In reported response to Will controversy, Wash. Post ombudsman compounds global warming misinformation
SUMMARY: As numerous progressive and science bloggers have noted, Washington Post columnist George Will misused data and distorted statements made by climate experts in order to suggest that human-caused global warming is not occurring. Moreover, in his reported response to criticism of Will's column, Post ombudsman Andy Alexander falsely suggested that a statement by the Arctic Climate Research Center supports Will's claims about sea ice levels when, in fact, the ACRC statement rebuts the very argument Will was making.
As numerous progressive and science bloggers have pointed out, Washington Post columnist George Will misused data and distorted statements made by climate experts in order to suggest that human-caused global warming is not occurring. Moreover, in his reported response to criticism of Will's column, Post ombudsman Andy Alexander falsely suggested that a statement by the Arctic Climate Research Center (ACRC) supports Will's claims about sea ice levels when, in fact, the ACRC statement rebuts the very argument Will was making. Indeed, contrary to Will's suggestion that ACRC data on global sea ice levels undermine the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming, the ACRC document Alexander cites actually states that the sea ice data are consistent with the outcomes projected by climate-change models and studies.
In his February 15 column, Will suggested that ACRC data undermine the case for the existence of "man-made global warming":
As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.
In response, the ACRC reportedly stated:
We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.
It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts.
Responding to criticism of Will's column and of the Post's refusal thus far to correct it, Alexander reportedly suggested in an email to The Wonk Room's Brad Johnson that Will's "conclusion" is supported by a January ACRC document:
George Will's column was checked by people he personally employs, as well as two editors at the Washington Post Writers Group, which syndicates Will; our op-ed page editor; and two copy editors. The University of Illinois center that Will cited has now said it doesn't agree with his conclusion, but earlier this year it put out a statement (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf) that was among several sources for this column and that notes in part that "Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979,"
But Alexander's suggestion that the ACRC only now says it disagrees with Will's "conclusion" and that the earlier (January) ACRC document actually supported Will's conclusion is false. While Will cited ACRC global sea ice level data as evidence that human-caused global warming is not occurring, ACRC says its data are consistent with global warming predictions and that it is important to distinguish between sea ice in the Northern and Southern hemispheres when discussing global warming. Indeed, as noted by Discover magazine contributing editor Carl Zimmer and Washington Monthly blogger Hilzoy, the full context of the January ACRC document -- as opposed to the single, out-of-context sentence Alexander cites -- actually rebuts the notion that ACRC sea ice data undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming. The full document states that "[a]lmost all" climate models project that human-caused global warming will result in decreased sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, that some recent studies have suggested that warming might initially cause sea ice to increase in the Southern Hemisphere, and that these projections are consistent with observed sea ice data.
The January ACRC document states in its entirety:
On January 1, 2009, an article by Michael Asher entitled "Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979" appeared on the Daily Tech website. We have received many requests for confirmation and clarification on this article from media outlets and interested individuals regarding the current state of the cryosphere as it relates to climate change and/or global warming.
One important detail about the article in the Daily Tech is that the author is comparing the GLOBAL sea ice area from December 31, 2008 to same variable for December 31, 1979. In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator. Almost all global climate models project a decrease in the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area over the next several decades under increasing greenhouse gas scenarios. But, the same model responses of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice are less certain. In fact, there have been some recent studies suggesting the amount of sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere may initially increase as a response to atmospheric warming through increased evaporation and subsequent snowfall onto the sea ice. (Details: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050630064726.htm)
Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979, as noted in the Daily Tech article. However, observed N. Hemisphere sea ice area is almost one million sq. km below values seen in late 1979 and S. Hemisphere sea ice area is about 0.5 million sq. km above that seen in late 1979, partly offsetting the N. Hemisphere reduction.
Global climate model projections suggest that the most significant response of the cryosphere to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be seen in Northern Hemisphere summer sea ice extent. Recent decreases of N. Hemisphere summer sea ice extent (green line at right) are consistent with such projections.
Arctic summer sea ice is only one potential indicator of climate change, however, and we urge interested parties to consider the many variables and resources available when considering observed and model-projected climate change. For example, the ice that is presently in the Arctic Ocean is younger and thinner than the ice of the 1980s and 1990s. So Arctic ice volume is now below its long-term average by an even greater amount than is ice extent or area.
In his column, Will also claimed that "according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization [WMO], there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade." Will did not cite a source for this claim, but it echoes a widely criticized April 4, 2008, BBC article that reported on statements made by WMO secretary general Michel Jarraud. From the revised version of the BBC article:
This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.
[...]
Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.
This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.
However, the BBC did not attribute to Jarraud or the WMO the assertion that "temperatures have not risen globally since 1998," nor did it report that WMO concluded that, in Will's words, "there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade." Indeed, the April 2008 BBC article quoted Jarraud saying the opposite: "There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina":
Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.
The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.
[...]
"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.
"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."
In an April 4, 2008, statement, the WMO reiterated that "[t]emporary La Niña's cooling effect does not stall global warming":
The long-term upward trend of global warming, mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, is continuing. Global temperatures in 2008 are expected to be above the long-term average. The decade from 1998 to 2007 has been the warmest on record, and the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C since the beginning of the 20th Century.
The current La Niña event, characterized by a cooling of the sea surface in the central and eastern Equatorial Pacific, is a "climate anomaly" part of natural climate variability. This La Niña started in the third quarter of 2007 and is likely to persist through to the middle of 2008. It has influenced climate patterns during the last six months across many parts of the globe, including in the Equatorial Pacific, across the Indian Ocean, Asia, Africa and the Americas.
"For detecting climate change you should not look at any particular year, but instead examine the trends over a sufficiently long period of time. The current trend of temperature globally is very much indicative of warming," World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General, Mr Michel Jarraud said in response to media inquiries on current temperature "anomalies".
"La Niña modulates climate variability. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change in the present context is that the trend is still upwards; the global climate on an average is warming despite the temporary cooling brought about by La Niña."
And as recently as January 7, 2009, Agence France Presse quoted Jarraud as saying, "The major trend is unmistakably one of warming":
A cold front is sweeping across Europe after gripping swathes of North America last month, but the deep freeze does not mean the threat of global warming has abated, caution scientists.
"The major trend is unmistakably one of warming," Michel Jarraud, secretary general of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), told AFP.
"If we look at the trajectory over the last 160 years, it overlays a large natural variability, and that's what causes confusion."
The cooler weather that was a hallmark of 2008 can be explained partly by La Nina, a reversal of the phenomenon by which warm waters build up on the surface of the Pacific, said Jarraud.
From Will's February 15 Washington Post column:
Credentialed intellectuals, too -- actually, especially -- illustrate Montaigne's axiom: "Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know."
As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.
An unstated premise of eco-pessimism is that environmental conditions are, or recently were, optimal. The proclaimed faith of eco-pessimists is weirdly optimistic: These optimal conditions must and can be preserved or restored if government will make us minimize our carbon footprints and if government will "remake" the economy.
Because of today's economy, another law -- call it the Law of Clarifying Calamities -- is being (redundantly) confirmed. On graphs tracking public opinion, two lines are moving in tandem and inversely: The sharply rising line charts public concern about the economy, the plunging line follows concern about the environment. A recent Pew Research Center poll asked which of 20 issues should be the government's top priorities. Climate change ranked 20th.
Real calamities take our minds off hypothetical ones. Besides, according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade, or one-third of the span since the global cooling scare.
there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade
It's worth noting that this is both factually false and either willfully deceptive or indicative of a profound ignorance of the subject.
What it refers to is the fact that, driven by an unusually strong El Nino, 1998 was the warmest year on record. The fatuous "logic" is that because the average world temperature has not consistently set new records in the years since, there is no warming.
How utterly silly that is can be seen by considering this series of numbers:
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 16 - 6 - 7 - 8
By Will's excuse for logic, we would argue that there is no upward trend in those last three numbers since none of them exceed 16.
As for the ACRC statements, they serve to illustrate that the denialists like Will and Alexander simply do not understand what they read. They take statements that declare that the data is in accordance with projections of global warming and insist those same statements actually refute global warming. People such as that do not deserve to be taken seriously.
Thank you Larry...
For pointing out Mr. Will's "logic". But then, what sort of "logic" would we expect from an elitist, right-wing, pompous, corporate punk?
I just sent WAPO an e-mail. This really shows--in crystal clarity--how far this once great paper has sunk.
The thing that bugs me in instances like this is that the Washington Post has been told that George Will was wrong.
And, rather than trying to figure out why people might be saying that he's wrong, and seeing if the critics might be right, the Post has been trying to prove that he's right. He's not right, of course, so they've been having to cherry-pick comments made by others to try to cobble together a defense.
When smart people tell you that you're wrong, when the source you tried to use says you've used their data incorrectly, the right path is to try to figure out how your detractors might be right. But that would take humility, and apparently George Will and the editors and ombudsman from the Washington Post don't know what humility is.
but but if the "the Post has been trying to prove that he's right" and it is the Post, then he must be right, because it is the Post! Another case of the emperor having no clothes!
before anyone jumps in with the argument...we already know there have been natural cycles of weather in the past. no one has ever denied that.
And few, if any, deny that humans do contribute to global climate change. The real issue is do humans cause global climate change. That's where most of the people posting here and myself will part company.
allright, ill buy your premise for the next 5 mins. if you can give me a good explination as to what does cause global climate change?
Varying output from the sun, inreasing and decreasing terrestrial gases, shifting ocean currents, shifting jet stream, volcanic activity or lack of it, forest fires, large meteor showers, bovine mathane emissions, termites, humans, a combination of many or all of these examples, "wobble" of the earth on it's axis over long periods of time. All of these things affect the climate and these are just some of the things we do know about. You've limited yourself to one and only one cause. Humans. Does that position make any sense to you?
Most of the causes you cite are natural causes. The earth's natural CO2 sinks, the oceans and forests, have been able to accomodate those causes throughout pre-industrial-revolution history.
This time it's different. We're destroying the forests, we're poisoning the oceans, and humans are a CO2 source that's proliferating at an alarming rate. It took 123 years for the world's population to increase from 1 to 2 billion. Today, we add another billion every 14 years.
Bovine methane emissions are causing global warming? What are you some kind of a vegan masquerading as global warming denialist?
I'm not sure I see the significance of the distinction. If we recognize that our actions make a difference, then we know we need to alter our behavior accordingly.
I agree, brab. Conservation is paramount but the mounting din from Global Warming alarmists is "humans are to blame so only humans can fix it". Enter Al Gore and any other politician trying to get political traction. I believe the earth is entering into a cooling period, as we speak, and right on historical cue. Once again, you are correct. Our actions can cause harm to the environment and those things we can improve on, we should.
see from what i see there is a large number of scientists that say yes we are causing it. and then there are a small number of scientists, funded and paid by industries that say no we dont cause greenhouse gases its something else.
so its alot of scientists vs. industries with a few scientists.
which funny thing, industries have a very big interest in showing they are not at fault. while the scientists who are against them don't have so much vested as simply proving themselves correct.
Bomb, the other scientist that do not get "so called" money from industries, where do the other scientist get their pay check from? I guess they do get a pay check from someone? Who funds their research?
ummm i think they get grants from universities.....i could be wrong....but i think that is where they get their mony from.
but then what university scientists get and what scientists get from industries i'm pretty sure is markedly different. i.e. industry scientists get paid alot more. because again, industries have alot more at stake.
industry scientists get paid alot more
That's because it's much more expensive to buy someone's soul.
And someone's reputation.
I would like to see you data on that assumption.
Are these 31,000 scientists getting paid by industry? Including Edmund Teller?
http://www.petitionproject.org/
As if. Again with petition: debunked so many times now that even kindergartners can do it.
As for "Qualified" .. here's a hint: The 31,072 officially listed on the site is stated in the LTE as "Approximately 32,000".
That's some funny rounding, dude.
ALSO .. how many "Qualified Scientists" are there? 31,072 .. or even 32,000 .. seems a pretty small percentage - especially after 10 years of looking for signatures. It's like saying, "After 10 years, one-half of one percent of every Scientist, Medical Doctor, Doggie Doctor, Engineer, Computer Nerd and every other stretch we could find has questioned the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change".
Compelling.
Grant money is a pretty big carrot for some scientists. The ones who got "c's" in college and couldn't get jobs in the private sector. Those are the ones that get quoted saying "disaster is right around the corner."
Name one who said that and please link us to his/her college GPA records.
The earth has had periods of warming and cooling long before man. To say man causes warming is reckless since science cannot prove it using the scientific method. I read an article yesterday that said scientists found cracks in the earth that are releasing many different kinds of gasses including co2 and water vapor. Millions of these cracks are known to exist all over the planet and scientists are just beginning to study them.
Also, forecasters can't tell you what the weather will do tomorrow. Never mind what will happen 5,10,50 years from now.
Heck, scientists now say biofuels do more harm to the environment than help.
If you want to conserve resources, go ahead. I think we should.
I'm just saying... Use a bit of commom sense! What we know as fact can fit in a thimble, compare that to the Mt. Everest of what we don't know.
well, then that would put you at odds with a large community of scientists that say your wrong.
well if you read any of george will's stuff aside from this well.....believe me i don't know who is more idiotic in their writing either him or charles krauthammer
Bomb,
If you get a chance, check out Olbermann naming Kraut-dog the Worst Person in the World. It's on the County Fair blog, though you have to click back a couple times to the older stuff.
It's a hoot@@@!!
way ahead of you. im a big Keith fan and i know which one you speak of.
It's a photo finish.
Will also perpetuated another myth, that scientists in the 70's believed the earth was cooling. In fact, the literature shows that even then science pointed to anthropological global warming.
Most of the hype about global cooling came from popular scientific magazines, not real science. So anyone reading Will's article might be surprised to see that Will actuallly did quote a real journal, *Science,* to back up his claim on global warming. The only problem is that Will misled here, as well. Here is the actual quote from *Science.*
A model of future climate based on the observed orbital-climate relationships, but ignoring anthropogenic effects, predicts that the long-term trend over the next several thousand years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.
Do you see that the prediction was for the next *several thousand years?* Will implied that scientists stated it would occurr in the next 30. Moreover, the very journal acknowledges global warming. It states the earth will only enter an ice age (in the very, very far future), if "anthopogenic effects" don't cause a different trend. How blatantly dishonest is that on George Will's part? Will uses a scientific journal to prove that scientists believed the earth was cooling--but the journal stated that global cooling would occurr only if global warming wasn't too strong!
link
This isn't the first time Will has perpetuated the cooling myth. Judging by the WaPo's inept response, it won't be the last.
Wa Poo is stepping in it again.
Will can't claim ignorance on this point, either. I saw him on CSPAN's green room making this claim about the 1970s, at which point Paul Krugman told him, "You know that's been exposed as a myth, don't you?" or words to that effect. So Will knows, but goes on lying about it anyway.
I have been a little confused on the issue of Global Warming lately, I have a very good friend who is conservative and he seems to make a lot of sense on side of Global Waarming being a hundred year weather forecast. i was wondering why it is a partisan issue. It seems like conservatives and liberals both would have the same interest when it comes to stewardship of the planet. I did some checking and I am startign to rethink my belief in global Warming. I think the thing that is bothering me most is that no one seems to deny that the vast majority of green house gasses are natural. I googled it and found this website that seems to give a substantiated percentage of man made green house gasses at only about 1/4 of 1% or about 1 out of 400 green hose gas molecules that was with counting water vapor. With out counting water vapor the manmade portion was about 5% or 1 out 20 green house gas molecules, still doesn't seem like enough to make a diference. Is this just more disinformation? I found an awful lot of compelling stuff on the internet that would lead me to believe that maybe this is just natural climatic cycles. Am I being duped? How can I tell what's real data and what is false. Here is a link to the site I found; http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://www.greenhouse-warming.org.uk/03.php
John, you may find that not many people will reply to your comments, because one it makes sense, two it does not buy into that man is making the globe warmer. There will always be change, it is natural, but the arrogance that we think man can change the globes natural accuracies it even more ignorant. Here is a link I found that shows research to debunk many of the data that is put on this website.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html
Now, many here will say this is a website from Oil Companies, but here is info about the group from this website.
The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science. Free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry.
"Now, many here will say this is a website from Oil Companies, but here is info about the group from this website."
Not exactly. We'll just say that they are funded by Oil Companies, and then let people draw their conclusions...
SPP is a division of Frontiers of Freedom.
"Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001"
Your friends at FoF and SPP have also received money from Exxon/Mobil as recently as 2006, as disclosed by Exxon/Mobil itself.
My own conclusion? FoF doesn't get any money from Exxon if Exxon doesn't like what they see coming from SPP.
Even if your numbers are correct, it’s only one piece of the puzzle.
The earth has its own natural defenses against global warming, consisting of oceans and forests, which serve as “sinks” which absorb CO2. Before the industrial revolution, our planet has been able to compensate for naturally occurring CO2. Today, we are destroying forests at an alarming rate and we are poisoning our oceans with plastic garbage, toxic runoff, human waste, pharmaceutical waste, industrial waste, and additional CO2. Not only are we adding more CO2, we are also slowly destroying the earth’s natural CO2 absorption mechanism.
When the trees are gone and the oceans are transformed into toxic acid pools full of garbage, you’re probably right, our CO2 contributions may not make much difference. With no natural mechaninism to stop it, Volcanoes and other natural sources will finish the job of making the earth unlivable. It won't happen during our lifetimes though, making it much easier to "live in the now" and put off doing anything about it.
>>I think the thing that is bothering me most is that no one seems to deny that the vast majority of green house gasses are natural
That's a common denialist talking point. Yes, most CO2 is natural (I believe), but the amount that man is adding is causing global climate change. So it is irrelevant. You also have to ask yourself how the best science would overlook something so obvious: it doesn't.
I fid it interesting and informative that the ACRC chose to "refute" Mr. Will's assertion that "Since September ... the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began" by citing data "as of February 15, 2009." On February 18 it was announced that drift from a faulty sensor starting in early January had caused sea ice coverage data to be underestimated by 500,000 sq. km. by mid-February, the date the ACRC picked to "refute" Mr. Will's asserion. Interesting bit of creative (faulty) data selection by the ACRC.
It's also interesting that Mr. Will's primary assertion was that the rate of *increase* in sea ice coverage was the greatest since records started in 1979. The citation of absolute levels of 1979 sea ice coverage by the ACRC does not address the rate of change assertion and is a classic strawman argument.
It looks like the ACRC itself is guilty of misuse of data, compounded by a sophist's avoidance of the issue in question. When "refuting" someone's postulate, accuracy and honesty are required. The ACRC failed on both counts.
So he's "right," "simplistic" and "irrelevant". Ok then, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.
If it's irrelevant and simplistic, then it's misleading. He's acting like it has relevance, and it doesn't. Also the definition of "no warming" needs work, because the fact that there hasn't been a single warmer year doesn't mean it hasn't gotten warmer on average. For instance, if you're a 125 bowler who had a single 200 game, then the next year you average 150 but haven't beaten that 200 score, your game has still improved. The trend is what's important, so it's fair to say that the statement is false.
Truth,
I do believe your contention that 1998 was the hottest year ever has been disproved when errors were found in the calculations. From what I read the hottest year was in the 1930's.
The Goddard Institute for Space Studies is headed up by a well known global warming activist named James Hansen. Many, including his former boss at NASA, Dr. John Theon, repudiate Hansen's research methods. It is pretty devastating.
Among other things, Theon said, Hansen violated NASA policy by commenting on global forcasting when they did not know enough to forecast or the effects on mankind. Theon also said that the studies relied upon by Hansen were not open as they should be to review and in some cases the data was modified to support global warming conclusions.
I for one, am at a loss why MMFA would use sources such as Hansen without detailing the criticisms of his work by Theon and others. I would think that is one sided and in effect misinformation wouldn't you? ;-)
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320
>>I do believe your contention that 1998 was the hottest year ever has been disproved when errors were found in the calculations. From what I read the hottest year was in the 1930's.
Well, you believe wrongly. It is absolutely false what you said.
>>The Goddard Institute for Space Studies is headed up by a well known global warming activist named James Hansen. Many, including his former boss at NASA, Dr. John Theon, repudiate Hansen's research methods. It is pretty devastating.
Yes, it is devasting if you are a wingnut. But for the rest of us in the reality based community, who actually do know that 1998 is the hottest year, think your links is pathetic.
Try this:
link
When you have any real science on your side, let me know.
truthseeker77: I'm afrraif that you give him too much credit. Will's statement was, "[A]ccording to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade...." No matter how you slice and dice that, it's not true. It would have been true (although fundamentally misleading) if he had said, "The U.N. World Meteorological Organization said in early 2008 that 2008 would be no warmer than 1998, but that was due to specific weather conditions in those two years." And that would be the most he could say. The WMO recorded plenty of global warming in that decade, and it said so. You can't compare two specific years and conclude from that that there has been "no recorded global warming".
No - ice changes measured against 1979 aren't very conclusive. From TIME magazine, 1974:
"In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
Is that all from Sen "FunFacts" Inohfe?
Standard request, preasent a peer reviewed article from a Climitologist that supports your position.
Otherwise, the oil industry thanks you for your support.
ewe,
Peer review does not necissarily make a study accurate. After all Mann's study was peer reviewed and published world-wide, not to mention being used in the 2001 UN IPCC report
It took someone from the outside, (Steve McIntyre,) to review the work and show where Mann was in error.
However, that being said there are many peeer reviewed papers at odds with AGW. A simple search found the following:
A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies, Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058. 2007
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
Douglass, Christy et al; this is the first of the GCM critiques;
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, 2007
http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature-trends-with-model-predictions?page=6
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3058
Koutsoyiannis et al;
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850
Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 2008
This link is to the first presentation.
Stockwell;
http://landshape.org/stats/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/article.pdf
Tests of Regional Climate Model Validity in the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report.
Misckolczi; Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary Atmospheres. Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40.
http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
Essex, McKitrick, Andresen; Does a Global Temperature Exist? Journal of Non-EquilibriumThermodynamics, 32 (1) 1-27. 2007
http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/JNETDY.2007.001?cookieSet=1
Spencer and Braswell; Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A simple Model Demonstration, Journal of Climate.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JCLI2253.1
Chilingar; Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects. Volume 30, Issue 1, January 2008 , pages 1 - 9
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030701568727
10.Pielke Sr et al; Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 112. 2007.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/09/ten-of-the-best-climate-research-papers-nine-peer-reviewed-a-note-from-cohenite/?cp=7
Pleas stop blowing smoke, AA. None of these studies disprove global warming. As usual, it is the AA rule: whenever AA posts a link it never backs up what he claims.
Try this link, though:
link
As your last link admits, the science in those studies is flawed, which is why they got "hostile" reaction. See realclimate.org if you really want to learn instead of just obfuscate.
>>Peer review does not necissarily make a study accurate.
No, but it is the bare minimum that is required when discussing sceince. See
link
Let's look at your links:
link 1: not a peer reviewd article: Here is a quote from the very journal:"In addition, research articles authored or sponsored by NCASI frequently appear in peer-reviewed scientific journals and other external publications." Noticie how it doesn't consider itself a peer reviewed journal:
Second link: from a peer reviewed article, but wrong. See my first link above.
Third link: "problems loading page"
Fourth link: Does not contradict global warming.
Fifth link: not a peer reviewed jounral (nice try, though).
Sixth link: not a peer reviewed journal, I believe, but a bunch of hogwash anyway:
"As an aside, Miskolczi by his paper “Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres” (2006) appeared to suggest more efficiency in radiating heat. But with the dense equations in the paper, the public focus was more on the phrase “runaway greenhouse” which I believe overshadowed the point of such efficiency. The findings by Miskolczi were rejected by the IPCC because they were unsupported by the literature, but you would expect the absence of support since he questioned the conventional approach in the first instance. I look forward to RC’s perspective on his idea."
link
seventh link: "is this paper a joK?" link
Eight link: doesn't disprove global warming: link
Ninth link: "These guys are hilarious." Not peer reviewed! link
Tenth link: "problems loading page" But Pielke is notorious for getting his sceince wrong: link
>>Is that all from Sen "FunFacts" Inohfe?<<
No, it's from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html, as cited. When all else fails, read all the way through to the end of a guy's post before unloading.
For what it's worth, I read the Time article when it was first published, found it intriguing, but an unsubstantiated bit of projecting limited, cyclic data to the point of hysteria mongering, just like the current hysteria mongering. "Fixes" for impending doom were also interesting. I particularly liked one that involved sowing the Greenland ice sheet with carbon black to reduce the earth's albedo and stave off frozen disaster. That one carried the unfortunate collateral effect of melting the sucker, but it might be worth it to save mankind. What happened to global cooling? The cycle changed (they always do) but even before that, the zeitgeist was changing because the public didn't buy it. Time for a new rainmaker.
I also read one of the earliest papers postulating global warming. I remember it being well written, but otherwise vacuous, based mainly on handwaving an unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiable) link between otherwise unrelated charts without quantitatively demonstrable causality. I came away with the assessment that some educated idiot had discovered the end of the Little Ice Age, attributed the associated naturally cyclic data to the somewhat coincident beginning of the Industrial Age, put together a dog and pony act based on smoke and mirrors, and somehow managed to slide the resulting crap past a peer review. Fast forward a few decades. The dog and pony act is now dogma worth millions in grant money, and God help the honest scientist who tries to introduce real science objectivity into the mix.
As for the original poster using popular media for a source, I'd say that's appropriate when addressing issues pertaining to popular media. If you want peer reviewed science, however, start with the Vostok ice core data--the data itself without accompanying dogma-tainted spin. Explain why this interglacial cycle, which looks just like the previous five interglacial cycles, is anthrogenic when the previous five somehow were not. If you approach the exercise without bias, enlightenment may follow.
>>If you want peer reviewed science, however, start with the Vostok ice core data--the data itself without accompanying dogma-tainted spin.
Good grief! You people never give up, do you? First, look here:
link
Next, look here:
link
If you really think that the Vostok ice core date disproves global warming, you should try getting that published in a peer-reviewed journal. You will be laughed at.
Let's try this again. Put down the prayer beads, step away from the Global Warmingist dogma, and explain without preconceived quasi-cultist bias why the current interglacial cycle that began about 18,000 years ago is anthrogenic is causality while the previous five virtually identical interglacial cycles were not. Try this on your own without consulting the Global Warmingist priesthood. Enlightenment may follow.
Or don't. Looks like it's all about "peers" with you, and in the current zeitgeist, that means only dogma blessed by the Global Warmingist priesthood. I doubt you have even a rudamentary ability to think on your own. That's all right. Everybody has a right to their own religious beliefs, even ones as preposterous as Global Warmingism. You certainly have a right to yours, and every cult needs its mindless true believers. Just don't try to pass it all off as real science when everything about it is contrary to the long-established principles of the scientific method and much more in keeping with the mindset that stifled Galileo and Copernicus.
Wow, a modern day Galileo in our midst! Enlightened even!
Sorry, this isn't the Middle Ages, despite your efforts. If you have any "real science" to support your position, publish it. Good science gets published, even if it runs against the current.
GOP, no matter what you put up here that says different to these folks, it is always tied to Oil Money. It is their only defense. Also remember that the information that come from scientist that beleive in Global Warming is the only truth. IF one of those scientist were to change sides then Big Oil has paid them off to switch, not that the scientist could have found new data that proves man made GW wrong.
and Georgie Boy has i think now jumped the shark, nuked the fridge, and bought the farm all in one deft move.
this is from my local paper, im pretty sure its a couple days old though.
http://scrantontimes.com/articles/2009/02/23/editorial/sc_times_trib.20090223.a.pg13.tt23will_s1.2318041_edi.txt
i know this doesnt have much to do with the climate issue it has more to do with the state of mind of Georgie
Slightly off-subject, but Charles Krauthammer, another WaPo columnist, just published "The testing Biden predicted came quickly, in small bites" where he went on about how terrible it was that Obama "showed weakness" by making it clear that he has no use for Bush's missile defense system, but gee, wow, amazigly enough, forgets to mention the South Ossetia war of last year, which rather obviously showed the US to be a paper tiger in that part of the world, i.e., Russia's "backyard."
It's just, where are all of these vaunted "fact-checkers"? How do these much-touted layers of management still fail to raise their columnists above the level where a huge number of liberal bloggers are at?
Opps - Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor
A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY
and this proves what mark? nothing more than that the data was off for only a single month it looks to me
Bomb, it proves that we need to be patient, do not use a month-to-month data to alarm individuals. I remember hearing recently that the ice is melting faster then they were predicting, well this is why. Bomb, here is a non-profit website for you reading.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org
im using month month to alarm anyone. im agreeing with you in the fact that one month was off.
and i have looked at the website, it has some good info by the looks of it, but im not totally sure that its correct. there are many points of view and good and bad info on both sides.. none of us can know whats going to happen over the next millenium, unless of course they take walt disney out of his freezer.
it proves that we need to be patient,
Kind of like those Easter Island people who were "patient" until the final tree was chopped down. How's that civilization doing?
The people who made thieir living from the Aral Sea were patient as well.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org
Non-profit, Exxon funded.
Oh, Media Matters, CREDIBILITY ZERO once again. In trying to deceive that Will was taking things out of context in the ACRC January report you stated
"The full document states that "[a]lmost all" climate models project that human-caused global warming will result in decreased sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere..."
when in fact the document states...(Will provided reference)
"Almost all global climate models project a decrease in the Northern
Hemisphere sea ice area over the next several decades under increasing greenhouse gas scenarios."
Anybody see the words "human-caused global warming" in there? Sorry MM--and a check of the Daily Tech Zone website --no "human-caused" in that article either.
How can you expect anyone to pay attention when YOU CAN'T GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT?
http://dailytechzone.com/2009/01/03/sea-ice-ends-year-at-same-level-as-1979/
And did anyone notice it was an opinion column? Duh?
It was an opinion picece , duh, and it shows that columnists should not tread into the realm of science unless they spend some time getting their facts checked first.
Anybody see the words "human-caused global warming" in there?"
No, but I see "greenhouse."
What do greenhouses do?
I'm not sure if I understood your post correctly, but doesn't "increasing greenhouse gas scenarios" imply "human-caused global warming"? In other words, isn't the increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans?
So Will once again proves he is merely a pundit and not a qualified expert on a technical topic. Not terribly surprising. If there is someone out there reading Will for science, then they have been sorely mis-educated. Will is no scientist. He's a pundit. A lucrative profession, but not a terribly honest profession. Will is a case in point. The problem is that newspaper do not seem to want qualified experts discussing issues. They want scientifically naive pundits like Will spouting poorly sourced and poorly researched "opinion" pieces. Will never struck me as terribly well-educated.
.....but Al Gore is a scientist, right?
Slothrop didn't even mention Gore's name, right?
It's easier to go along with the "popular" view. It's a win-win for the lazy. If, by some miracle, it's proved humans are the sole cause for global climate change, GWAs say "I told you so" but if, as I believe, we continue into a cooling trend and it is shown humans have little impact on global climate, the GWAs simply say "Yeah, but our misfounded beliefs were based on what was good for the planet. Our hearts were in the right place" (Kinda like WMD in Iraq, huh!)
Who are the lazy? The ones who want to continue the dead-end course of relying on fossil fuels and ignoring all the issues that come with it? (And I'm not talking about climate change) Or the people who want to generate more of our energy from renewable sources?
Whether climate change is an issue or not, the GWA's can still sleep at night knowing that the world will be more peaceful, more beautiful and less environmentally toxic because of the effort and sacrifice to reduce our usage of non-renewables.
>>as I believe, we continue into a cooling trend and it is shown
There is no cooling trend. You people are so in denial that you can't even read data any more!
Why do people that have no training in said scientific areas...TRY to speak intelligently about them. It is obvious if they do, the lionshare of the time they will get it WRONG! In math, they have developed tests for Reliabilty...I wonder if George could explain the Reliability Coefficient KR21....I think NOT! That is how difficult it is to understand the scientific intricacies of Global Warming! Even with the "God" inspired uneducated Rush Limbaugh, he can't figure this out!(It does not stop him from commenting, though!)
Written by Christopher Monckton Monday, 09 February 2009 The scare: An article published in early February 2009 by Jonathan Leake, the environment editor of The Times of London, said “The ice caps are melting so fast that the world’s oceans are rising more than twice as fast as they were in the 1970s.”
The Times said that “scientists” had used satellites “to track how the oceans are responding as billions of gallons of water reach them from melting ice sheets and glaciers”, an effect “compounded by thermal expansion". The article said that in the past 15 years “sea levels have been rising at 3.4mm a year, much faster than the average 1.7mm recorded by tidal gauges over the past 50 years.” A scientist was quoted as saying, “This rate, observed since the early 1990s, could reflect acceleration linked to global warming.” The article added that figures from the UK Meteorological Office suggested that sea level in the tidal reaches of the River Thames could rise by as much as 6ft 6in by 2100.
The truth: First, there is nothing new in this article. Ever since the TOPEX/JASON sea-level monitoring satellites began transmitting data in 1993, they have shown sea level as rising at a near-linear rate equivalent to 1 ft/century, compared with the 8 in/century previously estimated for the 20th century by the use of tide-gages. However, it is thought likely that the apparent increase in the rate of sea-level rise is chiefly an artifact of the change in mensuration from tide-gages to satellites in 1993. Furthermore, in response to the very sharp global cooling of the last few years, the rate of increase in sea level appears to have slowed somewhat, though it is not yet clear whether the trend will continue, and no data from the JASON satellite has been published since the late summer of 2008. In 2007 the UN reduced its high-end estimate of sea-level rise from 3 ft to less than 2 ft over the 21st century. The mean rate of sea-level rise over the past 10,000 years has been 4 ft/ century, though The Times was very careful not to provide this perspective in its article.
There is little scientific basis for the article’s assertion that “the ice-caps are melting fast”. There has been some decline in sea-ice extent in the Arctic, but this decline is well within natural climate variability and cannot be attributed to anthropogenic “global warming”, because the mere fact of warming (which, in any event, has not occurred for 13 years) tells us nothing of the cause of the warming. In the Antarctic, however, sea-ice extent has recently reached a record high, and the current accumulation of land-ice at the South Pole is 8850 feet deep, increasing annually. The Times somehow failed to mention the Antarctic in its article.
For most of the past 10,000 years – most recently in the Roman and medieval warm periods – temperatures were up to 3 Celsius degrees (5.5 Fahrenheit degrees) warmer than the present. Each of the past four interglacial periods was up to 6 Celsius degrees (11 Fahrenheit degrees) warmer than the present. Humankind cannot have been to blame.