2010-08-25 15:24:38 Basic rebuttal #106. Global temperatures dropped sharply in 2007. Call for help on computer related tasks!
villabolo

villabolo@yahoo...
76.93.65.8

REVISION #1 

I haven't been able to work on anything due to a major computer virus.

My main problem, however, is that I cannot find a way of transferring a modified version of the temperature chart with trend lines superimposed. The graph transfers, but the trend lines do not move from my Word doc. I am computer illiterate so I would appreciate any advise. Thank you.


 2007 was a normal La Nina year, when temperatures are cooler, and it was the warmest La Nina in temperature records.    

A common claim, made by those who deny Man Made Global Warming, is that the Earth has been cooling since 1998. They have also made various claims about the years 1995, 2002 and recently, 2007 being the beginning of a cooling trend for the Earth. 

To find out whether there has actually been a "cooling trend" since 2007 it is important to take all recent claims for so called "Global Cooling" together as a whole since they all follow the same pattern.

I have some more grammatical corrections/suggestions. It is a rather long list, but please don’t think I’m attacking you personally. I understand that everybody makes grammatical errors – I’ve probably made one or two in this email – and in your case, I’m guessing English may not be your first language. In any case, it’s a good idea to iron out these errors to make things easier to read and make a better impression.

Anyway, without further ado:
•    I don’t see any reason for the phrases “Global Warming”, “Global Cooling”, and “Man Made Global Warming” to be capitalized.
•    I suggest “It begins from 1979 to the present” be changed to something like “It spans from 1979 to the present”.
•    I think “which direction the temperatures are going to” should be “which direction the temperatures are going”.
•    I’d change “a deceptive impression of the Earth’s cooling” to “the deceptive impression that the Earth is cooling”.
•    “This is exactly what happened twice, since 1975 to 2009.” I suggest this be changed to either “This is exactly what happened twice in the period 1975 to 2009” or “This has happened twice since 1975.”
•    The comma in “one very clear, jump” does not belong.
•    I think “grossly out of context short term evidence” should be “grossly out-of-context short-term evidence”.

My friends call me a grammar policeman – now you know why!

2010-09-08 14:02:06James Wright.
villabolo

villabolo@yahoo...
76.93.65.8

Grammar and punctuation are weak points with me so I don't mind the suggestions. I have an idiosyncratic way of writing, so that may cause some problems on occasion.

I used most of your suggestions except for the capitalization. I know there is no grammatical reason to justify it; it is merely a personal quirk. I'll leave up to the proofreader to correct.

I've also been advised on the use of dash lines in the phrase out-of-context. I've never noticed before in most American writings. Is this a formal English convention?

VILLABOLO 

2010-09-08 17:49:21hyphens
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.34.204
The general rule is that you should hyphenate when you're creating an adjective out of the pieces: It makes it into a single whole word.
2010-10-08 09:12:29Rebuttal 106
villabolo

villabolo@yahoo...
64.183.42.52
I seem to have lost my rebuttal (Except for the first two chapters.), probably due to a computer virus I have. I lost it while I was trying to edite it. Is there the possibility of there being a backup in this system? My backups are trashed and I have the feeling that I have to rewrite this.
2010-10-08 17:32:35Is this what you're after?
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.160.198
2007 was a normal La Nina year, when temperatures are cooler, and it was the warmest La Nina in temperature records.    

A common claim, made by those who deny Man Made Global Warming, is that the Earth has been cooling since 1998. They have also made various claims about the years 1995, 2002 and recently, 2007 being the beginning of a cooling trend for the Earth. 

To find out whether there has actually been a \"cooling trend\" since 2007 it is important to take all recent claims for so called \"Global Cooling\" together as a whole since they all follow the same pattern.

When \"skeptics\" make these claims they take short periods of time, usually 10 years or less, out-of-context (\"cherry picked\") from 30 years of evidence, which is the minimum needed to make a judgment on any situation.

The temperature chart below is based on information acquired from NASA heat sensing satellites. It covers 1979 to the present, providing 30 years of temperature measurements. This gives a much better view of which direction the temperatures are going.

As you can see, it is very easy to give the deceptive impression of the Earth's cooling if you start, let's say, at 1998 and end on 2008. Just draw a line in your imagination, or print this out and do it on paper, and you will create an artificial and misleading \"decline\" in temperature.  This has actually been done by \"skeptic\" leaders. You can make an even more absurd one by drawing a line from 2007 to 2009. The shorter the time period, the easier it is for them to mislead the public.

That is why those who oppose the idea of Man Made Global Warming never use the full 30 years of satellite data that is available and easily seen on a single sheet of paper. The longer the time period presented, the much harder it is to take the information out of context. It is also why so called \"skeptics\" tend to think in extremely short range intervals of time, imagining that 2 or 3 years of cooling somehow proves that Global Warming cannot be occurring.

The red curve on the graph represents the average temperature, throughout the entire Earth. When you look at the 30 year temperature graph below, you will notice a continuous rising and falling of temperatures that resembles a roller coaster. The upper portions of the curve are usually El Niño years, which are warm. The bottom portions of the curve are usually La Niña years, which are cooler.

Now, how would you look for changes in temperatures over the long run, like the 30 years illustrated on the graph? They won't necessarily rise, as many people expect, in a slowly rising curve. Instead they could go up in a stepwise fashion. That means that they can remain about the same for a few years and then, all of a sudden, take a jump, then remain steady for another few years before taking another jump.

That is what happened twice, from 1975 to 2009. The chart below, starting at 1979 shows one very clear jump for both La Niña, (1995) and El Niños, (1998) respectively. Can you spot them?  If you have trouble spotting them, take a ruler, or any straight object, and lay it across either the very tops or bottoms of those curves.

From 1980 to 1996 the El Niño years stayed between the .5 Centigrade (.09 Fahrenheit) and the .2C (3.6F). Then there was a dramatic surge in 1998. It was a Super El Niño year, the most intense one in all recorded history. The rise surged up to almost .8C (1.44F) and then leveled off to an average of approximately .3C (5.4F). This was about .2C (.36F) higher than the 1979 to 1998 average for El Niños.

From 1979 to 1995 the La Niña years would stay below the black horizontal line at the 0.0 degree mark. Then there was a sudden rise of almost .2C (.36F)  when the next 3 La Niñas followed. Not a single one dipped below that black line. The last La Niña episode from 2007-2009 actually dropped to a point a bit above the black line.  That makes it the warmest La Niña in the entire record.

So why are some people claiming that the drop in temperature, in 2007 to 2009 was important?

In conclusion, the year 2007 simply saw an ordinary drop in temperature which was part of the normal cycle of La Niñas and El Niños that have been occurring for thousands of years, with or without Global Warming. We have had, as indicated in the satellite records above 7 La Niña episodes in the past 30 years and this last one, as the chart below shows, was actually the warmest La Niña on record!

Since so called \"skeptics\" have been switching dates for their imaginary concept of Global Cooling; it is predictable that they will, in the future, keep changing their dates in order to fit in with temperature changes. Their so called temperature drop in 2007 will soon be forgotten along with 1998, 1995 and 2002 only to be replaced by another date based on grossly out-of-context short-term evidence.

Can you trust the credibility of those who are constantly changing their statements to suit the current evidence?


Charts updated monthly. Available at www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/


2010-10-09 08:39:09Thank you.
villabolo

villabolo@yahoo...
64.183.42.52
Thanks John. Will be clearing out the bugs as soon as I get a new computer in about a week. Sorry for the lack of activity.
2010-10-13 10:11:55Not able to edit my rebuttal.
villabolo

villabolo@yahoo...
76.93.90.117
There is no edit function on my rebuttal at the end of the page.
2010-10-13 22:18:40Edit rebuttal
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.160.198
You can't edit my post but you can copy and paste it into your own post - either a new one or edit your original post.
2010-10-17 04:25:43Basic rebuttal #106. Global temperatures dropped sharply in 2007. Revision 2.
villabolo

villabolo@yahoo...
76.93.90.117

REVISION 2 

 

 2007 was a normal La Nina year, when temperatures are cooler, and it was the warmest La Nina in temperature records.

A common claim, made by those who deny Man Made Global Warming, is that the Earth has been cooling recently. 1998 was the original date claimed for Global Cooling. Then 1995 was chosen. Soon afterwards 2002 was the next date chosen. 2007 is the most recent date chosen by "skeptics" for their claims of "Global Cooling".

Has there been any such cooling recently?

To find out whether there has actually been a "cooling trend" since 2007, it is important to take all recent claims for so called "Global Cooling" together as a whole, since they all follow the same pattern.

When "skeptics" make these claims they take short periods of time, usually 10 years or less, out-of-context ("cherry picked") from 30 years of evidence; the minimum needed to make a judgment on any situation.

The temperature chart below is based on information acquired from NASA heat sensing satellites. It covers 1979 to the present, providing 30 years of temperature measurements. This gives a much better view of which direction the temperatures are going. Just looking at the chart is enough to tell that temperatures have been rising instead of falling.

As you can see, it is very easy to give the deceptive impression of the Earth's cooling if you draw a line starting, for example, at 1998 and ending on 2008. This will create an artificial and misleading "decline" in temperature which is what "skeptic" leaders have done. You can make an even more absurd one by drawing a line from 2007 to 2009. The shorter the time period, the easier it is for them to mislead the public.

That is why those who oppose the idea of Man Made Global Warming never use the full 30 years of satellite data that is available and easily seen on a single sheet of paper. The longer the time period presented, the much harder it is to take the information out of context. It is also why so called "skeptics" tend to think in extremely short range intervals of time, imagining that 2 or 3 years of cooling somehow proves that Global Warming cannot be occurring.

The red curve on the graph represents the average temperature, throughout the entire Earth. When you look at the 30 year temperature graph below, you will notice a continuous rising and falling of temperatures that resembles a roller coaster. The upper portions of the curve are El Niño years, which are warm. The bottom portions of the curve are usually La Niña years, which are cooler.

The warm El Niño and cool La Niña cycles occur regardless of Global Warming although they are being effected by the rise in temperatures.

 

Now, how would you look for changes in temperatures over the long run, like the 30 years illustrated on the graph? They won't necessarily rise, as many people expect, in a slowly rising curve. Instead they could go up in a stepwise fashion. That means that they can remain about the same for a few years and then, all of a sudden, take a jump, then remain steady for another few years before taking another jump.

The chart below, starting at 1979, shows a clear rise in temperatures for both the La Niña (1995; cool phase) and the El Niño (1998; warm phase.) respectively. Can you spot them? From 1980 to 1996 the El Niño years stayed between the .5 Centigrade (.09 Fahrenheit) and the .2C (3.6F). Then there was a dramatic surge in 1998. It was a Super El Niño year, the most intense one in all recorded history. The rise surged up to almost .8C (1.44F) and then leveled off to an average of approximately .3C (5.4F). This was about .2C (.36F) higher than the 1979 to 1998 average for El Niños.

From 1979 to 1995 the La Niño years would stay below the black horizontal line at the 0.0 degree mark. Then there was a sudden rise of almost .2C (.36F) when the next 3 La Niñas followed. Not a single one dipped below that black line. The last La Niña episode from 2007-2009 actually dropped to a point a bit above the black line making it the warmest La Niña in the entire record.

So why are some people claiming that the drop in temperature, from 2007 to 2009 was important?

In conclusion, the year 2007 simply saw an ordinary drop in temperature which was part of the normal cycle of La Niñas and El Niños that have been occurring for thousands of years, with or without Global Warming. We have had, as indicated in the satellite records above, 6 La Niña episodes in the past 30 years and this last one, as the chart below shows, was actually the warmest La Niña on record!

 

Furthermore, overall temperatures have actually increased since 1995/1998; the exact opposite of what Global Cooling skeptics claim! 

Since "skeptics" have been switching dates for their imaginary concept of Global Cooling; it is predictable that they will, in the future, keep changing their dates in order to fit in with temperature changes. Their so called temperature drop in 2007 will soon be forgotten along with 1998, 1995 and 2002 only to be replaced by another date based on grossly out-of-context short-term evidence.

Can you trust the credibility of those who are constantly changing their statements to suit the current evidence?

2010-10-20 16:02:15Computer illiterate needs help!
villabolo

villabolo@yahoo...
76.93.71.12

Being totally computer illiterate I am having a difficult time with some basic modifications that will enhance the value of the chart in my rebuttal.

I am trying to add multi-colored trend lines to the UAH temperature graph in order to emphasize the temperature rises, since 1995/1998, as opposed to the skeptic's claim of "Global Cooling". I have attempted to superimpose Word Art lines on a GIF image, Dr Roy Spencer's UAH chart, and transfer it over to this site. I have tried as much as I can and have taken advise from knowledgeable people to no avail.

I would appreciate any help on this matter.

2010-11-01 15:59:48Your pics converted to GIFs
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.160.198

Giordano, I've converted your pics to GIFs. All I did was open your Word doc, do a screen capture of the graphs then crop the image in Photoshop:

 

 

2010-11-01 16:07:32Just to throw a spanner in the works re this argument
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.160.198

Now I initially added this argument a while back when skeptics were using the cooling in 2008 to deny global warming.

However, as pointed out above, this argument is now dated. However, the argument continues to be rehashed - in fact, I just saw the latest incarnation this week:

In the last month, did we just lose nearly a century's worth of global warming?

So is it worth reframing this argument to more generally hit any argument that uses a few months or a year or two of cooling to disprove global warming?

2010-11-01 17:55:03
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.131.168

John, we need another post along the lines of this: Climate-Cherry-Pickers-Falling-sea-levels-in-2010 

Those graphics send a pretty powerful message IMO. And yes, I think a general version would be worthwhile because the "skeptics" will keep trotting out garbage like that. It is propaganda we're fighting against after all.

2010-11-01 18:19:45Reframing argument.
villabolo

villabolo@yahoo...
76.93.71.12

As doug said, there's sure more to come. A rebuttal, covering "Global Cooling" in general, will cover anything they can come up with by just adding the 'joke du jour.' I would still mention the latest short term trend they come up with just to show them side by side on a graph. Increasing the collection should raise the comedic effect.

I'll start working on a more general argument shortly. We might use this one, for now, in order to get something started. The title should be changed. I'm working on one.

2010-11-01 22:17:11
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.216.71
Villa, a grouping of cherry picks would sure look funny. I think these graphic representations are the way to go, especially with all the short attention spans people seem to have (me included!). 
2010-11-02 07:46:21Basic rebuttal #106. Temperatures dropped sharply in 2007. Revision #3.
villabolo

villabolo@yahoo...
76.93.71.12

2010-11-02 07:54:55
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.105.195

The explanations are too far from the graphs. How is the reader expected to connect what you are describing to the graph?

 

2010-11-02 08:43:20
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.91.208
I also think for a basic rebuttal, and considering the subject (cherry picking) it can be a lot less wordy. I imagine a graph of the entire surface instrumental record (say Gistemp) vs the cherry picked portion all on it's lonesome. Like John did in the falling sea levels in 2010 post. 
2010-11-03 15:00:02Basic rebuttal #106. Temperatures dropped sharply in 2007. Revision #3.
villabolo

villabolo@yahoo...
76.93.71.12

REVISION 3

2007 was a normal La Niña year, when temperatures are cooler, and it was the warmest La Nina in temperature records.

A common claim, made by those who deny Man Made Global Warming, is that the Earth has been cooling recently. 1998 was the original date claimed for Global Cooling. Then 1995 was chosen. Soon afterwards 2002 was the next date chosen. 2007 is the most recent date chosen by "skeptics" for their claims of "Global Cooling".

Has there been any such cooling recently?

To find out whether there has actually been a "cooling trend" since 2007, it is important to take all recent claims for so called "Global Cooling" together as a whole, since they all follow the same pattern.

When "skeptics" make these claims they take short periods of time, usually 10 years or less, out-of-context ("cherry picked") from 30 years of evidence; the minimum needed to make a judgment on any situation.

The temperature chart below is based on information acquired from NASA heat sensing satellites. It covers 1979 to the present, providing 30 years of temperature measurements. This gives a much better view of which direction the temperatures are going. Just looking at the chart is enough to tell that temperatures have been rising instead of falling.

As you can see, it is very easy to give the deceptive impression of the Earth's cooling if you draw a line starting, for example, at 1998 and ending on 2008. This will create an artificial and misleading "decline" in temperature which is what "skeptic" leaders have done. You can make an even more absurd one by drawing a line from 2007 to 2009. The shorter the time period, the easier it is for them to mislead the public.

That is why those who oppose the idea of Man Made Global Warming never use the full 30 years of satellite data that is available and easily seen on a single sheet of paper. The longer the time period presented, the much harder it is to take the information out of context. It is also why so called "skeptics" tend to think in extremely short range intervals of time, imagining that 2 or 3 years of cooling somehow proves that Global Warming cannot be occurring.

The red curve on the graph represents the average temperature, throughout the entire Earth. When you look at the 30 year temperature graph below, you will notice a continuous rising and falling of temperatures that resembles a roller coaster. The upper portions of the curve are El Niño years, which are warm. The bottom portions of the curve are usually La Niña years, which are cooler.

The warm El Niño and cool La Niña cycles occur regardless of Global Warming although they are being effected by the rise in temperatures.

Now, how would you look for changes in temperatures over the long run, like the 30 years illustrated on the graph? They won't necessarily rise, as many people expect, in a slowly rising curve. Instead they could go up in a stepwise fashion. That means that they can remain about the same for a few years and then, all of a sudden, take a jump, then remain steady for another few years before taking another jump.

The chart below, starting at 1979, shows a clear rise in temperatures for both the La Niña (1995; cool phase) and the El Niño (1998; warm phase.) respectively. Can you spot them? 

From 1980 to 1996 the El Niño years stayed between the .5 Centigrade (.09 Fahrenheit) and the .2C (3.6F). Then there was a dramatic surge in 1998. It was a Super El Niño year, the most intense one in all recorded history. The rise surged up to almost .8C (1.44F) and then leveled off to an average of approximately .3C (5.4F). This was about .2C (.36F) higher than the 1979 to 1998 average for El Niños.

From 1979 to 1995 the La Niño years would stay below the black horizontal line at the 0.0 degree mark. Then there was a sudden rise of almost .2C (.36F) when the next 3 La Niñas followed. Not a single one dipped below that black line. The last La Niña episode from 2007-2009 actually dropped to a point a bit above the black line making it the warmest La Niña in the entire record.

So why are some people claiming that the drop in temperature, from 2007 to 2009 was important?

In conclusion, the year 2007 simply saw an ordinary drop in temperature which was part of the normal cycle of La Niñas and El Niños that have been occurring for thousands of years, with or without Global Warming. We have had, as indicated in the satellite records above, La Niña episodes in the past 30 years and this last one, as the chart below shows, was actually the warmest La Niña on record!

Furthermore, overall temperatures have actually jumped up since 1995/1998; the exact opposite of what so called "skeptics" claim!

Since so called "skeptics" have been switching dates for their imaginary concept of Global Cooling; it is predictable that they will, in the future, keep changing their dates in order to fit in with temperature changes. Their so called temperature drop in 2007 will soon be forgotten along with 1998, 1995 and 2002 only to be replaced by another date based on grossly out-of-context short-term evidence.

Can you trust the credibility of those who are constantly changing their statements to suit the current evidence?




Temperature chart showing overall increase in Global temperatures and emphasizing the sudden jump in temperature during the 1995/1998 La Niña and El Niño phase.


The 1998 Global Cooling deception. Notice how the "skeptics" deliberately exclude 20 years of temperature information to take advantage of the best date that would falsely imply a cooling trend. Then they draw a trend line from a specific high peak (El Niño) to a specific low trough in order to exaggerate the downward trend.

2010-11-04 15:32:15Cleaned up the HTML, tweaked the text and put on the preview page
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.160.198

Giordano, I've moved this argument to:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/arg_list.php?Action=Preview&r=218

I cleaned up all the HTML - all the blue text and other MS Word artifacts - so any future edits, please edit the rebuttal preview directly. I don't want to have to clean the HTML again.

I found some of the text was a little emotive, all the "so called skeptics" and the word deceptive. I think we should avoid such value-statements as much as possible - they're not necessary to get our message across. If you're happy with the preview text, let me know and I'll go live with this.