2008 Global Temperature

[bascule]

We are also in a period of unexpectedly low solar minimums:

 

http://www.phenomenica.com/2009/04/silent-sun.html

[Mokele]

And by that you mean the data that it is getting cooler?

 

So, by your logic, seasons don't exist? It's all just an illusion or groupthink? After all, today was colder than yesterday, even though it's spring here and supposed to be getting warmer! Surely this means that 'summer' is a lie sold to us by the government, who've invested in sunscreen futures!

 

Wow, a complex, planet-wide system doesn't display simple, linear, monotonic behavior!

 

Next you'll tell me that even though the average height of a US male is 5'9.4", not everyone is exactly the same height!

 

OMG, variability exists! We can never know anything! Black is white! Up is down! Dogs are cats!

[JohnB]

We are also in a period of unexpectedly low solar minimums:

Bascule! I'm shocked! Are you impying that the big hot thing in the sky might somehow be connected to climate change?

[waitforufo]

In a previous post I agreed that there was no global warming or climate change conspiracy but suggested that climate change enthusiasts were exhibiting classic symptoms of "groupthink." I provided the following link on groupthink.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

 

This link provides the following symptoms of groupthink.

 

1) Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.

 

2) Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.

 

3) Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

 

4) Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.

 

5) Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".

 

6) Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

 

7) Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.

 

8) Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

 

Well, the opening post mentions that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. I have read other reports that claim the cooling has been occurring since 1998. Either way the data shows that cooling has been occurring for about a decade. This should at least make warming enthusiast take a second look particularly at their predictions of future catastrophe.

 

My post was a rather mild warning.

 

What response did my post illicit? Mostly responses have been rationalizing and stereotyping (see above).

 

In general warming enthusiast support their position based on position of scientific unanimity. They also tend to ignore the consequences of their proposed solutions to the warming "crisis."

 

I have been following the global warming topics in science forums for some time. I seem to recall skeptics pointing out that warming was caused by unusually strong El Niño or from unusually strong solar irradiance. These claims by skeptics were roundly condemned as stupid (see Stereotyping). But now warming enthusiast point to La Niña and a low sun spot cycle (see Rationalizing).

 

So, I repeat my previous statement. Not a conspiracy, but it could be an example of "groupthink."

[Mokele]

Well, the opening post mentions that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. I have read other reports that claim the cooling has been occurring since 1998. Either way the data shows that cooling has been occurring for about a decade. This should at least make warming enthusiast take a second look particularly at their predictions of future catastrophe.

 

Try ignoring crappy spin and looking at the actual facts.

 

What response did my post illicit? Mostly responses have been rationalizing and stereotyping (see above).

 

I'm glad to see you acknowledge that you're an alcoholic.

 

What? You aren't? Well, denial is the first sign of a problem, you know!

 

Same thing here - you're dismissing legitimate, data-based objections to your claims as "rationalizations", thereby constructing a false situation which no data can possible negate.

 

This is sleazy debating at best, and persistent fallacy at worst.

 

In general warming enthusiast support their position based on position of scientific unanimity.

 

Wrong again. The support is the data.

 

They also tend to ignore the consequences of their proposed solutions to the warming "crisis."

 

Wrong. Most are *very* aware of it. Cite a source for your claim, or actively recant it.

 

I have been following the global warming topics in science forums for some time. I seem to recall skeptics pointing out that warming was caused by unusually strong El Niño or from unusually strong solar irradiance. These claims by skeptics were roundly condemned as stupid (see Stereotyping). But now warming enthusiast point to La Niña and a low sun spot cycle (see Rationalizing).

 

They were condemned as inaccurate.

 

 

By your standards, evolution is an example of "groupthink". We state that it's firmly decided, all conflicting data is explained away, disparage creationists, etc.

 

Or relativity

 

Or the theory of the atom

 

Or the germ theory of disease

 

You're using the 'groupthink' accusation because you have no evidence. Cite an actual source (peer-review journal only) or stop wasting our time.

[iNow]

Further, 1998 was one of the warmest years on record, so it's not that we've been "cooling," it's that they are falsely comparing current temps to the hottest one so they can frame it in the way they want. The equivalent would be arguing with your neighbor at 3 in the morning that your stereo is not loud because you're comparing it to a live Metallica concert. It's framing the issue with a lack of integrity, and cherry-picking.

 

Looking over decade scales (which is required) shows a steady increase in global yearly average temperatures.

 

 

If you're still denying climate change at this point in time (2009), you're an idiot and you're wrong.

[bascule]

Well, the opening post mentions that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. I have read other reports that claim the cooling has been occurring since 1998. Either way the data shows that cooling has been occurring for about a decade.

 

2005 represented the highest we've ever seen the global mean surface temperature. The cooling has been occurring for the past few years. The causes behind this cooling trend (La Nina and a drop in the solar forcing) are understood by scientists.

 

You are attempting to draw conclusions from the extreme ends of the data set, which is not methodologically sound. You have no way to tell if what you are seeing is a trend or if it's just noise that would otherwise be swallowed up in the mulit-decadal average.

[swansont]

So, I repeat my previous statement. Not a conspiracy, but it could be an example of "groupthink."

 

In the absence of support for the "groupthink" claim (i.e. examples of rationalizing, ignore the consequences of their actions, etc.), this is simply an ad hominem/appeal to motive fallacy

[scalbers]

It's interesting to note that the 5-year mean is starting to dip now. However it had dipped also in the early 1980s and early 1990s, only to resume the upward trend shortly thereafter. The earlier dips were due more to volcanic eruptions. Perhaps the La Nina / Pacific Decadal Oscillation effect is contributing this time?

 

It's true all that radiative forcing from CO2 should warm the air up eventually, now the energy is being diverted into the oceans - and they will be holding this energy for a long time.

[swansont]

The 5-year mean will oscillate because of solar output variation on the sunspot cycle (and possibly other reasons). Decadal oscillations are much smaller because of the ~11 year period of sunspot activity. Once you start averaging over sunspot cycles, though, you see that the average solar output does not account for the warming.

 

edit: that should be "fluctuations in the average solar output"

Edited April 7, 2009 by swansont

[waitforufo]

After the noticeable cooling at that end of 2007, I posted the following.

 

Global cooling. One year in a row and counting.

 

Come on people, can't you at least be happy that our ultimate doom is one year further in the future?

 

I have said my piece for now. I will check back in a year to see if we can make it three.

[bascule]

After the noticeable cooling at that end of 2007, I posted the following.

 

I have said my piece for now. I will check back in a year to see if we can make it three.

 

Yeah, please keep in mind where we are in the solar cycle:

 

[Mokele]

I have said my piece for now. I will check back in a year to see if we can make it three.

 

2007 was warmer than 2006.

 

I love the brave way you simply tuck your tail between your legs and scurry away in the face of evidence that contradicts your claims.

 

Don't have the intellectual honesty to admit you're wrong? Then what are you even doing on Scienceforums?

[iNow]

Yep... Sure looks like cooling to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2009GL037810-pip.pdf

Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the natural variability of the real climate system can and likely will produce multi-year periods of sustained “cooling” or at least periods with no real trend even in the presence of longterm anthropogenic forced warming. Claims that global warming is not occurring that are derived from a cooling observed over such short time periods ignore this natural variability and are misleading.

[scalbers]

The 5-year mean will oscillate because of solar output variation on the sunspot cycle (and possibly other reasons). Decadal oscillations are much smaller because of the ~11 year period of sunspot activity. Once you start averaging over sunspot cycles, though, you see that the average solar output does not account for the warming.

 

edit: that should be "fluctuations in the average solar output"

 

An extended La Nina can also influence the 5-year mean as is happening now. I saw Jim Hansen give a talk this week in Boulder and he showed an updated version of this graph to help make that case for the current "cooling":

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E.lrg.gif

[antimatter]

Not according to the multi-decadal average.

 

Can't you use the 'cycles' argument against that? When I tell my physics teacher this, he says that it's all just cycles of temperature and that this happens all the time, it warms and then cools.

[Mokele]

Actually, the averages eliminate oscilations, not enhance them. Think of it like seasons of the year - temperature oscilates, but if you average over the entire year, you can eliminate those oscillations and meaningfully compare the temperature of one year to another.

[antimatter]

Actually, the averages eliminate oscilations, not enhance them. Think of it like seasons of the year - temperature oscilates, but if you average over the entire year, you can eliminate those oscillations and meaningfully compare the temperature of one year to another.

 

Ah I see, so in those averages there is an increase in temperature?

[Mokele]

Yep, see here.

[JohnB]

antimatter. Nobody here (or anywhere else AFAIK) is actually arguing that the world hasn't warmed in the last century or so.

 

If you don't mind a simple anecdote for that. In the late 1800s the Thames River froze to the extent that people could iceskate on it in winter. It no longer freezes. Ergo, it's warmer now than it was then.

 

The difference between the two opposing sides is simply whether CO2 is the "Big Bad" or not.

 

There are many things that "force" the climate system. There are also many "feedback" systems involved. To further muddy the waters, it would seem that some things sometimes act as a "forcing" and other times act as a "feedback" depending on the situation.

 

If you do a search of this forum and some of the others here you will find any number of threads on the topic. As a starting point, read them and make sure you follow any links provided. The only way understand a debate is to understand the arguments involved.

 

Always be aware of sources and especially scales when looking at graphs.

 

The one Mokele linked to is based on GissTemp and looks quite dramatic, but the effect is not so great when you compare it to this one. Both are from the GissTemp data, but time periods and scales are different, hence they look very different.

 

Also be aware that different groups of researchers use different "baselines". Temps are reported as "anomalies" in the form of +.17 or -.05 compared to the baseline average. Looking again at the graph Mokele linked to, you will see that you get a different average if you use the period 1880-2000 than if you use the period 1940-2000.

 

Using either of these is a valid choice, but if you are going to compare one set of data to another, you need to ensure they are using the same baseline as well. (Or can be converted to the same baseline.)

 

Junkscience has a rather good page where they have plotted the data from all the major feeds.

 

Have a good read and don't be afraid to ask questions.

[bascule]

The one Mokele linked to is based on GissTemp and looks quite dramatic, but the effect is not so great when you compare it to this one. Both are from the GissTemp data, but time periods and scales are different, hence they look very different.

 

Yes, the effect does not appear particularly dramatic with the scales set the way the junk science graph did, and with a 5 year average omitted the data is more difficult to interpret due to the levels of noise.

 

When placed in the context of a longer time period the effect is much more dramatic:

 

 

[JohnB]

Thank you for proving my point Bascule. Undramatic changes can be made to look very dramatic simply by squashing one axis and stretching the other. By the same token the opposite effect can be acheived by squashing the vertical axis and stretching the timeline.

 

Both graphs, yours and Junksciences are correct as they are based on the data, however people looking at graphs should be aware that may be an "intent" behind the representation beyond "reporting the facts".

 

You'll notice that my comments in the previous post were general and applied to both sides of the debate. Do you have a problem with people being advised to look beyond rhetoric and dramatic advertising?

[bascule]

You'll notice that my comments in the previous post were general and applied to both sides of the debate. Do you have a problem with people being advised to look beyond rhetoric and dramatic advertising?

 

No, my problem is the junk science graph is deceptively cropped/scaled, and omitting a multi-year average from the graph is just sleazy. There's so much noise in the graphs, especially at that scale, that it makes it difficult to see the trend without a trend line or multi-year average. But then again his background isn't in atmospheric science, even though that's all he blogs about, so it isn't too surprising. It looks like he's gotten a lot of awards for his blog, great! But he's still a non-scientist and it certainly shows in how he presents the data. I think these are the sorts of comments about data presentation which would normally come about through the peer review process, but when you're a nonscientist blogging about a scientific topic that sort of thing doesn't tend to happen.

 

Scale doesn't matter with the "hockey stick" graph unless you try to compress it down until the data is unreadable. No matter what the scale, it's still easy to see that the most recent century demonstrates a marked change over the temperature record for the past 1000 years.