Global Warming Cherry Picking & Errors


Richard Pelke has written an article for Scitizen about the cherry picking of facts for the IPCC Summary that was released last month along with the downright errors.  In this article he highlights 4 such incidents:

1. The IPCC SPM writes on page 7

… snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres.

The Rutgers University Global Snow Lab Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Anomalies plot through January 2007, however, shows that the areal coverage in the Northern Hemisphere has actually slightly increased since the later 1980s!

Since the inference from the IPCC SPM is that global warming is the reason for these changes, this is at best a clear example of selecting a time period that conforms to their conclusion rather than presenting an up-to-date description of snow cover trends.

2. The IPCC SPM writes on page 7

“Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system.”

It is correct that the ocean is where most of the heat changes occur, but the finding conveniently neglected to report on the significant loss of heat in the period from 2003 to at least 2005;

Lyman, J. M., J. K. Willis, and G. C. Johnson (2006), Recent cooling of the upper ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L18604, doi:10.1029/2006GL027033.

As stated in that paper,

“The decrease represents a substantial loss of heat over a 2-year period, amounting to about one fifth of the long-term upper-ocean heat gain between 1955 and 2003 reported by Levitus et al. [2005].”

In addition, even with the earlier ocean warming, this is what was found in the paper

Willis, J. K., D. Roemmich, and B. Cornuelle (2004), Interannual variability in upper ocean heat content, temperature, and thermosteric expansion on global scales, J. Geophys. Res., 109, C12036, doi:10.1029/2003JC002260.

” Maps of yearly heat content anomaly show patterns of warming commensurate with ENSO variability in the tropics, but also show that a large part of the trend in global, oceanic heat content is caused by regional warming at midlatitudes in the Southern Hemisphere. ”

They report that,

“……a strong, fairly linear warming trend is visible in the Southern Hemisphere, centered on 40°S. This region accounts for a large portion of the warming in the global average.”


“……..the warming around 40°S appears to be much steadier over the course of the time series, as seen in Figure 7. In addition, this warming extends deeper and is more uniform over the water column than the signal in the tropics. ”

Thus the actual global ocean warming reported in the IPCC SPM over the last several decades occurred in just a relatively limited portion of the oceans and through depth such that the heat was not as readily available to the atmosphere as it would be if the warming was more spatially uniform.

Moreover, if the ocean has been absorbing “more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system”, why does the SPM use the surface air temperature trends to define what is a warm year? The IPCC SPM makes such a claim on page 5, where it is written that

“Eleven of the last twelve years (1995 -2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).”

If the ocean absorbs most of the heat (which Climate Science agrees with), than that is the climate metric that should be reported on with respect to global warming, rather than the global average surface temperature trend data.

3. The IPCC SPM writes on page 7,

“The average atmospheric water vapor content has increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean as well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water vapor that warmer air can hold.”

This conclusion conflicts with the finding in

Smith, T. M., X. Yin, and A. Gruber (2006), Variations in annual global precipitation (1979–2004), based on the Global Precipitation Climatology Project 2.5° analysis, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L06705, doi:10.1029/2005GL025393,

where they write for the period 1979–2004 that precipitation tends

“have spatial variations with both positive and negative values, with a global-average near zero.”

The global average precipitation has not changed significantly in the period.

If greater amounts of water vapor were present in the atmosphere, the evaporation/transpiration of water vapor into the atmosphere and thus the precipitation would have to increase when averaged globally and over a long enough time period.

4. The IPCC SPM writes,

“Mid-latitude westerly winds have strengthened in both hemispheres since the 1960s.”

This is perhaps the most astonishing claim made in the report. First, peer reviewed papers that have investigated this subject,

Pielke, R.A. Sr., T.N. Chase, T.G.F. Kittel, J. Knaff, and J. Eastman, 2001: Analysis of 200 mbar zonal wind for the period 1958-1997. J. Geophys. Res., 106, D21, 27287-27290.

did find a

“….tendency for the 200 mbar winds to become somewhat stronger at higher latitudes since 1958.”

However, what this means from basic meteorology, is that if the mid-latitude westerlies increase, this indicates a greater north-south tropospheric temperature gradient! This is why the westerlies are stronger in the winter; the troposphere becomes very cold at the higher latitudes, but the tropospheric temperatures change little in the tropics. Thus a statement that the westerlies have become stronger, in the absence of significant warming in the tropical latitudes, indicates a colder troposphere at higher latitude on average.

There is, therefore, an inconsistency in the IPCC SPM. It cannot both be the case that the troposphere in the arctic is warming high while the westerlies in the midlatitudes are increasing in speed. There is a fundamental inconsistency in these trends, which goes unaddressed by the IPCC.

These four examples illustrate the apparent selection of papers and data to promote a particular conclusion on climate change. The science community, and even more importantly, the policy community is ill-served by such cherry picking.

He then goes on to detail an error in the Summary about the radiative forcing findings.  Check it out.

Of course to our MSM and the left the findings in the Summary proves….without a shadow of a doubt….that man-made global warming exists and we are all doomed unless drastic and economic suicide type measures are enacted.

Case in point:

The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won’t have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.

At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press.

We’re all doomed!  Doomed I say!  Unless you kneel now before almighty Goremeister and pledge some carbon offsets.  Not for you silly, but for him.  He needs them to jet around the world picking up statues.  Oh, and to make him richer.


But it’s not too late for a intervention…watch The Global Warming Swindle now.  You will feel the brain cells grow back after losing so many of them listening to the Goremeister:

Feel better now?

Other’s Blogging:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Note to environazis: take your valium now!

This is going to push some of them FURTHER over the edge of reason and towards what the Czech President called insanity.

I thought Al Bore insisted that NO peer reviewed articles questioned his conclusions?

No? Or are the journals mentioned above in the pocket of big oil companies? They’re not “credible” journals, printing the findings of “credible” scientists?

Isn’t that the response we’ve come to expect?

Wasn’t God (and his son Jesus) so smart to make Oceans that are capable of buffering our climate from many of the slight peaks that are created by weather and also by man?

What is also interesting is new information that CO2 increased in the atmosphere tends to FOLLOW temperature increase and not lead it. The idea is this … the oceans hold a lot of dissolved CO2 (and oxygen for that matter). For every degree of temperature increase you will see a decrease in the dissolved gases in the water. If you warm the ocean a degree, it dumps a HUGE amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. As we have recovered from the “Little Ice Age” for the past century, a lot of CO2 is being injected into the atmosphere. It varies from year to year. You will see more in El Nino years and less in La Nina years.

Also, according to research on air trapped in ice cores, CO2 levels always peak just before going into another ice age. In other words, CO2 and temperatures reach their maximum just before the sharp drop into the next ice age. The drop into the ice age isn’t gradual either, it is quite sudden. Basically you get a sudden freeze followed by gradual warming as shown in this graph of temperatures and CO2:

(note that Years BP means years “before present” or “years ago”)

Temperature drops into another ice age very quickly … in the span of one person’s lifetime. Next time that happens we are going to have global famine. I fear global cooling much more than global warming.

Careful Crosspatch. Don’t want to start another big scare about the next ice age!

ARRGGGHHH! It’s freezing, global cooling, we’re all going to die unless the UN gets their hands of our money!!!!

Frankly, I wouldn’t mind a bit of global cooling. I didn’t even see one snowflake at the beach here this year and my Lemon tree is still loaded with fruit and didn’t even get the slightest bit frostburned.

I’ve addressed many of the distortions in the documentary you posted here. I know you guys don’t want to look into both sides of the issue, but I would at least read that post before I made up my mind on the validity of the claims made by the documentary.

Very interesting documentary and comments by reasic. I have enjoyed reading the things you’ve posted now and in the past, Curt. Just a quick comment on one point that reasic brought up in his post: sulphate masking of CO2 warming.

Sulphates have been theorized to cause cooling, thereby accounting for the 1940’s – 1970’s temperature drop, even though CO2 levels were rising. However, sulphates drop out of the atmosphere within a few days to weeks, while CO2 stays in the atmosphere. This makes sulphate cooling a localized or regional issue, whereas CO2 should be a global problem. 90% of sulphate emissions come from the northern hemisphere (from burning fossil fuels). This means that the Southern hemisphere should be warming more than the Northern, due to less sulphate masking. Here is the problem though. In reality, the Southern Hemisphere has been cooling while the Northern hemisphere has been warming. The explanations given to discount global warming skeptics are not meeting up with facts.

And of course the 1990’s bogey man “Acid Rain” due to sulphates has been pretty much debunked by now too.

What this all points out is that the issue is NOT settled and that there ARE credible scientists who disagree.

That of course runs contrary to the absolutist dogma of Gore and company.

How many times do I have to say the following:

Before we embark on an costly, radical restruction of SOLELY the U.S. economy and way of life, shouldn’t we be sure that the costs are in line with our priorities?

And as former global warming “believer” Bjorn Lomborg points out most policy makers will choose to solve solvable problems with the limited resources at our disposal.

Yet, as this film points out, the global warming zealots will condemn millions of Africans to needless hardship and disease rather than permit them access to environmentally safe sources of energy.