4 sources say “globally cooler” in the past 12 months

[ben_meyers]

January 2008 - 4 sources say “globally cooler” in the past 12 months

January 2008 was an exceptional month for our planet, with a significant cooling. January 2007 started out well above normal.

January 2008 capped a 12 month period of global temperature drops on all of the major well respected indicators. I have reported in the past two weeks that HadCRUT, RSS, UAH, and GISS global temperature sets all show sharp drops in the last year.(snip)
The purpose of this summary is to make it easy for everyone to compare the last 4 postings I’ve made on this subject. I realize that not all the graphs are of the same scale, so my next task will be to run a combined graphic of all the data-sets on identical amplitude and time scales to show the agreements or differences such a graph would illustrate.

Here is a quick comparison and average of ∆T for all metrics shown above:

Source: Global ∆T °C
HadCRUT - 0.595
GISS - 0.750
UAH - 0.588
RSS - 0.629
Average: - 0.6405°C

For all four metrics the global average ∆T for January 2007 to January 2008 is: - 0.6405°C

This represents an average between the two lower troposphere satellite metrics (RSS and UAH) and the two land-ocean metrics (GISS and HadCRUT). While some may argue that they are not compatible data-sets, since they are derived by different methods (Satellite -Microwave Sounder Unit and direct surface temperature measurements) I would argue that the average of these four metrics is a measure of temperature, nearest where we live, the surface and near surface atmosphere.

UPDATE AND CAVEAT:

The website DailyTech has an article citing this blog entry as a reference, and their story got picked up by the Drudge report, resulting in a wide distribution. In the DailyTech article there is a paragraph:

“Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.”

I wish to state for the record, and with objection, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”

There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, but it does not “erase” anything. I have suggested a correction to Daily Tech.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

[pscot]

1. Senator Inhofe doesn't count

:woohoo:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. hmmmm... his graphs start in 1988

and he's a weather man for an AM radio station.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts

and Drudge is carrying the story. Doesn't inspire confidence in his 'expertise'.

[kristopher]

4. Those criticisms aren't valid, and the data looks like it is valid.

What we need is an explanation.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

5. I'm not into deep analysis at 11pm...

but my bull-shit detector works just fine thank you.

[Barrett808]

24. Cherrypicking the start date

Using the whole time series, the trend is inexorably upward.

[kristopher]

3. Interesting information

These are measurements of surface temperatures - land and sea. I'm just speculating but the complication I see is that the ocean is a three dimensional heat sink. Excess heat is transfered to the ocean, which has distinct layers based on temperature/salinity/density. One of the largest variables in climate prediction is the behavior in deep water. There are 310 million cubic miles of ocean with an average depth of about 12,500 feet.
This year we've also seen dramatic changes in oxygen content of areas of seabed that we pay attention to - the fishing grounds off the Oregon coast and the waters north of Hawaii. This unexpected change in oxygen content indicates a radical change in deep water currents.

I'm not saying the two are related, but to jump to the conclusion that the anomaly in the OP disproves global warming is extremely premature. What this demonstrates is that we need to extend our sensing ability to gain a far better understanding of the 3 dimensional picture of what is happening to the oceans.

This has been one more area that Bush has been dragging his feet on, for the recommendation was made several years ago after exhaustice review by the Presidentially appointed US Oceans Commission.

In short, my reaction, is "Uh oh!". If we are seeing a radical shift in the oceanic thermoclines*, we could be very very screwed because it is probably much later than we think.

*Shift in currents that interact with benthic topography forcing cold water up causing surface cooling while warmer water is forced down. If we start seeing eruptions of methane from the ocean.....

[ChazII]

6. Another source

Temperature Monitors Report Wide scale Global Cooling

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature%20Monitors%20Report%20Worldwide%20Global%20Cooling/article10866.htm

Not agreeing but thought that others might like this link.

[jpak]

7. Again - global warming deniers resort to non-peer reviewed psuedoscience to state their case

*yawn*

[kristopher]

10. That's almost as bad as using "shoot the messenger" logical fallacy to respond.

yawn

The data cited is legitimate. It doesn't disprove global warming, quite the opposite. Your type of response to legitimate questions isn't helpful, IMO. Note my use of the word legitimate.

[Viking12]

11. jpak's response is the appropriate response to illegitimate conclusions

Yes, the data is legitimate but it is cherry picked to draw a distorted inference-- anyone with a basic knowledge of stats knows you don't use a convenience sample and ignore a whole series of data. Mock and ridicule IS the appropriate response to climate liars.

[kristopher]

14. But that isn't what the person who collected data did.

In fact, in the OP it quotes him as rebuking another party that used his data that way: "I wish to state for the record, and with objection, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”

There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, but it does not “erase” anything. I have suggested a correction to Daily Tech."

Dismissing people who point out legitimate questions goes against the foundations of the scientific process I believe in. I don't care what their ideological tilt, people who do that are the bad guys. (I usually like jpak's posts, btw).

Your comment about this as a convenience sample is undoubtedly going to be true for many of the wingnuts that pick up on this data. However, I think there is relevance for this data that exists outside of the trend line. That is not the only criteria by which it should be evaluated. Do you rag on people who use anomalous weather data to support the position that global warming is happening?

[Viking12]

15. I repeat: Raising 'climate' questions based on one year is NOT legitimate

So I am not, nor did jpak, dismissing legitimate questions. You should look up the fallacy "begging the question"

Do you rag on people who use anomalous weather data to support the position that global warming is happening?

Yes.

[kristopher]

18. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree

"Again - global warming deniers resort to non-peer reviewed psuedoscience to state their case"

IMO the above remark by jpak that I responded to is a dismissal of the data itself. I don't give a sh*t who compiled it, if it is legitimate and relevant, it is worthy of more than a snide, fallacious dismissal. That's the kind of behavior I expect from the boneheads that buy into the fossil fuel industries misinformation campaign.
I think what troubles me is that it is playing into their hands - it becomes a "my side right or wrong" type dialogue that is death to truth. And in this case, this data, combined with other anomalies we've seen this year is extremely relevant to the discussion on climate change; your belief in broad statistics as the only measure of importance is rather shortsighted, IMO.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=135627&mesg_id=135638

[Viking12]

19. It is neither legitimate nor relevant

Thus, a snide dismissal is completely appropriate. A one month anomoly says NOTHING legitimate or relevant about climate (BTW Jan 2008 ranks in the middle of all Januarys in the instrumental record, it's nothing unusual). If it did, then the proper place to vet questions and conclusions would be in the peer-reviewed literature.

Your concern troll is noted.

[kristopher]

22. You obviously didn't even examine the data

You wrote: A one month anomoly (sic) says NOTHING legitimate or relevant about climate""

It isn't a one month anomaly it is a one year anomaly of significant scale. The fact that you fail to see significance in cumulative evidence of dramatic alterations to deep ocean currents speaks much more to your state of awareness than it does to the relevance of the data.


There are 4 legitimate, verifiable sources cited by Watts.
He accurately presents their data with no comments other than this needs explanation. He obviously considers it evidence of one thing, I think it is evidence of another.

THAT IS WHAT PEER REVIEW IS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS. If (as you have done) we rejected every piece of information out of hand there would be no NEED for peer review. This is where the process starts, not where it ends.

Sheesh.

Get a clue.

[Viking12]

23. For the last time.

January 2008 is one month, not a year. A cherry-picked comparison of one month of data to another single month of data tells us NOTHING about climate change. To suggest that it needs an explanation is just fucking stupid. No one ever suggested there wouldn't be interannual variability. In addition to begging the question and assuming it is legitimate, you're also building strawmen.

You do realize that Watts is a well-known serial obfusctionist, right? That he's on the celebrity roster of the Heartland Institute's climate denier conference, right? You do realize that a blog is not peer-reviewed scientific literature, right?

[kristopher]

25. You're blind and the only straw man is the one you jusst constructed.

No one ever suggested there wouldn't be interannual variability. If this were the only thing that happened this past year, you would have a stronger basis to dismiss the observations. However, this isn't the only thing that is pointing to deep ocean changes. Since we have extremely limited information about what is happening down there, I think it is wise to be alert to potential early warning signals. So, unless you have PROOF that there is no alteration to deep ocean currents, something that is a highly probable consequence of climate change, then you are just being an ass for this line of argumentation.

Yes, I know who Watts is. So what?(hehe) What makes you so damned sure that being dismissive is the best course to pursue? I think it is better to integrate the data false claims are based on into an accurate larger picture. That way when Faux News starts spreading the story, at least there is something out there besides some ass trying to dismiss it by using the most obvious logical fallacy in the book.

[Viking12]

26. You can't prove a negative dumbass.

I'm done wasting my time.

[kristopher]

27. What a lame cop out.

If we had adequate sensing data you'd easily be able to demonstrate that there have been no significant changes to the ocean's deeper currents.

One of my main points was that the ocean sensing regime recommended by the US Ocean's Commission has not been implemented under this crappy administration.

[Viking12]

29. Yeah, logic is such a copout.

Change the goalposts much? OK, now I'm really done.

[kristopher]

31. Another lame cop out

1) So, unless you have PROOF that there is no alteration to deep ocean currents,

2) If we had adequate sensing data you'd easily be able to demonstrate that there have been no significant changes to the ocean's deeper currents.

Same goalpost, numbnuts.

[Zachstar]

33. How on earth did someone say I was you?

What BS LOL!!

[kristopher]

35. Not even close, eh. :)

[jpak]

21. Ummm...there's an accepted quality control process in science - it's called peer review

Any moran with a keyboard and an modem can "publish" "scientific evidence" on the internets.

It's just not science.

If this was published in JGR, J. Climate Res., Nature, Science, PNAS or any other professional peer reviewed scientific journal, it would be "legitimate" data.

This blog, however, doesn't pass the sniff test.

not even close...

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. Or... not as much warmer than average as the previous year was...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Watch the dotted line. That charts yearly averages.


Notice that the temperatures really dipped in the late 1990's compared to the earlier years, but then were back higher than ever in the early 2000's.

(One year that's not quite as hot as the previous one does not necessarily mark the onset of global cooling.)

[gorbal]

9. This goes along with the "Gulf Stream" theory

I wonder if the gulf stream is still slowing.

[Delphinus]

12. Hmm...

now that you mention that, there was a story I ran across yesterday and haven't been back to until now. Here's part:

Has An Ocean Circulation Collapse Been Triggered?

ScienceDaily (Feb. 25, 2008) — Predictions that the 21st century is safe from major circulation changes in the North Atlantic Ocean may not be as comforting as they seem, according to a Penn State researcher.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it is very unlikely that the North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (MOC) will collapse in the 21st century. They predict a probability of less then 10 percent," says Klaus Keller, assistant professor of geosciences. "However, this should not be interpreted as an all clear signal. There can be a considerable delay between the triggering of an MOC collapse and the actual collapse. In a similar way, a person that has just jumped from a cliff may take comfort that pain in the next few seconds is very unlikely, but the outlook over the long term is less rosy."

{snip}

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217102148.htm

[ben_meyers]

13. Shouldn't the headline read 90% chance it won't happen?

If I jump off of a cliff I have a 100% chance of hitting bottom. Why the National Enquirer type of story?

[Viking12]

16. The Gulf Stream and MOC are not the same thing

"The Gulf Stream is a predominantly wind-driven western boundary current that moves up from the Gulf of Mexico along the US coast to Cape Hatteras, at which point it heads off into the central Atlantic."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=159

The MOC is thermohaline (heat and salt) current driven by varying densities of sea water.

[Delphinus]

20. Thanks - so many things to keep

straight (and I'm not a scientist!).

[pscot]

17. We are in the midst of a La Nina,

It's been going on for the last six months, and is forecast to continue on into the summer of 2008. La Nina's are caused by cooler than normal sea surface temps across the tropical Pacific. It's a recurring phenomenon, not a trend.

[kestrel91316]

28. Weather does not equal climate. How many times to we have to say this?

Global warming causes worse extremes of all sorts of weather, just as predicted.

[Dogmudgeon]

30. Twelve months?

That kind of sampling frequency is good for looking at noise, not epochal changes in climate. Our climate-forcing extends back some 150 years, and the lion's share of it has taken place (or has become manifest) since the 1980s.

I'll go out on a limb here -- I predict that at some time in the next 50 years, there will be a (pseudo-)reversal of Global Warming, which will lead to a political era of more and more-vigorous denials.

Basically, we are giving the climate a kick, and it will respond by jumping into one of its stable modes.

Yeah, it's a WAG (Wild-Assed Guess) but my highly scientistical and episiotomical studies of casting the I Ching and reading the legs of squashed silverfish have led me to believe that when Humans push Nature, Nature pushes back. I have no doubt that it will get colder. And warmer. And a lot of people will die a whole lot faster than we'd like. But the 13,000-year-long Holocene Summer is coming to an end -- probably with an Indian Summer heat wave.

--p!

[Exodus 3-14]

32. 'debate is framed wrong= No Action!'

I have very little time to be an active member, but if I get anything worth something into this debate of 'Climate', or 'Global Warming/Cooling',, it's that it must be re-framed into what we are really looking at(something much more dangerous, and 'is' Man-Made), and that is that we are witnessing a 'Collapse' of our 'Eco-System'.
If you want to see 'Action' taken, just use our imagination(or look at what parts of Africa experience on daily basis), and have the nay-sayers, and those in Government, think what will soon happen on a Global Scale.

Sadly the science that indicates this has been re-buffed by people who most likely have children.
Of course(from my perspective- having had had 6 Prophecies come true that I made in Dec. '06'), I don't think there's much of a chance for Life to continue in the near future.
*Hopefully I am wrong(I can no longer Prophesize- the experience ruined me).

take care everyone, I often read this site(should have gotten on it sooner)
Jeff

[Delphinus]

36. Global Climate Destabilization

is a much better term than global warming, but yours is good too: Collapse of our Ecosystem. It hits the nail on the head.

This is what GliderGuider talked about in the post I put on last week about James Lovelock and our doom.

Welcome to the board. :hi:

[wtmusic]

34. Why are we listening to another TV weatherman about climate change?

One on a FOX affiliate, at that?

Does Anthony Watts have any academic credentials at all? If so I can't find any.

Didn't John Coleman prove once and for all how little one needs to know to be a "meteorologist"?

Cheezus. What a waste of time.

[jimlup]

37. This isn't worth a reply but...

Temperature observations of 5 years or less are demonstrably not adequate to sense climate trends:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Global-warming-stopped-in-1981.html