Well, not really. A simple blog post is never going to be much proof of anything. *
However, this blog post has four graphs. Two of the graphs, the third and fourth, are really quite useless. However, despite the author’s assertion, the first two graphs are actually quite a good demonstration that global warming is real. Of course, a longer trend would actually be better. But, even with this 140 year graph, the trend is abundantly obvious. The author has merely misread his own data.
So, please check out the graphs on this blog page, even though, like this page, it’s just a blog page.
The author’s first graph makes it very obvious that the downward deviation of 2007-2008 is less than the upward deviation of 1997-1998. Neither of these indicates a trend in and of itself. In fact, if one were really looking for a trend honestly, there would be a moving average curve on these graphs. That would smooth out the big bumps and valleys like 1998 and 2007.
So, moving to the second graph. Does anyone not see that the overall trend is still strongly up? In fact, the second graph is quite scary!! Not only does this particularly cold year still come out solidly above the zero mark, whatever the zero mark is supposed to represent, but the coldest year since about 1990 is still warmer than the warmest year before about 1925. Yikes!! To me, that says that even our coldest years now are warmer than our warmest years from about 1920 and earlier. What point was this graph supposed too be making again? I forgot.
Now onto the third and fourth graphs. Does anyone here think that 4 years indicates a trend in a global climate scheme? Even if you stretch it out and add a couple of months, 50 months is not going to show us any long term trends. We’re not looking for weather patterns. Clearly these two graphs are just noise. I mean, they’re real. But, what are we going to learn about global warming from just 50 months? (It’s a rhetorical question. Let’s hope we can all answer “not a damn thing!”
This is a La Niña year. They’re typically colder. Duh. BTW, the link is to an article in Reuters that cites some scientists who not only forecast the La Niña but also forecast that many non-scientists would mistake this as a sign that global warming is false. It isn’t.
So, two points to take away. One, don’t believe blogs. Neither I nor the guy on this other blog are climate scientists, clearly. Get your information from peer reviewed sources. That said, don’t just skim the data. Really examine it for yourself. Sometimes even the lay people among us can pick out a steaming mound of dung when we see it.
Update: I just checked. The guy is a former TV weatherman. Weather and climate are not the same. Ability to read the weather on TV does not qualify one as a climate scientist. Neither does selling home weather gadgets. I don’t want to disparage the man’s work. He was a weatherman for 25 years and probably does know more about weather than I do. The problem is that we’re discussing climatology. Meteorology is a much different science and is at most a very small subset of climatology. It is possible that it is not even really a related field. From the wikipedia page on climatology:
Phenomena of climatological interest include the atmospheric boundary layer, circulation patterns, heat transfer (radiative, convective and latent), interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans and land surface (particularly vegetation, land use and topography), and the chemical and physical composition of the atmosphere. Related disciplines include astrophysics, atmospheric physics, chemistry, ecology, geology, geophysics, glaciology, hydrology, oceanography, and volcanology.
Whew!! That’s a long list for proper understanding of climate science. I’m just guessing here, but the list to become a meteorologist probably consists of meteorology, which is not even in the above list.
* That does include this page. If you disagree with my statements, please feel free to check up on me. I strongly suggest using google scholar as an excellent way to search for real peer reviewed information. Even then, check the type of publication. I’ve been seeing that sometimes people publish global warming articles in medical journals to get peer review status for their articles. Real climate scientists publish in climatology and related publications.