AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

SETH BORENSTEIN | 10/26/09 09:34 PM | AP

What's Your Reaction?

WASHINGTON — Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book. Only one problem: It's not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press.

The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

Yet the idea that things are cooling has been repeated in opinion columns, a BBC news story posted on the Drudge Report and in a new book by the authors of the best-seller "Freakonomics." Last week, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 percent in 2006.

Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped – thus, a cooling trend. But it's not that simple.

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.

Story continues below
advertisement

"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."

The 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.

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."

One prominent skeptic said that to find the cooling trend, the 30 years of satellite temperatures must be used. The satellite data tends to be cooler than the ground data. And key is making sure 1998 is part of the trend, he added.

It's what happens within the past 10 years or so, not the overall average, that counts, contends Don Easterbrook, a Western Washington University geology professor and global warming skeptic.

"I don't argue with you that the 10-year average for the past 10 years is higher than the previous 10 years," said Easterbrook, who has self-published some of his research. "We started the cooling trend after 1998. You're going to get a different line depending on which year you choose.

"Should not the actual temperature be higher now than it was in 1998?" Easterbrook asked. "We can play the numbers games."

That's the problem, some of the statisticians said.

Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is "deceptive."

The trend disappears if the analysis starts in 1997. And it trends upward if you begin in 1999, he said.

Apart from the conflicting data analyses is the eyebrow-raising new book title from Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, "Super Freakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance."

A line in the book says: "Then there's this little-discussed fact about global warming: While the drumbeat of doom has grown louder over the past several years, the average global temperature during that time has in fact decreased."

That led to a sharp rebuke from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which said the book mischaracterizes climate science with "distorted statistics."

Levitt, a University of Chicago economist, said he does not believe there is a cooling trend. He said the line was just an attempt to note the irony of a cool couple of years at a time of intense discussion of global warming. Levitt said he did not do any statistical analysis of temperatures, but "eyeballed" the numbers and noticed 2005 was hotter than the last couple of years. Levitt said the "cooling" reference in the book title refers more to ideas about trying to cool the Earth artificially.

Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it's important to look at moving averages of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any previous years.

"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.

Ben Santer, a climate scientist at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Lab, called it "a concerted strategy to obfuscate and generate confusion in the minds of the public and policymakers" ahead of international climate talks in December in Copenhagen.

President Barack Obama weighed in on the topic Friday at MIT. He said some opponents "make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change – claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary."

Earlier this year, climate scientists in two peer-reviewed publications statistically analyzed recent years' temperatures against claims of cooling and found them not valid.

Not all skeptical scientists make the flat-out cooling argument.

"It pretty much depends on when you start," wrote John Christy, the Alabama atmospheric scientist who collects the satellite data that skeptics use. He said in an e-mail that looking back 31 years, temperatures have gone up nearly three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit (four-tenths of a degree Celsius). The last dozen years have been flat, and temperatures over the last eight years have declined a bit, he wrote.

Oceans, which take longer to heat up and longer to cool, greatly influence short-term weather, causing temperatures to rise and fall temporarily on top of the overall steady warming trend, scientists say. The biggest example of that is El Nino.

El Nino, a temporary warming of part of the Pacific Ocean, usually spikes global temperatures, scientists say. The two recent warm years, both 1998 and 2005, were El Nino years. The flip side of El Nino is La Nina, which lowers temperatures. A La Nina bloomed last year and temperatures slipped a bit, but 2008 was still the ninth hottest in 130 years of NOAA records.

Of the 10 hottest years recorded by NOAA, eight have occurred since 2000, and after this year it will be nine because this year is on track to be the sixth-warmest on record.

The current El Nino is forecast to get stronger, probably pushing global temperatures even higher next year, scientists say. NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt predicts 2010 may break a record, so a cooling trend "will be never talked about again."

WASHINGTON — Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book. Only one problem:...
WASHINGTON — Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book. Only one problem:...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
160
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo
Post Comment

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
- Dahun I'm a Fan of Dahun 4 fans permalink
photo

Another amusing little anectdote for you alarmists.

In the 1970's president Obama's science czar wrote in a college textbook Holdren co-edited with Paul R. Ehrlich in 1971, entitled "Global Ecology,"

He warned the earth was heading for a new Ice Age unless the population was decreased by forced abortions.

He predicted a 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise over the world mean surface temperature over the past century.

Holdren warned, "The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large populations scarcely need elaboration here."

"Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history."

30 years later he believes in man made warming.

Another conversion seems to be by James Hansen, head of NASA GISS who developed programs used to help predict a coming Ice Age in the 1970s and now uses the same programs to warn of global warming.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:02 PM on 11/10/2009
- Dahun I'm a Fan of Dahun 4 fans permalink
photo

While some people may feel that a statistical analysis using unknown numbers for unknown years and then atking an unknown formula and making assumptions from this why don't we take the world's leading proponents of global warming and see waht they say. Mojib Latif, lead author, IPCC acknowledges it has cooled and predicts another 10-20 years of cooling. Rajenda Pachauri, head of the IPCC says temperatures have plateaued. James Hansen, head of NASDA, GISS and the father of global warming says the cap and trade bill is a "Temple of Doom" that cannot measurably reduce carbon dioxide or clean the air. Hnasen recognizes that nuclear is the only way to reduce CO2 and clean the air.

Every climate scientist in the world agrees with Hansen and says cap and trade cannot reduce carbon dioxide by any measurable amount.

The real question is, what earthly good is this bill?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:49 PM on 11/10/2009
- Dahun I'm a Fan of Dahun 4 fans permalink
photo

"In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time."

Since the statiticians looked at 114 years of temperature data they disproved the theory of manmade warming as they found no true temperature increases over this time span. Quite simply the statiticians saw weather, which is unpredictable.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:25 PM on 11/10/2009
- Dahun I'm a Fan of Dahun 4 fans permalink
photo

Figures can lie and liers can figure, so goes the old saying and this premise is shown clearly in this oft repeated story.

The years looked at by the statisticians are the only years allowed by the UN IPCC which are from 1895 to the present. The headline says that there is no indication of global cooling and in the story say there are no indications of a cooling trend. Let's pretend that the author had a prejudice against man made warming. The headline would then read "AP IMPACT: STATISTICIANS REJECT GLOBAL WARMING" Taking 114 years as "history" is absurd. Suggesting that statisticians cane predict the weather is just as preposterous as saying you can take the last 114 years of history and model the next 100 years. In fact saying that there is no trend in these 114 years disproves any warming trend.

There is irrefutable evidence agreed to by every institute in the world that the earth has cooled for nine years. Lead authors of the IPCC acknowledge this as does the president of the IPCC. Having a statistical analysis of the the last 114 years does not change this. Saying there is no trend in these 114 years does not dispute the recent cooling trend.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:58 PM on 11/10/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

"The years 1998 and 2005 are interesting to compare – these are the two warmest years on record. That 1998 was so warm is not surprising. It was a year with an unusually strong El Nino and with the sun close to its 11-year maximum. By comparison, the sun in 2005 was near the minimum in its cycle, and the year began with a weak El Nino that dissipated by late spring. Most scientists have concluded that 2005 was as warm as it was without the benefit of a solar maximum or strong El Nino because of extra warming from greenhouse gases, but that is an issue for another day."


http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/pronouncement-global-warming%E2%80%99s-demise-thin-ice

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:58 PM on 11/01/2009
- Dahun I'm a Fan of Dahun 4 fans permalink
photo

Actually 1934 is the warmest year on record. NASA at one point claimed 1998 as the warmest but when they were forced to correct their temperature program for a Y2K glitch caught by Steve McYntire and this error was corrected in August of 2007. The record has since been corrected by NASA, GISS.

1.1934
2.1998
3.1921
4.2006
5.1931
6.1999
7.1953
8.1990
9.1938
10.1939
11.1954
12.1987
13.2001
14.1986
15.1946
16.1991
17.2005
18.1933
19.1981
20.1941

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:14 PM on 11/10/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

You are speaking for temperatures for America and not global temperatures!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:41 PM on 11/17/2009
- Dahun I'm a Fan of Dahun 4 fans permalink
photo

Simply not true. the reference shown goes through a tortuous methodology comparing groups of years averaged together.

The only thing wrong with your explanation that la Nina and low solar activity caused the cooling is that every single man made warming model in the world showed that this cooling was impossible. Scientists knew these natural events were coming and the IPCC and every proponent of the man made warming theory stated without exception that these would be overwhelmed man made carbon dioxide and the earth would not only keep warming but would reach record high temperatures. Each of these models and climate scientists predicted the exact opposite of what happened.

It is impossible to think that these models can predict future temperatures when they have been demonstrably proven incapable of doing so.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:01 PM on 11/10/2009
- Richard2 I'm a Fan of Richard2 12 fans permalink

The state of California has completed a draft "Climate Adaptation Report." This report has a graph on Page 17 showing what is described as an average temperature for California. The peak of the temperature line was 1998. After that, the line drops down some. It also appears that the data for 2008 may be missing from this chart.

If there is no cooling trend, is it reasonable to also say that there has been no warming since 1998?
Does temperature data for individual states or regions also indicate no warming since 1998?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:18 AM on 11/01/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

"If there is no cooling trend, is it reasonable to also say that there has been no warming since 1998?" If there is no cooling, it also means no warming. What kind of crazy denier logic is that! According to Dr. Bill Chameides, dean of Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment......


"Through this lens, we see evidence of a slowing of the warming trend but not of cooling. The past five years (2004–2008) were on average warmer than the previous five years (1999–2003) , which were warmer than the previous 5 years, and so on down the series. .

Why was 2008 a relatively cool year?

"1. The stars (so to speak) were apparently aligned to make 2008 a cold year. The Pacific Ocean was in a La Nina phase, which favors cold global temperatures, and the sun was going through (and by the way continues to go thorough) an unusually strong minimum in its 11-year cycle; and "

"2. Even so, 2008 was not that cold. 2008 was actually the eighth or ninth warmest year on record. How could 2008 be the eighth warmest despite La Nina and the solar cycle? Greenhouse gas warming anyone?"

"So, what about those pronouncements of a global cooling? I would have to categorize them as – how can I put this – myopic?"


http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/pronouncement-global-warming%E2%80%99s-demise-thin-ice

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:57 PM on 11/01/2009
- milty I'm a Fan of milty 12 fans permalink

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

How much data? 5 years, 15, 25, 100, 5000? This would have a direct impact on their findings. Also, it appears the 1998 temp. data had a "bug" in it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1882431/posts

http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:08 PM on 10/28/2009
- DocSkull I'm a Fan of DocSkull 17 fans permalink

What time span would you like them to look at to be a good test?

What do your two-year old blog posts have to do with it?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:18 PM on 10/28/2009
- ReedYoung I'm a Fan of ReedYoung 139 fans permalink
photo

RTFA.

"The 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."

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:43 AM on 10/29/2009
- milty I'm a Fan of milty 12 fans permalink

My bad. I read the article and missed what you pointed out. Thanks.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:03 PM on 10/29/2009
- shockmagog I'm a Fan of shockmagog 137 fans permalink
photo

The second stage in the 5 stages of denial:

"The data must be suspect."

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:38 PM on 10/29/2009
- ReedYoung I'm a Fan of ReedYoung 139 fans permalink
photo

NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt predicts 2010 may break a record, so a cooling trend "will be never talked about again."

That seems a bit optimistic; if next year does break the record for the hottest year ever, deniers will still point to the "cooling trend" since 1998 that they forged using statistically invalid methods, much as they now point to Kukla, et alia's prediction in the 1970s of an "impending" ice age -- in 4000 years! -- which the corporate media distorted at the time to sell copy, and which corporate petroleum front groups still use to this day, to pretend that it is an example of scientists being wrong about climate. In fact, that long-term cooling trend is still predicted to occur, after we have finished burning hydrocarbons. Being proved wrong hasn't shut up the deniers yet, but they will look even more obviously stupid by this time next year, and that will have to suffice.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:23 PM on 10/28/2009
- ReedYoung I'm a Fan of ReedYoung 139 fans permalink
photo

In the meantime, Congress must be made to understand how foolish and cowardly they will look next November if they send anything less than total commitment to Copenhagen this December. By next year's elections, we will be just as able to place 2010 temperature on the all-time record list as we now place 2009 in sixth place.

"Of the 10 hottest years recorded by NOAA, eight have occurred since 2000, and after this year it will be nine because this year is on track to be the sixth-warmest on record."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wires/2009/10/26/ap-impact-statisticians-r_ws_333941.html

Members of Congress have professional science advisors at multiple government agencies at their beck and call, and so they have no excuse to be as hoodwinked as the average voters, 57% of whom still believe we already have strong evidence of global warming. Any member of Congress who follows polls instead of leading based on the science will lose its job.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:45 AM on 10/29/2009
- Richard2 I'm a Fan of Richard2 12 fans permalink

The recent independent polls by Pew and by Harris both showed weakening support for man-made global warming. Only 36% of the respondents in one poll think that man-made global warming is real.

Politicians can read polls. It is only a matter of time before some outspoken supporter of AGW is defeated in an election due to his unpopular position.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:06 PM on 10/31/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

Even climate denier Rep. Inhoffe is alone on Capital hill and isolated from other conservative congressmen because of his climate denial stance.


"Among CNN's best retorts to Inhofe's claims is this one: "Inhofe is all alone on Capital Hill these days, most Republicans believe that the scientific jury is in [on global warming]." Inhofe's Republican colleague, Rep. Christopher Shays states in the CNN rebuff that, "we have seen too much documentation to know that the world is getting warmer, we know that the ice shelves are melting and for him [Inhofe] to say otherwise just is like putting a bag over his head and not seeing it.""

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=inhoffe+alone+on+climate+change&page=1&qsrc=0&dm=all&ab=1&title=Kevin+Grandia+%7C+CNN%3A+Inhofe+is+%26quot%3Ball+alone+on+Capital+Hill%26quot%3B&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.desmogblog.com%2Fcnn-inhofe-is-all-alone-on-capital-hill&sg=PKbRvk5FVT8ARHQjBFmlnWg3O7O5fp3BNAM6wyqq198%3D&tsp=1257042724377

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:36 PM on 10/31/2009
- econ1 I'm a Fan of econ1 5 fans permalink

"there are lies, dam_ lies and statistics"

I have no doubt that both sides can look at the data and provide models that prove their point.

I do think that experimenting with ideas like producing clouds over the ocean to cool the planet should be done. We may need a rapid fix if the population keeps growing.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:48 AM on 10/28/2009
- Publicola I'm a Fan of Publicola 16 fans permalink
photo

"I have no doubt that both sides can look at the data and provide models that prove their point."

You did see that this was a blind analysis, whereby the statisticians here didn't know what they were analyzing and instead made the objective assessment that there's no downward trend - didn't you?

"In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time."

And as the NOAA points out, the trend is in fact positive.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:50 PM on 10/28/2009
photo

If you can point to a skeptic paper that proves anything, I'll feint. Computer modelers are in competition with one another. There are modelers all over the world. They are all modeling the same thing. They share their code. All a skeptic would have to do is be better at it, and they aren't. Skeptics seldom publish. When they do they often get crunched by devastating criticisms. They do nothing meaningful. Their major activity appears to be ricocheting around the internet repeatedly throwing the same tired, worn-out yarns against the wall in the hopes of making something, anything, stick. And it never does. Why? Because physics and chemistry and mathematics and statistics are all running strongly against them.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:51 PM on 10/28/2009
photo

Nobody has provided a "global cooling" model.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:50 PM on 10/28/2009
- Dahun I'm a Fan of Dahun 4 fans permalink
photo

Global Predictions
--------
Competing with the short-term solar and La Niña cooling effects is the long-term global warming effect of human-made GHGs. The latter includes the trend toward less Arctic sea ice that markedly increases high latitude Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Although sea ice cover fluctuates from year to year, the large recent loss of thick multi-year ice implies that this warming effect at high latitudes should persist.
Based on these considerations, it is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature. These considerations also suggest that, barring the unlikely event of a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next 2-3 years.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007

In 2007-2008 there was an historic drop in temperature.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:08 PM on 11/10/2009
- Whatevah I'm a Fan of Whatevah 30 fans permalink
photo

While I applaud this enterprising reporter for finding a creative way to reveal the truth, I really doubt that it will make any difference to anybody.

People who live in the reality-based world already realize that manmade global warming is real. The only folks who don't believe it are people who just don't know how to make decisions based on evidence. Giving them more evidence isn't going to crack that nut.

Remember the knight in "The Holy Grail" who wanted to keep fighting even after all his limbs had been hacked off? That's what it's like outside the reality-based world.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:14 AM on 10/28/2009
- snove77 I'm a Fan of snove77 6 fans permalink
photo

Great analogy with the Black Knight. Actually, not a bad analogy for the entire Republican Party. They have nothing of substance left and are reduced to "I'll bite your legs off!"

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 AM on 10/28/2009
- Publicola I'm a Fan of Publicola 16 fans permalink
photo

These days they are even biting their own legs off. Consider for example how Lindsey Graham has been excommunicated by the GOP's "base" for being heritical with respect to their global warming denier dogma.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:54 PM on 10/28/2009

"The Greenland (Arctic) and Vostok (Antarctic) ice cores are particularly informative, offering fine temporal resolution and continuity. This has revealed surprising oscillations of climate on a millennial scale within the main 100-kyr cycle. The Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) identifies some 24 interstadials through the last ice age with average temperature rising rapidly by ~7 C over just decades. Further ice and sediment cores from around the world are demonstrating the global scale of these major climatic events."

From: Hewitt, G. 2000. The genetic legacy of the Quarternary ice ages. NATURE, Vol. 405, 22 June 2000 (www.nature.com)

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:31 AM on 10/28/2009
- mamacat I'm a Fan of mamacat 136 fans permalink

Watched the interview with the author of Freakonomics on Jon Stewart. His idea that we should basically do nothing for 50 years, while we hope that in 50 years technology will have figured out a way to stop GW, sounds akin to sticking one's head in the sand, hoping that one's problems will just go away by themselves.

As the author correctly pointed out, even if we were somehow to reverse green house gas emissions immediately, polar heating would continue for at least another 50 years due to what we have already emitted. That what we are doing now will have an effect for a long time to come seems to me a very good reason to act as quickly as practical, and not a reason to do nothing for as long as possible.

As a senior citizen, I can accept doing nothing about global warming, but I also realise that if we do nothing about all of the many problems facing us, our great-grandchildren will rightly curse us.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:18 AM on 10/28/2009
- Whatevah I'm a Fan of Whatevah 30 fans permalink
photo

Actually, what he said is that we should pursue geoengineering projects as a short-term "band-aid" solution while we simultaneously work to reduce carbon output.

Makes sense to me. Clearly, there's no possible way to prevent the massive temperature increase that is inevitable with the amount of carbon in the atmosphere already. Reducing that level will take many decades, unfortunately.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:09 AM on 10/28/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

Yes, if we begin to act now and develop technologies just think how much farther we will be ahead in fifty years. This idea of doing nothing is never an approach we Americans have taken with problems.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:55 PM on 10/28/2009
- talkinhedz I'm a Fan of talkinhedz 18 fans permalink
photo

Let me understand, its ok to Cherry Pick 1998 and 2005 as the hottest years but not ok to cherry pick the last 2 yrs? It would seem that the rise in CO2 levels might have to do with losses in the Rain Forrests world wide than too many cows or Suv's.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:30 PM on 10/27/2009

You better call up NASA and let them know, they probably never thought about deforestation, in fact, no one has, thanks for bringing it up.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:56 PM on 10/27/2009
- DocSkull I'm a Fan of DocSkull 17 fans permalink

Deforestation is an important factor, but the majority is fossil fuels. Essentially taking geological carbon and releasing it as CO2 into the atmosphere.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:09 PM on 10/27/2009

GOOD GOD!! What was the temperature before the dinosaurs became fossil fuels?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:13 PM on 10/27/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

It is a good day for the climate change crowd and scientists!

"A new poll released Tuesday by CNN reveals strong support for the "Cap and Trade" legislation proposed by Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer, with 60% of respondents stating they support limits for the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced by power plants and factories, and fines for those that exceed them."

In other activity, "Energy Sevretary Chu was one of five administration officials, including three Cabinet secretaries, to push for legislation before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee as it opened debate on a 925-page bill that would reduce greenhouse gases by about 80 percent by mid-century."

Also, the global cooling myth was totally debunked by statisticians. The only thing we know is the deniers on these pages will keep repeating it anyway!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:59 PM on 10/27/2009

It has indeed been a good day! I have been debating with people on other message boards all day about this, and still so many keep parroting that the earth is cooling. Pielke Sr instantly responded to this claim which seems to have given skeptic/denier blogs a reason to dispute this non issue further.

Yesterday we were both commenting on the APS and Lord Monckton. Unfortunately one of my posts didnt go through. They have once again been asked to review their statement.
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200910/upload/October-2009.pdf

The fact that 50 members of a Society of approximately 50 000 members have managed to re-open this debate is somewhat sad. Though I am confident that their theories and whatnot will be refuted, and consequently strengthen the AGW position.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:29 PM on 10/27/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

Yes, great post! It shows what the vocal tyranny of a loud and determined minority can do! The 50 are all probably physicists associated and paid by energy companies. Their backgrounds and motivations should be subjected to scrutiny especially given how their recommendation flies in the face of all settled science. Thanks for informing me! It is great to come across a sane man!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:02 PM on 10/28/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

Yes, those 50 are part of tyranny of the minority and probably work for energy companies. What a shame! Thanks for the response!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:26 PM on 10/28/2009
- mamacat I'm a Fan of mamacat 136 fans permalink

Anyone who has been paying attention knew that the lobbyists pushing "the world is cooling, not warming!" bull were in the business of shoveling manure.

How does "the last ten years have been the warmest decade in thousands of years' get translated into "the world is cooling?" Only by the rejection of facts and logic, something that the GW deniers are very good at.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:15 PM on 10/27/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

They love to cherry pick their data. Their favorite thing to do is to, say, start from a low like Arctic ice in 2007 and then say it has rebounded because it is slightly off its lows. They do the same with temperatures!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:03 PM on 10/28/2009
- Dahun I'm a Fan of Dahun 4 fans permalink
photo

So you must agree that taking a low from the end of the Little Ice Age which ended in the 1850s and only allowing every year since then would be warmer would be unscientific. Lets see, what year does the IPCC start using....OK, that would be 1895. Hey, isn't that at a very cool period in history?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:33 PM on 11/10/2009
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect