iEntry 10th Anniversary RSS Feed About Us

Full Circle: Global Warming in 25 Years

Photo courtesy scottfeldstein.

Some scientists have recently remarked that 2008 could be the coolest of this century. While this does appear so, sans December data, it’s also one of the coolest of the last 25 years. In fact, year-to-date, the University of Alabama at Huntsville temperature data set suggests that 2008 will be only very slightly warmer than 1983, a remarkable accomplishment considering billions upon billions of tons of greenhouse gases have been pumped into our atmosphere. Let’s take a look at the numbers:

In 1983, the average land temperature was 0.026667 degrees Celsius above average. Ocean temperatures were 0.04333 degrees Celsius above average. Global temperatures were 0.0375 degrees Celsius above average.

In 2008, from January through November, the land temperature was 0.187273 degrees Celsius above average Ocean temperatures were 0.04818 degrees Celsius below average. And global temperatures? 0.038182 above average, less than one thousandths of a degree Celsius higher than 1983. To put this in perspective, the El Nino-induced heat wave of 1998, which many alarmists call the warmest year on record, was 0.515 degrees Celsius above “normal”, or almost one-half degree Celsius higher than 1983.

In a span of 25 years, when more and more cars clogged the freeways, temperatures have made a full circle.

picture31.png

Remember this from earlier in the year: 2008 to be in Top 10 Warmest Years say Forecasters? Does it even look like 2008 was in the Top 10 for the last 25 years? 2008 has erased any global warming that has occurred since at least 1983, if not before. Is this truly the year that global warming is exposed as a hoax?

Keep up-to-date with the latest at Skeptics Global Warming!
Subscribe to my FREE RSS Feed in your reader today!
Or, subscribe to FREE updates in your email.
Alternatively, you can follow me on Twitter.

About the Author

has written 2022 stories on this site.

A social and fiscal conservative, I scour the news for information that disputes the current man-made global warming indoctrination that takes place around the world. I take a rather sarcastic approach to reporting on the nonsense being spewed by the talking heads in the media and the governments around the world.

26 Comments on “Full Circle: Global Warming in 25 Years”

  • simon forsyth wrote on 1 January, 2009, 9:16

    Amazing.

    But where did your data come from? Is it global or not? What does this “University of Alabama at Huntsville temperature data set” measure? It sounds like something that the well known denier Roy Spencer would come up with. Roy has been known to produce global temperature data that really was only a sample of 20 degrees either side of the equator.

    You might want to look at these
    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record_png
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

    The second link shows that 1983 was quite a nicely cherry picked maximum for you to work from. Was that on purpose or purely chance? The choosing of that point comes across as purposely deceptive.

    If you are getting your data from here (or similar)
    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
    Then I think you have even left out the complete data for 1983, which has a nice little drop at the start and would have made the graph a lot less flat. That’s really naughty! No wonder you didn’t want to show your source.

    Given the CO2 levels in 1983 were 341ppm and in 2008 were 384ppm the expected rise in temperature is approximated to be 3 x ln (384 / 341) which is 0.36 degrees Celsius.
    http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm

    Even given that I am using the UAH data and there is no factoring of solar activity or el nino or any other temperature effect we get 0.02C rise from your extra ordinarily cherry picked data from this data set. If we take all of 1983 into account we get a 0.21C rise. Not quite 0.36C, but as I am somewhat sure you understand, carbon dioxide is definitely not the driving factor in temperature – as your chart shows: the temperature goes up and down.

  • Michael Duvinak wrote on 1 January, 2009, 10:06

    1983 wasn’t cherry picked, except that it represents a starting point to measure temperature data for the last quarter century. I don’t think you want to get into a cherry-picking debate. I have example after example of cherry picking done by global warming activists.

    The University of Alabama and Huntsville is one of the big four temperature data monitoring institutions. After Hansen’s flub of publishing September data in October earlier this year, I stick with the UAH data. As far as showing my source, you linked up to it in your comment and I did capture all of the 1983 data but this graph is year-averaged and not month-to-month. I don’t appreciate the accusations that I’ve published incomplete data. You can certainly chart it for yourself and compare it to mine.

    The data graphed for this chart is global total, global land and global sea.

    And given Wikipedia’s propensity of being biased against global warming skeptics, I’d rather not publish, or even review, anything from that site.

    You and I are in agreement, however. Carbon dioxide doesn’t drive temperature. I think it’s painfully obvious to just about everyone. And while I haven’t seen an exact link between sunspots and global warming personally, I would venture to say that the sun has more influence on our climate than carbon dioxide or any other trace greenhouse gas.

  • simon forsyth wrote on 1 January, 2009, 11:59

    Fair enough, apologies. I really didn’t have much to work with but I hope you can see how I became suspicious.

    How about placing a simple line of best fit on the graph? Using the line of best fit I actually see an increase of over 0.4 degree over the 25 year period, which is slightly more than the 3 x log carbon ratio model predicts.

    Here’s my attempt:

  • David Ahlport wrote on 1 January, 2009, 13:03

    1983 is a cherry pick.
    But 2008 is also a cherry pick

    In particular, because you’re making the assumption that entirely temporary forcing from the ENSO effect in 2008 don’t exist. And that a temporary cooling effect which lasts only a few months can somehow “Erase” all other persistent factors from existence.

    This is just the usual non-scientific argument used by those who “disagree with reality” because they don’t like the political implications of it.

    Usually it comes down to moronically arguing that manmade and natural warming/cooling factors can’t exist simultaneously.
    Or on the flip side, arguing that there are so many tiny details, that it’s impossible to even begin to understand it.
    Or arguing both at the same time. (Which while confusing, this is what happens when you have an ideology which is inconsistent with reality)

  • Michael Duvinak wrote on 1 January, 2009, 15:17

    So David, do you think that all of the warming is human-induced and all of the cooling is natural? David, the temperature of the entire planet peaked in 1998. It has not gotten warmer in 10 years and has, in fact, cooled substantially since that time. Alarmists certainly use 1998 as a milestone in letting us know that we’re in the midst of a climate crisis yet fail to mention that El Nino helped it along. The Medieval Warm Period was certainly warmer than today without all of the man-made greenhouse gas emissions. If anything, it is the global warming crowd that is living outside of reality. What you’ve accused me of, cherry picking dates, is the exact same thing that is done by scientists promoting global warming today, except data is cherry picked in addition to the dates. Show me data from 500 years ago. Show me data from 600,000 years ago. Michael Mann’s models to generate the hockey stock graph have already been proven to generate that graph regardless of what data is placed in it, so most of Gore’s Inconvenient Truth documentary is a sham.

    I’d have more respect for so-called anthropogenic climate change if the scientists involved, and on the government payroll, would just be honest and say they don’t know, rather than having the debate closed, the skeptics shunned and the political spokesman raking in millions on the carbon credit swindle.

    Questions? Comments?

  • David Ahlport wrote on 1 January, 2009, 15:35

    You know what, I was gonna post this as soon as my website got back up (Registration lapsed, currently heckling my site provider to fix it)
    And it is to a different post on this same blog.

    But for now, how about I post it, and we can let the links sync up when they will.

    Most of the links are either redirection links (Like TinyURL) or image files (which have their original web source printed below the image).
    Let me know if there’s any in particular you’d like to look at sooner than later.

    _________________________

    In response to:
    http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/global-warming-myth/disputing-global-warming/questions-global-warming-hoaxer/

    1&2._________________________________________________________________________
    You’re talking about cycles which are 10,000+ years in length. What you’re refering to isn’t the sun changing. It’s the earth’s orbit relative to the sun changing. This however is way too slow to explain the last 4 decades. (Or even the last few hundred years)
    http://greyfalcon.net/milankovitch
    The sun isn’t considered to be the bulk of the warming of the past 4 decades, because solar irradiance doesn’t correlate with the increase in temperature for the past 4 decades.
    http://greyfalcon.net/solar.png
    http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html
    What’s more, if the temperature increase were caused by increased solar activity, then all layers of the atmosphere would warm proportionately.
    But instead, the layer with the greenhouse layer in it is warming more than the surface (troposphere), and the layer above it is cooling (stratosphere).
    And this would only be explained by an increasing greenhouse effect.
    http://greyfalcon.net/forcing.png
    http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png

    3&4_______________________________________________________________________
    These arguments aren’t really about science. That’s just “Disagreeing with Reality” because you don’t like the political implications.

    5._________________________________________________________________________
    The MWP wasn’t warmer than today. There isn’t any study published in a peer reviewed physical science journal which says that.
    The closest you got is that paper which Sallie Baliunas wrote, which was then retracted for fraud.
    What’s more, the argument of “now” in the Swindle movie refers to 1975, not “now” as any normal person would interpret it.
    http://greyfalcon.net/baliunas
    http://greyfalcon.net/2000year
    http://greyfalcon.net/mwp.png
    http://greyfalcon.net/mwp

    6._________________________________________________________________________
    a. Al Gore isn’t a scientist, he’s a pundit
    b. Talking about Science in a political debate format is stupid. Politic change when opinions change. Reality doesn’t.

    c. The sun alone doesn’t explain the warming of the past 4 decades.
    http://greyfalcon.net/solar.png

    d. Carbon alone doesn’t explain the warming of the past 4 decades.
    http://greyfalcon.net/solar6.png

    e. Both sun and carbon together don’t explain 1998 or 2008
    http://greyfalcon.net/rsstemps2.png
    http://greyfalcon.net/elnino
    http://greyfalcon.net/lanina
    http://greyfalcon.net/enso

    f. The primary variables to keep your eye on for the past 4 decades are:
    f1. Changes in solar irradiance
    f2. El Nino and La Nina [aka, the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO)]
    f3. Airborne Dust, primarily from volcanoes (Aerosols)
    f4. Greenhouse gases.
    And TOGETHER these do explain nearly all the warming/cooling we’ve experienced since the 1970′s.
    http://greyfalcon.net/lean2005.png
    http://greyfalcon.net/forcing4.png

    _

    But as always, you have the argument that it’s not possible to have more than 1 variable at a time influencing the climate.
    Followed by the argument that there are virtually unlimited numbers of variables and that it’s impossible to ever know anything.
    Flip flopping back and forth between those two fake arguments seems to be the main-stay of anti-realists.

  • Michael Duvinak wrote on 1 January, 2009, 16:47

    David,

    To answer the answers to my original questions from that post you referenced:

    1. “But instead, the layer with the greenhouse layer in it is warming more than the surface (troposphere), and the layer above it is cooling (stratosphere).” Greenhouse gases reside in the troposphere. That statement doesn’t make any sense.

    2. I have evidence of a correlation between sun spots and temperature dating back about 140 years.

    3 and 4. This may seem like a straw man argument, but to convince the public that anthropogenic global warming is real and its leaders are doing everything they can to stop it, you’ve got to pull all of these environmentalists together and have them stop traversing the country in private jets. It’s not good PR for the cause.

    5. “The MWP wasn’t warmer than today. There isn’t any study published in a peer reviewed physical science journal which says that.” Sorry to disappoint, but Dr. Craig Loehle published one. Why do global warming proponents want peer-reviewed papers anyway? Seems elitist to me.

    6. Al Gore is a pundit. We’re in agreement. But I also do not have the argument that only one thing can manipulate the climate at a time. If you’ve read this blog over the last year, you’d know that. I certainly don’t see a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. I feel that natural processes control climate, and we’re being lied to by our chief pundit.

    So answer this question for me: how many years of cooling does it take to disprove anthropogenic global warming? It’s been 10 years and it hasn’t gotten any warmer. How many years of lackluster hurricane seasons? It’s been three years and they have only improved since 2005.

  • David Ahlport wrote on 1 January, 2009, 17:34

    1. Let me put it another way.
    Less infrared radiation bouncing off the earth is reaching the stratosphere, because “something” in the troposphere is increasingly blocking it.

    2. Yes there used to be somewhat of a correlation.
    http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif

    5. Energy & Environment isn’t a peer reviewed physical science journal.
    It’s a non-reviewed social science journal, which doesn’t even do spell checking before they publish.
    And the reason you have peer review is to filter out the fake science.
    It’s not perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better than no filter.

    7a. Oh come now, taking 1998 and 2008 out of context of the ENSO cycle is just childish.

    7b. As for the hurricanes, that’s getting into the territory of figuring out what will happen if the earth gets warm. Which is a separate issue from figuring out WHY the earth is getting warm.

    Part of this though, can be again attributed towards the ENSO cycle.
    Hurricanes need stable columns of stagnant hot air to build.
    Big gusts of horizontal cold wind tends to knock them down.

  • Michael Duvinak wrote on 1 January, 2009, 18:22

    1. So what is that “something”? Is it carbon or is it getting absorbed on the planet now?

    2. A simple plot of sunspots to temperature shows a much greater correlation than the solar irradiance graph you provided. I’m curious, though, what caused the cooling between 1940 and 1970 when just the opposite happened between 1910 and 1940?

    I guess we’re skipping 3 and 4…

    5. Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed science journal. i don’t know if it’s a “physical” science journal, but it’s certainly a peer-reviewed science journal. Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” paper was peer-reviewed, too, and has been thoroughly debunked by other peer-reviewed literature. Peer-reviewed doesn’t mean what everyone thinks it means.

    7a. With regard to 1998 and 2008, they’re either both in or both out. If 1998′s temperatures were induced by El Nino, what was the real temperature for that year? On the same side, if the relatively extreme cold recorded in 2008 was influenced by La Nina, I want to know the real temperature. If both are in, temperatures may very well be trending flat to down since 2003 and 2007 temperatures dipped.

    7b. True, but so is attacking scientific papers. Touche’. :-)

    I don’t know if you saw it or not, but a couple of weeks back I wrote on article called Where’s the Greenhouse Gas Connection Again. It contains a plot of greenhouse gas emissions (data taken from the EPA’s website) as well as global temperature data taken from UAH. There was absolutely no correlation, at least for the decade I plotted. (Not cherry picking; I only used the EPA data that was available to me.) So if it’s not the sun, carbon dioxide or a combination of both that completely influences climate, what is it and how can it be identified?

    Here’s my problem, David. You have displayed some intellect on the subject, so I know you’ll get this. How much does carbon dioxide affect climate, if any at all? If it’s, let say, only 10%, is it worth implementing carbon taxes and reworking our entire energy infrastructure (at the cost of the taxpayer and consumer), subsequently causing another huge hit on the economy? Is is worth enacting legislation to ban particular types of light bulbs to save the world? And is it fair that the “rich” can buy carbon credits, allowing them to continue their extravagant, and carbon polluting, lifestyles? If those leading the charge were serious about this, carbon cuts would be across the board without the ability to cheat. Yet again, the elite have a loophole while the average American gets stuck. It’s pathetic, and sad.

  • David Ahlport wrote on 1 January, 2009, 20:24

    1a. How it affects the climate is, it’s that “something” in the troposphere which reirradiates the infrared radiation back down to earth. Heating up the troposphere in the process.

    1b. The second part of that of course, would be water vapor.
    The amount of water vapor in the troposphere is largely dependent on the temperature of the troposphere.
    So by heating up the troposphere, you get a megaphone effect from the increased water vapor in the troposphere.

    2. As for how much it affects the climate, linear tempature increases would be nice.
    However what really has scientist’s hair on fire is the concept of non-linear temperature increases.
    Basically, smaller warming, triggering a powderkeg of gigantic runaway warming.
    Something like this, if it were even partially true is pretty damned scary.
    http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2008/12/18/10192/710?show_comments=no

    3. Personally I think the evidence is clear enough as is. But if we really wanted completely unarguable, dead obvious evidence, then we would launch the DSCVR satellite. So far satellites like this have been blocked for launch for various US agencies, and various ones in Canada.
    Right around the exact same time where you heard Bush ranting about his whole “Mission to Mars” thing.
    The basic concept is that these satellites would be put inbetween the earth and moon, just outside of both of their gravitational fields.
    From there it would be able to get a stationary full view of the earth, and you would able to measure the entire with high frequency and detail.
    Rather than trying to stich together a bunch of infrequent chunks.
    Basically, the same functional concept as geostationary regional weather satellites, except for the entire world.

    4. That said, an entirely seperate reason to deal with carbon in the atmosphere
    Carbon + Water = Carbonic Acid
    Our oceans are becoming more acidic.
    And as I’m sure you’re aware, pH is a logarithmic scale.
    If we move too far on that scale, we’re gonna have massive die-offs of the ocean’s plant and animal life.
    Which in turn, could have gigantic implications for the world’s food supply, among other grave issues.
    And while the ocean has gone through shifts in pH. We’re once again dealing with 10,000-100,000 shifts.
    Not decades.

    ________

    That said, POLICY.
    Policy, as I’m sure you’re aware, is separate from Science.
    And Science can’t really be invalidated by Policy .

    That said, I agree that carbon offsets are dumb, but for different reasons.
    To me, the concept of “Easy Fake Offset = Easy Fake Permit”, is unacceptable. That single loophole alone makes the whole prospect of doing it merely a gesture.

    To me I far prefer the concept carbon pricing systems which have no offsets, and little congressional price setting.

    There’s a couple ways of doing that, but one way which may be appropriate for current economic times is simply spending the money, and letting income taxes and future generations take care of the bill. Income taxes by their very nature are progressive taxes.

    What’s more, according to Keynesian economic theory, one of the best things you can do during a downturned economy is to build infrastructure, and atleast for a while, NOT pay down the national debt.
    Win-Win.

    And as for dealing with it globally. Just tackling US, China, and India for electricity and transportation, and Brazil and Indonesia for deforestation would solve most of your problem right there.
    You don’t need a highly complex system to engage just the US, two strong central governments, and pay off a less developed country to log less trees.

  • Michael Duvinak wrote on 1 January, 2009, 20:39

    We’re not paying down the national debt now. GWB has spent money like it grows on trees nearly to the point of bankrupting the nation. Using more tax dollars to build infrastructure during this recession is irresponsible. Cities are already lining up to get a chunk of Obama’s expected $1 trillion stimulus package, which overshadows the current one by 17%. Mayors want money to build polar bear exhibits and pay for snow machines. Reagan was right when he said “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

    Unfortunately a highly complex system will be established, even if it is unnecessary. There will be loads of pork placed in any appropriations made for combating climate change. With the way that I, and many skeptics see it, global warming science is in its infancy. Raising taxes to fund projects hyped by propaganda is not.

    Besides, won’t we all just “evolve” to survive on our new scorching planet, anyway? :)

  • David Ahlport wrote on 1 January, 2009, 21:03

    ==Using more tax dollars to build infrastructure during this recession is irresponsible.==

    Is it really though? Especially considering the beneficiaries of this carbon policy ARE future generations.

    Not to mention, unlike war funding, infrastructure has a return on investment.

    And gaining a strong foothold on these new technologies may give the US an entirely new business sector to compete on.
    ____

    Also, 70% of the US National Debt was created by Reagan, Bush and Bush. Probably much more now, given the current economic collapse. RNC Republican’s haven’t been economically conservative since Barry Goldwater.

    Also, is it really that irresponsible, if this were a mortal threat, to fund it the same way we do the military?
    (Fun article by the way. http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0702-26.htm)

    Lastly, if working on this infrastructure were to pull us out of this economic slump, and boost our GDP. How much is that really worth?
    Especially when we’re only talking on the scale of 2% of one year’s worth of GDP to fund this entire thing.
    (Which granted, is about the size of half of one year’s military budget)

  • Michael Duvinak wrote on 1 January, 2009, 21:43

    I never said the last several Republicans that were in office were fiscal conservatives. Neither was Clinton and it doesn’t appear as though Obama will do much better, I fear.

    The so-called “benefits” of the carbon policy will be for future generations. It doesn’t amount to a hill of beans if there’s no sovereign nation here for us to enjoy if we bankrupt ourselves in the process, or we put these future generations into such red ink that they’ll never pull themselves out. I’d much rather have a military budget than a carbon budget any day, only because I still maintain that anthropogenic global warming is a myth and terrorism is a real threat.

    An infrastructure, bought and paid for by the federal and possibly state governments, will only serve two purposes: increased taxes and/or a bigger budget deficit. Solar, wind, geothermal and hydrothermal sources of energy are still in their infancy, are expensive to produce, are expensive to maintain in some cases and still produce only a fraction of what nuclear facilities do. Maybe Ted Kennedy will reconsider his fight against windmills off Nantucket now that the world is in a climate crisis. Use France and their nuclear infrastructure as a role model for America and we have a winner. Anything less is wasted effort on unproven technology.

  • David Ahlport wrote on 1 January, 2009, 22:30

    Heh, don’t tempt me on Nuclear.
    Bottom line, renewables get small table scraps in funding compared to how bloated nuclear and coal subsidies are. That, and there’s never been a Nuclear power plant built in the US on time, and on budget. Most of which had messy bankruptcies, where the US tax payer was left with the bill. Only to have it re-sold for fractions of pennies on the dollar after the bill was paid.

    Also, if you were going to use France as a model. Their nuclear power sector was built as a federal monopoly, using deficit spending.
    Only reason the electricity is cheap, because the French government isn’t in any hurry to pay off the national debt.

    That said, one of my favorite Renewable technologies is solar thermal.
    It can provide baseload, it can provide power on demand, at night, whenever.
    And it’s constructed using commodity components.
    Since ultimately it’s largely just a bunch of mirrors, and hot water pipes.

    EGS Geothermal is also pretty good.

  • jmrSudbury wrote on 2 January, 2009, 11:44

    David

    Your idea that increasing the solar output would see a uniform increase in atmospheric temperature makes no sense.

    The GW theory is that cold areas, like the stratosphere, would warm the most as its CO2 content increased more rapidly than its ability to hold water vapour. I am uncomfortable with the theory that the amount of infrared radiation reaching the stratosphere has decreased significantly in the past century or so. I would need proof of that. Our data does not go back far enough. Even with DSCVR satellites, it would take decades to complile enough data to be able to filter out ocean and other cycles.

    With all this talk about linear and logarithmic relationships resulting a feedback runaway effect, the warming of the 80s and 90s would have left us on an accelerating trend now. That is clearly not the case. The temperatures have been flat at best. Something is now removing the extra heat or that heat is not available or both. That something is the oceanic cycle and the extra heat is not available due to a decrease in the solar irradiance starting about 10 years ago. How much of the warming of the 1980s and 1990s was due to the ocean cycles? I understand the desire to exclude 1998 and 2008, but you also have to filter out the longer ocean cycle noise too. And don’t forget the energy that is now no longer available.

    The solar irradiance contributed to the warming. This has been estimated to have had a total warming effect of 0.15C over its 60 years of heightened level. That is slightly more than the background warming the globe experienced in the previous ocean cycle which was 0.14C. Beyond that 0.14C, the amount of unexplained warming has been only around 0.08C between 1930 and 1990.

    I picked these years based on the ocean cycles. You can choose other years if you like. I prefer to choose the midpoints of the warming cycle. You can choose the midpoints of the cooling cycles if you prefer. What is important is that you choose years that span an entire ocean cycle. Doing so is fairly easy right now since the to primary ocean cycles were synchronized with the 1930s warming. They will slowly go out of phase over the next several cycles due to their periods being different.

    Many people, including Gore, make the error of selecting dates that do not encompass the full ocean cycles. I pick on the ocean cycles the most since they have the most significant effect on our temperature in our lifetimes. Suggesting that we warmed last century is pointless since the 1900s started during the ocean cooling phase and ended near the end of the warming phase. To suggest that the globe warmed in the 20th century is pointless. You would primarily be measuring the differential between partial cycles.

    Policy is made possible based on good data. The AGW data is not good.

    John M Reynolds

  • Jacques wrote on 6 January, 2009, 19:08

    Middle Age’s warm period was probably much warmer than the present period.
    A proof was found in the archives of Burgundy’s (a France’s region) grapes harvests dates. In this time the grapes harvest was made by the end of august each year while today they are made in that region at earliest by the end of september, one month later. That means the average temperatures were higher by at least 2 degrees C than now.
    In the same time, the Greenland coast was green with meadows and villages had been settled here. These village later disappeared destroyed by the glaciers of the Little Ice Age and never people would settle again in these places.
    Who can explain that?

  • Jeremy wrote on 12 January, 2009, 9:51

    It’s an attention grabbing headline: ’2008 coldest year of the century’. It’s also a very easy claim, since the century is only 8 years old.

    Turns out 2008 was both the tenth hottest year on record, and the coldest year of the decade. Pick you headline, according to your bias. Either way, the overall trend is upwards.

  • Travis wrote on 14 January, 2009, 19:26

    Ummmm, peer-reviewed journals are liked by scientists because it means somebody with a credible scientific background (i.e., degree in a science field) has reviewed it and it wasn’t just somebody throwing out a factless opinion. Would you want a surgeon’s medical work not reviewed by an expert before he was sent out to operate on you? Just like I don’t want my environment and it’s regulations to be decided based on opinions and/or science that hasn’t been reviewed. It’s not elitist, IT”S WHY WE HAVE TRAINING FOR ANY PROFESSION! Would you hire a person without a plumbers license to do the plumbing throughout your brand new house? Probably not. Not everybody is a scientist, just like not everybody is a surgeon or a plumber.

  • Michael Duvinak wrote on 14 January, 2009, 19:52

    Here’s the thing about science: it’s constantly evolving. I don’t know how many articles I’ve read just in the past year where science was wrong about something and publishing new information to correct their original mistake. Peer-reviewed papers mean nothing to me. If the people reviewing the data know nothing more than the person that originated the theory, the only purpose of a peer review is to check math and calculations. And, as I mentioned in my other comment, Einstein only published one peer-reviewed paper, although he published over 300 journal articles. His work is quoted in many aspects of science, even though he was a patent clerk.

    What was your point again?

  • Travis wrote on 15 January, 2009, 20:10

    My point is that as you say science evolves and a lot of times the reasons articles disagree with one another isn’t that one is wrong and the other is right, it’s that they came at it 2 different ways or there is more data later that may not have been there before and usually science learns something interesting from it. Sometimes though, and this is where review comes in, is that someone only uses a portion of data that fits their answer (such as only looking at decadal weather patterns and snow, vs. century long melting ice caps, etc.). Peer review usually catches faulty methodologies, not just calculations and math. And as I pointed out one of einsteins major publications would have been wrong if not for “accidental review”.

    Can it hurt to have someone read over your paper to find bias in either your analysis or your interperatation? I would venture to say no it can’t hurt and in many cases it probably makes science articles stronger.

    And you never responded to the many examples in my post, so I’m guessing you agree with them???

  • Michael Duvinak wrote on 15 January, 2009, 21:50

    I haven’t responded because the goalposts keep changing. I shoot down your theory, you come up with another one. It’s boring. But, I’ll oblige you this time, even though it’s a strawman argument.

    You wouldn’t want a surgeon cutting on you that didn’t have proper training. Again, a patent clerk came up with many of the foundations for modern science and won the Nobel Prize. Comparing a trained surgeon to Einstein’s work is apples to oranges. Einstein could afford to be wrong and not kill anyone.

    I honestly don’t have a problem with peer review. I didn’t bring it up. What I do have a problem with is that nothing can be considered acceptable as “true” science unless it’s peer-reviewed in the eyes of climate alarmists. Einstein proved your point wrong at the turn of the 20th century. He had a bunch of articles published in a so-called “peer-reviewed” science journal that wasn’t exactly peer-reviewed. Man is not infallible and they do make mistakes. If you want your environmental studies peer-reviewed, fine. How many times have the IPCC projections been revised now? And why did they include a now-debunked hockey stick graph in their reports? My friend, alarmists are going to use whatever makes them appear correct. Haven’t you figured out that it’s just a game of shuffle?

  • Travis wrote on 16 January, 2009, 12:40

    1) You did bring up the peer review in several of your posts that I have read before I posted a comment…short memory.

    2) I partially agree with your apples to oranges comment, however if some global warming projections are correct then food production may be affected and lives could be at stake. This is what irritates me about many conservatives is that our environment supports our LIFE, and if we don’t do everything we can to keep it intact there are lives at stake. Why can’t we pollute less, so that not only our air is clean and doesn’t warm but our water is clean and people are healthy?

    3) I’ve already written that I don’t listen to climate “alarmists”, I don’t listen to alarmists because they generally sensationalize subjects and represent extreme view points, such as your own. It’s like Randy Rhoades complaining about Rush Limbaugh, neither of them are worth listening to.

    4) You say science evolves but then you say it’s not ok for the IPCC projections to change, how does that work? They are changing because our science is EVOLVING, just as you stated.

    5) Can you provide me with the references that debunk the hockey stick please?

  • Michael Duvinak wrote on 16 January, 2009, 23:55

    1) I didn’t *originally* bring it up. My article didn’t touch on it. Someone else took the initiative and I responded.

    2) Food production would be just as affected by global cooling. And corn-based ethanol to combat carbon emissions doesn’t help matters at all. I’d venture to say that increased carbon dioxide would INCREASE crop yields provided there isn’t widespread drought. Spending trillions of dollars on an unproven theory is ridiculous, though. Liberals blame Bush for what he’s done to our economy (and rightfully so, but you can also thank Clinton where the housing bubble started), but want to institute massive government spending to combat something that hasn’t caused any net global temperature increase in 10 years. But I’m not anti-conservatism when it comes to the environment. Polluting less is a good thing. Taxing people for the carbon they emit when it’s clear that carbon isn’t a contributing factor to warming or the contribution isn’t known is wrong.

    3) If you don’t listen to those that represent extreme view points, you sure do spend a lot of time here needlessly.

    4) Science does evolve. It’s not okay for the IPCC to come out and claim that the end is nigh and then change course. It’s like yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre when there’s no actual fire. If science is truly evolving, then there’s reason to believe that the global warming debate isn’t over and that a consensus hasn’t been reached.

    5) You’re a big boy. I’m sure you can find them. You can probably even start on this blog.

  • Travis wrote on 22 January, 2009, 20:20

    Your argument sure sounds alot like the one tobacco companies used saying cigarettes didn’t lead to cancer. And I wouldn’t say anyone has provided clear evidence that carbon isn’t contributing to warming.

    And you might want to quit the 10 year bit because you could look at a regression line of any 10 year period and come up with a different answer. It’s when you put all those regression lines together over the longer time period that you get a definite increase. After all we are talking about a long-term climate change increase with global warming, not decadal trends….

    Are all the consensus panels of world renowned scientists agreeing global warming is real just hand picked or paid off or am I missing something here???

    Can you show me a quote the IPCC report saying the world is going to end? Oh that’s right when asked to show referenced information that backs up your claims you always seem to come up with nothing…

  • Travis wrote on 22 January, 2009, 20:25

    One other question….is or isn’t the global warming debate over? You mention it above as not over with no consensus reached, but then in many of your posts and comments you refer to it as a busted myth as if there is some huge consensus that global warming isn’t real.

  • Corrinne Novak wrote on 24 January, 2009, 16:21

    Methane is 20 times more effective as an IR absorber than CO2. The world’s natural wetlands produce a greater ‘greenhouse gas’ contribution than human CO2. How come nothing is said about methane swamp gas?? Thanks to the beaver introduced by the government the creek running through my land ten years ago is now a 100 ac swamp. The creek empties up stream from the city water intake and thanks to those beaver Giardia is now a problem in the city. We won’t mention the increase in disease carrying mosquitoes

    No one reports the Giardia problem, no one says a word about the contribution to greenhouse gases from the INCREASE in USA swampland. If Global Warming due to greenhouse gas was a true problem there should be a major rush to fill in those swamps. Since cow belches make the news but swamp gas is never mentioned by the media, by Gore or by anyone else, I assume Global Warming is not the TRUE reason behind carbon credits and it is just another power/money scam.

SkepticsGlobalWarming.com is an Privacy Policy and Legal
SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline