The global warming debate got a little hotter last week when researchers from the National Center for Atmospheric Research reported satellite data showing our planet has been getting warmer, not cooler.
Between 1979-1995, warming at the Earth's surface occurred at a rate of 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade. But satellite data has indicated the lower part of the atmosphere (i.e., the troposphere) cooled at a rate of 0.05 degrees C per decade. This cooling has been cited as evidence against global warming.
Now Hurrell and Trenberth claim the satellite measurements of tropospheric temperatures were incorrect due to "noise" in the measurements. When this noise is corrected (by computer model), the satellite data actually show a slight rise in temperature.
But in the Washington Post's report on the Nature study, John Christy of the University of Alabama defended the satellite measurements, saying they were validated against direct measurements by weather balloons. Global warming skeptic Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia charitably called Hurrell's and Trenberth's use of computer approximations to discredit two independent sources of observed data "an unusual way to do science."
More important, what does the Junkman think?
Momentarily ignoring the political pressure on scientists to justify the existence of global warming, I don't think it matters whether our Earth warmed (or cooled!) between 1979-1995. Let's say we're in a warming trend. Does that mean the trend will continue without end?
Sometimes the Earth warms. Sometimes it cools. Climate changes. It's a fact. Trying to predict Earth's temperature during the next century, based on what may have happened during an arbitrary time period in the past, is simply...NUTS. Climate cycles are thousands of years in duration. How much can be predicted from a 16-year window?
Putting stock in the sort of trend analysis used by global warming advocates is a proven loser. Just look at the commodity futures market, a system that is a lot less complex than the global climate system.
Trend analysis (or "charting" as it is known among commodity futures traders) is a popular gimmick used to decide when to buy and sell futures contracts. But for every trader who makes money through charting, there are many more who lose money. Why? Because trends start and end unpredictably. And you don't always know whether you're at the beginning, the middle or the end of a trend.
Keep in mind, despite all our advanced technology and "smart" atmospheric scientists, we still have trouble predicting tomorrow's weather. Why would anyone imagine we could predict the weather 50 years from now?
If we're going to rely on trend analysis in the global warming debate, let's have the climatologists first prove they can successfully analyze simpler systems. For starters, what's going to happen in the pork bellies market?
