The BBC is reporting that 2007 was the second warmest year on record there. (And that’s a problem?)
Here are some of the numbers:
The UK’s top 10 warmest years on record (in order) are 2006, 2007, 2003, 2004, 2002, 2005, 1990, 1997, 1949 and 1999.
Globally, there is a similar trend - the top 10 being 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2001, 1997 and 1995.
Now for my pesky questions:
-
If global warming is occuring, then why was 2007 cooler than 2006?
-
And why was 1990 warmer than 1999?
-
If global warming is occuring, then why don’t the top-ten lists match? In other words why do the temperature fluctuations in the UK not match the temperature fluctuations around the world?
-
Why was 1998 the warmest year in the world but not even among the ten warmest in the UK?
-
Why was 1949 such a warm year in the UK, if global warming has been occuring for the last 20-30 years only?
-
If temperatures have been gradually and steadily increasing, then why are the years 1991-1996, 1998, and 2000-2001 absent from the UK’s list?
Don’t the data simply show that some years are warmer than others and that temperatures vary across the earth? Hasn’t that always been true?
If you want to know more about the evidence for global warming, check out this post on Global Warming Predicitons at American Elephants.
13 responses so far ↓
Andrew Stevens // January 4, 2008 at 7:56 am
Answers to 1, 2, and 6: trends don’t have to be strictly increasing functions.
Answer to 3: because regional differences still exist.
Answer to 4: the El Nino effect warms the Pacific, but not the Atlantic. 1998 was unusually warm globally due to El Nino which doesn’t affect the UK.
Answer to 5: I don’t know, but I’m sure there’s a good reason for it. The Gulf Stream was unusually warm in 1949 for some reason would be my initial guess.
Assuming all of these statistics are accurate (which I don’t necessarily grant, although it’s probably pretty close), then it’s much more significant that 9 of the 10 warmest years in the UK have occurred in the last 18 years and 10 out of 10 globally have occurred in the last 13 years.
I’m not here to convince you that the computer models are infallible and I’m certainly not trying to convince anyone that we ought to do anything about global warming, but the anthropogenic global warming theory is prima facie plausible. There is no doubt that carbon dioxide contributes to global warming; there is no doubt that fossil fuel burning must have at least some effect on global carbon dioxide levels; and there is strong evidence (ice core samples) that carbon dioxide levels have indeed increased significantly in the last hundred years. This does not, to my mind, add up to the lead pipe cinch that it does to its advocates, but your questions don’t do very much to dispel it.
liberty92 // January 4, 2008 at 8:08 am
Did you ever waste an hour & a half & force yourself to watch Al’s slideshow “An Inconvenient Truth”? It is extremely maddening, but if you really want to get yourself worked up about this whole stupid business, that would be a good one to do it. There are so many holes in the whole premise! I especially liked his hydraulic ladder to get to the top of his over the top chart at one point. Anyway, I forced myself to watch it about six months ago & ever since, don’t give the while business the time of day. It’s pathetically unscientific.
Andrew Stevens // January 4, 2008 at 8:46 am
I do agree with Liberty92 about “An Inconvenient Truth.” That’s just political propaganda and shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone. But I can’t name a single issue of substance which doesn’t have people lying or mistaken on its behalf on both sides. The fact that Al Gore doesn’t know what he’s talking about doesn’t mean he’s 100% wrong.
renaissanceguy // January 4, 2008 at 9:33 am
Andrew,
Thanks for giving good answers to my off-the-cuff questions.
I understand that scientists are talking about trends; however, it seems to me that if temperatures are still flucuating between warmest ever and not so warm, then we must not have too much to worry about. I would worry more if the mean temperature was rising 0.1 degree every single year.
I also understand about regional differences, but it does strike me as odd that we are talking about a global phenomenon when some years in Europe were not all that warm while those same years were very warm elsewhere. How do core samples from Antartica tell us anything about global climate change when they come from only one part of the globe?
renaissanceguy // January 4, 2008 at 9:34 am
Liberty92,
I don’t have the stomach to watch Gore’s film.
Andrew Stevens // January 4, 2008 at 10:54 am
A trend which shows a 1 degree rise every decade (with minor fluctuations within the decade) is every bit as worrisome as a trend which shows a .1 degree rise every single year constantly. There’s no reason to think that all fluctuations should be smoothed by the current trend. Indeed, it would be quite astonishing if that happened.
As for Antarctic core samples, it would be nice if we had ice core samples going back thousands of years from every region on Earth, but sadly these samples don’t exist since ice melts virtually everywhere but near the Poles. We do have tree ring samples which seem to show greater concentrations of CO2 elsewhere though, but this evidence isn’t nearly as compelling as the Antarctic evidence.
renaissanceguy // January 4, 2008 at 11:00 am
Andrew,
Again I thank you for your excellent answers. You can tell that science is not my specialty.
Andrew Stevens // January 4, 2008 at 11:18 am
It’s not mine either, I should say (except, perhaps, when it boils down to pure mathematics). I’m certainly no expert on climate science, but then neither is Al Gore (or, for that matter, many of the prominent scientists who bloviate about climate science).
By the by, to the extent that global warming isn’t global, it seems to be affecting the Northern Hemisphere more than the Southern, so if we were relying on Arctic ice core samples, that would be much more tenuous.
Mervi // January 4, 2008 at 11:36 am
R / Man
I think I would be safe in my assuming that you are not a member of C.G.W. (Church of Global Warming, this is not mine I barrowed it from Cal Thomas). I fear that the drummed up fear of global warming is going to bring about some very drastic changes in both our culture and life styles. I see so many who are using many cult style practices and styles. One of the main once that I have encountered is the point that no other sources are accepted except the once they, global warming, present.
Have a warm new year;
mec
robertkyriakides // January 4, 2008 at 11:47 am
Global warming ain’t a religion but a theory which we cannot prove or disprove empirically. It probably is happening (probability around 85%) due to anthropological causes (the probability rate is around 90%) but it is not a slam dunk, as they say in the USA.
The rates given for probability are those of qualified scientists. Virtually all nobel prize winners (people like Stephen Hawking) think that global warming is happening.
This is a topic of genuine scientific complexity, so I doubt if pointing to some inconsitencies helps.
Let’s suppose that the eminent scientists are wrong (they have been in the past) and the probability rate is only 10%. Do you want to take a chance?
Andrew Stevens // January 4, 2008 at 2:11 pm
As I was pointing out above, though, while Stephen Hawking is an impressive mind in his field, he is no more qualified to talk about global warming than I am. (Actually, I’m likely more qualified since my particular mathematical field is probability and statistics.)
I disagree, by the by, with the claim that the theory can’t be proved or disproved empirically. It can be. If it couldn’t be proved or disproved empirically, it wouldn’t be science at all and would indeed be a religion.
That global warming is occurring I have no serious doubts about (I’d put the odds at very close to 100%). That it’s due to anthropogenic causes, I regard as more likely than not. I’m not sure I’d go as high as 90% (as the IPCC did), but certainly I think it’s greater than 50%.
However, as for desire to “take a chance,” I regard the catastrophe scenarios to be far, far less than a 90% probability. It is in fact the most tenuous claim of the global warming movement. Also, whether I’d be willing to take such a chance largely depends on the economic consequences of making the switch from fossil fuels. Given current technology, the economic consequences would definitely be disastrous, particularly for the Third World.
In any event, I’m certainly in favor of doing as much research as possible in order to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels. One doesn’t have to be an environmental zealot to agree that burning fossil fuels is dangerous and detrimental if we don’t have to do so.
American Elephant // July 7, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Actually, I believe the warmest year on record is not 1998, it was 1934. And a majority of Brits, according to a recent poll are skeptical of global warming.
Mike Lovell // July 8, 2008 at 10:23 am
Freeman Dyson, one of the premiere mathematicians of our time (thank you to American Elephant for providing that in his blog), is probably more qualified than Hawking to look at climatological models, and he disagrees with the premise. And this consensus amongst the global warming promoters, is made up largely of independent sectional studies as opposed to an overall look at things, nevemind a good chunk of them were the same who guaranteed us a coming ice age a few decades back.
Global warming is another liberal, or rather “progressive” war socialism without the actual war. They’ve been given wide berth to promote whatever it is they can to get more control into the hands of elite government socialists, and less within the scope of individuals to think and choose as they see fit.
RG: Agreed.
Leave a Comment