The GISS Controversy

Posted on November 16, 2008
Filed Under Science |

You probably read about the error in NASA temperature warming due to some Russian data being repeated from earlier months. Deltoid has up a good post on the GISS error and paranoia Yes, the usual suspects are out trying to portray this as invalidating all global warming. And they appear to be disingenuous about what even happened. Also note that after the correction it went from the warmed October on record to “merely” being the fourth warmed October. (I can’t find it handily, but a few blogs I read were portraying it as the 70th warmest which is just wrong) Also science never portrays itself as infallible. That’s a strawman some folks inexplicably like to attack. Rather there will always be mistaken data. Science works by being a community effort where errors and bad hypothesis are corrected over time.BTW - someone noted there is now a Real Climate Wiki which is nice to find data on all the claims and counterclaims going around.

Comments

9 Responses to “The GISS Controversy”

The problem is that on average, the climate has been cooling for almost a decade now and yet Congress still wants to pass laws that would make the recent run up in gas prices look like a Sunday School picnic.

All in order to fix a problem which is probably neither serious nor fixable. Temperatures were considerably warmer during the middle ages and the world didn’t exactly come to an end. A couple of centuries from now, as we approach the pleasant temperature levels of the medieval warm period, perhaps we will be able to tell the difference.

Until then, I don’t see why we should threaten the health and welfare of the whole world in the name of mitigating a problem that (1) we probably aren’t causing in the first place and (2) where nothing short of inflicting a world wide depression is likely make a significant difference.

If Congress really wants to bailout the economy, they should quit threatening to ruin it.

Mark D. are you following the same science the rest of us? This is a major misreading of the data. Check what climate scientists are saying as a chorus (not the minor few who are off key.)

Mark, check out this graph from the wiki.

You can see the raw data and analysis here

If you turn to GISTEMP you get the following graph:

See this Real Climate post which contains a lot of useful information about people claiming temperatures have not risen.

I can see some people disputing the effect humans have on climate. (Although at this stage I think the evidence is pretty much in there as well) However disputing whether warming is actually happening is quite amazing and necessitates ignoring a lot of information.

I’m still not convinced that we are making a big difference in global warming, versus natural events causing the change. I recently read a science article that stated that the huge growing pollutions in Asia are potentially reducing some of the warming trend.

The reality is, it has been cooling periods that have caused greater amounts of destruction. The last Ice Age wiped out more species than in any warm periods (barring an asteroid strike). And the Little Ice Age 700 years ago brought about the plague, something that possibly would not have occurred in a warmer environment.

Warmer environments mean longer growing periods in Canada, Siberia, and other places that currently do not have such a benefit. The last warm period allowed the Norse to settle Greenland!

While we are going to see some changes on coastal areas, etc., I wonder if such changes should be foremost concern for us, versus standard pollutions that we actually have the ability to impact and change?

The problem is massive weather changes. That is what if what once was fertile farmland suddenly doesn’t have the rain? I think the rich nations can easily adapt to this, although it will be painful. (The effects on the Gulf Coast might be more traumatic) The big worry is the effects in poorer nations with regards to war, famine refugees etc.

Clark, I do not dispute that the thirty year trend shows a temperature rise. However, reliable (*satellite measured) ten year trends show a slight decline. The Monckton article has a nice graph. You can eyeball it nicely from the last ten years of the TLT graph on the MSS website as well. Needless to say, this non-rise was not predicted by any of the models.

Supposing that the non-rise in temperatures over the past decade is just a temporary anomaly and the thirty year trend continues for the the rest of the century, the lower troposphere will be 1.45 degrees C warmer in 2100. That is hardly worth ruining the economy over.

(*) It is telling that the Real Climate article doesn’t bother to include any graphs of satellite measured temperature data.

Sorry for the delay.

One quick answer is that Real Climate dealt with the satellite data in a separate post I didn’t link to. Short answer is that the slight cooling effect was predicted by global warming models. (See this post for the more complex answer) Further, as you yourself noted, even that data demonstrates a warming trend when you look at a larger period. So the denialists can produce only a short term cooling trend which isn’t that unusual and is found within warming models.

This post over at Deltoid is worth checking out as well.

Since others are reading here’s the relevant longer term data. You’ll note that if you cherry pick years (a peak at the start and a dip at the end) you can make it appear like cooling is going on. The longer graph demonstrates the fluctuations and then the definite upward trend.

2954152E-96D4-47EF-AC26-DA69A3F00713.jpg

From what I can see from the various debates the only thing really in question is how fast warming is taking place. (Typically figures are between .13 - .18 per decade) Of course the danger is that you reach a tipping point and then serious climatic change takes place.

Clark, I never claimed that temperatures were significantly declining, but rather that they have been flat for nearly a decade. Relative to the noise in the data, seven to nine years is more than adequate to get a legitimate linear regression. We are currently in a dip, so pick another dip, say 2000. It won’t make much of a difference.

With regard to a climactic “tipping point”, there also is a danger that we will be hit by a large asteroid, but that doesn’t mean it is particularly likely.

One thing that irritates me is that there is enormous amount of debate about the science, but little or none about the economics. The unspoken assumption is that if there is global warming the world is going to end. On the contrary, one and a half degrees of warming might be rather nice. The economic impact of slightly warmer weather is so small as to hardly be worth worrying about.

I’ll agree with you that the economic debate really doesn’t happen. It’s taken for granted that if the science is true that a lot follows. Of course with Europe basically saying they won’t follow Kyoto that is changing. What bothers me is that many conservatives appear to be attacking the science because they don’t want to have the economic consequences. I think that if conservatives conceded the science and then had the economic debate they’d be far, far better off. Instead what’s happening is that as more and more accept the science they simply reject the conservative position entirely. And that’s primarily the fault of how conservatives have framed the issue.

With regards to temperature I wasn’t meaning you were claiming temperatures were declining. You aren’t the only one I’ve had this discussion with.

My point though is that this sat data is but one element of data and not the be all or end all of the warming issue. A lot of other temperatures are increasing much more significantly. Further the question is what the science says is going on and there really is overwhelming consensus on that point.

Leave a Reply