2000-2009: Warmest Decade On Record

Nasa Temperature Chart

NASA has released a report indicating that this past decade is the warmest on record and that 2009 is the second warmest year on record (though actually THE warmest in the Southern Hemisphere).

2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.

[…]

January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. Since 1880, the year that modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, though there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s.

The near-record temperatures of 2009 occurred despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America. High air pressures in the Arctic decreased the east-west flow of the jet stream, while also increasing its tendency to blow from north to south and draw cold air southward from the Arctic. This resulted in an unusual effect that caused frigid air from the Arctic to rush into North America and warmer mid-latitude air to shift toward the north.

“Of course, the contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the U.S. temperature does not affect the global temperature much,’ said Hansen.

In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 0.8°C (1.5°F) since 1880.

Particularly distrubing, too, is that global temperatures are increasing despite the fact that the Earth is currently in a solar minimum–which typically result in cooler temperatures.

A deep solar minimum has made sunspots a rarity in the last few years. Such lulls in solar activity, which can cause the total amount of energy given off by the Sun to decrease by about a tenth of a percent, typically spur surface temperature to dip slightly. Overall, solar minimums and maximums are thought to produce no more than 0.1°C (0.18°F) of cooling or warming.

“In 2009, it was clear that even the deepest solar minimum in the period of satellite data hasn’t stopped global warming from continuing,” said Hansen.

Currently, global average temperatures are higher than they were during the Medieval Warming Period, and at the current rate of temperature rise, within the lifetime of many people reading this post the Earth will be at its highest average temperature since Homo Sapiens evolved. We already have an atmosphere that has about 30% more carbon dioxide in it then when Homo Sapiens evolved, and if current trends continue, by the end of the century the atmosphere will have enough carbon dioxide in it to begin exhibiting toxic effects on humans.

We are in the beginning stages of a grand biological experiment — can human beings, as a species, survive in atmospheric conditions in which they did not evolve? Perhaps we can.

Personally, though, I’d prefer to not conduct the experiment.

Image courtesy of NASA

FILED UNDER: Science & Technology,
Alex Knapp
About Alex Knapp
Alex Knapp is Associate Editor at Forbes for science and games. He was a longtime blogger elsewhere before joining the OTB team in June 2005 and contributed some 700 posts through January 2013. Follow him on Twitter @TheAlexKnapp.

Comments

  1. Boyd says:

    Carbon dioxide is bad. Stop exhaling.

  2. Alex Knapp says:

    Boyd,

    Do you have peer-reviewed evidence suggesting that human beings can survive and thrive healthily at atmospheric carbon dioxide levels that are signficantly higher than those that we evolved with? Links would be appreciated and it would certainly be a load off my mind.

  3. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    First, that report is BS. Look at record temps for your area and see what decade they exist in. It ain’t this one. These lops must think people are stupid enough to not trust their own senses. I live in Sacramento California and let me tell you this has not been the hottest decade I remember. I understand some of the information they gathered was from a place in Russia where they used data from two months earlier to indicate how warm it was in October. I am sure it was warmer in August in Russia than it is typically in October. Go sing the BS to people who a paid a small fortune to learn from experts that there is no God and Darwinism is science.

  4. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Alex since we are at approximately an atmospheric concentration of CO2 of about .03% and it takes 10% to be toxic. You just might want to haul in that panic. By the way Alex, when was it in Earths history was the level of CO2 at a toxic level for humans?

  5. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Oh, I didn’t read the part the NASA released the information. I thought their expertise was in the field of Space Travel. Turns out they have expanded to the area of climatology. Wonder how much of this data was based upon information gathered by the good folks at East Anglia center for the advancement of demeaning science and lying about AGW? Turns out Alex, the glaciers in the Himalayas are not going to melt by 2035 as some liar at the UN, who made a great deal of money off the lie, said.

  6. Richard Gardner says:

    Do you have peer-reviewed evidence suggesting that human beings can survive and thrive healthily at atmospheric carbon dioxide levels that are signficantly higher than those that we evolved with? Links would be appreciated and it would certainly be a load off my mind.

    Lots of DoD research with regards to submarines; similarly in the mining industry. Even an issue on the Space Shuttle. This is nothing new (over 50 years old). Submarines routinely operate with CO2 at orders of magnitude greater than normal atmospheric. It does lead to wounds taking longer to heal.

    Also, Carbon Dioxide is plant food, so there is a built in feedback loop here (to include plankton).

  7. Alex Knapp says:

    Richard,

    I can’t find submarine exposure studies for longer times periods than 45 days. How will a tripling of CO2 concentration affect human beings during a lifetime period of exposure? We’re about to find out.

    Additionally, the current rate of CO2 emissions have stripped the ability of ocean plankton to keep up. There’s not enough, and the decreased alkalinity of the oceans will have a dramatic effect on the cycle.

  8. Boyd says:

    Alex, your evidence that this global rise in surface temperatures is a result of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is…what?

  9. Richard Gardner says:

    As for the toxicity discussion above, that number (10%) is way too high for long-term exposure. That is death. At 3-4% you are gasping for breath as the high CO2 triggers your breathing (you aren’t out of O2). For short-term exposure, the Navy and MSHA (Mine Safety)use 2.5% – has a safety factor. But 1% is a common CO2 limit, though less is preferable (like .5%). OSHA says 0.5% average (over 10x natural average). You routinely get to 1% in an indoor crowd.

    I see there is a good discussion of CO2 Toxicity at Wikipedia

  10. Alex Knapp says:

    Zels,

    Look at record temps for your area and see what decade they exist in. It ain’t this one. These lops must think people are stupid enough to not trust their own senses. I live in Sacramento California and let me tell you this has not been the hottest decade I remember.

    If you check out the data, you will see that we are talking about average global temperatures. The dataset includes a comment about the unusually cool winter in the United States and notes that despite that, it’s still,/i> the second warmest year on record. Additionally, because we’re looking at averages, record highs and lows for a given date are of little relevance.

    Alex since we are at approximately an atmospheric concentration of CO2 of about .03% and it takes 10% to be toxic. You just might want to haul in that panic.

    That’s the short-term exposure level. At prolonged exposures to CO2 at even as low as 600ppm, there is evidence of the beginnings of acidosis in the individuals effected. Check out studies of Sick Building Syndrome.

    Oh, I didn’t read the part the NASA released the information. I thought their expertise was in the field of Space Travel. Turns out they have expanded to the area of climatology.

    Exploring atmospheric conditions has been part of NASA’s work since 1980.

    Wonder how much of this data was based upon information gathered by the good folks at East Anglia center for the advancement of demeaning science and lying about AGW?

    The data used by NASA was gathered from public temperature gathering datasets from 1,100+ centers around the world.

    Turns out Alex, the glaciers in the Himalayas are not going to melt by 2035 as some liar at the UN, who made a great deal of money off the lie, said.

    While that is true (and you can read more here), that doesn’t discredit every prediction. Indeed, glacial melt in Arctic regions and Arctic ice melt is so far in line with predictions.

  11. Alex Knapp says:

    Boyd,

    1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which means that it traps heat.
    2. Carbon dioxide has been introduced into the atmosphere by humans at an accelerated rate since the 1880s.
    3. Carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is higher than it has been in approximately 20 million years.
    4. Since the acceleration of the rise in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in the 1880s, average global temperatures have been increasing.
    5. Other proposed mechanisms for the change in average global temperature have not been shown to be able to cause the rapid rate of change that carbon dioxide has.

  12. Wayne says:

    I can’t believe that so many eat these releases as if they are gospel. In the last few months we have had e-mails admitting to data being manipulated.

    Scientist admitting to using unscientific and completely false data. Lying about data in order to get funds.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

    Now they been caught cherry picking data by to further their agenda.

    http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists+using+selective+temperature+data+skeptics/2468634/story.html

    It would be like using temperatures for Death Valley as the average temperatures for all of the western half of the United States. Total bogus studies.

    Also the record cold this last year wasn’t just the U.S. but for most of the Northern Hemisphere, Asia, North America, Europe, etc. I’m not sure of anyplace in Northern Hemisphere that hasn’t been hit with record cold.

    Hansen, the proven liar said it so, so it must be true. Talking about gullible.

  13. Science requires that you prove your hypotheses, not that have to discredit them or else they are valid.

    It is my understanding that the evolution of homo sapiens required repeated, substantial instances of climate change. Apparently homo sapiens have reached the pinnacle of evolution as so many smart people have decided that stasis is now the desired outcome.

  14. (Repost to fix typo)

    Science requires that you prove your hypotheses, not that I have to discredit them or else they are valid.

    It is my understanding that the evolution of homo sapiens required repeated, substantial instances of climate change. Apparently homo sapiens have reached the pinnacle of evolution as so many smart people have decided that stasis is now the desired outcome.

  15. steve says:

    Please see Joyner’s post below on statistics.

    Steve

  16. Alex Knapp says:

    Charles,

    H. Sapiens has only been around for approx. 100 – 150 thousand years. Carbon dioxide contentrations of 387ppm (the best estimate I can find of current concentration). In 1832, that number was 284ppm. The last time CO2 was at or above 387ppm was approximately 20 million years ago. We are scheduled to hit the highest temperatures humans have ever experienced by the end of the century.

    We don’t know how that will affect human beings, because no human being has ever lived under those conditions.

  17. Steve Plunk says:

    NASA has been nothing short of a self serving entity for many years. They purposely try to create news and hype whatever is they are doing. It gets them attention and funding. I would judge them as untrustworthy and would judge their climate science people (Hanson especially) as near criminal.

  18. Alex Knapp says:

    I would judge them as untrustworthy and would judge their climate science people (Hanson especially) as near criminal.

    Why? Because their predictions about climate have tended to be consistent with actual observations?

  19. spago says:

    Hey Alex,

    Why don’t you respond to Wayne instead of cherry picking…I mean he did go through the trouble of providing links, which are apparently your raison d’etre…BTW NASA has also refused to release its raw data, much like another “reputable” source for climatology.

    In 1832, that number was 284ppm. The last time CO2 was at or above 387ppm was approximately 20 million years ago

    and you know this…how? The precious tree ring study has been proven inaccurate and…wait for it…cherry picked data…which, to my understanding, is what they used to derive the temperatures for the medieval warming period. What I find most baffling is that you know that these people have lied to you…and yet you still trust the output. 2+2 does in fact =5 doesn’t it.

  20. Wayne says:

    observations?”

    When was this? Also is it actual prediction of raw temps or these so call “adjusted temps”? Ocean temps predictions were off and this cold spell sure wasn’t predicted. Also the Hockey stick prediction was way off too.

  21. William d'Inger says:

    Alex, I feel pity for you alarmists. It must be awful living in fear — fear of Malthusian starvation (1798), fear of asphyxiation from Halley’s comet (1910), fear of Nuclear Winter (1974), etcetera unto ad nauseam.
    You’d be so much better off kicking back and enjoying what little time you have left. Who knows, but asteroid might strike while you are reading this. As for myself, I’m savoring the Saints win over the Vikings.

  22. Alex Knapp says:

    Wayne,

    On the Himalayan glaciers, please see the link in my response to Zelsdorf.

    On the Vancouver Sun article, I’m looking into whether its accurate.

    When was this? Also is it actual prediction of raw temps or these so call “adjusted temps”? Ocean temps predictions were off and this cold spell sure wasn’t predicted. Also the Hockey stick prediction was way off too.

    You’re confusing climate predictions with weather predictions. If you look at the models developed by NASA in the early 80s, you will see that they very closely map current trends, and later models have only shown further refinement.

    spago,

    BTW NASA has also refused to release its raw data, much like another “reputable” source for climatology.

    NASA’s raw data is available for download, actually.

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

    and you know this…how? The precious tree ring study has been proven inaccurate and…wait for it…cherry picked data

    Tree ring data only goes back about 2,000 years, but yes–it’s proven ambiguous. Better temperature data for the past 800,000 years are generally derived from Antarctic and Greenland glacial ice cores.

    However, as far as atmospheric CO2 conditions are concerned, check out last month’s Science:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1178296

  23. Alex Knapp says:

    It must be awful living in fear — fear of Malthusian starvation (1798), fear of asphyxiation from Halley’s comet (1910), fear of Nuclear Winter (1974), etcetera unto ad nauseam.

    It’s tempting to ignore doomsaying because so many others have cried wolf, but that doesn’t change the basic laws of physics as they apply to atomspheric carbon dioxide.

  24. spago says:

    principles of carbon-driven warming:
    Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere. …
    To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.
    In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

    posted here

    The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data.
    Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.
    “I assume that what is there is highly damaging,” Mr. Horner said. “These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this.”
    The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.

    Posted here

    How to build your own hockey stick graph…here

  25. Steve Plunk says:

    Alex,

    I distrust NASA and many of it’s scientists for the way they have politicized science and created the PR monster that NASA has become.

    I distrust Hanson for his overt political agenda taking precedence over the science and the scientific method. The recent revelations of cherry picking temperature data coupled with failure to release all data fits the pattern that climate change skeptics have warned about. There are too many inconsistencies and secrets for any of the data and modeling to be trusted completely.

    The entire AGW crowd has been guilty of claiming the debate is over when scientific debate is never over. They have attempted to subvert the process and undermine legitimate criticism rather than address it. Mann has been debunked yet continues to be a star in the climate change world. Hanson is akin to a crazy uncle yet receives similar treatment. They usual suspects all appear to be guilty of one scientific sin or another.

    The public is tired of this charade. It has become the modern equivalent of Piltdown Man and has shaken our trust of all science. This combination of scientists looking for funding, environmentalists looking for another method of control, and sharp operators looking to make an easy buck has conspired to defraud the world and has failed.

    I know of no predictions that have been accurate so I can’t even give them that. The failure is complete.

  26. William d'Inger says:

    that doesn’t change the basic laws of physics as they apply to atomspheric carbon dioxide

    And please tell me how the basic laws of physics do not apply to Malthus’ theory, Halley’s comet and Nuclear Winter? I’m sorry if you can’t see it, but today’s alarm will pass into history the same as all the previous ones. There’s no cause for concern, however, as some new panic will always arise to fill your psychological need.

  27. Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by OTBTweets: 2000-2009: Warmest Decade On Record:
    NASA has released a report indicating that this past decade is the warmest o… http://bit.ly/8rRuZf

  28. Alex Knapp says:

    spago:

    Re: the Science Daily article – I’ll have to follow up on Knorr’s research but if it’s true that’s good news. It means that atmospheric CO2 concentration won’t rise as fast as predicted, which means we have more timre to reverse it. However, the fact that the airborne fraction of man-made carbon emissions hasn’t increased does NOT mean that atmospheric CO2 concentrations haven’t increased.

    As for Horner, once again, I provided you with the link to the raw data on NASA’s site. I don’t know what further response is required.

    The Iowahawk post is just snark with no relevance to an actual understanding of the data or methods used.

    Steve,

    recent revelations of cherry picking temperature data

    There’s no “revelation”–there’s an unproved allegation!

    with failure to release all data fits the pattern that climate change skeptics have warned about.

    NASA’s raw data is available ON THE NASA WEBSITE. Again, this is bullshit.

    Steve, c’mon. You might disagree in the end but you’re a lot better than this ad hominem argument you threw out. Take out your biases and review the data. That’s what convinced me back when I was in your shoes. I did my own permutations, reviewed the research in the journals myself.

    And the NASA predictions from the 80s, I might add, are pretty damn accurate within a reasonable statistical deviation.

    William,

    Malthus was a mathematical regression based on the assumption that food growth was linear. It turned out not to be. Good for us. No physics need apply.

    Re: Halley’s comment, only one lone astronomer claimed that it would cause mass suffocation. Every other reputable scientist in the field disregarded Flammarion’s claim prior to Halley’s comet’s return in 1910. One lone nut does not a scientific claim make.

    Re: Nuclear winter didn’t happen because we didn’t have a nuclear war. At least, not to my knowledge. However, the consequences of nuclear war was one of the things that led Reagan to tone down the cold war rhetoric and engage the Soviet Union (at least, according to his biographers) and so the “panic” may well have led to the arms talks that paved the way for the fall of the Soviet Union.

    But Nuclear Winter wasn’t discredited–it didn’t happen because there was no war. That example just doesn’t make sense.

  29. spago says:

    The Iowahawk post is just snark with no relevance to an actual understanding of the data or methods used

    I’m sorry did you take the hour and a half or so to create the program following the steps he provides…or are you simply dismissing it without any sort of relevant argument to back up your statement.

    As for Horner, once again, I provided you with the link to the raw data on NASA’s site. I don’t know what further response is required.

    ummm…you aren’t responding to this (not sure if you think you are or not…but you are not, emphasis added)

    “I assume that what is there is highly damaging,” Mr. Horner said. “These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this.”The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.

  30. spago says:

    BTW Alex everytime you have said this:

    I’ll have to follow up on…insert some refutation against Alex’s assertation

    you have not posted anything regarding it…more posturing?

  31. William d'Inger says:

    But Nuclear Winter wasn’t discredited–it didn’t happen because there was no war. That example just doesn’t make sense.

    I used that example because smoke from the massive oil field fires set during the first Iraq war did not produce the cooling the Nuclear Winter models predicted. Scientists offered a lot of excuses, but it was clear that their models were insufficient at best or entirely wrong at worst. I agree that does not necessarily discredit the theory, but it shows that the science is still too rudimentary to draw reliable conclusions. I submit that the same applies to the panic du jour.

  32. Steve Plunk says:

    Alex, Chris Horner has filed notice to sue NASA over failure to comply with FOIA requests for three years. That tells me they are hiding something. I doubt raw climate data has national security implications.

    I have to ask if you see any problem with the admission by IPCC officials that some statements in their reports were not based on peer reviewed science but were instead merely speculation being sold as science? You know, the Himilayan glaciers are melting? That doesn’t raise red flags?

    Hanson’s admission of errors? The survey of weather data collection stations and the failure to maintain proper standards? The failure to model water vapor as a warming driver? The failure to include solar influences? Don’t these questions ever pop up?

    Years ago I read the book “Chaos” (I forget the authors) and was struck by how misguided attempts to computer weather were. Too many inputs are necessary and there are still too many unknowns to model weather. Even simple models fail in predictive power. It was obvious to me we were no where near the technical level to do such modeling. About the same I observed my local public works director throw out a traffic modeling software program and then buy another that would give him the results he wanted.

    I still believe we lack the capability to model climate and I also believe people will manipulate models (adjustments, corrections, compensations)to get the results they want.

    I don’t have an obligation to disprove any of what they are selling but they do have an obligation to sell it and they have failed. There are plenty of scientists who feel the same way I do. There is no consensus and there is no sound science that unifies this grand theory of AGW.

  33. spago says:

    NOAA/GHCN “homogenization” falsified climate declines into increases

    The second question, the integrity of the data, is different. People say “Yes, they destroyed emails, and hid from Freedom of information Acts, and messed with proxies, and fought to keep other scientists’ papers out of the journals … but that doesn’t affect the data, the data is still good.” Which sounds reasonable.
    There are three main global temperature datasets. One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, where we’ve been trying to get access to the raw numbers. One is at NOAA/GHCN, the Global Historical Climate Network. The final one is at NASA/GISS, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The three groups take raw data, and they “homogenize” it to remove things like when a station was moved to a warmer location and there’s a 2C jump in the temperature. The three global temperature records are usually called CRU, GISS, and GHCN. Both GISS and CRU, however, get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. All three produce very similar global historical temperature records from the raw data. …
    Then I went to look at what happens when the GHCN removes the “in-homogeneities” to “adjust” the data. Of the five raw datasets, the GHCN discards two, likely because they are short and duplicate existing longer records. The three remaining records are first “homogenized” and then averaged to give the “GHCN Adjusted” temperature record for Darwin.
    To my great surprise, here’s what I found. To explain the full effect, I am showing this with both datasets starting at the same point (rather than ending at the same point as they are often shown).

    Figure 7. GHCN homogeneity adjustments to Darwin Airport combined record
    YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C. …
    Intrigued by the curious shape of the average of the homogenized Darwin records, I then went to see how they had homogenized each of the individual station records. What made up that strange average shown in Fig. 7? I started at zero with the earliest record. Here is Station Zero at Darwin, showing the raw and the homogenized versions.

    Figure 8 Darwin Zero Homogeneity Adjustments. Black line shows amount and timing of adjustments.
    Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right … but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What’s up with that?
    Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.

    graphs at link

  34. spago says:

    To not be misleading this:

    The second question, the integrity of the data, is different. People say “Yes, they destroyed emails, and hid from Freedom of information Acts, and messed with proxies, and fought to keep other scientists’ papers out of the journals … but that doesn’t affect the data, the data is still good.” Which sounds reasonable.

    is about East Anglia and the CRU not NASA

  35. Alex Knapp says:

    I’m sorry did you take the hour and a half or so to create the program following the steps he provides…or are you simply dismissing it without any sort of relevant argument to back up your statement.

    I’m dismissing it because it doesn’t use any recognized statistical modelling as practiced by climate scientists as published in their papers and so it is not relevant.

    Re: NASA recalculations – it’s all part of science:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/

    Re: Getting back to it – I have a life outside of blog comments. Sometimes I get back to things, sometimes I don’t. Sometimes it’s later. Sometimes I forget. Sometimes by the time I follow-up, the comments thread is closed and I mention it the next time the topic comes up. Sometimes I follow-up privately over email. Sometimes I have a drink and get out of the house.

    Re: Wayne’s link: I can’t find any confirmation for it outside the Vancouver Sun. I don’t know if it’s a legitimate complaint or not. Not enough data.

    William,

    Re: Nuclear Winter – I can’t find any scientist apart from Carl Sagan who said the oil fires would cause similar effects, and he didn’t even publish a paper on it. From what I can gather, there wasn’t enough smoke for the fires to reach the stratosphere, but that would not be the case in a bigger strike. See: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JD008235.shtml

    Additionally, climate change has been researched since the 1880s. It’s not exactly new or faddish.

  36. Alex Knapp says:

    Alex, Chris Horner has filed notice to sue NASA over failure to comply with FOIA requests for three years. That tells me they are hiding something. I doubt raw climate data has national security implications.

    I don’t know why he is. The raw climate data is available on the NASA website. I’ve seen it. I’ve downloaded it. Chris Horner isn’t exactly the world’s most distinguished and ethical person, you know.

    I have to ask if you see any problem with the admission by IPCC officials that some statements in their reports were not based on peer reviewed science but were instead merely speculation being sold as science?

    I think there’s a huge problem with it, but the impact to the overall scientific understanding is minimal. And, I might add, they were caught by climate scientists who couldn’t replicate the data. Not climate skeptics, mind you…

    Hanson’s admission of errors? The survey of weather data collection stations and the failure to maintain proper standards? The failure to model water vapor as a warming driver? The failure to include solar influences? Don’t these questions ever pop up?

    Yes, of course they do. But making mistakes and human error doesn’t mean the underlying laws of physics are flawed. As models get refined and data collection gets better, the data still points towards warming. Making mistakes doesn’t equal being unethical.

    I certainly appreciate the difficulties in modeling weather and climate. But temperature modeling is pretty damned good and old models sync up with current observations pretty well. Plus, there’s no dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

    Additionally, good lord, moving away from fossil fuels towards more reliable forms of energy makes sense anyway…

  37. Alex Knapp says:

    spago:

    Re: Eschenbach’s claims about Darwin One:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php

  38. Alex Knapp says:
  39. spago says:

    I’m dismissing it because it doesn’t use any recognized statistical modelling as practiced by climate scientists as published in their papers and so it is not relevant.

    It is relevant in the sense that you can recreate the hockey stick graph taking a few programming liberties whereby whatever you enter into the data set comes out with the infamous hockey stick graph…are you suggesting that you know how Mann derived the hockey stick graph and in light of all that has come out that it is in fact still relevant?

    and do you mean those peer reviewed papers…

    A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.
    At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC’s assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.

    What went wrong?
    The scandal has serious implications for public trust in science. The IPCC’s mission is to reflect the science, not create it.

    As the panel states, its duty is “assessing the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data.” But as lead author, Briffa was a key contributor in shaping (no pun intended) the assessment. A small group was able to rewrite history.

    When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general, and more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails – as it did here?

    The scandal has only come to light because of the dogged persistence of a Canadian mathematician who attempted to reproduce the results. Steve McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and methodology, and over 7,000 blog posts. Yet Yamal has remained elusive for almost a decade

    more here

    Mark Steyn has more (the quotations are from those leaked emails in emailgate):

    Here’s what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael Mann of Penn State mean by “peer review.” When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann “consensus,” Jones demanded that the journal “rid itself of this troublesome editor,” and Mann advised that “we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers.”

  40. spago says:

    And, for good measure, the CRU data is pretty reliable

    Is it?

  41. Alex Knapp says:

    Spago and Wayne:

    Re: D’Aleo’s criticism:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/unforced-variations-2/

    and

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/temperature-monitoring.html

    Also, spago, I already responded to the Darwin Zero nonsense.

    Also, you’re not going to get me to disagree with the assertion that the IPCC methodology is sometimes less than ideal. But the IPCC is a political document, not a scientific one, which is why you’ll notice I don’t ever cite them.

  42. Alex Knapp says:

    And re: iowahawk – anyone with half a brain, access to Excel and high school math can replicate any curve they feel like. The data and proper statistical technique is what matters.

  43. Wayne says:

    So Alex, are you saying the Model done by NASA is proof NASA was right? The same people that refused to give how except in very general terms of how they got their numbers.

    Maybe I missing a link somewhere but the link to the “raw data” you gave, seem to only give analysis and conclusions usually by Hansen the liar. I hope you understand that taking numbers, adjusting them, manipulating them, combining them then putting them on a graph is not “raw data”.

    If NASA and the IPCC are so open, wouldn’t the lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act being done in U.S. and U.K. be toss out on their ear? Why did someone have to reverse engineer the numbers for 1998 to find the process which amazing enough they change citing human mistake.

    You link to the Himalayan Glaciers try to chalk it up as “IPCC is not infallible”. Are you sticking with that?

    That is about like a Doctor stating “I’m not infallible” after he cut your legs off instead of your tonsils. Incompetence like that is inexcusable.

    2035 instead of 2350 which wasn’t base on any scientific research anyway. Admitting to using sensational lies in order to play politics and get funding. A scientist not correcting gross error of publications of his work by saying “it is not my job to correct people” while receiving increase in funding because of it.

    You make excuses instead of being outrage by that. Where is the intellectual honesty in that?

  44. Alex, if I understand your inference, you claim that Eschenbach has been caught “lying” so everything he says is suspect. So, if Hanson is caught “lying” doesn’t that mean everything he does is suspect?

    As to some of your other arguments, you seem to have adopted the AGW gang’s “Hey buddy, we’ll decide what is science and what isn’t though, uh, peer review, yeah, that’s the ticket” methodology.

    Because of the inability to put forward testable, repeatable experiments for their hypotheses, AGW isn’t so much science as it is social science, where its proponents are after truth rather than fact.

  45. Matt says:

    I’m so sick of the “CO2 = plant food” talking point. Yes plants use Co2 but they also use a proportionate amount of nutrients from the soil. Meaning they can only use as much Co2 as the soil nutrients can support. So unless you’re going to fertilize every plant in existence the extra CO2 won’t do much if anything for them. There are also plenty of studies showing that increased CO2 levels can cause food plants to be less productive and in some cases become toxic due to internal chemical reactions as a result.

  46. Wayne says:

    Re “CO2 levels can cause food plants to be less productive and in some cases become toxic due to internal chemical reactions as a result.”

    Same applies to water. That doesn’t mean we need less fresh water or CO2 in the world.

    http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=402&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

  47. bains says:

    And re: iowahawk – anyone with half a brain, access to Excel and high school math can replicate any curve they feel like. The data and proper statistical technique is what matters.

    Yep, and what proof do you have that Hansen, Mann, and the IPCC are not doing just that? Recent revelations seems to suggest that data manipulation is exactly what they have done…

    and yet, those (contra-scientific,but politically driven) “pier” reviewed studies (Mann et al) are the ones you chose to believe. True science is ill-suited for those with political agendas to accomplish.

    1984 and watermelons spring to mind Alex, and of course, your insistence that Barack Obama was much better suited for the executive office than anyone else…

    I find your analysis overwhelmingly wanting, yet unsurprisingly partisan.

  48. Alex Knapp says:

    Wayne,

    So Alex, are you saying the Model done by NASA is proof NASA was right? The same people that refused to give how except in very general terms of how they got their numbers.

    I linked to NASA’s raw numbers in this comment thread. It appears that using every weather station in Canada would be redundant and costly. It does not appear that D’Aleo and Smith can back up their assertions with evidence.

    If NASA and the IPCC are so open, wouldn’t the lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act being done in U.S. and U.K. be toss out on their ear? Why did someone have to reverse engineer the numbers for 1998 to find the process which amazing enough they change citing human mistake.

    I think that it’s terrible that they took so long to release all the data. But they have, and I linked to it, and the numbers back up their claims so I don’t see what the problem is.

    You link to the Himalayan Glaciers try to chalk it up as “IPCC is not infallible”. Are you sticking with that?

    That is about like a Doctor stating “I’m not infallible” after he cut your legs off instead of your tonsils. Incompetence like that is inexcusable.

    2035 instead of 2350 which wasn’t base on any scientific research anyway. Admitting to using sensational lies in order to play politics and get funding. A scientist not correcting gross error of publications of his work by saying “it is not my job to correct people” while receiving increase in funding because of it.

    You make excuses instead of being outrage by that. Where is the intellectual honesty in that?

    Don’t get me wrong–I think the IPCC was wrong to use that conclusion, and the scientist in question should never work again in the field. I was PISSED OFF when I heard about it. But it doesn’t discredit the entire field.

    Charles,

    Alex, if I understand your inference, you claim that Eschenbach has been caught “lying” so everything he says is suspect. So, if Hanson is caught “lying” doesn’t that mean everything he does is suspect?

    The link I posted is unfortunately titled, but it’s the best, concise explanation for Eschenbach’s misinterpretation of the data. I don’t care of Eschenbach’s work, which I find shoddy, but I do think he’s acting in good faith.

    Because of the inability to put forward testable, repeatable experiments for their hypotheses, AGW isn’t so much science as it is social science, where its proponents are after truth rather than fact.

    That’s nonsense. There’s plenty of hard science based on non-repeatable experiments. Evolution, for example. Plus, computer models of average temperature increases have been successful at predicting future temperatures. What more do you want?

    bains,

    Yep, and what proof do you have that Hansen, Mann, and the IPCC are not doing just that?

    Because I’ve read their methodology and raw data and there’s no reason to suggest otherwise.

    and yet, those (contra-scientific,but politically driven) “pier” reviewed studies (Mann et al) are the ones you chose to believe. True science is ill-suited for those with political agendas to accomplish.

    bains, seriously–do you think I *want* climate change advocates to be right? Because if they are, things are going to be awful around the time my grandkids are born, and frankly, I don’t want that.

    1984 and watermelons spring to mind Alex

    That doesn’t make any sense.

    your insistence that Barack Obama was much better suited for the executive office than anyone else.

    Actually, I preferred Bill Richardson until he dropped out. But was Obama better than Clinton and Edwards? Oh yeah. Was he better than McCain? You better believe it.

    yet unsurprisingly partisan.

    Partisan? Not really. As I’ve said in other fora, Democrats are slightly better than Republicans, but not by much and they’re doing a wretched job of things at the moment.

  49. An Interested Party says:

    re: plantsneedco2.org

    How fascinating…

  50. Wayne says:

    AIP
    Surely you are not suggesting that someone with a financial or other beneficial interest in the field has any bearing on what information and what quality of information they feed you? Or perhaps their presentations need to be scrutinized a little more?

    That is what many of us have been saying about Hansen, IPCC, Gore and many of the Manmade Global warming crowd. The difference is we have caught many of them including Hansen, IPCC, Gore of lying and cheating but many are willing to swallow anything they say anyhow.

  51. Wayne says:

    Alex
    Maybe I haven’t I cruise around those links enough but the little I did ended up with page under construction and no record found.
    I give you an opportunity to link to raw data. Here is their summary for 2009
    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
    Link to me the raw data of stations they use and their calculations and methods from beginning to end. Please don’t give me generalities.

    As I’m sure you are aware, there is no global thermometer to take the world temperature. It is calculated by taking many different local\weather temps. They are process with adjustments, inclusion, and exclusion. “Speculations” are derived from them and then they go through the process again and again. So unless they predicted local\weather temps or enter raw data into a computer model without any adjustment to the raw data or computer model, then they didn’t predict jack.

    Their adjustments and what they decide to include or exclude can greatly affect the outcome. Even Hansen has admitted to the uncertainly of the data collected. For example the methods for taking water temps have change. Hansen states he makes adjustment to past temps.

    End result is even “if” and that is a big “if” Hansen and his minions are honest scientist, they are taking educational guess. They have produce studies of very minor global temperature increase from raw data that is too unreliable to be used for that precise of study even if they were honest.

  52. spago says:

    As Descartes suggests…trust not that which has deceived before.

  53. spago says:

    Actually, I preferred Bill Richardson until he dropped out.

    You mean Governor pay-for-play?

    But was Obama better than Clinton and Edwards? Oh yeah. Was he better than McCain? You better believe it.

    Not sure how you can qualify that the Chicago Executive Officer is any different than Clinton (aside from the glaringly obvious lack of experience with which he is dutifully pointing out every day…but then again she hasn’t exactly done much of anything either…half credit) or better than McCain when it seems that all of the policies The One ridiculed Johnny Maverick for are much the same that he is trying to implement now.

    I’ll give you Edwards though for sure…don’t think the “O” tried to get busy with his campaign photographer(s)…or as they are commonly known as: the MSM. But maybe we could count Mr. Tingly Leg’s (Chris Matthews for those of you keeping score at home) moment of zen…I’ll let you be the judge Alex.

  54. Wayne says:

    As for the claim that the Arctic Ice claims were valid, I don’t think so

    http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/blog/general/178-phelim-mcaleer-a-ann-mcelhinney

  55. spago says:

    …or better than McCain when it seems that all of the policies The One ridiculed Johnny Maverick for are much the same that he is trying to implement now

    .

    I meant “a lot” not “all”…stupid, stupid, stupid spago…stupid

  56. Wayne says:
  57. Dougetit says:

    It depends on your definition of “warmest on record”

    If you cherry pick the two satellite records, then yes, it was the warmest since the 1980‘s.

    If you cherry pick the record using James Hansen’s NASA thermometer record, who selects the “elimination of outliers”, (translation: cherry picks the reporting stations) to which he applies a “homogeneity adjustment”, (translation: manipulates the data to a pre-determined outcome), then yes, it was the warmest on record since the 1880’s.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

    If you cherry pick the record using Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” which fraudulently eliminated the “Medieval Warm Period”, then yes it was the warmest on record in the past 2,000 years.

    If you cherry pick the last 2 billion year Earth record, then, you would really be scientifically wrong. There have been millions of decades warmer than the 2000’s. In fact the record shows that we have been experiencing a virtual “ice box” for the past millions of years.

    http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

    If you cherry pick the two satellite records beginning in January 1998 to December 2009, we are in a 12 year cooling trend.

    http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/dugetit/atom.xml

    If you cherry pick the record for the current century, it could be the coldest or warmest on record.

    It’s just a matter of cherry picking. Right?

    It wouldn’t surprise me if Hansen at NASA’s next proclamation will be that January of 2010 to be the warmest month on record. Considering that he has been squandering billions of taxpayer dollars to espouse his fraudulent theory, he’ll one day be making future revelations from behind bars.

    http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=websterb&date=091124