Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


The Day After McLean

Posted on 29 March 2011 by dana1981

John McLean is a climate data analyst (but apparently not a very good one, as we'll see in this post) and member of the Australian Climate Science Coalition.  He's a global warming "skeptic" who has co-authored a few peer-reviewed studies, including most notably being the lead author on McLean et al. (2009), which grossly overstates the influence of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) on global temperatures.  As John Cook has previously discussed, the McLean et al. attempt to blame global warming on ENSO suffered from a serious divergence problem.

Now McLean is continuing his exaggeration of the influence of natural oceanic cycles on global temperatures with a rather stunning prediction:

"it is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956 or even earlier"

When I read this prediction, I was floored (Skeptical Science authors can attest to the fact that my initial reaction included some colorful language).  It's hard to overstate the magnitude of this prediction.  As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words:

McLean is batshit insane

Figure 1: NASA GISS land-ocean anomalies, in hundredths of a degree Celsius (courtesy of MartinS)

Now that's a decline!

According to NASA GISS, the average land-ocean global temperature anomaly in 1956 was –0.17°C.  Matching 1956 would require a 0.8°C drop from the average 2010 temperature.  It's true that the current La Niña cycle is a strong one, but it's not that strong!  There was an equally powerful La Niña cycle in the mid-1970s, for example:


Figure 2:  Multivariate ENSO index (Source: NOAA)

The largest year-to-year cooling in the mid-1970s was 0.22°C.  The largest year-to-year average land-ocean global temperature change on record is 0.29°C.  McLean is predicting at least a 0.8°C drop in temperatures from 2010 to 2011, which is 2.75 times larger than the previous largest year-to-year temperature change on record.

The first two months of 2011 are in the books, and not surprisingly, McLean's predictions are not looking good.  According to NASA GISS, the average anomaly for January and February 2011 was 0.45°C.  This means to cool to 1956 levels, the average anomaly over the last 10 months of 2011 must reach nearly –0.3°C.  Average global temperatures haven't been that cold for an extended period of time since 1918.

This just goes to show how physically incorrect it is to blame global warming on these oceanic cycles; clearly doing so leads to some very, very wrong conclusions.  However, if anybody would like to wager that McLean's 2011 temperature prediction is correct, there are a number of Skeptical Science authors who would love to take that bet!

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Prev  1  2  

Comments 51 to 61 out of 61:

  1. Nice sleuthing Wingding. It seems a con a blog post documenting the numerous bust forecasts made by "skeptics" is in order....
    0 0
  2. Perhaps I could claim a little "prior art"? ;-)
    0 0
  3. Yeah Gareth, you beat me to the punch on this one!
    0 0
  4. No worries. Your graph is more striking!
    0 0
  5. Well, I was unaware of Archibald's incorrect prediction on the previous page, which was pretty comical, but McLean's is going to tank in a whole 'nother way. I wonder if Josh will make a cartoon about it? By the way, I'd like to pick up more on the fact that he's using satellite temperatures to make a comparison to a year in which temperatures were not measured by satellite... oopsie! Not that it gives him any wiggle room anyway, 2011 will not be the coldest in the satellite record either, barring a massive volcanic eruption.
    0 0
  6. Someone asked: "Is it because, conveniently for him, satellite data responds more dramatically to ENSO than ground-based measurements?" Yes. This has been another installment of short answers to short questions. Given the guy's name, why haven't there been any Die Hard jokes on this thread? (Yeah, it's spelled differently...)
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [DB] We're waiting for more FBI guys...
  7. wingding#50: "None of this happened." That makes 3 strikes (missed solar min, peak neutron and 'peak cooling'). Every picture tells a story, don't it? -- NOAA solar cycle --Oulu neutron monitor --NOAA annual
    0 0
  8. @ muoncounter (57) Nice! Cue the usual response from the "skeptics"... The Yooper
    0 0
  9. Yooper, Yep, the usual response. But here are some things a 'skeptic' could say when caught in such a flub: D'Oh! Never mind! Well, excuse me! Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into We're so sorry Nah, not gonna happen. Wouldn't be prudent.
    0 0
  10. What do you do when you are a third rate scientist, who has published a failed paper based on a failed ludicrous idea you know was failed before you published? Or I hope he knew otherwise Im mystified how he ever graduated. You talk nonsense to get attention and get a buzz. Afterall its either more of the same, plunge on regardless, or an embarrasing admission of error. ( -Snip- ).
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [DB] Please take the high road on this. Thanks!
  11. Are there any so-called skeptics, or their favourite websites, taking bets on this ? I fancy a wager...
    0 0

Prev  1  2  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2020 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us