No, global warming hasn’t stopped

John Lott claims:

The final numbers will be out in March, but the initial information makes it look as if 2007 will be the coldest in a decade. So much for the claim that “the probability that 2007 would be the hottest year as 60 percent.”

NASA has 2007 tied for second, but he’s referring to the RSS version of lower troposphere temperatures, which have 2007, far from being the coldest in a decade, in fifth place:

i-bd4baafdcb56d29e966ddb4a8280ee81-rsstlt.png

Looks like someoen got caught by an error in the satellite data.

Comments

  1. #1 Winnebago
    January 22, 2008

    I know all cranks sound alike, but you link to the string theorist that was fired from Harvard for uncivil behavior, Lubos Motl, not John Lott.

  2. #2 dhogaza
    January 22, 2008

    The silliest bit of all, is that even if he was right in his claim that it’s the coldest year in a decade, it wouldn’t refute the “60% chance” prediction in the least.

    I wonder if John Lott would like to come visit my friends and I for a nice, cozy, high-stakes poker game?

  3. #3 Thom
    January 22, 2008

    So now John Lott is also an expert on global warming. Who would’a ever guessed?

    Can’t wait to see if McIntyre starts to audit Lott’s studies on crime statistics. Or if Pielke Jr. starts to comment on gun control legislation.

    Then the circle jerk will be complete.

  4. #4 Gavin
    January 22, 2008

    In fairness, you should point out that the RSS data were only corrected a couple of days ago: see here. And Lott is not the only one who needs to update his graphics.

    Bayesian priors win again!

  5. #5 _Arthur
    January 22, 2008

    If the troposphere is cooling, isn’t that great news for all the people that live in the troposphere ?

  6. #6 Demesure
    January 22, 2008

    _#4 The troposphere is where the AGHG warming is supposed to take place, so said the playstation science models . So its cooling is good news for people that live up there … and bad news for the AGW crowd.

  7. #7 Pat Trombly
    January 22, 2008

    You guys are more like defense attorneys than scientists – you have three contradictory responses to the stalling of global warming – and when the first one fails you go to the backup, and when that one doesn’t fly you go to the next backup:

    1) it hasn’t really stalled,
    2) global warming actually causes cooling, it’s really “climate change” not “global warming”
    3) global dimming is masking the effects of global warming

    As the years progress with 1998 remaining the “warmest year” out of what, the last 120, it’s going to be difficult to continue to cling to 1); nobody really bought into 2); and Hansen himself is out pushing 3) – “my predictions were wrong because human-generated pollution is having another, opposite effect, that of global dimming.”

    Sounds more convenient than inconvenient – now you have two conflicting human-caused (of course) evils, kind of like “alien vs predator” with both being caused by evil big production and consumption.

    I’m guessing that once the “skeptics” call you on this you’ll insist that “global dimming” theory has been “accepted science for decades” rather than something you latched onto now that you need an excuse for the stall in global warming.

    So just to set the record straight, please pick ONE of the contradictory arguments above, let us know which one you’re going with, thank you. Because if you try to hedge your bets that’s going to be very transparent.

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/

  8. #8 Pat Trombly
    January 22, 2008

    And can I add the the advertisement about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, with a photo of a wind farm, doesn’t make any sense?

    Wind farms are great, and we should reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but the two issues have little to do with each other – in the US, oil is used to generate less than 3% of the power we consume.

  9. #9 cce
    January 22, 2008

    1) Global Warming hasn’t stalled. 2) Global Warming doesn’t cause cooling in the troposphere 3) “Global Dimming” peaked in the late ’80s.

    And a plug in hybrid with a 40 mile range can offset about 80% of a car’s gasoline use.

  10. #10 cce
    January 22, 2008

    Sorry, that should be “eliminate” not “offset.”

  11. #11 ben
    January 22, 2008

    Global Dimming” peaked in the late ’80s.

    It did? Why did global dimming peak while global warming did not?

  12. #12 cce
    January 22, 2008

    Anthropogenic aerosols peaked in the late ’80s.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Aerosol_dimming.jpg

  13. #13 Eli Rabett
    January 22, 2008

    McIntrye and Motl also jumped on the older RSS data set.

    There is an interesting point here that Eli pointed out to RP Sr. a while ago, while the latter was jumping all over Lyman’s (soon to be corrected) ocean heat content paper. One of the principal uses of a useful model is as a bullsh (OK this is a family blog) detector for new data. If you have looked at a lot of theory and a lot of data and a new piece of data is way out of line, be cautious, measurement is hard.

  14. #14 BillBodell
    January 23, 2008

    dhogaza – If you think your hand has a 60% chance of winning and you end up with the fifth best hand, I’ll come play poker with you. True, your losing the hand doesn’t prove that your predictive ability is poor, but I’ll take my chances.

    Gavin, your post raises your credibility with me significantly (which only matters if I represent a larger group of people). Especially if you are The Gavin.

  15. #15 AlexBurn
    January 23, 2008

    I’m just going to reply to a couple of your points and then I’ll leave you to wallow in your ignorance. Yes it is colder this winter. You need to look into what’s called La Nina. We here on the coast get the full brunt of El Nino and La Nina fluctuations in the central Pacific. So shut your mouth, take your head out of your ass and try learning something. Whether you accept AGW is completely irrelevant to me. I’m content to know that your community of the wilfully blind gets smaller by the day. By the way, if you were right don’t you think we’d be hearing your crank lines endlessly from George Bush, Big Oil and Big Coal? I’m not an idiot nor a communist nor a scammer but you’re a fool just for saying that. Now move along.

  16. #16 Richard B
    January 23, 2008

    Could someone please debunk this claim that Lott points to about 100 scientists saying that temperatures have stopped going up over the last decade?
    What about the claim that 400 prominent scientists do not think that there is significant man made global warming? Thanks in advance.

  17. #17 guthrie
    January 23, 2008

    Richard B- its somewhat complicated, but the 400 list is essentially a bunch of people who agree about there not being significant global warming. However, of that 400, hardly any are climatologists, for example, we have weathermen pontificating about the climate. This would still be ok, if they could actually produce any evidence to back up their claims. If arguing with someone, it is usually best to keep asking what evidence these 400 people have, and suggest to the questioner that they try and find it.
    You’ll get in reply the usual denialist distortions and lies, which you can debunk at leisure.

    You can find more out here:
    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/12/makin-list-checkin-it-twice-here-is.html

    As for temperatures not going up in the past decade, that is a very unscientific statement, as can be seen here:
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/dead-heat/#more-520

    And in more statistical detail:
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/

  18. #18 dhogaza
    January 23, 2008

    the 400 list is essentially a bunch of people who agree about there not being significant global warming. However, of that 400, hardly any are climatologists, for example, we have weathermen pontificating about the climate.

    And one TV weatherman on that list says he doesn’t believe in the climate science because “they leave God out of it”.

    I’m not joking.

    A TV weatherman’s not a “prominent scientist”, and arguing about the role of God in shaping the world’s weather isn’t what most people would consider a scientific argument.

  19. #19 Barton Paul Levenson
    January 23, 2008

    Pat Trombly posts:

    [[You guys are more like defense attorneys than scientists - you have three contradictory responses to the stalling of global warming - and when the first one fails you go to the backup, and when that one doesn't fly you go to the next backup:
    1) it hasn't really stalled,
    ]]

    It hasn’t. Do a multiple regression of the temperature anomalies and look at the coefficient of the time variable.

    [[ 2) global warming actually causes cooling,]]

    Nobody has said this. Global warming due to increased greenhouse gases causes warming at the surface and in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere. If you want to know why, let me know.

    [[ it's really "climate change" not "global warming" 3) global dimming is masking the effects of global warming]]

    It was, to some extent. Not enough to stop the advance, though.

    [[As the years progress with 1998 remaining the "warmest year" out of what, the last 120,]]

    2005 was warmer.

    [[ it's going to be difficult to continue to cling to 1); nobody really bought into 2); and Hansen himself is out pushing 3) - "my predictions were wrong because human-generated pollution is having another, opposite effect, that of global dimming."]]

    Then it’s fortunate that no one is actually saying that.

  20. #20 Boris
    January 23, 2008

    The troposphere is where the AGHG warming is supposed to take place, so said the playstation science models . So its cooling is good news for people that live up there … and bad news for the AGW crowd.

    Posted by: Demesure

    What a brilliant post. Except that the troposphere isn’t cooling.

  21. #21 Thom
    January 23, 2008

    dhogaza: “And one TV weatherman on that list says he doesn’t believe in the climate science because ‘they leave God out of it.’”

    Does this mean that he wants us to blame God for global warming? Bet that would make Exxon Mobil happy.

  22. #22 Horatio Algeranon
    January 23, 2008

    Tim said: “No, global warming hasn’t stopped”

    It certainly has.
    Global Warming stopped in 1998…

  23. #23 Brian Schmidt
    January 23, 2008

    Lott also claims that the 1930s were the warmest on record. I’ve offered to bet him $5,000 that he’s wrong.

  24. #24 Demesure
    January 23, 2008

    What a brilliant post. Except that the troposphere isn’t cooling.

    Posted by: Boris

    RSS says the troposphere has cooled over the past 10 years. It must be Al Gore switching from coal electricity to natural gas for the heating of his 15 (or maybe 20, don’t remember) bedroom macmansion’s interior pool. Er, I mean one of his macmansions.

  25. #25 Chris O'Neill
    January 23, 2008

    Demesure says:

    RSS says the troposphere has cooled over the past 10 years

    This must be true because Demesure is like the Pope, everything he says is true.

  26. #26 Boris
    January 23, 2008

    blockquote>It must be Al Gore switching from coal electricity to natural gas for the heating of his 15 (or maybe 20, don’t remember) bedroom macmansion’s interior pool. Er, I mean one of his macmansions.

    Sorry, I didn’t realize I was dealing with a scholar of your caliber. Carry on.

  27. #27 ben
    January 23, 2008

    What’s a “macmansion?” :)

  28. #28 Steve Bloom
    January 23, 2008

    Guthrie, note that many of the “400″ don’t question the “consensus” at all; included, e.g., are a number of folks critical of Kyoto (which is neither here nor there in terms of the “consensus”), some of those on the grounds that it’s far too weak.

    As Andrew Dessler says, after the list is stripped down to anyone who has reasonable qualifications to question the physical science basis of AGW, it’s pretty much the usual couple dozen suspects.

  29. #29 Eli Rabett
    January 23, 2008

    A McMansion is a large tract house on a small piece of land with huge rooms that Ronald McDonald would buy. Oh yes, it has one of those special mortgages on it.

  30. #30 Lee
    January 23, 2008

    Here where I live (well, near here – I ain’t there), a McMansion is what people build after they buy a 5000 ft2 lot with a perfectly fine 1800 ft2 bungalow home on it, for $600,000 – $700,000, and then tear down the bungalow to create an empty lot for their new 2 story 7,000 ft2 piece of ugly crap.

    That’s slowing down now, though.

  31. #31 Boris
    January 23, 2008

    Holy crap, did Lott “correct” his post to add that 1934 was the warmest year? I don’t remember this being there before:

    [Note: it was found later last year that the warmest was 1934.]

    It keeps getting better, y’all.

  32. #32 dhogaza
    January 23, 2008

    A McMansion is a large tract house …

    I’m giving Ben the benefit of the doubt and would suggest that his question “what is a macmansion” was a poke at the poster’s misspelling of the slang designation.

    Now, I’ve dinged Ben many times when he’s been factually rolling in some nightmarish shitpile of fantasy, but on this one …

    I think he got it right :)

  33. #33 ben
    January 23, 2008

    I’m giving Ben the benefit of the doubt and would suggest that his question “what is a macmansion” was a poke at the poster’s misspelling of the slang designation.

    Correct! :)

  34. #34 Eli Rabett
    January 23, 2008

    Eli rather liked his description now you guys have to go spoil it

  35. #35 WhiteBeard
    January 24, 2008

    Richard B #16,

    The ~ 100 John Lott links to, are covered in the following posts. Monckton, their front man is hilarious. Worth a read if your funny bone could use some exercise.

    [link](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/you_too_can_be_a_distinguished.php)

    [link](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/monckton_watch.php)

    [link](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/monckton_watch_2.php)

  36. #36 Barton Paul Levenson
    January 24, 2008

    Ben posts:

    [[What's a "macmansion?" :) ]]

    It’s a mansion where they use Macs instead of PC-compatibles.

  37. #37 Brian Schmidt
    January 24, 2008

    Follow-up to #23 and #31: Lott has now corrected his post to say 1934 was the warmest year “in the US.” He doesn’t note that he changed the post.

  38. #38 ben
    January 24, 2008

    It’s a mansion where they use Macs instead of PC-compatibles.

    Macs? Blech! If there’s one thing I can’t stand, do not own, and refuse to use, it’s Apple’s products. I don’t know what it is, but I can’t stand Apple nor anything they make.

    Caveat: I do like using Apple products for target practice.

  39. #39 elspi
    January 24, 2008

    “Lott has now corrected his post to say 1934 was the warmest year “in the US.” ”

    Then he is still lying. It was the warmest year in the contiguous US.
    If you include Alaska then it isn’t even close.

  40. #40 Ian Gould
    January 24, 2008

    Guthrie, note that many of the “400″ don’t question the “consensus” at all; included, e.g., are a number of folks critical of Kyoto (which is neither here nor there in terms of the “consensus”), some of those on the grounds that it’s far too weak.”

    Note too that there aren’t 400 names actually listed and that there’s double and triple counting going on with the two annexed petitions and included in the total signed by people also listed in the body of the document.

  41. #41 cce
    January 25, 2008

    The newest calculation has them numerically tied with an anomaly of 1.24 degrees. And, regardless of what corrections come in the future, 1934 and 1998 will likely be statistically tied forever.

  42. #42 z
    January 25, 2008

    “What about the claim that 400 prominent scientists do not think that there is significant man made global warming?”

    My breakdown, partially cribbed from elsewhere:

    1) The usual deniers for hire: Fred Singer, Tim Ball, Christopher Monckton, PR people who have no credibility on issues scientific who each have a handsome record of saying things widely and demonstrably at variance with the truth, and are well paid for it.

    2) “Prominent scientists,” who are neither prominent, nor climate scientists:
    “Chemist Frank Britton”, B.Sc. in chemistry, who wrote a letter to the editor in the Pasadena Star, which the List of 400 upgrades to an “article”
    Electronics engineer “Dr. John Brignell, UK Emeritus Engineering Professor of Northampton Engineering College”, who has two books to his credit, both self-published, neither on climate
    Retired Air Force atmospheric scientist “Dr. Edward F Blick, Professor of Meteorology and Engineering at University of Oklahoma”, listed elsewhere as: “Edward F. Blick, Ph.D., Professor of Petroleum and Geological Engineering, Retired”; whose book “Scientific Analysis of
    Genesis” “concludes that scientific evidence supports the Genesis account of special creation”, and whose anti-global warming piece can be found on the Twin Cities Creation Science website.

    3) “Prominent scientists,” who are not scientists at all:
    “Dr. Richard Courtney”; Technical Editor for CoalTrans International (journal of the international coal trading industry), “Courtney is often refered to without any academic degree, even if others are, on the same page, like the ESEF member list of 1998 where he is not listed as ‘Academic Member’ but as ‘Business Member’. Even in a
    recent publication of Richard Courtney (August 2004 ) no degree is mentioned. There are however a few exceptions on Internet where he is mentioned as ‘Dr. Richard S. Courtney’ or ‘Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D.’” < http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Courtney>
    “Stephen McIntyre”, “semiretired Toronto minerals consultant” who does not have an advanced degree but has published two articles in the journal Energy and Environment (a venue for skeptics not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals)
    “Dr. John Mclean,” another amateur who apparently has neither a PhD nor any specific training in climate science

    4) A bunch of TV weather forecasters.
    Chris Allen, weather director at WBKO, the ABC affiliate for south-central Kentucky. On his blog, Chris says this about global warming:
    “My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture. It must have slipped these people’s minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what’s going on. (Dear Lord Jesus…did I just open a new pandora’s box?) Yeah, I said it. Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He
    created? Of course, if you don’t believe in God and creationism then I can see why you would easily buy into the whole global warming fanfare. I think in many ways that’s what this movement is ultimately out to do – rid the mere mention of God in any context. What these environmentalists are actually saying is “we know more than God – we’re bigger than God – God is just a fantasy – science is real…He isn’t…listen to US!” I have a huge problem with that.”

    5) “Prominent scientists” who are not deniers, but who are quoted out of context to make them look like deniers:
    “Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen, Director of the Danish National Space Centre”, saying “Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate”, as though that were somehow in opposition to anthropogenic climate change theory; when what he says is: “solar variations still do have direct effect on
    important climate parameters. How large this effect may be on the global temperature is currently being investigated, and is outside the scope of this comment. But there is no reason to neglect a contribution from man made greenhouse gases.”
    “Iowa State Climatologist Dr. Elwynn Taylor, Professor of Meteorology at Iowa State University”, who states in the article quoted as “climate change denial”: “The point that Taylor makes with his ozone story is … rather, ‘Hey people, human beings have cooperated and stopped the ozone hole from getting worse, so we just might be able to
    stop global warming from getting worse, too.’”

    Note that Inhofe, the towering intellect of our time who generated this list (or, more accurately, had some random anonymous intern generate it so he could sign his name on it), has already covered his ass by pre-announcing that he expects several of his 400 to defect from being characterized as deniers; not because they aren’t, but
    because they were “bullied” into denying their denial. Good one!

  43. #43 Pat T
    January 29, 2008

    OK this is real simple. If global warming isn’t stalled, then you believers pick a year when it will be warmer again than 1998. Just pick an out year – when would even you conclude that it’s been too long since 1998 to still maintain that the climate still warms? And instead of arguing in circles we’ll just wait for that year – and let time tell which of us is right or wrong?

  44. #44 sod
    January 29, 2008

    OK this is real simple. If global warming isn’t stalled, then you believers pick a year when it will be warmer again than 1998. Just pick an out year – when would even you conclude that it’s been too long since 1998 to still maintain that the climate still warms? And instead of arguing in circles we’ll just wait for that year – and let time tell which of us is right or wrong?

    2005.

    i am right, you are wrong.

    when can i collect my prize?

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

  45. #45 Barton Paul Levenson
    January 29, 2008

    Jolly good show, sod.

  46. #46 Hank Roberts
    January 29, 2008

    From my email (why haven’t I heard about this on the blogs??)

    Island Press ENVIRONMENTAL NEWSLETTER
    Jan. 28, 2007
    Focus the Nation Events This Week

    On January 31st, … a nationwide discussion on global warming solutions. …

    http://www.focusthenation.org

    January 30th, from 8:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. ET
    Stanford University Professor Stephen Schneider
    author of Climate Change Policy and Wildlife Responses to Climate Change
    will participate in one of the main events:
    “The 2% Solution” Interactive Webcast.

    http://www.focusthenation.org/2percentsolution.php

  47. #47 dhogaza
    January 30, 2008

    Sod you, Pat T! :)

    Let me guess, Pat T, you’re one of those people who thinks that the United States is the world?

    And let me make a second guess … that you don’t understand my statement?

  48. #48 Hank Roberts
    January 31, 2008

    For the casual reader who may not know what dhogaza is mocking about PatT’s challenge above — do ask.

    Google Scholar is always a good place to start, for science.

    And you’ll find real news, including death notices like this:

    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/30/12395

  49. #49 Pat W
    February 5, 2008

    Re #42
    z is dishonest when he dismisses Steve McIntyre’s credentials by claiming that he has not been published in high quality journals. He must know that McIntyre published an epoch-making paper in Geophysical Research Letters (2005) in which he demolished Mann’s Hockey Stick.
    For an honest and excellent article on the whole sordid business of MBH’s deceit, read the highly respected Dutch science journal Natuurwetenschap & Techniek Feb. 2005, available in translation online.

  50. #50 guthrie
    February 5, 2008

    Pat W- HHHAhaaaaaaaaaahahahahahhahahahahhahhahaaaaaaaaa.

    Phew.
    Right, can you tell me how Macintyre demolished the hockey stick, and being demolished, PRECISELY WHAT DIFFERENCE IT MADE TO TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTIONS OVER THE LAST Millenium or two?

    Failure to answer means you are a drive by troll.

  51. #51 dhogaza
    February 5, 2008

    Pat W., common decency would suggest that you acknowledge having lost your silly bet to Sod before you post more silliness.

  52. #52 dhogaza
    February 5, 2008

    GRL’s christmas present to the world:

    In keeping with its mission [quick publication of short, high-quality papers], we GRL edi-
    tors announce three key changes targeted
    at improving GRL’s stature among top-tier
    publications in the Earth and space sci-
    ences, as well as its service to authors.

    First, the editorial board has been expanded
    to provide additional expertise in climate
    and global change

    I wonder if McIntyre’s faux-demolishing of the “hockey stick” would’ve made it into GRL now that they’ve muscled-up the climate science expertise of their editorial board?

  53. #53 dhogaza
    February 5, 2008

    Hank Robert’s reference above is truly an “oh, shit” paper. I suggest reading the abstract. The high arctic ecosystem supports, among other things, a huge percentage of the earth’s migratory shorebird population …

  54. #54 z
    February 5, 2008

    “Re #42 z is dishonest when he dismisses Steve McIntyre’s credentials by claiming that he has not been published in high quality journals. He must know that McIntyre published an epoch-making paper in Geophysical Research Letters (2005) in which he demolished Mann’s Hockey Stick”

    In fairness, indeed he is published in a peer reviewed journal.

  55. #55 Hank Roberts
    February 6, 2008

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17902
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

    In 2007, a moderately strong La NiƱa event put a chill on the eastern Pacific Ocean, and the Sun was near the low spot in its 11-year cycle of variability. Nevertheless, global average surface temperature in 2007 was still tied for the second warmest year in the instrumental record compiled by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which goes back to 1880. The record warmest year was 2005, with 1998—now tied with 2007—in second place.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!