Fox News runs with global temperature decline falsehood
SUMMARY: Several Fox News figures have used a purportedly "suppressed" EPA document to advance the falsehood that, in Steve Doocy's words, "for the last 11 years, temperatures had been dropping."
Following allegations that the EPA "suppressed" an internal document that was skeptical of climate change, several Fox News figures have advanced the document's false claim -- previously repeated by CBS -- that, in Fox News host Steve Doocy's words, "for the last 11 years, temperatures had been dropping." In fact, Doocy's claim simply is not true.
A draft of the EPA document stated in one of its "principal comments" that "[g]lobal temperatures have declined -- extending the current downtrend to 11 years with a particularly rapid decline in 1907-8 [sic]." The document went on to state that "[g]lobal temperatures have declined (Figure 1a) -- extending the current run of time with a statistically robust lack of global temperature rise to eight years (Figure 1b), with some people arguing that it can be traced back for 12 years."
In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, annual global average temperatures have both risen and fallen over the past 11 years, and while there have been some relatively cooler years during that period -- including a decline in each of the past three relative to the year before -- climate scientists reject the idea that those temperatures are any indication that global warming is slowing or does not exist. Scientists have identified a long-term warming trend spanning several decades that is independent from the normal climate variability -- which includes relatively short-term changes in climate due to events like El Niño and La Niña -- to which they attribute the recent relatively cooler temperatures.
As this graph of annual global average temperatures from the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre shows, the claim that, in the words of Doocy, "for the last 11 years, temperatures had been dropping" is simply not true:
Nonetheless, Doocy and other Fox News personalities used the document's statements to advance false claims about global temperature. For example:
- On June 30, Fox & Friends interviewed EPA research analyst Alan Carlin -- one of the authors of the "suppressed" document. After Carlin stated that he wrote the document because the "EPA, in my view, needed to look at the science behind global warming and not depend on reports issued by the United Nations," Doocy replied, "And, in fact, it's problematic because for the last 11 years, temperatures had been dropping." Carlin did not challenge Doocy's statement.
- On the June 29 edition of Hannity, former Alabama Supreme Court chief justice Roy Moore said that Carlin "is with the EPA, and he put a report -- 98-page report out," at which point host Sean Hannity interjected, "That they hid." Moore continued, "[T]hat said there was no increase in temperature; in fact, it's been going down for the past 11 years. And the Obama administration stopped the report." Hannity later stated that "[Sen.] James Inhofe [R-OK] is saying ... that they purposefully hid this information. They buried it."
- On the June 29 edition of The Live Desk, Fox News vice president of news and Washington managing editor Bill Sammon said: "There was an important report issued by an EPA scientist, about 100 pages long -- almost 100 pages long -- that said that maybe we really shouldn't be regulating carbon dioxide. After all, global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years."
By contrast, Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in a June 26 RealClimate.org post that in reading the internal EPA document that Carlin co-authored, "[o]ne can see a number of basic flaws [in its main points]; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution."
From the June 30 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
DOOCY: Welcome back. As Congress debated energy legislation just last week, a disturbing story was quietly spreading about an internal report at the EPA that had to be used or hushed -- what is the word? Hushed, before anyone heard about it. The report debunked the science behind global warming, and its conclusions proved so inconvenient that that report was shelved.
GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): All right, so we have the person who wrote this report, Alan Carlin, a researcher at the EPA and the author of that controversial report. He joins us live this morning from D.C. Good morning to you, Mr. Carlin.
CARLIN: Good morning.
CARLSON: All right, so most of us are not scientists. You are. You've worked for the EPA for 38 years. Tell us in a nutshell what your report said this spring.
CARLIN: The most important finding was that EPA, in my view, needed to look at the science behind global warming and not depend on reports issued by the United Nations, which is what they were thinking of doing and have done.
DOOCY: And, in fact, it's problematic because for the last 11 years, temperatures had been dropping.
From the June 29 edition Fox News' Hannity:
MOORE: Let me tell you what Alan Carlin said. Alan Carlin is with the EPA, and he put a report -- 98-page report out --
HANNITY: That they hid.
MOORE: -- that said there was no increase in temperature; in fact, it's been going down for the past 11 years. And the Obama administration stopped the report.
HANNITY: James --
BOB BECKEL (Fox News contributor and USA Today columnist): Roy, Roy --
HANNITY: Hang on.
BECKEL: -- you know what's amazing about that is that you actually quoted a federal government document in defense of something --
HANNITY: Wait, wait. Wait, wait. There's more to that, though.
BECKEL: -- which is something you've never done. Wait a second.
HANNITY: James Inhofe is saying --
BECKEL: In that --
HANNITY: -- wait a minute -- that they purposefully hid this information. They buried it.
MOORE: The people in this country don't know that, that somebody from the EPA under the Obama administration came out and said, "There's no evidence of this."
HANNITY: That's a great point.
MOORE: They stopped the report and said, "You can't have it."
From the June 29 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk:
TRACE GALLAGHER (co-host): I wanted to point out, Bill, the story that you kind of informed us about earlier: these emails. The EPA kind of suppressing this scientific information, scientific evidence, that maybe global warming is not as bad as we think and maybe carbon dioxide emissions are better today than they were 50 years ago. Talk about those emails more.
SAMMON: There was an important report issued by an EPA scientist, about 100 pages long -- almost 100 pages long -- that said that maybe we really shouldn't be regulating carbon dioxide. After all, global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years.
He listed a number of other pieces of data such as, for example, the ice in Greenland is not melting as fast as everybody thought it was. The EPA is now accused of ignoring this guy's dissenting report and forwarding their own sort of politically arrived-at conclusion.
We're arguing against empty space.
However, I don't think that opponents of conservationists have that difficult a time advancing their propositions, no matter how ridiculous their claims may be. All they have to do is ignore the facts, and make up whatever fictions they want in order to advance their "cause", which amounts to grabbing as much as they can, and trashing everything and everybody else that keeps them from doing that.
The gradual increase looks like Gods Rath.
It just shows you can get a Fox News expert to say anything.
All he had to do was use the new Search Engine "Bing"
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
The problem with analyzing weather or global temperature patterns is that it is a chaotic system. That is why the weatherman can't ever seem to get it right. No matter how well his software works, his forecast is going to be more and more unreliable as the time line increases. e.g. Meaning he can probably forecast the weather for tonight fairly accurately but; the forecast for a month from now is a shot in the dark.
As far as the fisherman goes, again, even though he has been a fisherman for 35 years, there may be long term cyclical patterns that are ongoing that he is unaware of. That doesn't mean that global warming doesn't have something to do with the lack of shrimp, it just makes that hypothesis hard to prove.
When I look at the chart provided it seems to show that there has been a 0.4 C rise in the average temperature, comapared to historical data. I still don't understand the zero point that needs to be explained.
The problem is that there really isn't enough data points. We probably need at least 1,000 years of data to make any kind of predictions and, more than likely, actually need 10,000 years of data to get any kind of predictive accuracy. So, anyone who looks at an 11 year trend and makes a definitive statement is either a fool or, expects that you are.
If you look at the long run, the temperature was higher in the midievil period than it is now. I do believe the CO2 levels were also higher, (but correct me if I am wrong.)
What negative impacts did that have on the globe? I never seem to see anyone answer that one.
Every day it seems there are more scientists who disagree with the IPCC report and Al Gore.
I also see different studies that show the temp isn't increasing anymore.
I have never seen any study that proves that CO2 is the cause of Global Warming let alone prove that anthropogenic GW is the cause. The are too many unknowns to say AGW is a fact.
I also see that the models used for forecasts are in many cases flawed.
So there is a lot of conflicting data out there. Picking a timeframe to judge is as you mentioned, problematic.
To me, this is one of the more interesting things about the most prominent arguments against theories of anthropogenic climate change: while they're adamant that human beings are not influencing the climate, they offer no better explanation for the increase in global average temperatures over the last 150 years than "it's natural".
Yes, of course the Earth's climate naturally changes over time, but actual climate scientists can at least suggest potential reasons: cyclic changes in the sun's output; changes in the composition of the atmosphere; tectonic activity; cyclical variations in the Earth's orbit; volcanic activity; etc....
Now, those who support the theory of anthropogenic climate change can offer a coherent model of how human activity would affect the climate: chiefly, the greenhouse effect, which is a process that scientists have been studying since 1824.
But those who adamantly deny the possibility of anthropogenic climate change can't seem to offer a coherent counter explanation. If it's a natural cycle, then they should be able to point to regular, cyclic, rapid warming over the Earth's history. If it's the sun (as Rush is fond of claiming), then how do they account for the fact that the solar index has not increased at all (and may be decreasing) since the 60s?
I'm perfectly willing to believe that human activity may not be responsible for the climate change we've observed, but not until anthropogenic climate change skeptics can at least offer a plausible alternate explanation.
To use your car example: right now we've got a car with an overheating engine. We took it to the best shop in town and the mechanic says, "Hey, sorry, this is going to cost you. Your radiator is corroded and has cracks everywhere. If you had brought the car in earlier we might have sealed up one or two cracks, but now we're going to need to take more serious measures. We're talking about a new radiator plus labor."
One of the other customers overhears us and pipes up: "Hey, don't listen to him! First of all, I don't even believe that your car is overheating. We need more data. And besides, it's probably just the car's natural heat cycle. And it's been hot out lately, so that's probably what's causing the heat. But this mechanic is totally tying to scam you. Seems like every day there's another brave independent mechanic who's willing to challenge the conventional wisdom about how radiators regulate the engine's temperature. Just keep driving. You can't afford to stop driving, and you certainly can't afford a new and costly radiator that may or may not work! Please, at least wait until all the facts are in!"
What's at issue here is pollution. Pollution is caused by the style and level of consumption, and something needs to be done about it at those roots. That's why it has become a political issue. As a political issue, it needs to be solved legislatively.
In fact, with regard to the MWP, it's more than that there may have been areas "that exhibited notable warmth" but that those areas were warm compared to what they had been, not as compared to today. That is, it was a temporary and regional reversal in an overall cooling trend.
This same business about the MWP also came up around here back in December. I posted my comments in that exchange on my blog; if anyone would care to see it (it contains a number of links to other sources), it can be found here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU
See, it's people like you on the right who dismiss people and attack people who disagree with them. We don't.
Grapes still grow in England. It's not a thing that proves anything about the temp in England now and then. And even if England was warmer back then, it still doesn't necessarily say anything about the global temperature.
Doubly weird is that when I went to the link and then came back, the graphs showed up in your comment.
The really odd thing about this is that this objection usually comes from the same people who will also insist that 10 years of data is enough to "disprove" global warming.
I still don't understand the zero point that needs to be explained.
The zero point represents the average global temperature over the period 1961-1990. (Thirty years is generally regarded as the time frame necessary to smooth out natural variations.) The figures on the chart thus show the yearly "anomaly wrt" ("with regard to") that average. Thus, negative numbers mean temperatures below that average and positive numbers mean temperatures above that average.
I found the -Y- Axis description to be confusing but; hey, I'm an old man, there is a reason for the confusion.
Lets see based on the limited sample size shown there appears to be a 35 year cyclical pattern between temperatures rising and temperatures falling. 1875 to 1910 (approx) temps appear to be declining. 1910 to 1945 (approx) temps appear to be rising.
Put another way, it appears to be a 70 year cyclical pattern between coldest years.
After 1945 though there appears to be a problem. Temperatures do appear to be dropping but; do not decline to historical lows and then start an upward trend before the 35 year cycle ends. Also, at a point in time when we should be at a peak for low temperatures approx 1975 or 80, temperatures appear to be rising. Hmmmmmm. Just what would cause that? Very Interesting.
Of course the ex(?) EPA guy is right. It does appear that temperatures do appear to be in a decline since approx 1998, the issue with this would be, What does this really mean?
But; of course. This is why I like statistics so much. Give me your data and tell me the results that you are looking for and I can probably give you the answer that you want, and will be technically correct in my conclusions,based on my assumptions, etc.
Of course, if you give me the same data and don't tell me the anwer you want and I base my conclusions on just what the data seems to be showing, hmm... My conclusions might not support the findings that you were hoping for.
My point was:
a) Don't trust a statistical model unless you are totally certain of the data and the way the study was set up. Best method is to have the data for actual analysis, not just the stupid chart.
b)Due to the complexity of climate no one can say for certain what will happen tomorrow. Don't listen to partisan pundits and don't believe predictions based on an 11 year trend.
Then you'll love this:
Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
good posts. lots of work. appreciated.
careful on that last part. your sentiments may be justified. but the outburst of anger diminishes the quality of your factual contributions.
keep up the good work.
thanks.
Way to go in being a helpful human.
Thank to fools like you who would rather bitch and moan and helping make things worse about stuff instead of being part of the solution and coming up with solutions instead of slamming those that are at least trying to save your ass and the only planet we have to call home from possible death.
Again, thanks for your help
I for one will be putting solar panels on my house as soon as I can afford to do so... I recycle about 90% of the stuff I touch... it ain't much, but its something.
The Internet is a good example of infrastructure that likely would never have come about without government investment. Some things take too much up-front investment for even rich private corporations to attempt. That's where government can play a roll.
Sure, if you include all global sources of CO2 you can state that humans are a small % of the whole. Problem is, we can control the amount of CO2 that we put in the atmosphere where we have little to no control over other sources of CO2. So, just because we can only have a "minor" affect on global CO2 amounts, does that mean we shouldn't at least try to limit our output? Some climatoligist talk about what could be called a "green house cliff". Basically this is a theory that there could be a point where global warming (due to many factors) actually starts racing out of control. (Think Venus as the end result) Does this mean that this will happen? Heck, I don't have a crysal ball to tell the future. Again, do we want to do what we can to limit the impact that we have on the enviroment, or do we just want to say "what the heck" and just wait and see if we all end up in the proverbial handbasket to you know where.
BTW We really don't want to get started on all the inputs to weather and global temperatures. CO2, particulate emissions, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c&feature=channel
The Siberian Traps eruption of 250 million years ago (yeah, I know that was a LONG time ago) not only affected the global climate due to gas and particulate emissions but; even the heat from the lava flows themselves would have had a very noticable affect on the weather.
Where you go with this just depends on the point you are trying to make. Personally, I think we should do what we can to limit the effect that we have on the environmnent. How we go about it should be the question not whether or not there is a need.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c&feature=channel
No one can ever blame the right-wing corporate freaks of wanting to exacerbate the end of the world as described in the bible.
These people could care less about the end result... so long as they die being correct... they will die defending their idiocy... even if it means bringing the rest of us with them!!
Bastards!
Thank you Fix News!
Randy
Ok, here's a question for mmfa's crack staff or anyone else...what was the average global temperature for 2008?
Sorry that I'm not using an unimpeachable source like say the Heartland Institute but here is 2008 data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (U.S. Department of Commerce). Here is the link.
Here is the first paragraph:
"The year 2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record for the Earth, based on the combined average of worldwide land and ocean surface temperatures through December, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. For December alone, the month also ranked as the eighth warmest globally, for the combined land and ocean surface temperature. The assessment is based on records dating back to 1880."
But then you already knew this didn't you?
The question is really straight forward if you care to take another crack at it...what was the average global temperature in 2008?
Though I hear it was lower than 2007 so global warming MUST be a hoax. At least it sounded good when Rush said it. RIGHT? G
Does that answer your question, Wesley?
Step 1. Go to the link that Blueneck provided.
Step 2. Find the part that says, "Global Temperature Highlights – 2008"
Step 3. Find the sentence that says that the combined global land and ocean surface temperature from January to December was 0.49 C above the 20th century average of 13.9 C.
Step 4. Now, pull out your calculator and add 0.49 to 13.9.
I don't want any average based on averages. For anyone to claim that the temperature is rising or falling...one must be able to state what the average temp actually is...Like what was the global temperature of the planet in 2008?
Provide the actual temp's and the source data...simple.
The average land and ocean surface temperature of the planet over all of 2008 was, according to NOAA, 14.39 degrees C. That's not an average of an average -- that's the average temperature of the surface of the planet's land and oceans over the course of the year 2008.
If you want to read more details about how this number was reached, you can read a fuller report here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/global.html . The report cites sources, and yes, you may have to actually read those as well if you want further details.
A simple chart...stating the actual temp of the planet...year by year...no calculations of anomalies...no decade averages...no 20th century averages.
You can keep holler calf rope if you want...makes no difference to me...the request to provide the actual temps of the planet are still out there...and unanswered.
Okay, nevermind that first all you wanted was the value for 2008 and now you're asking for a year by year chart of absolute values. The reason scientists tend to record changes in temperature rather than absolute values is because it helps to correct for potential calibration errors. So, for example, here's the closest thing you'll find to your dream chart:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
And darn it, wouldn't you know it, those pesky scientists are stubborn about using the method that reduces the likelihood of error, so they're recording changes rather than absolute values.
So why exactly are you fetishizing an absolute value? It's not like it would tell you anything more or less than a recorded change in temperature.
It's my question and request...if you can't or won't provide the data...fine with me...but you can skip the lectures.
Year by year actual global temps...
Here's why I'm not going to 'skip the lectures': you don't even know what you're asking for. (It's absolute, not 'actual' global temperatures.) if you're interested in climate change, then what's most relevant is the change in observed temperature over time. This is the scientific standard. If you don't like it, take it up with the climate scientists. And if you really really want a chart of the absolute values (which wouldn't be accurate because you could never be sure that all the early readings were properly calibrated), then you can always make it yourself by using the recorded changes (as someone on the Internet has done here):
But let's just say for the sake of argument that scientists reported changes in temperature in absolute terms rather than deviations, and that they published their findings in the form of a beautiful and simple chart. What exactly would that do for you that a chart of variations in temperature doesn't do for you? Do you even know?
Ask a simple question and get...nothing.
Your first attempt was: "[W]hat was the average global temperature for 2008?" Unfortunately, you didn't like the answer (for no legitimate reason that you could articulate).
Your second attempt: "I don't want any average based on averages. For anyone to claim that the temperature is rising or falling...one must be able to state what the average temp actually is..." (This, by the way, is just plain false.) "Provide the actual temp's and the source data...simple." (Besides the misplaced apostrophe, I think you mean "absolute" rather than "actual", yes?) If you're going to get picky about precisely what kind of data you're looking for, it would be nice if you used proper terminology.
Your third attempt: "A simple chart...stating the actual temp of the planet...year by year...no calculations of anomalies...no decade averages...no 20th century averages." Ah, so now we're looking for a chart spanning an unspecified period of time. Great.
Now apparently the big graph above with the words "Absolute Annual Global Land + Ocean Temperature" wasn't satisfactory. (Shocker.) But you still don't seem to know what the significance of your dream chart would be if it were to materialize.
By now a reasonable person would be able to explain why he or she had gone to the trouble of asking a media criticism website for specific data on absolute global average temperatures. A reasonable person would be able to finish this sentence: "I wanted to know whether you could find this data because ________ . This goes to support my argument that _______ ."
Please, stop giving the child his candy, and he'll go away.
Even a train conductor should be able to provide a year by year chart of the global temps...until then...join the ranks of those failing to answer the question.
Seriously, has is not occurred to you why scientists report average global temperature in terms of observed change over time rather than in terms of absolute values? Really?
If you don't want to provide the data...you should really stop wasting your time. I've seen all the charts before that you have provided.
No. You're fundamentally mistaken about this. If what you're concerned about is an accurate measure of change over time then what you're interested in is deviation from the previous measurement.
Again, though, if what you want is absolute numbers, go ahead and make your own chart using the data provided above. It will be exactly as accurate and useful.
What an argument - "I want the temperature point per square mile for the entire world taken every half hour on the hour for the last 10,000 years and if you can't provide it that proves that global warming is a hoax". That's pretty much what you are asking for...
There are 4.7 million station months of temperature data in GHCN, starting in 1701 and continuingto the present. Derived from 300 million individual readings of thermometers, GHCN embodies the systematic observations of our environment by tens of thousands of individuals over centuries of human history.
That's a lot of data to which high quality statistical analysis was applied and reasonable conclusions were drawn. We have provided data--he has provided nothing. If he is aware of other data sets from which you can draw different conclusions then he should provide them. The burden of proof is on him. Repetion of the claim that we have not provided what he asked for is not an argument about which any conclusion can be drawn.
Burden of proof...conclusions to be drawn...provided nothing...LOL.
I asked a single question and didn't ask anyone to draw any conclusion...just provide an answer. But the mental gymnastics and contortions involved in not answering the question were downright funny.
That, my long time friend, is a load of horseturds.
Spare me the lecture and conjecture about my motives. I posed a question that remains unanswered...and that's what I was asking for....not all the blather that avoided an answer.
http://i29.tinypic.com/10f2rr9.jpg
I ask a straight forward question and all I get is a lot of baying from a pack of Pavlov's dogs.
Maybe the night shift can do better.
Ok, here's a question for mmfa's crack staff or anyone else...what was the average global temperature for 2008?
I am afraid you are too stupid to even be one of Pavlovs dogs. I dont think the night shift will be any more successful in beating this particular Qtip into the anvil of your head
Based on what criteria? Your lack of specificity guarantees no acceptable answer.
The question was directed to wesley, quoting his original question - my apologies for any confusion.
A bunch of posters made a similar point except there IS a specific answer. One you would KNOW had you actually read the thread instead of deciding to jump on me and not having the reading comprehension to understand my post. Try to keep up and stop embarrassing yourself
I actually did read every comment on the thread, no matter how detailed, derogatory or disdainful. My impression was that the original question was so deliberately vague as to parameters that there was likely no answer that wesley was ever going to find "acceptable".
I hope that the GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) of NASA is an authouritative enough source for all concerned.
Wesley's 1st Q: "[W]hat was the average global temperature for 2008?"
A: 14.39 degrees C.
Wesley's 2nd Q: "Provide the actual temp's and the source data...simple"
A: OK. 14.39 degrees C, from the GHCN Database
Wesley's 3rd Q: "A simple chart...stating the actual temp of the planet...year by year...no calculations of anomalies...no decade averages...no 20th century averages"
A: OK. http://i29.tinypic.com/10f2rr9.jpg
Now, I think the least you can do after everyone took the time to answer you is to contribute some scientific data yourself. Just answer this simple question: what's the temperature of your forehead?
Hell, you could give him a specific number - in fact, the only possible meaningful answer was already given by vysotsky (July 01, 2009 6:36 pm ET) - and he'd still just say the same thing.
He's not dumb - he's doing this on purpose.
Hey Wesley, want to prove me wrong? Tell me what the temperature of your town/city was in 2008. Like you demanded of others, no averages, no anomalies, just tell me what the temperature was. Put up or shut up.
Oh let's not jump to conclusions. :)
I for one am hanging in this conversation because with each passing exchange with Wesley because I'd really like to know just how resistant he is to facts and basic logic. I agree that Wesley thinks he's jerking our collective chain, but I for one am happy to see his bet and raise it. (Sorry for the horrendously mixed metaphor.)
To wit: Wesley, I'm sure that after all this prelude you've got a really killer punchline prepared for us. A major zinger. (Something about how climate science is invalid if people can't even agree on the global average temperature, yeah?) Unfortunately for you, your set up is a bit, well, self defeating. Earlier you mentioned something about how "[e]ven a train conductor should be able to provide a year by year chart of the global temps", yes? Now I for one have nothing against train conductors, but this does not speak well of you if you can't come up with the answer yourself.
There is a very good explanation of where the problem lies in relation to Surface Air Temperatures, posted at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies site :
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
As is there stated:
Q. What do I do if I need absolute SATs, not anomalies ?
A. In 99.9% of the cases you'll find that anomalies are exactly what you need, not absolute temperatures. In the remaining cases, you have to pick one of the available climatologies and add the anomalies (with respect to the proper base period) to it. For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14 Celsius, i.e. 57.2 F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58 F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.
The reason for this is:
Q. If the reported SATs are not the true SATs, why are they still useful ?
A. The reported temperature is truly meaningful only to a person who happens to visit the weather station at the precise moment when the reported temperature is measured, in other words, to nobody. However, in addition to the SAT the reports usually also mention whether the current temperature is unusually high or unusually low, how much it differs from the normal temperature, and that information (the anomaly) is meaningful for the whole region. Also, if we hear a temperature (say 70F), we instinctively translate it into hot or cold, but our translation key depends on the season and region, the same temperature may be 'hot' in winter and 'cold' in July, since by 'hot' we always mean 'hotter than normal', i.e. we all translate absolute temperatures automatically into anomalies whether we are aware of it or not.
and:
Q. What exactly do we mean by SAT ?
A. I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10 ft or 50 ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest), the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50 ft of air either above ground or above the top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted. Even if the 50 ft standard were adopted, I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50 ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location.
It is as plain as the nose on my face (and especially on a full reading of the short page linked above) how utterly useless would be any attempt to claim knowledge of an Absolute Global Temperature, let alone an Annual Average.
Variations on previous readings however are perfectly achievable and meaningful.
I hope this helps clear up this storm-in-a-teacup that Wesley seems so fixated on.
The reason relative temperatures are used is that they are ridiculously more reliable than any attempt at ennumerating absolute temperatures can possibly be.
As noted previously by astute folks, EPA veteran Al Carlin is an economist, not a climate scientist and EPA never solicited the study; he created it of his own volition! When I’m finished with this post I’m off to have my dentist service my car.
Seems simple enough to comprehend that we owe are children a better standard of living than having to keep them locked inside on a summer day.
At what point in time did common sense become so uncommon?
I love my Global Warming here in Mass. 62 degrees all month long and we are in July now.
If you go to the EPA's website and look at the air quality numbers for the last 50 years, including water quality, you'll see that the air is cleaner now than it was 50 years ago, including the potable water.... Go back to the turn of the last century.. Everyone at that time used wood burning or coal stoves. The air quality at that time was far worse... Folks lets just all admit its cyclical, not man made and move on.
Other post are correct.. If anyone has taken statistics.. sorry if anyone has passed statistics they would know you need more than 11 years worth of data to show either a cooling period or a warming period. But the folks are right.. the Earth was warmer during the medevil period, along with the Civil War period... look it up.. on a bipartisan site.. Not a site who's about us message "about us" is... "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Hence progressive = Liberal... =)
Actual climate scientists can at least offer models to account for why the Earth warms and cools, and they can point to factors like plate tectonics, solar activity, variations in the Earth's orbit, large scale chemical biological processes, etc... So if the current warming is so obviously cyclical, why can't skeptics of anthropogenic global climate change come to a consensus about what specifically is causing the current warming trend? On the other hand, those who support theories of anthropogenic global climate change can point to very specific and well understood processes: chiefly, the greenhouse effect.
Finally, where are you getting this idea that the world temperature was warmer during the Civil War than it is today? Take a look at the GHCN Database, or at the NCDC data. They show that in 1880 the annual average global surface temperature was well under 14 degrees C. Do you have evidence that during the Civil War the Earth was nearly a degree hotter and then experienced a phenomenal temperature plunge over the the next two decades? If you do, by all means, site your source.
by kayaspop (July 02, 2009 5:49 pm ET) 0 5
I find it utterly amazing how ignorant some portions of our society have become.
I appreciate YOUR contribution, please do NOT contribute to our GENE pool.