Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
sidebar-top content-top

Global cooling? Wish it was true

This article first appeared on ABC Unleashed on 22 July 2009, and is republished here with the kind permission of Andrew Glikson.

Global cooling? Wish it was true
by Andrew Glikson

Inherent in any attempt at challenging published scientific theories is the need to conduct research, or advance discussions, submitted to the peer-reviewed scientific literature: the core of the scientific process allowing discrimination between credible scientific work and ambit claims.

While many papers do not succeed to be accepted, serious scientists proceed with further research which, when found consistent with measured data and with basic physical and chemical principles, constitutes a contribution in the respective discipline.

Not so the so-called "climate change sceptics" who, rather than follow scientific procedures, mostly publish in politically friendly media channels.

"Climate change sceptics" scan the field for real or imagined, major or minor errors, inferring such errors undermine major databases, theories, or even an entire branch of science.

A classic example of this approach is the eternal search for errors and gaps in Darwin's evolution theory by creationists, based on their belief in a supernatural creator.

In a similar vein "climate change sceptics" make the assumption climate change either is not occurring or, alternatively, is of a natural rather than anthropogenic origin, repeating long-discarded arguments indefinitely.

To explain their reluctance or inability to publish in the peer-review scientific literature the "sceptics" invoke a conspiracy theory on the part of journal editors, reviewers, climate research organisations, the IPCC, indeed of the entire scientific community.

Some specialise in ad-hominem expressions. The "sceptics" commonly use qualitative or semi-quantitative expressions, avoiding up-to-date data-based arguments.

In an article A new trend in climate alarmism David Evans claims "global cooling" from about 2003, implying errors in earlier measurements of ocean and land temperature, questioning the role of infrared absorption/emission resonance of well-mixed long-lasting greenhouse gases (CO2, N2O, O3, CFC) [2] and the role of human emissions as triggers of climate change. Below I indicate these arguments are incorrect.

(A) "Global Cooling": The article claims the earth has been cooling since 2003, overlooking the role of the ENSO cycle (El Nino Southern Oscillation) and of the 11-year sunspot cycle and aerosol albedo effects which are superposed on the overall warming trend since about 1975.

Figure 1 Correlation of mean global temperature changes from 1975-2008 with the ENSO cycle, showing close relationships between warm peaks and the El-Nino (red) and cool periods and the La-Nina (blue) within an overall global warming trend.

Prior to the mid-20th century the CO2 greenhouse effect and enhanced solar radiation effects almost coincided, but from about 1975 the trends are decoupled.

Figure 2 1885–2000 global land-Ocean temperatures (NASA/GISS) and total solar radiation (Max Planck Institute) [4]. Note the decoupling of the solar effect and the land-ocean temperature anomaly from about 1970-1975.

Solar effects continues to oscillates affecting about +/-0.1 degrees C changes, whereas the greenhouse effects results in global temperature rise of near +0.5 degrees C. Additional warming by near-1.2 Watt/m2 due to fossil fuel-emitted sulphur aerosols mask further committed warming.

Further, yet unspecified, warming ensues from albedo loss due to ice melting and infrared absorption by exposed ice-free water, in particular the Arctic Sea ice. The 1998–2008 period (Figure 3) represents peak temperatures over the last two millennia (Figure 4) and since the early Holocene about 10,000 years ago.

Figure 3 Mean global surface temperatures. Black line - meteorological stations; red dots – satellite land-ocean temperature index.

Figure 4 Mean global temperature reconstructions using multiple climate proxy records reported in the 3rd IPCC Assessment Report. The HadCRUT2v instrumental temperature record is in black.

(B) The Little Ice Age (LIA) and Medieval Warm Period (MWP). Climate change sceptics often refer to qualitative rather than quantitative observations, for example warm Greenland climate during the MWP. Evans's article claims: "once the effects of the little ice age have finally passed, the temperature will get back to where it was in the medieval warm period".

However, multiproxy-based paleo-temperature evidence for the Northern Hemisphere for 700–2000 AD (Figure 4) indicates MWP temperatures were lower than 2000 AD temperatures by at least 0.4 degrees C (Figure 4). The LIA (about 0.3 – 0.5 degrees C cooler than mid-20th century) correlates with low sunspot activity.

(C) Validity of ocean temperature records. Evan's article claim's that ocean temperature measurements by XBT bathythermographs prior to 2003 (sunk to depth of up to 2000 metres), were less accurate than the current Argo network (sunk to depths of 1000 metres or more), dismissing pre-2003 ocean temperature data. However, this claim is refuted: As shown by the NOAA/AMOL report comparisons between ocean and satellite-based measurements of ocean heat storage to 400 metres (1997-2005) are in close agreement (correlation coefficient of 0.9; RMS difference of 0.04 1010 J/m2) (Figure 5).

Figure 5 Comparison between in situ-based and satellite-based estimates of time series of heat storage in the upper 400 m of the ocean. In situ observations (red); satellite altimetry (black). 5° by 1.5° box centered at 27.5°W, 5.25°N. The correlation coefficient between the two time series is 0.9 and their rms measurements (Figures 3 and 6) and the global distribution of weather station (Figure 7).

Figure 6 Comparison of 1982–2006 ground-based (blue) and satellite based (red) temperature measurements. UAH - University of Alabama. RSS - Remote Sensing Services [10]

Figure 7 Global distribution of weather stations.

(E) The carbon dioxide – temperature relationships. The article states "...there is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide was the main cause of recent warming — it's only an assumption, and the calculations of future temperature rises derive most of their warming from an assumed water vapor feedback".

Here the article denies the overwhelming evidence for cause and effect relationships between CO2 and atmospheric temperatures, demonstrated by numerous experimental studies and paleoclimate observations.

Figure 8 CO2 and climate correlations. A: Comparison of model predictions and proxy reconstructions of CO2. B: Intervals of glacial (dark blue) or cool climates (light blue; see text). C: Latitudinal distribution of direct glacial evidence (tillites, striated bedrock, etc.) throughout the Phanerozoic (Crowley, 1998). A (right hand) Proxies used in CO2 estimates. After Royer [13].

Water vapor, which constitutes powerful feedback effects in the tropics, are of low concentrations over deserts and near-nil concentrations over the poles – which constitute the loci of fastest warming, up to 5 degrees C since about 1975.

Earlier Evans questioned the greenhouse effect due to an alleged absence of a tropical troposphere "hot spot", the loci of rising warm air plumes, stating "If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming".

Not so. First, the hotspot is not a signature of the greenhouse effect but of warming from any source. Second, a hot spot has been reported.

Figure 9 Radiosond (weather balloon) measurements and models of the equatorial troposphere hot spot trend, seen to intensify from 1959-2005 to 1979-2005 [15].

Evans's arguments do nothing to disprove the evidence of the effects of more than 310 billion ton of carbon emitted by human industry since 1750, near half the original CO2 inventory of the atmosphere and raising the levels to 388 ppm by 2009 – near 40 percent higher than levels recorded for the last 2.8 million years. CO2 continues to rise at a rate of 2 ppm/year, faster than at the last glacial termination by two orders of magnitude, endangering the climate conditions which allowed the emergence of large mammals (34 million years-ago), humans (5 million years-ago), and civilization (about 7000 years ago).


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Climate change

While many papers do not succeed to be accepted, serious scientists proceed with further research which, when found consistent with measured data and with basic physical and chemical principles, constitutes a contribution in the respective discipline.

"Disciplined" physics/chemistry:

  • fluoride is safe;
  • background radiation is "natural"[sic];
  • depleted uranium is safe;
  • genetically modified substances are equivalence;
  • microwave radiation is safe;
  • sewage is pure water;
  • automobiles don’t create 60% of air quality with the gases remaining in buildings, and roadways.

As for the peer-reviewed precision of chemistry all of the above must surely pale in light of externally administered medications being 95% excreted totally in 24 hours (1934 AMA).

The term xenobiotic ie excreted has been usurped instead to apply only to iatrogenic substances which is the absurdism of new illnesses created FROM the supposed curative original medication.

Surely ethics is the missing discipline.

[Professor Pustaz dismissed hepatitis C in GE cotton; Chief Scientist has shares in product].

It could rain icebergs before these impostors realised Nuremberg was for both science and mankind.


Automobiles only create 40% of known toxins (hence the 1964 figure of 70 cigarettes per day air quality for Tokyo, London, Los Angeles, Mexico and so forth probably requires updating).

We perhaps should enquire why these adhering to structure emissions aren't  in the climate change equation - perhaps someone wants you to believe that when it is stated that smoking causes cancer, you merely dismiss that all smokers dont get cancer, combined with the easy and widely verifiable fact that octagenarians such as the Hunzakuts smoke their non automobile contaminated heads off.

Anyone conversant with the vilification that Rachel Carson received would understand exactly where dull thought inspired by industry funding arose from.

Know the end result

Paul Walter what would Machiavelli do?

He would pass the proposal. Accept any good that comes from it, and more importantly be ready to make hay from the bad (diminishing living standards isn't ever meet with love). The proposal can after all be changed or dismantled in the future. Thus the saviour has cometh.

The rise of Ronald Reagan is also an interesting political study.



Paul Morella, am always pleased to be acquainted with someone who demostrates the requisite amount of cynicism.

Only you would know long and hard the road to the final denouement has been for Paul Walter.

Oh my!

We note in today's newspapers that Abbot and Turncow are at each other's throats over whether to pass the soft Labor legislation on EPA.s when it reaches the Senate.

Abbot wants it passed, not because that that's the better thing to do, but because a refusal might trigger a double dissolution.

Turnbull, cornered, wants the EPA legisaltion resisted, for to allow even Labors business-friendly legisaltion to pass would be seen as weakness in his leadership and a demonstartion both of the coalition's political weakness and bankrupt approach to environment.


Thank you Andrew for persisting in good faith by posting more clear science that shines a light on the "sceptics" and denialists.  My head swims after too much science, however.  Too much data.  In any event I am already convinced by the statements of eminent scientists and august bodies as to the nature of the problem and the likely consequences. 

Another path into the problem is through history.  The ruling groups across time have never voluntarily given up their luxury, their power and prestige or their lickspittles and subordinates.  In the current instance I would count "sceptical" scientists and wide eyed narcissists like Senator Fielding in the latter group along with those so called independent research centres that undermine the public will to drive change by casting doubt on the facts as so far presented.

 We know that the wealthy and powerful will not now, at this point in human history, suddenly start to behave as if they have a common interest with the rest of humanity.  That is not how they see the world.

So the endless presentation of immaculately presented objective data must be starting to feel like what to you? Not rearranging the deck chairs of the Titanic so much as constantly monitoring the water level at the Plimsol line? Counting the life jackets? And the band plays on.

I wonder what the scientists intend to do?  They are generally convinced of the problem and the ones I know are reduced to tears of frustration at the lack of political will engage in more than token change: a carbon trading scheme that, in the course of attempting to preserve the planet for human and other habitation must in the process kiss the arse of market theory and dominant neo-liberalism of the last thirty years.

So, more data? More facts? As if insufficient facts and data are the problem.  The poor scientists are hitting up against the usual limit which is the failure of the rest of the world to conform to the rationality of scientific habitus.

In short, the scientists are bumping into the ancient reality that the powerful and privileged will fuck anybody and anything who gets in the way of them exercising their prerogative and if that means a whole planet then so be it.

But please, more facts.  Let us bury ourselves in empirical debate.  Maybe it might make the reality go away.

"Global Cooling"

Thank you Anthony.

I see what you mean.

My thoughts in this regard are expressed in part in the article "Planet Eaters"


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.
Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner

Recent Comments

David Roffey: {whimper} in Not with a bang ... 49 weeks 4 days ago
Jenny Hume: So long mate in Not with a bang ... 49 weeks 4 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Reds (under beds?) in Not with a bang ... 49 weeks 6 days ago
Justin Obodie: Why not, with a bang? in Not with a bang ... 49 weeks 6 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Dear Albatross in Not with a bang ... 49 weeks 6 days ago
Michael Talbot-Wilson: Good luck in Not with a bang ... 49 weeks 6 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Goodnight and good luck in Not with a bang ... 50 weeks 1 day ago
Margo Kingston: bye, babe in Not with a bang ... 50 weeks 4 days ago