Hey, deniers, is hotter oceans not part of global warming? Just another hoax?

Hey, deniers, is hotter oceans not part of global warming? Just another hoax?

Summary: One of the standard arguments of those who claim to have evidence that global warming is a hoax--or evil conspiracy or even a plot by nefarious forces trying to control the planet--is that the earth is, in fact getting cooler. That all began as a specious use of data since 1998, still the hottest year on record, and then skewing the data so that 1998 is the peak and it's not beeen that hot since, ergo it's cooling.

SHARE:
TOPICS: New Zealand
36

One of the standard arguments of those who claim to have evidence that global warming is a hoax--or evil conspiracy or even a plot by nefarious forces trying to control the planet--is that the earth is, in fact getting cooler. That all began as a specious use of data since 1998, still the hottest year on record, and then skewing the data so that 1998 is the peak and it's not beeen that hot since, ergo it's cooling. Except that you and I have lived through nearly allthe hottest years on record. And the oceans just set another record for high temps. NOAA reports that oceanic surface temps this summer, June-August, were a full degree higher than the average. Isn't that a cool stat? For this bit of marine data you can't even use the lovely deniers' argument that the measurements are skewed because the thermometers are all placed nefariously near heat gathering roofs. Of course the Pacific's El Nino is part of this summer delightful heat record. Sunscreen anyone? Not to miss a chance to warn, NOAA claims many land masses are also quite hot this summer with New Zealand and Australia recording their hottest August ever. Broiled kangaroo, anyone?

[poll id="178"]

Topic: New Zealand

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

36 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • hmm...

    I'd like to see Christian come and spread his 'czarist' nonsense on this page >.>

    Thanks for pointing out the 1998 flaw by the way =)
    privatejarhead
    • Christian is usually right.

      Of course, we all have different ways to express ourselves. But facts are facts.
      CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963
  • RE: Hey, deniers, is hotter oceans not part of global warming? Just anothe

    It is interesting to note that NOAA's data set for
    this claim makes the same 'let's pick our measuring
    point and go from there' claim.

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/record-sea-
    surface-temperatures-are.html

    The oceans in the 1930s were warmer than they are now,
    and we have decent ocean temperature records going
    back to the 1840s.

    Oh - and is there a reason why carbon offsets
    purchasable at airports sell at a 60-fold markup of
    their market prices?
    Ad Astra
    • Of course there is a reason...

      It's the same reason why a can of coke sells for $2.50, a bag of M&Ms sells for $2.00 and a pack of cigarettes sells for $10.00. If you haven't noticed that everything at the airport is priced well above market prices then maybe you should pay more attention.
      jasonp@...
  • More silliness

    NOAA's methodology is fully documented[1], so if you are going to claim it's faulty, present your evidence. If you are going to claim that sea surface temperatures were hotter in the 1930s, present your evidence. Even better, present it to the authors of the report so [b]they[/b] can respond with their opinion about that data.

    North eastern Australia has just experienced its hottest August on record, setting both hottest maximum and minimum temperatures - a 22 deg minimum at 5am in winter is warm by anyone's standards.

    1. References are listed here: http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.noaa.oisst.v2.html
    Fred Fredrickson
  • There we go again.

    First it was "global warming". Then - refuted and embarrassed they replaced it with "climate change" (like it's something New and Dangerous fff). Now the new scare tactic is 'hotter oceans'. First of all: prove it. Secondly: why would it be a problem? Thirdly: what's your real agenda? Not having a job and wanting to tax other people?

    Fuller. Get a real job.
    CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963
  • Another non-researched post

    You make claims based solely upon a news report without actually researching the data.

    Try this and learn something:
    www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08 and read the article titled "Spurious SST Warming Revisited"

    Besides, we're talking about a climatological record that only goes back 30-50 years (worldwide), or about 100 years (local averages). To say that we are the warmest that we have been EVER been is very wrong. We could have warmer oceans for the first several thousand years of human habitation - nobody knows.
    sgtgary@...
    • Thanks sgtgary

      I reference that site myself...
      rikasa
    • DING! DING! DING! We have a winner.

      And I bet that the poster of this story will
      NEVER try to post against your posts.

      I've raised this same exact issue many times,
      that we have SO FRIGGING LITTLE RECORDS....
      that we cannot say that the world is warming or
      cooling really, just that we are in a time
      where mother nature is acting kinda like a
      freak of nature, as one Weather Channel
      weatherwoman put it.

      We know that weather is so damned chaotic that
      it's almost impossible to try to predict it, so
      why do those IDIOT Democrats and Enviroloonies
      keep pointing to this as a 'the sky is falling'
      type of thing.

      Yes, we are getting more rain. Yes, the polar
      ice caps are melting.... but we have absolutely
      no freaking idea whether we were in a time
      before this of.... milder than normal weather,
      nor whether the polar ice caps are a PERMANENT
      THING on this planet or any other.
      Lerianis10
      • DING! DING! DING! We have a loser.

        If he were interested in science, he might have chosen a scientific journal of repute rather than some guys blog. For instance, "Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years", http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm. Or "...the eight warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998" - http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=11539. Or a very nice graf from NASA showing the upward trend of global temperatures since 1880 - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif. Or you could venture into statistics with "The fact that the 13 warmest years since 1880 could have accured by accident after 1990 corresponds to a likelihood of no more than 1:10 000." - http://www.physorg.com/news150718583.html. Or you could go to the universities. "2007 Was Earth's Second Warmest Year in a Century" - http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/08/01/giss.html. Or you could listen to the meteoroligists who said three years ago "The five warmest years in decreasing order are: 1998, 2005, 2002, 2003 and 2004." - http://www.wmo.ch/pages/publications/meteoworld07/_archive/en/feb2006/2005.htm. Or you could read any of a few thousand more reports exactly like these. Or you could believe what one guy says on his blog. Tough choice, I know...
        jasonp@...
        • So now we work off an 11 year period

          and ignore historical ice core research (etc...), which shows evidence that at times the earth experienced much higher temperatures than now [i]and[/i] much higher C02.

          BTW: C02 rises [i]after[/i] temperature rises - disturbing as it sounds, there is a lag (min 200 yrs) between C02 and temperature patterns that Al found too 'inconvenient' to detail on his infamous graph... and guess who comes second? Hint: it aint temperature! That is; temperature is the initial trigger of C02 rises. Don't get me wrong - once there is more of any green house gas such as clouds (the most abundant), this will lead to temperature rises, but if this feedback relationship were that simple we may have seen some kind of a runaway effect. It seems the earth itself over time can correct this.

          Finally; before anyone throws the even more infamous hockey stick graph at me, the IPCC themselves discredited this and did not include it in their 2007 report.

          My point: please research the long-term macro-climate trends before pressing panic buttons.
          rikasa
        • You must have missed it...

          I have way too many things to do to spend hours on here debating something that is this charged. I know where I stand and I'm not really sure my mission is converting the world to my view. I do NOT disbelieve in global warming. My stand is that our science is not advanced enough to know all the variables that are concerned. Every one of those studies are results from something funded by somebody who wants a particular answer - whether private companies or the government. The results are not unbiased and are not pure science. As with any study, it's easy to only look at a few variables and think you have the answer. When you look at ALL the variables (which we don't even know), we do NOT know what's going on with our planet (or our sun, for that matter).

          I have only completed research as an assistant with other published researchers. Typically, the military-oriented weather & climate research doesn't make journals because the cause is too focused and narrow for the field as a whole.

          But I sit about 50 feet from a quarter of a billion dollars worth of government hardware cranking out weather data from models, ingesting as much of the world's weather data as humanly possible. We don't run climate models on operational systems because we aren't funded to do that (but it's done "on the side by people who are curious"). What I can state categorically is that our best models, on our best hardware, cannot accurately predict surface, atmospheric, upper-atmospheric, or solar weather more than 10-14 days out. Heck, we can't NAIL the surface temp more than 4 days out. How do you imagine that we can really model the earth's climate over the next 100 years? honestly? By removing variables, and ignoring those we do not understand or do not know about. It's incomplete science that is giving people incorrect assumptions about what is happening.
          sgtgary@...
    • Spurious warming revisited

      If you actually read the article, the author (Roy Spencer, PhD) is saying he
      was [b]wrong[/b] in claiming the warming conclusion was incorrect:

      "[i]And it does look like July 2009 might well have experienced a warmer
      SST anomaly than July 1998, as was originally claimed by NOAA.[/i]"

      In other words, the warming anomaly, as reported by NOAA, was real.
      Fred Fredrickson
      • Your'e right

        Exactly, but it's a whopping 0.2?C higher than the 10-year average... well within the statistical deviation. By itself, that doesn't mean there is any massive record in the works
        sgtgary@...
  • Yep, it's just another hoax, because it assumes that humans are CAUSING it

    Which is bullshit, to be quite blunt.

    Human-made Global Warming, also known as man-made
    global warming is nothing more than bunk. Humans
    CANNOT do ANYTHING to effect the world enough to cause
    the world to warm OR to cool.

    The only things that can: massive eruptions of volcanoes, the Sun putting out more or less energy, a
    1 mile wide asteroid hit, or all the nuclear weapons
    in the ENTIRE WORLD being used at once all over the
    world (which I guess you could call a 'man-made'
    change but it is still extremism as well).

    The fact is also that the United States just posted,
    in most parts of the country, the COOLEST summer on
    record ever.
    So has most of the rest of the world.

    It's time to realize that our climate and temperature
    is a CHAOTIC SYSTEM where man-kind just has to 'go
    with the flow' and can do little to NOTHING to change
    those two things.

    The only people who state otherwise are people who
    take it as ROTE TRUTH that man can change the climate
    and will keep on saying that regardless of how many
    10ton sledgehammers worth of evidence they take to the
    face.

    Lerianis10
    • You guys are funny

      You complain about selective use of facts, then do exactly the same.
      When NOAA reports higher temperatures that might be used as
      evidence of global warming, they're bunk. When NOAA reports lower
      temperatures, it's solid evidence that global warming is bunk.

      Take Lerianis10's statement:

      "[i]The fact is also that the United States just posted,
      in most parts of the country, the COOLEST summer on
      record ever.[/i]"

      Sorry, complete bunk. There is no way to come to that conclusion
      from NOAA's published articles. Not [b]one single state[/b] recorded
      its coolest summer on record. Some were near their lowest on record,
      others near their hottest on record.

      While this summer in the USA was, on average, 0.4 degrees F below
      the 20th century average, 2008 was 0.6 degrees F warmer.

      So what's the trend? You have to look at longer terms, and when you
      do that, it's been getting warmer (on average) over the last century or
      so.
      Fred Fredrickson
      • And your selective use of historical periods

        is just as amusing, quote: [i]So what's the trend? You have to look at longer terms, and when you
        do that, it's been getting warmer (on average) over the last century or
        so.[/i]

        Last [i]century[/i], or so?? As if climate 'started' when we decided to begin measuring it?? That's where I take issue with the alarmists. We must put our assessments in the context of climate fluctuations on a much larger time scale. While it is true, that temperatures have been on the rise since the 1850s overall, we need to go back much further in history before we can begin drawing alarming conclusions about our ability to affect the massive and complex climatic system before us. With that in mind, would you be so kind as to peruse the following:

        http://climatesci.org/2007/06/15/on-the-fundamental-defect-in-the-ipcc%E2%80%99s-approach-to-global-warming-research-by-syun-ichi-akasofu/

        OR for a more detailed breakdown:

        http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf

        And about the author:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syun-Ichi_Akasofu

        Looking forward to your feedback, for want of a better term:-)
        rikasa
  • RE: Hey, deniers, is hotter oceans not part of global warming? Just anothe

    i personally think that fuller and clancey should have
    their collective butts tossed out of zdnet, or anything
    that resembles a tech site...geez!
    straycat5678
    • I agree with tossing Fuller.

      His atrocious articles are invariably poorly composed (and even more poorly spell-checked) vitriolic diatribes against those that have the temerity to disagree with his preconceived views.


      But Clancy actually has interesting, well researched, and upbeat articles. That's probably why she doesn't get the number of talkbacks that Harry does.
      Letophoro
      • And here's my vote: Down with Fuller.

        His blogs are nothing more than alarmist rants of hysterical (off-meds?) Gaia worshippers. It's out of place on ZDNet.
        CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963