Nova’s confuses Local & Global

Nova’s first handbook contains one of the dumbest arguments I have ever seen (and let’s face it, she says some pretty stupid things). Against the AGW position that the current climate change is rapid, Nova claims …

Last century, temperatures rose about 0.7 degrees (and most of that gain has been lost in the past 12 months). But around 1700, there was a 2.2° C rise in just 36 years. (As measured by the Central England Temperature record, one of the only reliable records of the era.)

Aside from the questionable accuracy of thermometer measurements made 300 years ago, how do we let Nova know that the temperature in Central England does NOT represent that of the GLOBAL average?

Oh, and can you spot which month Nova cherry picks in order to make the claim that “most” of the gain has been lost? I’m guessing it was one month in 2008.


3 Responses to “Nova’s confuses Local & Global”

  1. Daveo Says:

    You should probably also point out that a rapids change over a shorter period is not as meaningful as a sustained change over a longer timeframe.

  2. BBD Says:

    Not this again. CET data before 1772 are not considered reliable.

    See Parker et al. (1992) here. Please note: it’s a 10.8Mb pdf of a scan of the original. I’ve retyped this from the introduction:

    Manley (1953) published a time series of monthly mean temperatures representative of central England for 1698-1952, followed (Manley 1974) by an extended and revised series for 1659-1973. Up to 1814 his data are based mainly on overlapping sequences of observations from a variety of carefully chosen and documented locations. Up to 1722, available instrumental records fail to overlap and Manley needs to use non-instrumental series for Utrecht compiled by Labrijn (1945), in order to mate the monthly central England temperature (CET) series complete. Between 1723 and the 1760s there are no gaps in the composite instrumental record, but the observations generally were taken in unheated rooms rather than with a truly outdoor exposure. Manley (1952) used a few outdoor temperatures, observations of snow or sleet, and likely temperatures given the wind direction, to establish relationships between the unheated room and outdoor temperatures: these relationships were used to adjust the monthly unheated room data. Daily temperatures in unheated rooms are, however, not not reliably convertible to daily outdoor values, because of the slow thermal response of the rooms. For this reason, no daily series truly representative of CET can begin before about 1770. In this paper we present a daily CET series from 1772 to the present.

  3. BillD Says:

    As Daveo notes above, its hard to understand how a trend over a century would be much impacted, much less overcome, by one cooler year.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: