That snow outside is what global warming looks like
Difficult isn’t it?
Snow bound zebra is evidence of global warming.
Tags: climate change
// Dec 21, 2010 at 11:34 am
I don’t understand your point. For at least a decade I’ve been under the impression that global warming would make Northern Europe far far colder in the winters. We’re on the same latitude as Canada, after all.
Tim adds: That was predicated on the idea that the Gulf Stream shut down. Which ain’t gonna happen while the planet keeps turning.
// Dec 21, 2010 at 11:48 am
The “consensus2 used to assert that Global Warming would largely occur at high latitudes, in winter, at night. Being “settled science” it must still be true.
The Remittance Man
// Dec 21, 2010 at 11:48 am
Ever wondered what sound clutched straws make? Try this for size:
According to Nasa’s datasets, the world has just experienced the warmest January to November period since the global record began, 131 years ago
Dear Lord! You couldn’t get more desperate if you tried.
// Dec 21, 2010 at 11:51 am
in what sense is a Nasa dataset a straw?
Tim adds: Well, in the sense that that NASA data set, (one not actully based on the satellite reord BTW, but on land based stations) the one maintained by James Hansen, seems to disagree with all of the other temperature sets. As a result of rather more “estimation” than other data sets.
// Dec 21, 2010 at 11:54 am
if you say so. I don’t know. This might tell us one day:
if your sympathies lay elsewhere, you’d be the first to leap on the stupidity of people who argue that because the UK is having some cold winters, GLOBAL warming is crock.
Tim adds: Oh come on Luis. Can’t you see the humour in someone taking a picture of a zebra in the snow and using it as proof of global warming?
// Dec 21, 2010 at 11:57 am
oh – a second “if you say so” to the NASA data.
so does that mean all the data referred to in places like this is suspect in your view?
The Remittance Man
// Dec 21, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Well, let’s examine the statement. Firstly the rather strange selection of period – January to November – rather than a full year, that smacks of a degree of selectivity to start with. If December is not available then run your data November to November.
Then there’s this 131 years malarkey. Why not 130? Or 125? Or any other nice round number?
Rule Three when looking at statistics – always be suspicious of non-rounded supporting numbers, it’s a classic sign someone’s been cherry picking the data.
// Dec 21, 2010 at 12:18 pm
fair enough. humor failure on my part.
// Dec 21, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Of all the selections, that’s the easiest. Dataset goes back to 1879. 2010 – 1879 = 131.
// Dec 21, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Of course, it’s 1889 …
// Dec 21, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Now I like George but this annoys me. Sometimes he claims that he can’t be expected to produce answers because he’s not a scientist. Fair enough. But that should mean he tempers his proclamations on, er, science with a little humility…
The Remittance Man
// Dec 21, 2010 at 1:29 pm
And the Jan to November timescale? Why miss out one of the months that generally shows cooler temperatures?
// Dec 21, 2010 at 1:53 pm
“Well, in the sense that that NASA data set, (one not actully based on the satellite reord BTW, but on land based stations) the one maintained by James Hansen, seems to disagree with all of the other temperature sets.”
That’s not actually true. The trend in all of the data sets lies within each others confidence intervals (that is to say, they are statistically indistinguishable). If there is an odd man out it is UAH.
See http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/comparing-temperature-data-sets/#more-3206 for detail
// Dec 21, 2010 at 2:25 pm
“Firstly the rather strange selection of period – January to November – rather than a full year, that smacks of a degree of selectivity to start with. If December is not available then run your data November to November.”
But December 09 is available – and NASA actually ran the data from Dec to Nov.
Turns out the period which just ended on 30 Nov (aka the 2010 meteorological year) is also the hottest 12 month period in the GISS record.
// Dec 21, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Well, it could be that George and the consensus crew are a bunch of lying bastards and there is something righteous in the Dec figures (although Frank’s comment at 14 suggests the latter is not so.) Or it could be because the Dec figures weren’t out when George’s assistant’s peon did his research for him.
Not, frankly, that it matters – if you compare Jan – Nov for the last 131 years you are going to get a perfectly valid result. If intellectually somewhat strange.
In long-term datasets you will often find odd tails around reporting years – at the ancient start because somebody then decided to store data for calendar / financial / religious years (and you don’t necessarily have the data or the time to recalculate) and at the modern conclusion because you haven’t yet reached the end of your arbitrary year (or, even if you have), processed the results.
// Dec 21, 2010 at 3:18 pm
The question to ask is “Do the bits of the world that show up as unusually hot have lots of measurement stations, or are they represented in the calculations by guesses/estimates/extrapolations/interpolations/barefaced lies?”
// Dec 21, 2010 at 4:14 pm
dearime – tut, tut, the correct word is “adjustments”.
// Dec 21, 2010 at 6:28 pm
// Dec 21, 2010 at 9:58 pm
20 December 2010 8:41PM
George, what type of weather could people in Britain expect to see if global warming isn’t happening?
20 December 2010 8:45PM
So now we can confuse weather with climate?
// Dec 22, 2010 at 11:54 am
Bloody hell. Jan-Nov 2010 = year to date. That’s a perfectly reasonable and normal measure to use, across all fields where you might use data.
William M. Connolley
// Dec 22, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Hi Tim, I’m curious if you’ve accepted yet that your:
* as Frank points out re the disagreement
* and for the “not actually based on” bit – you’re not going to join the silly “but the satellite record is lovely” crowd, are you?
* and as for the scare-quotes “estimation” – what are you on about?
Its rather disappointing seeing what looks rather like recycled “skeptic” talking points in your climate science. And this entire post is silly stuff worthy of the Daily Mail. Monbiot may or may not be correct that less sea ice can plausibly lead to colder winters here, I haven’t checked. But your apparent laughing at an entirely plausible science concept puts you off in the Inhofe league, where I hope you don’t want to be.
Tim adds: The aim and point of the post was to laugh rather at the specific photograph used to illustrate the point. As to the rest of it, this is why I do almost always stay with the economics of it all. There at least I am informed enough to, well, be informed.
// Dec 30, 2010 at 7:30 pm
“As to the rest of it, this is why I do almost always stay with the economics of it all. There at least I am informed enough to, well, be informed.”
But … it’s not that hard to be informed.
The satellite record arguably involves far more estimation than the surface record. As to why, I’ll leave that for you to do a little research on your home (hint: temperature isn’t actually measured by the satellites, you can take it from there).
If you understand that you’re not informed, why make such statements about “Jim Hansen’s work” in the first place?
BTW, several of the more competent people from the skeptic side, originally convinced that GISTemp has been cooked (as you imply), have created their own surface temperature reconstructions using GHCN data based on their own preferred weighting algorithms. Their conclusion (much to their surprise) is that all of their efforts yield results similar to GISTemp. You can find discussion of this at Rank Exploits.
// Dec 30, 2010 at 7:37 pm
“And the Jan to November timescale? Why miss out one of the months that generally shows cooler temperatures?”
I don’t know why the BBC article chose this time frame, but the meteorological year runs from Dec 1 to Nov 30, i.e. the beginning of meteorological winter to the end of meteorological fall.
This has been the standard for a very, very long time (I won’t bother looking up just how long, because the choice has nothing to do with climate science, global warming, blah blah blah).
So the 2010 meteorological year just ended recently.
And GISTemp pegs it as the warmest in the instrumental record (as has been previously pointed out, that’s 1889-2010, 131 years).
As to whether or not that will hold for the 2010 calendar, we shall see. It’s cold where lots of people live (northern Europe, the east coast of the US), but warm elsewhere (northeastern and northcentral Canada – the Hudson’s Bay has actually been *melting* for much of December, as of a couple of weeks ago, at least, it was unseasonably warm in northern Maine, etc).
You can see conditions for Dec 1-20 here. Doesn’t look exceptionally cold on a global basis, does it?
// Dec 30, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Ugh, don’t post while trying to work in another window:
” I’ll leave that for you to do a little research on your home ” – on your own, of course.
“will hold for the 2010 calendar” – 2010 calendar year, of course.
© 2006–2007 Tim Worstall — Sitemap — Cutline by Chris Pearson