4 major independent global temperature monitors report 12 month cooling

[hellokeith]

Wordpress link

January 2008 capped a 12 month period of global temperature drops on all of the major well respected indicators. I have reported in the past two weeks that HadCRUT, RSS, UAH, and GISS global temperature sets all show sharp drops in the last year.

Source: Global ?T °C
HadCRUT - 0.595

GISS - 0.750
UAH - 0.588
RSS - 0.629
Average: - 0.6405°C

Dailytech analysis blog by Michael Asher (for full disclosure, he's a denier)

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

Meteorologist Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change every recorded, either up or down.

The part most fascinating to me is the emergence of a correlation between solar activity and global temperature fluctuations.

Anyways, good to see unbiased scientific data being published which may contradict's the theories of man's global temperature influence. :thumbsup:

P.S. No, I'm not against curbing pollution. I drive a 30+ mpg vehicle for the last 10 years, have CF bulbs in all my house sockets, and my recycle bin is often more full than my garbage cans.

 

[bsobel]

The part most fascinating to me is the emergence of a correlation between solar activity and global temperature fluctuations.

Actually some of us have been saying this for a decade (god, I sound like Dave don't I, oooooops). I do strongly believe their is a corolation.

P.S. No, I'm not against curbing pollution. I drive a 30+ mpg vehicle for the last 10 years, have CF bulbs in all my house sockets, and my recycle bin is often more full than my garbage cans.

Amen. I drove a natural gas car for 5 years (commuter car). I now live to far from that infrastructure to do it, but I have my name on the list for a Tesla (if they ever show up). Almost all builds are CF here as well (Phillips Alto so dimmable as well). At ~4000kwh of solar generation here (144 panels) and looking to add about another 34 panels (that will max out my capacity to eed back).

Bill

 

[Rainsford]

That is pretty interesting data, but the Dailytech blog post identifies the reason to not draw too many conclusions...

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded.

Anecdotal evidence can be interesting, but it is usually not enough to draw any sort of conclusion about long term trends. "Climate" is not "weather". The two are certainly related, but deal with different time scales and (quite often) different causes. The correlation between solar activity and global temperature is admittedly interesting, but I'm not sure it contradicts the man-made global warming theories so much as it might complement them. Given more work, it is certainly possible that we'll discover that natural events are the only major cause behind global warming, but we're not there right now.

Science, unlike politics, does not require just one answer to all questions. It is entirely possible that there are many causes behind periodic temperature fluctuations, and that those fluctuations can interact in complex ways. For example, global temperatures being down over the past year does not mean that it wouldn't have fallen further without human impact on the climate. The problem is that there is no way to control for the different variables, which is where some of the uncertainty on this topic comes from. There is no way to take the planet at state X, apply "solar warming" and see what happens, then take the planet at the same state X and apply "man made warming" and record the results.

But like I said, more study is always good...anybody on ANY side who says otherwise is missing the point of science. I still think humans are a major cause of global warming, but if I'm proven wrong, then I'm wrong...and as much as I like being right, I know that science isn't particularly interested in me being right or wrong.

 

[Caveman]

One of the tenants of "good science" is basing a conclusion off of a "trend", not a single data point. In the context of global warming, 1 year is a single data point. Trends are what count.

There are other identifiers of man's influence on the planet aside from a warming trend. What about animal migrations, precipitation anomalies, and record cold in certain areas?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Is it unbiased because it shows a decline? I wonder about the use of the word.

BTW, it contradicts nothing. What it demonstrates is that in a years time the temps declined by X amount and that's it. What matters is if this is a blip or if the long term trend continues. Think stock market advances and declines. One day or week may swing wildly in one direction or another, but what does that mean over a much longer period?

 

[bsobel]

But like I said, more study is always good...anybody on ANY side who says otherwise is missing the point of science. I still think humans are a major cause of global warming, but if I'm proven wrong, then I'm wrong...and as much as I like being right, I know that science isn't particularly interested in me being right or wrong.

Im with you. I'l admit (which is likely to get me flamed) I'm still skeptical of the current research vs other theories. Now I wont say in any way we arent modifying the enviroment (in fact most global warming changes propsoed also lower general pollution, so I'm for that even if it turns out to have less to do with the global climate and just creates less pollution. Hence my running on solar, my own well, natural gas car, etc).

What I am against is large scale eco-hacking on global scale *at this point* until we know more. There are those that want to try some pretty hairbrained ideas to 'cool' the planet and I'd like to see a moratorium on such work for a decade until we truely have more data and better understand the climate modles we are building.

Bill

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Caveman
One of the tenants of "good science" is basing a conclusion off of a "trend", not a single data point. In the context of global warming, 1 year is a single data point. Trends are what count.

The part most fascinating to me is the emergence of a correlation between solar activity and global temperature fluctuations.

Rebuttal: That is based on trend data and not a single data point. If the trend is truely corrolated requires more research.

There are other identifiers of man's influence on the planet aside from a warming trend. What about animal migrations, precipitation anomalies, and record cold in certain areas?

False assumption: You've tied things we have measured and assigned a driver (mans influence) without providing evidence. This doesnt say your wrong, just that you have not backed up your statement with any data.

Bill

 

[dphantom]

Yeah, but the cooling is caused by the global warming man caused by burning all these hydrocarbons...

 

[PingSpike]

I hope we go back to global warming again. I don't really want any more snow this year.

 

[desy]

It will be interesting to see if the solar evidence pans out over the next few yrs.

This year was fully expected to colder for the Northern Hemisphere being a La Nina event year.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/

 

[Lemon law]

If this drop is linked to a somewhat low point in sunspot activity, its going to be at best fleeting and likely short term.
The very next year could suddenly be a high point in sun spot activity with an entire cycle taking only 11 years.

As was mentioned by previous posters, long term trends are what matter.

Over time, incoming solar radiation tends to be a constant. Although it can vary at any given time.

And global warming scientists are warning about is driven by the greater tendency of the earth's atmosphere to retain the radiation coming in and not radiate that energy back into space. The so called greenhouse effect.

 

[misle]

So, if we're pumping more and more greenhouse gases into the air and the temp follows those gases, then how can it be cooling?

 

[OutHouse]

i still believe we need to be worrying about a ice age before global warming.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Citrix
i still believe we need to be worrying about a ice age before global warming.

I'll take gobal warming over an ice age every time. An ice age would be far more destructive than global warmiing. My house under 2 miles of ice is not a pleasant thought. However, my house under 50 feet of water is not so bad when I am on my boat.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: misle
So, if we're pumping more and more greenhouse gases into the air and the temp follows those gases, then how can it be cooling?

They couldn't if there was only one factor in play. Climate is far more complex than that.

Seems to me these are the reasonable questions to ask.

First: Is global warming happening?
No one seriously believes that climate changes are linear. You double X, the temp doubles doesn't apply here.
Fluctuation will happen even if things were in a steady state. That's why the long term trend matters. It very much defines if change is happening.

Second: If it is happening is humanity influencing it?
In other words, are we responsible for it and to what degree.

Third: If it is happening, what if anything can be done to mitigate it?
Self explanatory I think.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Citrix
i still believe we need to be worrying about a ice age before global warming.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oddly enough, global warming causing a massive melt off of polar ice could stop various ocean currents leading to an ice age in the upper latitudes. A current like the gulf stream is water density driven, cycling heat from the lower latitudes up to the poles. Which also means global warming could turn presently productive farm lands into deserts and have all kinds of unpredictable effects on climate.

Its one thing to have a belief and quite another to be playing Russian Roulette with the climate. We simply don't know
what non reversible tipping points could be reached. What we are seeing now is unprecedented in the last million years. We know we can prosper with the present climate, we don't know if we can prosper with a future man made roll of the dice.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Citrix
i still believe we need to be worrying about a ice age before global warming.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oddly enough, global warming causing a massive melt off of polar ice could stop various ocean currents leading to an ice age in the upper latitudes. A current like the gulf stream is water density driven, cycling heat from the lower latitudes up to the poles. Which also means global warming could turn presently productive farm lands into deserts and have all kinds of unpredictable effects on climate.

Its one thing to have a belief and quite another to be playing Russian Roulette with the climate. We simply don't know
what non reversible tipping points could be reached. What we are seeing now is unprecedented in the last million years. We know we can prosper with the present climate, we don't know if we can prosper with a future man made roll of the dice.

I was wondering how long it would take someone to say that global warming is the cause of an ice age. :disgust:

There was a paper just recently released that now shows wind currents have much more to do with teh starting or stopping of the gulf stream than melting water at the ice caps. As soon as I find the link I will post.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Citrix
i still believe we need to be worrying about a ice age before global warming.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oddly enough, global warming causing a massive melt off of polar ice could stop various ocean currents leading to an ice age in the upper latitudes. A current like the gulf stream is water density driven, cycling heat from the lower latitudes up to the poles. Which also means global warming could turn presently productive farm lands into deserts and have all kinds of unpredictable effects on climate.

Its one thing to have a belief and quite another to be playing Russian Roulette with the climate. We simply don't know
what non reversible tipping points could be reached. What we are seeing now is unprecedented in the last million years. We know we can prosper with the present climate, we don't know if we can prosper with a future man made roll of the dice.

Hey, buddy, that was a movie, not science.

Leave science to the scientists, okay? The irony here is that this cooling fluctuation in the long-term warming trend was predicted by top climate scientists some time ago, but politically-driven junk science alarmists like yourself labeled them as "deniers." :roll:

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Citrix
i still believe we need to be worrying about a ice age before global warming.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oddly enough, global warming causing a massive melt off of polar ice could stop various ocean currents leading to an ice age in the upper latitudes. A current like the gulf stream is water density driven, cycling heat from the lower latitudes up to the poles. Which also means global warming could turn presently productive farm lands into deserts and have all kinds of unpredictable effects on climate.

Its one thing to have a belief and quite another to be playing Russian Roulette with the climate. We simply don't know
what non reversible tipping points could be reached. What we are seeing now is unprecedented in the last million years. We know we can prosper with the present climate, we don't know if we can prosper with a future man made roll of the dice.

Hey, buddy, that was a movie, not science.

Leave science to the scientists, okay? The irony here is that this cooling fluctuation in the long-term warming trend was predicted by top climate scientists some time ago, but politically-driven junk science alarmists like yourself labeled them as "deniers." :roll:

Who, like you?

Originally posted by: dphantom
I was wondering how long it would take someone to say that global warming is the cause of an ice age.

Nobody said "IS the cause", Einstein. They've said "could cause".

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Citrix
i still believe we need to be worrying about a ice age before global warming.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oddly enough, global warming causing a massive melt off of polar ice could stop various ocean currents leading to an ice age in the upper latitudes. A current like the gulf stream is water density driven, cycling heat from the lower latitudes up to the poles. Which also means global warming could turn presently productive farm lands into deserts and have all kinds of unpredictable effects on climate.

Its one thing to have a belief and quite another to be playing Russian Roulette with the climate. We simply don't know
what non reversible tipping points could be reached. What we are seeing now is unprecedented in the last million years. We know we can prosper with the present climate, we don't know if we can prosper with a future man made roll of the dice.

Hey, buddy, that was a movie, not science.

Leave science to the scientists, okay? The irony here is that this cooling fluctuation in the long-term warming trend was predicted by top climate scientists some time ago, but politically-driven junk science alarmists like yourself labeled them as "deniers." :roll:

Who, like you?

Originally posted by: dphantom
I was wondering how long it would take someone to say that global warming is the cause of an ice age.

Nobody said "IS the cause", Einstein. They've said "could cause".

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Climate will change and man will have little long-term effect on climate. Could, should, maybe, all would turn into an "I told you so" by the global warmers if in fact an ice age did happen to start.

Quite honestly, I want global warming. Another 1-2 degrees F would be ideal IMO.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Citrix
i still believe we need to be worrying about a ice age before global warming.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oddly enough, global warming causing a massive melt off of polar ice could stop various ocean currents leading to an ice age in the upper latitudes. A current like the gulf stream is water density driven, cycling heat from the lower latitudes up to the poles. Which also means global warming could turn presently productive farm lands into deserts and have all kinds of unpredictable effects on climate.

Its one thing to have a belief and quite another to be playing Russian Roulette with the climate. We simply don't know
what non reversible tipping points could be reached. What we are seeing now is unprecedented in the last million years. We know we can prosper with the present climate, we don't know if we can prosper with a future man made roll of the dice.

Hey, buddy, that was a movie, not science.

Leave science to the scientists, okay? The irony here is that this cooling fluctuation in the long-term warming trend was predicted by top climate scientists some time ago, but politically-driven junk science alarmists like yourself labeled them as "deniers." :roll:

Who, like you?

Originally posted by: dphantom
I was wondering how long it would take someone to say that global warming is the cause of an ice age.

Nobody said "IS the cause", Einstein. They've said "could cause".

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Climate will change and man will have little long-term effect on climate. Could, should, maybe, all would turn into an "I told you so" by the global warmers if in fact an ice age did happen to start.

Quite honestly, I want global warming. Another 1-2 degrees F would be ideal IMO.

Have stock in malaria pharmaceuticals eh?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Citrix
i still believe we need to be worrying about a ice age before global warming.

Oddly enough, global warming causing a massive melt off of polar ice could stop various ocean currents leading to an ice age in the upper latitudes. A current like the gulf stream is water density driven, cycling heat from the lower latitudes up to the poles. Which also means global warming could turn presently productive farm lands into deserts and have all kinds of unpredictable effects on climate.

Its one thing to have a belief and quite another to be playing Russian Roulette with the climate. We simply don't know
what non reversible tipping points could be reached. What we are seeing now is unprecedented in the last million years. We know we can prosper with the present climate, we don't know if we can prosper with a future man made roll of the dice.

Hey, buddy, that was a movie, not science.

Leave science to the scientists, okay? The irony here is that this cooling fluctuation in the long-term warming trend was predicted by top climate scientists some time ago, but politically-driven junk science alarmists like yourself labeled them as "deniers." :roll:

Who, like you?

Did I say me? :roll:

The fact is that "The Day After Tomorrow" scenario was NEVER valid science. Lump it in there with Al Gore when, in "Inconvenient Truth," he said the oceans would rise 20 feet when the IPCC said 20 inches.
If you're concerned about keeping credibility in the GW debate, then you would listen to what the scientists are saying, not politicians or those with political motives/agendas. And you would stop labeling (a la religion) as "deniers" or "shills" those scientists who point out fluctuations in the trend, or point out other valid contributors to GW besides just man-made causes (for example, solar output is NOT a constant, not even long-term).

Look, here's an analogy: the economy is going down this year, but the stock market is up today. Do you see the point? Am I wrong about the economy going down because the Dow was up today? No. Now, why do you suppose that the OP is able to use such a scenario then?

 

[stlcardinals]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
That is pretty interesting data, but the Dailytech blog post identifies the reason to not draw too many conclusions...

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded.

Did you even get past the first sentence in the article?

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Have stock in malaria pharmaceuticals eh?

Uh... then how come malaria was more of a problem in relatively recent history when temps were cooler? I suppose that's because mosquitoes are more reliant on fresh water wetlands and local climate than a couple degrees average global temperature variation, eh?

There's no evidence that a 1-2 degree increase would be that particularly harmful. To make that argument, you'd first have to establish that today's average temps are the most ideal, and there's no way to do that. The problem is that there is no way to control such a thing as climate change once started. You can't say, let's go up 1.5 degrees, then stop.
If you want to compare it to 1-2 C decrease, however, then no question, an increase would be preferable.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Citrix
i still believe we need to be worrying about a ice age before global warming.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oddly enough, global warming causing a massive melt off of polar ice could stop various ocean currents leading to an ice age in the upper latitudes. A current like the gulf stream is water density driven, cycling heat from the lower latitudes up to the poles. Which also means global warming could turn presently productive farm lands into deserts and have all kinds of unpredictable effects on climate.

Its one thing to have a belief and quite another to be playing Russian Roulette with the climate. We simply don't know
what non reversible tipping points could be reached. What we are seeing now is unprecedented in the last million years. We know we can prosper with the present climate, we don't know if we can prosper with a future man made roll of the dice.

Hey, buddy, that was a movie, not science.

Leave science to the scientists, okay? The irony here is that this cooling fluctuation in the long-term warming trend was predicted by top climate scientists some time ago, but politically-driven junk science alarmists like yourself labeled them as "deniers." :roll:

Who, like you?

Originally posted by: dphantom
I was wondering how long it would take someone to say that global warming is the cause of an ice age.

Nobody said "IS the cause", Einstein. They've said "could cause".

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Climate will change and man will have little long-term effect on climate. Could, should, maybe, all would turn into an "I told you so" by the global warmers if in fact an ice age did happen to start.

Quite honestly, I want global warming. Another 1-2 degrees F would be ideal IMO.

Have stock in malaria pharmaceuticals eh?

Probably in a mutual fund somewhere, but what is your point? That a warmer planet will cause an increase in malaria? If so, you should state so clearly. Then state your case backed up by any facts you think will support it. I would then either agree or disagree and provide a counter argument if need be.