Global Warming -- the back story
Last week, James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies dropped this little bombshell:
"Researchers calculated that 2005 produced the highest annual average surface temperature worldwide since instrument recordings began in the late 1800s"
However, according to this article at
LiveScience:
Conflicting Claims on Global Warming and Why It's All Moot
"Nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1995."
—Statement issued Monday by NOAA
A widely reported study last week said 2005 was the warmest on record. But headlines failed to note that the results were not concrete and a new study out this week challenges the findings.
Whatever the outcome, scientists say it is all moot: Last year was surprisingly warm and the record will fall soon enough.
The latest result came Monday from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These are the folks that run the National Weather Service. Their study concludes that the global temperature in 2005 can't be statistically distinguished from the record set in 1998.
But then we come to this:
Lost in many of the headlines, however, was this quote from the report's lead researcher, James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies: "We couldn't say with 100 percent certainty that it's the warmest year, but I'm reasonably confident that it was."
Hansen looked at different data in different ways compared to the NOAA team. The NASA study considered in particular data from the Arctic, which is warming faster than the rest of the planet. And for the latter part of 2005 both reports relied on preliminary data, so the analyses could change.
In an email interview yesterday, Hansen reiterated his caveat.
"I believe that 2005 is the warmest year, because the main source of difference is the Arctic, and I believe it is likely that our estimate there is in the right ballpark even though it is based on some extrapolations," Hansen said. "However, I admit that it could be wrong, in which case 2005 might be slightly cooler than 1998."
And then, there is this:
In fact the NOAA analysis yielded two results: One data set, in use since the late 1990s, found that 2005 was slightly cooler than 1998, with 2005 being 1.04 degrees Fahrenheit above the 1880-2004 average, while 1998 was 1.12 degrees above that norm.
The other NOAA data set and analysis technique (which will become the primary method used henceforth) puts 2005 slightly warmer than 1998. It has 2005 at 1.12 degrees above the norm and 1998 at 1.06 degrees above the norm. But the report states that "uncertainties associated with the various factors and methodologies used in data set development make 2005 statistically indistinguishable from 1998."
So depending on the model you choose, it's either warmer or cooler. Want to follow an agenda, just choose your model.
One of their key bits of 'evidence' was the melting of the Arctic Ice pack. It would be good if they would check their historical records a bit better.
In this post, I wrote:
Arctic Ice Pack melting
There was a big outcry over the discovery that parts of the Arctic Ice Pack were receding. The environmentalists used this opportunity to shove yet another righteous sermon about “Global Warming” down the throats of the unbelievers.
Only it turns out that the Arctic Ice Pack has been going through regular cycles of advancing and receding — from The Scotsman:Polar history shows melting ice-cap may be a natural cycle
The melting of sea ice at the North Pole may be the result of a centuries-old natural cycle and not an indicator of man-made global warming, Scottish scientists have found.
After researching the log-books of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, scientists believe that the outer edge of sea ice may expand and contract over regular periods of 60 to 80 years. This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature.
And the warming of the Arctic is publicized while the cooling of Antarctica is not --
from Nature:
East Antarctica puts on weight
Increased snowfall over a large area of Antarctica is thickening the ice sheet and slowing the rise in sea level caused by melting ice.
A satellite survey shows that between 1992 and 2003, the East Antarctic ice sheet gained about 45 billion tonnes of ice - enough to reduce the oceans' rise by 0.12 millimetres per year. The ice sheets that cover Antarctica's bedrock are several kilometres thick in places, and contain about 90% of the world's ice. But scientists fear that if they melt in substantial quantities, this will swell the oceans and cause devastation on islands and coastal lands.
If they make a big pronouncement, they should make one based on ALL of the data, not just a set that meets their priorly conceived agenda.
Posted by DaveH at February 1, 2006 10:27 AM
| TrackBack