Patterico's Pontifications

3/2/2008

From the “Upsetting My Readers” File: How to Analyze Global Warming

Filed under: Environment,General — Patterico @ 12:30 pm



Global temperatures have dropped precipitiously in the past year, and global-warming skeptics have cited this data as evidence that global warming is a myth.

Regardless of what you think of global warming and its causes, that makes about as much sense as saying that this stock is going down in value because of the downward trend indicated by the oval in the center-right portion of this chart:

stock-chart.jpg

I tend to go with the analysis of this fellow, quoted in a New York Times article spotted by Allahpundit:

“When I get called by CNN to comment on a big summer storm or a drought or something, I give the same answer I give a guy who asks about a blizzard,” Dr. Schmidt said. “It’s all in the long-term trends. Weather isn’t going to go away because of climate change. There is this desire to explain everything that we see in terms of something you think you understand, whether that’s the next ice age coming or global warming.”

That makes a lot more sense than saying: “Sure is cold out today . . . take that, you global warming idiots!”

[Ducks]

69 Responses to “From the “Upsetting My Readers” File: How to Analyze Global Warming”

  1. Regardless of what you think of global warming and its causes, that makes about as much sense as saying that this stock is going down in value because of the downward trend indicated by the oval in the center-right portion of this chart:

    A fairer comparision would be if you tried to make a chart showing what the stock price would be in 2107 based on the historical and current data. Considering how hard it is to predict weather for just the next 10 days its very foolhardy for anyone to buy into global climate change and adopt economically ruinious policies based on models where guesses are made which the scientists know will provide the doomsday scenarios they desire.

    chas (fb7ad4)

  2. Your statement is valid, in that you should not extrapolate a subset of data representing the output of multiple complex interacting systems, with more variables and inputs than possible to accurately model and use as a forecast beyond a very short period of time.

    However, that data can be used to support or refute a model/theory’s predicted values. The current temp trends moderately support the sun driven theory, while they definitely do not support the man-made CO2 theory.

    Considering temps have only gone up an average of a half degree the last 100 years, and in a very random up-down pattern over that time period, extrapolating trends off of that short time period is just as bad as extrapolating off of shorter time periods.

    xray (8cfb7a)

  3. Patterico, each instance of a warm year is cited by global warming advocates as proof of the anthrogenic global warming hypothesis but pointing to a colder year is an invalid argument?

    Frankly, the real issue is the poor quality of the scientific work that supposedly establishes that recent warming has actually happened ( see last year’s revelations of fundamental flaws in the GISS record produced by NASA, for whom Schmidt is a spokesman ) and that such warming is unprecedented over that last millenia or so.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  4. The way I see it, you can’t trust Al Gore any more than any other politician. He promised me global warming. I was looking forward to global warming. Heck, I was looking forward to putting that 8hp Brigss & Stratton from my snowblower on a go-cart. What did get? Six feet of snow, the ground frozen below any previous frostline, the whole village an ice-skating rink, a 400% increase in the price of road salt, a 50% increase in my gas bill, and a return of my sciatica. The only bright side: Replacing five pounds of fat with five pounds of muscle from shoveling.

    Damn all politicians. They’ll promise you anything and tell you “screw you” when it’s time to deliver.

    nk (7b0075)

  5. LOL. Patterico surprises me again with a reasonable view on an issue 😉

    I take the environmental friendly courses of actions because they save me money. Our next house will be as much solar energy as I can have put in it. I’ll use the money I save to build up our little garden so I can cheaply offset the looming 50 dollar head of lettuce crisis.

    voiceofreason2 (665388)

  6. That makes a lot more sense than saying: “Sure is cold out today . . . take that, you global warming idiots!”

    I try to say that only to idiots who have said “Sure is hot today…. must be global warming” in the past.

    They’re both equally valid (which is to say – not at all), but someone who can argue one side of that dichotomy should be able to defend the other side as well.

    Marshall (19f225)

  7. if our fusion heater doesn’t start acting up a bit more, this cooling may become more than a one winter trend.
    It hasn’t been acting flighty at all lately, and that is a good thing in some ways (doesn’t zap the communications as much), and bad in other ways (if it goes Mauder on us we’s in tribble), but long term, has way way more influence on us than what Gore and his cultists would have one think. I’ve never denied that warming was occuring, but that it was:
    A: Not Man Made.
    or
    B: We could prevent it even if it wasn’t Anthro.
    and
    C: Not nearly as bad as claimed.
    How the hell do they determine the “Optimum average temperature” of the Globe? Is it by the same poor math they used before?

    As the Ice caps reform(Antarctica’s was record in size. The North’s is back to size of the 70’s. . . when we were gonna all die from the coming ice age) and record lows hit, I enjoy the Warming purists who claim it is BECAUSE of Antro-global warming the temps are so low for a change. Like any religion, they cling to their dogma.
    If the sun doesn’t got active again this summer, we may have some higher than normal temps…none of this stuff happens over night, but those who made all that money in the 70’s claiming IceAGE!!! can gloat all that they want, I’ll ignore them and pay attention to what the Solar system as a whole is doing.
    BTW, I know a person in South Africa who has been complaining about the temps this summer down there. . . too cold too many times.

    JP (e05949)

  8. Ok, seriously, the evidence that it’s “anthropogenic”? That’s “human-caused” in English. (BTW: When somebody tells you something in Greek that he could have said better in English, turn on your BS alarm.)

    nk (7b0075)

  9. Let me admit to being prejudiced. When I first looked at the now generally discredited “hockey stick” which eliminated entirely the Medieval Warm Period I realized I was being lied to by Mann et al. My degree is in a sub-field of archeology which made me very familiar with it. Now the evidence is building that GISS ground-based temperature collection data is seriously faulty and recording primarily urban heat island effects. Both of these give me good reasons to reject Gore and Hansen’s economic Kool-Aid.

    John Costello (ec4990)

  10. Heh! “Anthropogenic” could also mean “human-madeup”.

    nk (7b0075)

  11. It’s not about upsetting readers, it’s about joining in on the abusive side of a stupid political debate.

    The “12-month” news kerfluffle is just snark, the only rational way to look at it is a data point – a data point that supports the already growing contention that out-of-control-warming simply is not happening, and weakening the AGW hypothesis by strengthening the “gee what about that giant ball of fusion” hypothesis.

    But nobody cares about the data, it’s all about ideology.

    The subject has become like Gun policy, where everyone has their own facts, and nobody cares.

    Doesn’t really give me much hope for the future of humanity when large numbers of people passionately push for destructive crap laws based on grotesquely bogus arguments, but I guess I should just observe that it’s always been the case.

    Out of curiousity, since 12 months can be overlooked, how about 18 months? 24 months? 72? What’s the cut-off before climate data can be included in the average? What’s the date when we’re “allowed” to talk about the change in the trend? I’ll put it on my calendar.

    Merovign (4744a2)

  12. The drop in the last year, assuming they don’t later revise this assessment, wiped out the whole century of recorded temperature increases. That doesn’t mean the trend of rising temperature can’t resume, but it doesn’t really match that subtle little reversal in the long term trend shown in the chart.

    Gerald A (b9214e)

  13. Our next house will be as much solar energy as I can have put in it. I’ll use the money I save to build up our little garden so I can cheaply offset the looming 50 dollar head of lettuce crisis.

    Comment by voiceofreason2 — 3/2/2008 @ 1:16 pm

    Unless you live in California where the government subsidies solar energy there are much better ways to obtain energy efficiency.
    I realize you are being partly sarcastic, but if you are considering building there are other more cost effect and efficient ways to get there.

    cstmbuild (7d7bf0)

  14. I would also take into account the quality of the data that is being provided. At best it looks shaky, the temperature records are not what I would call actionable quality. The station keeping appears dubious and station location by the book seems non-existent.

    Since the whole of the AGW theory is based on computer models, which I doubt predict anything except what the keepers of the models want it to predict.

    I say lets look at the past and see how well the models did. The problem with that is the models failed miserably to predict anything, including the sun switching off it’s sunspot generating magnetic field. Why didn’t the models take that into account.

    If you are really interested, why is there no AGW signal in the current satellite data. Many have looked, none have found.

    If you ask me, AGW is the perfect candidate for the “open science stage”. Why not? Do you think the UN is an honest broker here?

    It’s all a hoax. bet on the sun if you are a betting man.

    bill-tb (26027c)

  15. When this debate started, I wasn’t sure what to believe. I listened to both sides of the argument and still wasn’t sure. Then I heard about solar output and melting ice caps on other planets….. so I did a Google search for “Graph of Earth Temperatures”, downloaded the graph and saved it as a jpeg. Next, I repeated the search but this time for “Graph of Solar Output”, once again downloading and saving the graph as a jpeg. Then it became a simple matter of opening both graphs and comparing the data by timeline. With the exception of one spike in solar activity (which I took to be a rather significant flare that Earth’s temperature did NOT follow), the Earth’s temperature pretty well followed solar activity. That’s when I considered the science settled. Who should I believe? Al Gore or my lying eyes?

    Google-Fu (d9cf92)

  16. cstmbuild,
    Yes partly sarcastic. However, in Louisiana the incentives are pretty good for going solar. In addition to that the power grid here is not that great and we suffer outages on a somewhat frequent basis (older equipment is my guess, not too much strain on the grid).
    If it weren’t for the incentives I probably wouldn’t consider it as seriously as I am.

    voiceofreason2 (665388)

  17. The decision tree goes like this:

    Is there global warming?
    Maybe.

    Has it happened before?
    Yes.

    Is man causing it?
    Probably not.

    Will it be catastrophic?
    Probably not.

    Would any of the actions being proposed by the hysterics have any effect on global warming?
    No.

    Would these measures damage our economy?
    Most definitely.

    The end.

    Gary (a1c8cb)

  18. Global temperatures have dropped precipitiously in the past year, and global-warming skeptics have cited this data as evidence that global warming is a myth.

    Regardless of what you think of global warming and its causes, that makes about as much sense as saying that this stock is going down in value because of the downward trend indicated by the oval in the center-right portion of this chart:

    Your analogy is hopelessly flawed.
    The temperature graph would show a dip at the far right, therefore exactly sybolizing what has been said, that in fact temperatures are dropping. Your graph’s dip is no where near the far right, representing the most recent trend. As a result it would truly be folly to say that the stock’s price is dropping. That is not the case with a temperature graph of the same sort.
    No, that doesn’t disprove the global warming theory, but it does support the statements of global warming naysayers that in fact temperatures in the short term have dropped. The following linked web-site however contains mountains of evidence that contradicts global warming alarmists.

    http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

    Of course the alarmists have no need to review the facts. Their decision has been made and now, according to them, is the time to act. Nevermind taking time to examine the real global temperature fluctuations that have occured in the past. Nevermind that industrialization and greenhouse gas emissions weren’t an issue when those fluctuations occured.
    We seem to be so full of ourselves that we’re unwilling to admit that man does not control the temperature of the globe. Admitting the insignificance of man is tough for some men.

    James (ee9e19)

  19. voiceofreason2, you ought to look at Insulated Concrete Forms (ICFs) as as a complement to solar power. I sell one brand in Oklahoma called PolySteel. But there are numerous benefits besides energy efficiency for using ICF construction.

    cstmbuild (7d7bf0)

  20. cstmbuild,

    Thanks for the tip. I’ll definitely keep that in mind when we start drawing up the plans.

    voiceofreason2 (772e1a)

  21. Nearly everyone with an opinion on this issue hasn’t the scientific background sufficient to have an informed opinion. This goes for Al Gore, too.

    There are no short-term events that have anything to do with the issue. No storms, hurricanes or droughts are important in themselves. Anyone who argues that they do is to be ignored for the balance of the discussion. This includes Al Gore.

    HOWEVER, what is of interest is 1) global CO2 levels, which are substantially higher than they have been in millions of years; 2) the degree that man’s activities affect CO2 levels; 3) the degree that CO2 levels affect average planetary temperatures; and 4) whether warming is a problem.

    Only the last case doesn’t require substantial technical expertise to evaluate. The other 3 are still subject to some debate, but it does seem like triple the average CO2 of the last 100 million years is probably not a wise thing to be doing, as it affects temperatures, and this CO2 is affected by burning stuff.

    But, carry on.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  22. Mr. Murphy, as I understand it, points 2 and 3 are uncertain. In my view, point 4 is an ideological point more than a scientifice point–to wit:

    the “Global Warming” folks seem to think that first, there is some optimal climate in terms of temperatures, etc., that earth was recently at that point and that the climate is deteriorating from that point. They leave unasked such questions as whether the earth, and mankind with it, may be better off with a warmer climate, or with a cooler climate; they merely substitute predictions of catastrophe, and they ignore the fact that in historical times the earth has been both much cooler and much warmer than it is now. The earth may simply be shifting away from the cooler temperatures that marked the 14th to 18th centuries and back to the warmer temperatures that predominated in the early Middle Ages and human activity may have nothing to do with it. Or it may. There’s not really anywhere near the amount of scientific knowledge to decide the question.

    kishnevi (86d77f)

  23. Nearly everyone with an opinion on this issue hasn’t the scientific background sufficient to have an informed opinion.

    Anyone who puts effort into studying and researching a topic can have an informed opinion, methinks you were refering to an expert opinion.

    Taltos (4dc0e8)

  24. Patterico, are you serious in your attempt at a comparison? You don’t see any flaw in the logic of your comparison at all? That makes perfect sense to you?

    Really, really?

    Lets look at it objectively:

    To begin comparing the climate to a single stock is laughable. Had you done a comparison to the markets in general you might have a comparable number of data inputs modern climate models have, including multiple forcing.

    Human activity and future reaction are actually not included in the climate models, after all the climate equivalent of Einstein may be in high school today. If it were then it would bring up an interesting question; If these computer scientists were so confident of their climate models (which as mentioned above don’t actually conform to actual facts, such as the question of why all of the climate models show a greater increase in atmospheric temperatures then surface temperatures — however this is the opposite of what is actually happening on all recorded examples) why aren’t they using these models to predict the markets? After all they both have forcings, but that human factor is impossible to model today. Despite repeated attempts to do so it has never been done successfully. You may call it a flawed comparison, but you started it.

    Oh, we should note here that none of the climate models predicted the dramatic drop in temperatures that occurred last year. NOT ONE. That is why it was such a dramatic event. If your stock dropped and the fundamentals were solid and there were no reason for the drop, if you were objective you would question your investment!

    Even if your just discussing the way a chart looks it should be an accurate comparison (as already pointed out above). Your chart in no way shape or form reflects the temperature history, either over the last 1000 years or in the short 100 year history, where nearly all of the increase was erased in 20007, something your chart did not include. It is also very deceptive to include the rapid future growth (from the time of the oval), which doesn’t reflect even Al Gore’s most hyperventilating extremes.

    At no point in the circled area of your chart does it appear to increase nearly a dollar then drop the same amount, erasing nearly all gains.

    If you were actually being objective and today were April 10 or even May 10 on your chart, you would be VERY accurate in,

    saying that this stock is going down in value because of the downward trend

    as you put it. That is just a FACT, it went down.

    Your chart doesn’t include any flawed temperature sensors, (69% or those studied showed greater the 2C bias) as documented here:
    http://www.surfacestations.org/

    Perhaps you could throw in Enron or another company with major problems with their record keeping.

    In addition your chart doesn’t take into account the very real drop in sun spots over the part year.

    Find a company with a large drop in sales and you might have a comparison to the drop in the sun’s input.

    I would suggest that if you wanted to be objective on the subject you read and follow the work of Anthony Watts (http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/).

    I have no dog in this hunt, I would love a cleaner environment, but the science is far from being, “settled,” as the inputs and results are not accurate or verifiable. As such your comparison of this stock chart with it’s factual verifiable inputs to the climate is laughable and damages your credibility on the topic.

    That is something I have never noticed in your analysis of a topic and I will keep in mind when you discuss climate in the future.
    DKK

    LifeTrek (c76ad1)

  25. but it does seem like triple the average CO2 of the last 100 million years is probably not a wise thing to be doing, as it affects temperatures, and this CO2 is affected by burning stuff.

    But, carry on

    As long as you have gasbags like Limbaugh bragging about his SUVs, constant sixty degree temps in his mansions, and the like the loyal right wing devotees they are will deny any and all harm to the environment.
    “Rush said, therefore it is gospel and I will obey…good stewardship and responsibility is optional”

    voiceofreason2 (772e1a)

  26. For charts with the axis lengths needed to be meaningful, we don’t have enough data that’s sensitive enough. Even in the U.S., which is only a tiny fraction of the world’s land surface, which is only a fraction of the earth’s surface, we only have any data going back for a few decades. And even most of that is not accurate within the fraction of a single degree centigrade that this debate requires.

    Your point is not only well made, but when properly extended, fatal to the arguments of the global warming fanatics.

    By all means, let’s conserve energy and reduce our dependence on foreign sources of it. There are good reasons to do that without regard to its theoretical effect on long-term climate changes.

    But turn our economy upside down over it? Ridiculous.

    Beldar (098090)

  27. VOR, and you have Al Gore telling us how horrible global warming is, but maintains his mansion, flogs dubious schemes for faux “offsets” as a business and flys private jets to conferences in posh tropical resorts.

    So much for the strawmen.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  28. SPQR,
    Like I said the devotees deny all reason and responsibility. Gore wants one extreme and Rush demands the other… no matter how many times you scream out “STRAWMEN!” it doesn’t change the fact that you have chosen an extremist position not a responsible one.

    voiceofreason2 (6a968b)

  29. As long as you have gasbags like Limbaugh bragging about his SUVs, constant sixty degree temps in his mansions, and the like the loyal right wing devotees they are will deny any and all harm to the environment.

    VOR, why single out Rush? Why ignore the leftist Hollywood and music narcissistic millionaires and their limosines, mansions and private jets?

    When such as they–in many cases among the ones making the most noise about GW–start acting like it is happening is when I’ll seriously begin to consider it.

    Paul (d4926e)

  30. voiceofreason, I see that labels are more important to you than substance.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  31. Paul,
    You know. I could give a *&*& about the Hollywood crowd. I know this might be a news flash but I’m a very big proponent of personal responsibility. I can remember when smog was a real problem in the US. What happened? The Feds tightened up on the rules about emissions and our city air has gotten appreciably cleaner.

    I single out Rush because he has influence over the so-called conservative base — you know those people who puff out their chest when talking about their independent streak and personal accountability? What does he do with this influence? He encourages people to bury their head in the sand and completely discount environmental stewardship.

    As for your moaning about millionaires, they certainly are not all liberal democrats are they?

    When such as they–in many cases among the ones making the most noise about GW–start acting like it is happening is when I’ll seriously begin to consider it.

    Sounds remarkably like a big government liberal wanting “someone to do something”. How about encouraging responsible behavior starting with yourself and extending it to the people you have influence over? Why is it such a sin to expect this of Rush?
    Self-policing ourselves has many benefits, least of which is less federal involvement in our affairs. Reduced dependency on foreign oil and less landfill utilization are a couple of other bennies that matter.

    voiceofreason2 (6a968b)

  32. So, VOR, the “don’t wreck the economy over dubious data” is an “extreme” position.

    Obviously this kind of “wait and see” extremism is a grave threat.

    I guess I’d call this a “false spectrum fallacy” – one of your ends is in the middle.

    Why am I talking to this telephone pole? Bad habit, bad habit.

    Merovign (4744a2)

  33. So, VOR, the “don’t wreck the economy over dubious data” is an “extreme” position.

    Where did I take the position that “Gore is Right?”

    Going to the other extreme almost guarantees federal oversight and involvement. Hope you are happy with how that turns out.
    In other words if citizens are incapable of exercising some level of personal responsibility in regards to the environment we deserve any overbearing, insensible federal oversight we get.

    Thanks Rush for making it all so clear.

    voiceofreason2 (6a968b)

  34. Addendum: Just an additional clarification to my earlier point, no where on your comparison chart does it show 100 years in slow growth followed by the drop of nearly all of that growth in one year.

    If it had, my bet is that you would say it had dropped! Really!
    DKK

    LifeTrek (c76ad1)

  35. LifeTrek,

    As is so often true in life, you would benefit from reading what I actually wrote rather than responding to your fantasy interpretation of what I wrote.

    Patterico (c87059)

  36. The Feds tightened up on

    the rules about emissions and our city air has gotten appreciably cleaner.

    Based on real science, not a *consensus*.

    I single out Rush because he has influence over the so-called conservative base — you know those people who puff out their chest when talking about their independent streak and personal accountability? What does he do with this influence? He encourages people to bury their head in the sand and completely discount environmental stewardship.

    Got some links to actual quotes? Or are you projecting yet again, based on what his OPPONENTS say what he said?

    As for your moaning about millionaires, they certainly are not all liberal democrats are they?

    Next time read what I write carefully

    Why ignore the leftist Hollywood and music narcissistic millionaires and their limosines, mansions and private jets?

    and comprehend.

    I wrote about a specific group that are the most vocal about global warming, yet they are making no adjustment to their lives. That’s what is usually referred to as hypocrisy.
    Apparently, that’s lost on you:

    You know. I could give a *&*& about the Hollywood crowd.

    Since you are such a big proponent of personal responsibility, maybe you should start to give a *&*& about the Hollywood crowd, since they are among the biggest offenders of paasing off responsibility to others.

    Sounds remarkably like a big government liberal wanting “someone to do something”.

    Another reason you should consider giving a *&*& about the Hollywood crowd, since you’d fit right in filmmaking industry with your projection skills.

    How about encouraging responsible behavior starting with yourself and extending it to the people you have influence over?

    You know nothing of me, except what I write here. I’d suggest you stop assuming you do and stick what’s actually written, not what you think is behind it.

    Why is it such a sin to expect this of Rush?

    Here’s my previous comment in its entirety:

    VOR, why single out Rush? Why ignore the leftist Hollywood and music narcissistic millionaires and their limosines, mansions and private jets?

    When such as they–in many cases among the ones making the most noise about GW–start acting like it is happening is when I’ll seriously begin to consider it.

    Show me where I made any such claim.

    My opening question is why you left out the ones who scream the most about reining in carbon emmissions that are among the biggest carbon offenders, and hammer on someone who doesn’t agree that it is happening.

    Self-policing ourselves has many benefits, least of which is less federal involvement in our affairs.

    Agreed. Which is why you should give a *&*& about the Hollywood crowd, since they obviously don’t practice what they preach.

    Reduced dependency on foreign oil and less landfill utilization are a couple of other bennies that matter.

    Both of those were on the table during the current administration. Dems blocked them. Take it up with them.

    Paul (d4926e)

  37. How is this for a more accurate comparison.

    LifeTrek (c76ad1)

  38. Image didn’t show, sorry. Do a stock chart for IBM 1962 to 1975.

    Patterico, I reread what you said, and my comments are still valid. You state you agree that long term trends are important then compare a short term chart to a long term event, but your chart doesn’t even accurately reflect what actually happened. Your comparison is flawed.
    DKK

    LifeTrek (c76ad1)

  39. In addition as I said the info input in climate is not necessarily accurate ……… the sun, the failure of models, my comment is on point here.
    DKK

    LifeTrek (c76ad1)

  40. VOR2,

    I’m sure you remember the 1960s and 1970s, when people like Paul Ehrlich were convinced that millions of people were going to starve to death by the year 2000 because there would not be enough food to feed them all. They urged us to procreate less and consume less to preserve the human species. Despite these dire warnings, the world’s population continued to grow but forecasts of worldwide starvation didn’t happen, and it wasn’t because people collectively procreated less or consumed less. Instead, entrepreneurs developed more productive means of growing, preserving, and distributing food.

    I agree conservation is a reasonable thing to do, and not just because of global warming or other environmental concerns. I try to use things carefully so they won’t break or fix them when they do, because conservation helps us more efficiently use resources. Nevertheless, my gut tells me whatever problems the world faces are more likely to be solved by entrepreneurs than conservationists.

    DRJ (d8934e)

  41. The topic overall does however reinforce this forgotten point made in a oft quoted speech:

    (W)e must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    The second specific warning in same Eisenhower speech the left uses to expose the evil of the military-industrial complex. Wonder how many have actually read the whole thing.
    DKK

    LifeTrek (c76ad1)

  42. Patterico, perhaps you didn’t read my entire comment? Including where I said

    even if your just discussing the way a chart looks it should be an accurate comparison

    In other words, as I said earlier today were April 10 or even May 10 on your chart, you would be VERY accurate in, “saying that this stock is going down in value because of the downward trend.”
    DKK

    LifeTrek (c76ad1)

  43. As the poet said:

    Answer me
    These questions two:

    1) Is my post wrong?
    2) If yes, why?

    Patterico (089f2c)

  44. You can’t have a record cold year during a runaway tipping point global warming armageddon holocaust era and still claim we’re living in a runaway tipping point global warming armageddon holocaust era.

    Yes, their science is just that flaky that it can be so easily shown to be invalid.

    j curtis (c84b9e)

  45. And, another thing….
    There has been some remarkable data developed from tree-rings and ice-cores that seem to show that enhanced levels of co2 in the atmosphere is not the cause of past warmings, but is the result of past warmings.
    So, what gives???
    Is now the time to plan large agri-business investments in Greenland?
    Or, ski resorts in Florida?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  46. Your chart is not analogous to the information provided in article you linked to.
    DKK

    LifeTrek (c76ad1)

  47. Global warming is a big fat lie being used by the eco-freaks to control our lives we dont need the greens idiotic ideas

    krazy kagu (8d6a8f)

  48. Nevertheless, my gut tells me whatever problems the world faces are more likely to be solved by entrepreneurs than conservationists.

    How about entrepreneurial conservationists?

    Andrew J. Lazarus (9e3978)

  49. All the better. But I still don’t think conservationists (even creative ones) will solve the world’s energy and environmental problems.

    DRJ (d8934e)

  50. 100 years or more from now (when there are no polar bears left in the wild), historians will look back at this period for answers on why the great changes weren’t prevented, and people will write ph.d. theses blaming economic greed, denial and mere stupidity. someone will quote this comment as an example of awareness immediately before they acknowledge its futility. futuristas, i did the best i could, but just look at these mothers!

    assistant devil's advocate (bfff0a)

  51. ADA – If things get as bad as you suggest, there won’t be any Ph.Ds because we won’t have the luxury of graduate schools.

    DRJ (d8934e)

  52. historians will look back at this period for answers on why the great changes weren’t prevented

    Can you prove beyond a doubt that such “great changes” are happening?

    Paul (d4926e)

  53. When my daughter was around three, she loved to play in the snow. One night, we had a light snowfall but the next morning it was warm and sunny. The snow was melting. My daughter started crying and begged me, “Daddy, turn off the sun. Please turn off the sun.”

    nk (7b0075)

  54. That’s about the level of the debate these days, nk.

    Merovign (4744a2)

  55. http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/03/02/climate-change-or-just-a-stretch-of-bad-weather/

    Rick Moran is a pretty good writer. He captures it much better than I can.

    voiceofreason2 (5f38e3)

  56. Nevertheless, my gut tells me whatever problems the world faces are more likely to be solved by entrepreneurs than conservationists.

    DRJ,
    That could be true but entrepeneurs fill the needs that the market reflects. I think Solar power is a good example of how that has worked in the last 30 years or so. The more that people conserve the more a demand for easier and more efficient ways to conserve arise.

    voiceofreason2 (5f38e3)

  57. Enough with the Global Warming crapola. What I want to know is….

    Where the heck can I find another stock like that wich is currently priced in that oval???

    THAT’s worth talkin’ about!

    Robert C. J. Parry (50a453)

  58. I don’t think your analogy holds.

    Your example takes a chunk from the middle of the chart. The cooling data does not. The cooling happened at the end of the graph, not in the middle. If we had a pronounced cooling episode, after which the temperatures continued to rise as they had before, I believe you’d be right. That’s not what we see, though. If you wanted an accurate comparison, you’d show a stock that had been rising, but suddenly dropped a significant amount. In that case, yes, indeed, you’d say the stock price was falling.

    Let’s compare that temperature chart to a stock for another moment. If you owned a stock and found that in the last year, its price had fallen to below what the price was ten years ago, I’m fairly sure you’d consider it a bad investment. Most folks, I dare say, would drop it like a hot potato and I think they’d be right to do it. Remember that this cooling period from 2007 wasn’t just a little one. As the original article says, it completely erased the gains from the past decade. That is significant and shouldn’t be discounted.

    Jimmie (94f947)

  59. ADA,
    Your worries about the poor Polar Bears is quite misplaced. In 1960 or so, You know, before it got really warm, there were maybe 5000 polar bears left on the planet. Today there are many times that. They are a nusance in some places, A few places in Norway, one can not leave the house without a gun to protect ones self.
    Where they have dissapeared, it seems it is due to them having been overpopulated, and wiping out the local seal population. The bears can smell a female in heat over 90 miles away, and will swim nearly that far trying to find her. So with the fact that these animals are totally nomadic and have left (not died off like implied, the numbers are growing still) those areas with little food due to their over hunting, they are causing problems for the areas they have moved too.

    As for Patterico’s analysis, he is comparing apples to granite. Stocks taking a dip need no reason some times, true. Other times they have good reason, and may well not come back up.

    JP (e05949)

  60. Google-Fu: I did a Google search for “Graph of Earth Temperatures”, downloaded thegraph and saved it as a jpeg. Next, I repeated the search but this time for “Graph of Solar Output”, once again downloading and saving the graph as a jpeg. Then it became a simple matter of opening both graphs and comparing the data by timeline. With the exception of one spike in solar activity (which I took to be a rather significant flare that Earth’s temperature did NOT follow), the Earth’s temperature pretty well followed solar activity. That’s when I considered the science settled. Who should I believe? Al Gore or my lying eyes?

    They track closely until about 1985, when surface temperatures continue climbing and solar output drops.

    graph
    Reuters story

    Serenity Now (b08c67)

  61. The amount of resistance displayed from commenters here on one small, incontrovertible point made in Patterico’s post is alarming.

    Never accept a fact unless it is verified by your ideology!

    Psyberian (d18acc)

  62. Serenity Now – kinda like the way tree rings match temperature reconstructions up until they diverge? And the graphs are truncated to excise the divergence (oh wait – that’s unique).
    Let’s also not forget that 1) the Sun does more than provide the TSI that you Googled, and 2) the Earth is a giant heat sink that doesn’t instantly respond to much of anything not catastrophic (see AlGore’s temp/CO2 charts).
    I do give you points for looking for data though, keep it up.

    rhodeymark (923596)

  63. And despite what Psyberian says – you best get to know Gavin Schmidt a little better before you blithely cast in your lot. Do you stop by Realclimate much, Patterico?

    rhodeymark (923596)

  64. The temprature drop isn’t just this winter, but for the last 12 months. Even Dr. Hansen’s GISS reflects this. This also happens to correlate with the low level of sunspot activity over the same period (cycle #23 ending, cycle #24 late in getting started). Current thinking is that it’s the solar magnetic effects (which are reflected by sunspot activity), when the solar magnetic field is weak, more cosmic radiation reaches Earth, prompting cloud formation, which increases Earth’s albedo.

    You’ll notice that the AGW crowd has stopped talking about “Global Warming”, now they use the phrase “Climate Change”.

    LarryD (feb78b)

  65. “ADA – If things get as bad as you suggest, there won’t be any Ph.Ds because we won’t have the luxury of graduate schools.”

    -DRJ

    Aaah, that’s where you’re wrong, DRJ.
    In the drought-ravaged future, everyone will have a Ph.D. – from the University of Hard Knocks.

    Leviticus (3c2c59)

  66. Here is the challenge that this year’s temperature drop poses –

    The global warming alarmists (for lack of a better term) have argued that there is a direct correlation between the amount of greenhouse gases and the Earth’s temperature. The more greenhouse gases – the warmer the Earth will become.

    Nobody I know of doubts that there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere this year than there has been in past years this decade. Therefore, if all other factors are constant, 2007 should have been the warmest year on record. Yet it wasn’t. Why?

    You could naturally argue that all other factors AREN’T constant, and that this year’s record temperature drop was due to natural forces. But if you make that argument, then you would have to conclude that this year’s temperature drop would have been EVEN FAR GREATER had it not been for the greenhouse gas warming effect. In other words, we would have had a one-year MEGA-temperature drop that would have far eclipsed anything our records could have contemplated. Then we would need to start asking ourselves why this happened.

    Since most expect the amount of greenhouse gases to increase even more overall in 2008, would anyone care to wager what the climate change will be this year? Even if it inches up a bit relative to 2007, the temperature will still be lower than compared to say 2005. So relative to that time we would still have a cooling ‘trend’ even though there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. You would need an even larger record-shattering one year jump in atmospheric temps in order to continue the alarmist heating trend. “Trends” are only defined by what (arbitrary) starting point you decide on. If you chose 2005 as the starting point for a trend, we will likely be in an overall cooling trend for the next several years (even if we experience a slight up-tick in warming compared to rather cool year of 2007).

    Either way, this one year alone shatters the concept of “More greenhouse gases automaticialy equals more warming” theory – unless you are prepared to argue that 2007 would have experienced a drop that was even far larger than the one we already experienced had it not been for greenhouse gases. That seems to be a rather dubious theory to me.

    Justin Levine (20f2b5)

  67. BTW –

    Let’s not forget that the ‘scientific community’ already tried to scare us a year ago by predicting that 2007 would be the “warmest year on record”.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070104-warmest-year.html

    Justin Levine (20f2b5)

  68. There was a conference in New York just this week with over 200 internationally known scientists who disagree with global warming being man made.

    http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm

    Take a read then explain where these scientists A) are corporate schills, or B) are delusional and credible.

    Remember Global warming is a theory that has not been proven. The computer models have not even been able to predict the past with any degree of accuracy, so why would anyone trust them to predict the future?

    Personally, I recycle because it makes economic sense. I drive a fuel efficient car because the cost of gas is one of the single largest items in my budget.

    But, after reading hundreds of articles, research papers and theses, I have to say that the vast majority of GW alarmists don’t offer their data and testing methodologies up for peer review. You are supposed to take their word for the validity and accuracy of their data and methods. Also, I find it disingenuous to dismiss the findings of anyone who has ever accepted money from industry (energy companies, manufacturing, mining, etc.) but accept as gospel the findings of people whose entire funding, and the continuation of their funding is reliant upon the results of their research. Most of these scientists are being paid by government grants and grants from various “interested parties”. These include large political donors who have a vested interest in the outcome of the research.

    Seems that some people want to claim that there is a “consensus” that GW is real and man made. The last time there was a consensus on scientific matters, the belief was that the world was flat.

    Jay Curtis (8f6541)

  69. Just had to post this. we cant dispel global warming myths w/ a cold day yet they scream “global warming kills” every storm that happens

    chas (3a293b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3396 secs.