placed in asphalt parking lots or (outside) next to air conditioning units. Of course the info will be buried on page 20 or only shown on the Drudgereport.

[LeftRight]

Um.... yeah, that's why it's ALL the data, not just cherry picked data like Drudge uses....

[Richard2]

This article seems to confirm the observation of Andrew Revkin, in the New York TImes, and the observation by the environmental writer at the BBC, who both noted that the earth has not warmed in the past decade.

This article makes the case that not only was there no warming, but there was also cooling either.

It is comforting to know that there was no warming, and there was no cooling. If this climate trend continues, the world's climate will be even more stable than the 20th Century's climate was.

It also means that no extraordinary climate crisis has been occurring over the past ten years.

[BrettnCalgary]

The 9 hottest years recorded occurred in the last 10, but you think that debunks global warming? Did you read what the statisticians said? Who do you think believes your lies here?

[Katiebar]

Like the poorly placed temperature measuring ground stations, your data is corrupt.

[Richard2]

It debunks the idea that the climate warmed since 1998. It therefore debunks the idea that CO2 is a dangerous gas.

[Atlas1776]

I agree, engaging with skeptics who want only to cause confusion seems largely like a waste of energy, but it's still important to do, because there are so many good people, intelligent people, who are just barely paying enough attention and the slightest confusion allows them to think "ah, maybe this isn't really a big deal" ... and in a slow emergency, that's a big deal - so I'm darn glad DeMelle (and the AP!) is keeping on top of all of this.

[Florentine]

I agree Atlas1776 - It's critically important that we dispel the lies propagated by climate skeptics. Ignoring the skeptics only results in greater confusion and inaction. In other words, they win and we're all doomed.

A new Pew poll confirms this: 57% think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In April 2008, 71% said there was solid evidence of rising global temperatures.

http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

Florentine, like others, is operating under the delusion that facts actually matter in this discussion
Two years ago during a debate with denialists in a Huffpost commenst sectionI had an epiphany.
I decided to see if ANY denialist arguments can survive 2 Google searches. 2 years later I have yet to find one that can. If that's all the fact checking it takes then it should be clear that those who are still pushing denialists arguments are doing so because they WANT to believe them.
Given this does engaging them accomplish anything?
This is one part of a theory I have been developing that it's a mistake and waste of energy to engage what is left of the so-called conservative movement. Running around putting out endless disinformational fires is pointless and a waste of energy because the supply of lies is endless and the need to believe them to deeply rooted to be reached by rational argument.
Instead of opposing arguments all discussion should be aimed dissseminating the evidence FOR global warming among the public that is actually convinceable.
This is part and parcel of my theory that Obama shouldn't attack Fox news but COMPLETELY IGNORE THEM, just like he should push through health care reform by acting as though the Republican party doesn't even exist. Engaging them is to go along with the Big Lie that there is some kind of sensible or even sane debate or discussion possible. I am convinced there isn't.

[Florentine]

ImmanuelGoldstein - I'm not talking about whether or not you, Obama or anyone else should or should not engage with climate skeptics. I'm wondering if their reputation is so badly damaged now that even the right-wing media won't associate with them anymore. Because that would be awesome.

DeMelle acknowledges that this probably isn't the last we're going to hear from the climate skeptics though, and his aim is to arm journalists and the rest of us with the facts so that we can finally turn off the climate skeptics' mics and move the conversation more quickly toward solutions.

[Richard2]

The copious NOAA tide station data is available on line. This includes all the California tide stations, plus many others. Among the overseas tide station data is the data for Copenhagen. The long term sea level rise there has been at a rate of about two inches per 100 years. Not much to worry about there.

It is well established that there has been a gentle rise in the oceans since the last ice age. What is significant about the data for the past ten years, is that the gentle rise appears to be moderating somewhat along the Pacific Coast of the United States.

There may be other explanations for this important new moderating trend, but a possible one is simply that the Pacific Ocean has recently cooled somewhat compared to the late 20th Century.

It is difficult to find AGW supporters who want to openly discuss the possible reasons for the NOAA tide station data's moderation, despite the existence of many researchers in California, at schools such as Cal-Tech, UCLA and UCSD.

[realpolitic]

Any recent Pacific cooling is related to Pacific Decadal Oscillation which affects temperatures in the Pacific in 20 to 30 year time increments, so any recent cooling will gradually be replaced by warming when the Pacific oscillation enters its warming phase. These sorts of natural variations also affect temperatures. Oceans have seen their hottest summer temperatures on record, according to NOAA. "The June-August worldwide ocean surface temperature was also the warmest on record at 62.5 degrees F, 1.04 degrees F above the 20th century average of 61.5 degrees F. "

Regarding ocean rise, California waters and all oceans has seen a rise of 8 inches over the last century. Satellite "data has shown a more-or-less steady increase in Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) of around 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/year since 1992. This is more than 50% larger than the average value over the 20th century." The sea level has been steadily rising since 1900 at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters per year.

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

The 1998 ocean levels were affected by a strong el Nino that saw a rapid rise in sea levels particularly in the Pacific. It is an outlier and to use it as a base of comparison cherrypicks the statistics. Tides were five feet higher than normal in that year.

[valkyrie607]

Do it for the lurkers.

[rockymountainhigh]

Question....was the data sent to the statisticians good data? A majority of the temperature stations were/are placed in locations that do not meet the standards to which they are supposed to be set because they are too close to ac exhaust...too close to significant sources of radiant heat(concrete, asphalt, etc....)

If NASA and NOAA have not fixed these problems, then this is simply a case of garbage in/garbage out for this study, and is essentially meaninless. It is a lie to try and spin it any other way.....

[jsarets]

You have a link for these concerns?

I would highly doubt that these data sources are affected by proximity to heat sources, especially since my understanding is that NOAA and NASA get most of this temperature data from satellite-based infrared imagery.

[Brendan DeMelle - Huffpost Blogger]

rocky...to answer your question about the data:
"AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville."

When confronted with the conclusion reached by the four independent statisticians that no global cooling trend exists, all of a sudden, the skeptics sound less than confident about their 'global cooling' theory, even based on their own data set.

Steven Levitt, author of the new Freakonomics book (speaking of garbage) which hawks the global cooling theory, told AP he "did not do any statistical analysis of temperatures, but "eyeballed" the numbers" ... and admits "he does not believe there is a cooling trend."
But that didn't stop him from writing about it in his book.

Also see the quote from John Christy, the Alabama atmospheric scientist who collects the satellite data that skeptics prefer. "It pretty much depends on when you start" Christy said of the trend identification.

So, in the words of the quoted experts, this is really about how skeptics, i.e. "people coming at the data with preconceived notions" can "cherry pick" the data.

"Not scientifically legitimate" is a polite way of saying that skeptics are lying to the public, and judging from the answers provided by Christy and Levitt, they know there is no global cooling, but that doesn't stop them from trying to confuse the public.

[Richard2]

This was a softball pitch wasn't it?

A website dealing with the problems with the existing surface stations can be found at:

http://www.surfacestations.org

This site describes an on-going research project to photograph all of the existing surface stations and their equipment, to see if they meet the standards set by the government research program.

Warning: Some of the photos are disturbing, at a minimum.

[Florentine]

What do climate skeptics and polar bears have in common? They're both endangered by global warming.

In the face of this indisputable science maybe now Fox, Matt Drudge, etc will finally stop giving these few climate skeptics a platform...?

[seakat]

We could hope that the deniers will stop, but I do't hink for one minute that Fox et al are going to admit they are wrong. I don't even want to think what their rational will be, if they bother to rationalize - I'm thinking they will pretend they don't know about this at all.

[Richard2]

As the percentage of the public that you could classify as "deniers" has grown by about 24% over the past year, I guess what you are saying is that the polar bear population is also growing by 24% per year. This would mean that they share the same significant growth rate over time.

[Aramingo]

What percentage of climate scientists have become deniers? Remember, you're talking about a public where nearly 50% deny that evolution is a natural phenomenon. So, public support may not be your strongest argument.