celebrity gossip uk daily mail image
A Modest P
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html
I quote:
"Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US VicePresident Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.
...
The maths isn't complicated. If the planet were going to be six degrees hotter by the century's end, it should be getting warmer by 0.6 degrees each decade; if two degrees, then by 0.2 degrees every ten years. Fortunately, it isn't.
Actually, with the exception of 1998 - a 'blip' year when temperatures spiked because of a strong 'El Nino' effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) - the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years."
Disregarding their erroneous application of a linear trend to the warming we'll see, why do they quite blatantly lie about the temperature data given by the UK Met Office? And why do deniers think this is OK?
The Met Office's Hadley Center maintains a temperature record of sea temperatures, and the CRU maintains a land temperature record - combined they make the HadCRUT3 data set. Here is a link to their data:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
I graphed the monthly global data for their variance-adjusted data (several data sets in fact - please note the legend):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56645614@N02/5260064787/sizes/l/in/photostream/
(Data has not yet been adjusted for differences in base periods - if you have information on the base periods, please answer my previous question; I'll update this graphic when I can.)
Close-up of HadCRUT3v, past 15 years:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56645614@N02/5260699144/sizes/l/in/photostream/
With 1998 as starting point:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56645614@N02/5260699156/sizes/l/in/photostream/
When the Daily Mail claims "global warming has stopped" within the last 15 years, do they mean to say:
- a trend of 0.1ËC/dec as measured from this data set for the past 15 years ⤠0,
- 1998 was 15 years ago,
- using a time frame of 13 (15?) years with the warmest as a starting point is an acceptable and unbiased approach to talking about global warming,
- 1998 is just a "blip" when calling the trend flat, but not at the same time (since 1998 is necessary to have a flat-ish trend in the first place)?
Or do they mean something else that might, I don't know, be supported by the very thing they cite?
And again, why do deniers think that this is an acceptable piece of evidence to quote, rather than the data itself?
Sorry, I was adjusting graphics before I posted this and had replaced the graphic that was going to be in the third link above, without correcting the link.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56645614@N02/5260704718/
Even better:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56645614@N02/5260704718/sizes/l/in/photostream/
Mm, actually, refer to the first correction, since that has info in the description about which color line is which.
Bob, would you prefer data from the University of Alabama at Huntsville, collected by anthropogenic climate change skeptic Dr. Roy Spencer?
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56645614@N02/5260699144/sizes/l/in/photostream/
Spencer's data actually shows a larger warming trend, and he's a skeptic. Tell me, did he manipulate his data upwards as well?
>>>I don't think the paper was peer reviewed so that means that there is a better chance that it is factual and can be trusted.
Yes, those were my thoughts exactly. It is strange, isn't it, how the greenhouse effect was disproven to exist and yet nobody ever caught on?
Obviously the rational explanation, aside from "the paper has fundamental flaws," is "global conspiracy against it."
However, I do not have the time nor the expertise to try to refute the paper. I will defer to other more experienced regulars here.
Ugh, I hate Flickr...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56645614@N02/5260777088/sizes/l/in/photostream/
(sorry Bob - correct link here)
Hi again George, started skimming through your link, and this sentence caught my eye.
>>>According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
Sorry, it's going to take me a while to recover from that very elementary error of forgetting that the Earth's atmosphere is not a closed system and that it moves towards dynamic equilibrium after an enhanced greenhouse effect by gradually reradiating thermal energy within itself until the energy is able to find a pathway to escape through the atmosphere.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory-intermediate.htm
I'll also take note that neither of you answered my question.
Ottawa Mike, I'm not sure if you're referring to specifically me when you bring up how this is used to support the CO2 forcing theory - I am aware that this is not evidence itself. The argument that we have been seeing global cooling is what I'm countering. If the Daily Mail really was focusing on statistical significance too, they wouldn't be saying it stopped. You are right that this parallels that interview, and the Daily Mail was just as wrong now as they were then when they say global warming has stopped.
Answer
It may help to know a little about the printed media in the UK (which follows on from Danaâs answer).
Effectively there are three tiers. A the top are the serious newspapers such as the Times, Telegraph, Spectator, Guardian etc, these are the ones that provide detailed and in depth coverage of serious matters. At the other end of the scale are the tabloids or âgutter pressâ and this includes the likes of the Sun, Mirror, News of the World, and the People. These focus mainly on gossip, scandal and celebrities.
In the middle there are only really two papers â the Mail and the Express. The Mail comes in for regular lampooning by satirists for itâs sensationalising of just about everything, itâs running obsession with Princess Diana and itâs policy of blaming just about everything on asylum seekers.
The Mailâs journalists seem to be given an awful lot of leeway when it comes to expressing their personal opinions and as the old Fleet Street adage says âNever let the truth get in the way of a good storyâ. (Fleet Street being the colloquialism for the British press as this is the street in London where many of them were based).
Itâs not at all unusual for the Mail to run with a story one week and the following week have something in complete contradiction. In the example you linked to the Mail proclaimed that âGlobal Warming has Haltedâ and yet four days later they ran with the dramatic headline âClimate Change Could Give You Cancerâ
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1336810/Climate-change-cancer-UN-report-warns-deadly-pollutants-glaciers.html
As youâve superbly demonstrated, the article you linked to is completely bogus and the figures just donât add up. Itâs quite clear to any person who has the integrity and rationality to read beyond the headlines what the true facts of the matter are.
As for why the article is being touted as evidence that global warming has âhaltedâ â it makes no difference how inaccurate or fallacious something is, if it in any way implies that global warming is anything other than induced by humans then it will automatically be accepted, without hesitation or question, as proof that weâre not affecting the climate.
It may help to know a little about the printed media in the UK (which follows on from Danaâs answer).
Effectively there are three tiers. A the top are the serious newspapers such as the Times, Telegraph, Spectator, Guardian etc, these are the ones that provide detailed and in depth coverage of serious matters. At the other end of the scale are the tabloids or âgutter pressâ and this includes the likes of the Sun, Mirror, News of the World, and the People. These focus mainly on gossip, scandal and celebrities.
In the middle there are only really two papers â the Mail and the Express. The Mail comes in for regular lampooning by satirists for itâs sensationalising of just about everything, itâs running obsession with Princess Diana and itâs policy of blaming just about everything on asylum seekers.
The Mailâs journalists seem to be given an awful lot of leeway when it comes to expressing their personal opinions and as the old Fleet Street adage says âNever let the truth get in the way of a good storyâ. (Fleet Street being the colloquialism for the British press as this is the street in London where many of them were based).
Itâs not at all unusual for the Mail to run with a story one week and the following week have something in complete contradiction. In the example you linked to the Mail proclaimed that âGlobal Warming has Haltedâ and yet four days later they ran with the dramatic headline âClimate Change Could Give You Cancerâ
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1336810/Climate-change-cancer-UN-report-warns-deadly-pollutants-glaciers.html
As youâve superbly demonstrated, the article you linked to is completely bogus and the figures just donât add up. Itâs quite clear to any person who has the integrity and rationality to read beyond the headlines what the true facts of the matter are.
As for why the article is being touted as evidence that global warming has âhaltedâ â it makes no difference how inaccurate or fallacious something is, if it in any way implies that global warming is anything other than induced by humans then it will automatically be accepted, without hesitation or question, as proof that weâre not affecting the climate.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment