Global temperatures drop sharply, what will the global warming alarmist say?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Holy tin-foil hat! Global warming is a rent control conspiracy? I think I may have heard everything now.


And this line...is total bullshit. Emergencies are used by anyone in power to control the masses. Trying to pin this behavior on "liberals" is ignorant. Look at the past 7 years.

I don't buy this either. No plot is needed, although people will benefit when they can. A sucker is an easy mark, and liberals are as easy as any fundamentalist Christian if you hit the right buttons. People will take advantage of global warming hype, including leftists who have ignored the polution of the Soviet Union and China since the 70's. But they don't direct the global warming idea. That is driven by the mindless human impulse to act like lemmings and can be demonstrated at anytime in human history. It is nothing new. Little people who think the fate of the Universe is in their hands.

[BlackWatch]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

When people talk about the weather and use it as anecdotal evidance that global warming isn't happening it makes me want to throw up in my mouth.

I agree in a way, and don't get me wrong i do know that global warming is real. But even if Man is effecting the planets natural cycle of the icecaps melting and eventually coming back then, freezing more to make an "ice-age", the difference is moot. The earth changes all the time. It's never looked like this before and it probably wont look like this ever again. You see the earth has the "ability" if you will to adapt to almost anything. mans contribution to the increased co2 levels isn't going to kill the planet but it may make it more unpleasant for the next few (i use this word because i don't know when the ice caps will completely melt) years. once the icecaps melt it will begin to cool the planet because the cold water gets into the ocean currents. and this of course will lead to an ice age. So true global warming is happening but it is the natural course of the planet.[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/dad&mom/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg[/IMG]

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by BlackWatch

I agree in a way, and don't get me wrong i do know that global warming is real. But even if Man is effecting the planets natural cycle of the icecaps melting and eventually coming back then, freezing more to make an "ice-age", the difference is moot. The earth changes all the time. It's never looked like this before and it probably wont look like this ever again. You see the earth has the "ability" if you will to adapt to almost anything. mans contribution to the increased co2 levels isn't going to kill the planet but it may make it more unpleasant for the next few (i use this word because i don't know when the ice caps will completely melt) years. once the icecaps melt it will begin to cool the planet because the cold water gets into the ocean currents. and this of course will lead to an ice age. So true global warming is happening but it is the natural course of the planet.[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/dad&mom/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg[/IMG]

I think most of us recognize that the earth will still be here no matter what we do. I'm not so arrogant as to think that we wil ruin the planet for all life forever. It's more a matter of wanting to avoid unneccesary hardships.

[Tessy]

We have no choice in that either. It's a sun and volcano thing. The human
contribution is less than one percent last I looked. (I think I remember it was
0.27%) That's from the REAL "climate" scientists though not the political dirtbags
that just lend their names to any old thing without even knowing what it is.

Actually as I understand it, their names were added without their permissions
and several of them had to bring law suits to get their names removed.

[imind]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I think its pretty hilarious and pretty telling that no one is talking about this. Media outlets are ignoring it and wont mention it because it doesn't fit their agenda, the Al Gore's of the world sure wont talk about it and yet they need to, especially if they're being "fair".

the reason its not being discussed is becuase its nonsense. this author first grabbed data from anthony watts blog listing weather data and then proceeded to discern for himself what this data meant, mis-attributing it to watts. watts then called to correct them and ask WTF and for whatever reason it took some eight hours for the author to amend his article, long after it was sent along the intertubes.

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

All four of the world's major global temperature tracking outlets have all shown substantial cooling, in fact it is the single largest temperature change UP or DOWN thats ever been recorded. Furthermore they attribute this to a downturn in solar activity from the sun, the first substantial downturn in nearly a century. This downturn in solar activity has resulted in global temperature drops between .65 and .75*C which nearly eliminates all of the estimated .80*C increase we've seen in the last 100 years.

no. from the watts blog...

The website DailyTech has an article citing this blog entry as a reference, and their story got picked up by the Drudge report, resulting in a wide distribution. In the DailyTech article there is a paragraph:

“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 ever recorded, either up or down.”

I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”

There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied.

link

the 'erasure' was conjured by the author of the dailytech piece. furthermore, john christy, the one contrarians love to quote as being he who turned down the nobel prize, has also commented...

“The 0.59 C drop we have seen in the past 12 months is unusual, but not unprecedented; April 1998 to April 1999 saw a 0.71 C fall. The long-term climate trend from November 1978 through (and including) January 2008 continues to show a modest warming at the rate of about 0.14 C (0.25 degrees F) per decade.

“One cool year does not erase decades of climate data, nor does it more than minimally change the long-term climate trend. Long-term climate change is just that “long term” and 12 months of data are little more than a blip on the screen.”

link

even he agrees and, as is the consensus view, this warming, the global mean temperature, not your fucking local weather (throws up in mouth), continues to rise. and yes, the consensus opinion is that humans are largely responsible for it.

[C4Casey]

People who keep on talking about this "consensus" BS make me want to punch something. First of all, there is no "consensus" view within the scientific community that man is the primary cause of the most recent warming trend. There are thousands of respected climatologists and other scientists out there who not only refute man's role in climate change, but also dispute the warming properties of CO2 altogether. CO2 is inert, invisible, and is a TRACE ELEMENT, comrising LESS THAN HALF OF ZERO POINT ONE PERCENT OF THE ATMOSPHERE!!!!!! It is highly unlikely that a gas that is precent in such trace amounts can have such a significant impact on the Earth's temperature, especially when compared to other forces like the Sun's activity.

There is an excellent article on this subject by Weather Channel founder and global warming sceptic Joe Coleman.
John Coleman's Comments Before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by imind

the reason its not being discussed is becuase its nonsense. this author first grabbed data from anthony watts blog listing weather data and then proceeded to discern for himself what this data meant, mis-attributing it to watts. watts then called to correct them and ask WTF and for whatever reason it took some eight hours for the author to amend his article, long after it was sent along the intertubes.




no. from the watts blog...

the 'erasure' was conjured by the author of the dailytech piece. furthermore, john christy, the one contrarians love to quote as being he who turned down the nobel prize, has also commented...

even he agrees and, as is the consensus view, this warming, the global mean temperature, not your fucking local weather (throws up in mouth), continues to rise. and yes, the consensus opinion is that humans are largely responsible for it.

SLAM!

No wonder the deniers ran from this thread. Imind ended it with one post. Brilliant work. I don't often see a post of such brilliance. The deniers ran like scared mice. This, to me, is one of the best things I've ever seen on the internets tubes. Bravo, sir.

This thread was an interesting read. I gained some insight into the minds of the ACC deniers. I still haven't come close to figuring them out, but I learned a little about why they think they way they think.

I do wish Ian W had stuck around the forum, though. I would have liked to discuss this with him. He seemed intelligent and honest, two traits sorely lacking in most ACC deniers!

Originally Posted by C4Casey

People who keep on talking about this "consensus" BS make me want to punch something. First of all, there is no "consensus" view within the scientific community that man is the primary cause of the most recent warming trend. There are thousands of respected climatologists and other scientists out there who not only refute man's role in climate change, but also dispute the warming properties of CO2 altogether. CO2 is inert, invisible, and is a TRACE ELEMENT, comrising LESS THAN HALF OF ZERO POINT ONE PERCENT OF THE ATMOSPHERE!!!!!! It is highly unlikely that a gas that is precent in such trace amounts can have such a significant impact on the Earth's temperature, especially when compared to other forces like the Sun's activity.

There is an excellent article on this subject by Weather Channel founder and global warming sceptic Joe Coleman.
John Coleman's Comments Before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner

Welcome to the forum, C4Casey! There is a consensus, sorry. You may disagree with it, but it exists.

[AMTR]

The Clowns are about to be dethroned because there is a greater social issue involved. The universities, the politicians, the judges who have all jumped on the "Global Warming" band wagon are in trouble. As the earth starts to cool, crop failures mount, energy needed to heat homes goes through the roof, the credibility and the authority of all the above is gone. How can anyone hope to be respected or obeyed after being so wrong on such an important issue? This will not be a little screw up. This will be a monumental screw up. Fools do not get respect nor are they obeyed. How does one respect any politician who has backed Global Warming and used it as a tool to strip Americans of freedoms and to push them down economically? How does one respect any university or environmental group or public figures endorsing "Global Warming". Many of these people have been the one's pointing to Europe's smaller CO2 footprint and had pushed to ban nuclear reactors while oblivious to the fact that Europe and Japan generate much of their energy with nuclear reactors. These are the same people who have screamed America is flooding the world with KILLER CO2; yet, they have done nothing to limit immigration into the very nation generating the CO2 and have actively condemned China for controlling force ably the birthrate which by their standard is helping to save the earth from KILLER CO2.

A serious cool down will be the nail in the coffin of these institutions and leaders and intellectuals pushing this nonsense. If people start to starve and die because of the disasters that surely follow a "cool down", they may find themselves in even more uncomfortable circumstances as the laws are changed to punish and humiliate these fools who have done the same to all who have tried to engage them in open debate! It will be an interesting and history changing time which will not go the way those busily dismantling the Constitution to further socialism have envisioned if history is any guide of what will come.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by AMTR

The Clowns are about to be dethroned because there is a greater social issue involved. The universities, the politicians, the judges who have all jumped on the "Global Warming" band wagon are in trouble. As the earth starts to cool, crop failures mount, energy needed to heat homes goes through the roof, the credibility and the authority of all the above is gone. How can anyone hope to be respected or obeyed after being so wrong on such an important issue? This will not be a little screw up. This will be a monumental screw up. Fools do not get respect nor are they obeyed. How does one respect any politician who has backed Global Warming and used it as a tool to strip Americans of freedoms and to push them down economically? How does one respect any university or environmental group or public figures endorsing "Global Warming". Many of these people have been the one's pointing to Europe's smaller CO2 footprint and had pushed to ban nuclear reactors while oblivious to the fact that Europe and Japan generate much of their energy with nuclear reactors. These are the same people who have screamed America is flooding the world with KILLER CO2; yet, they have done nothing to limit immigration into the very nation generating the CO2 and have actively condemned China for controlling force ably the birthrate which by their standard is helping to save the earth from KILLER CO2.

A serious cool down will be the nail in the coffin of these institutions and leaders and intellectuals pushing this nonsense. If people start to starve and die because of the disasters that surely follow a "cool down", they may find themselves in even more uncomfortable circumstances as the laws are changed to punish and humiliate these fools who have done the same to all who have tried to engage them in open debate! It will be an interesting and history changing time which will not go the way those busily dismantling the Constitution to further socialism have envisioned if history is any guide of what will come.

What on god's earth are you talking about? The earth isn't cooling.

[WickedLou9]

Two more "facts" that climate change skeptics will have to remove from thier arsenal.

Case against climate change discredited by study - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

AFP: Warm winds comfort climate change models: study

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

What on god's earth are you talking about? The earth isn't cooling.

For the past decade it has been, although minimally. And most studies and research I've seen has shown they expect it to for up to another decade and possibly at a more pronounced rate. Scientists who subscribe to the global warming theory acknowledge this, they're just trying to explain it. So far the common response has been "We never said it was going to keep warming forever and after this cooling period it could get hotter again if we don't continue to regulate CO2."

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by JaJae

For the past decade it has been, although minimally. And most studies and research I've seen has shown they expect it to for up to another decade and possibly at a more pronounced rate. Scientists who subscribe to the global warming theory acknowledge this, they're just trying to explain it. So far the common response has been "We never said it was going to keep warming forever and after this cooling period it could get hotter again if we don't continue to regulate CO2."

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Global Temperature Seventh Warmest for Spring, Eighth Warmest for May

Global sea temperature drop 'was artificial' - Telegraph


Global Land Temperature Warmest On Record In March 2008

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Global Temperature Seventh Warmest for Spring, Eighth Warmest for May

Global sea temperature drop 'was artificial' - Telegraph


Global Land Temperature Warmest On Record In March 2008

Without clicking through them:
- Monthly and seasonal records don't mean much on the global scale. If we can't take years of declining global temperatures to make a point you surely can't use one month to make a point.
- Sea Temperatures aren't global temperatures.

If you take the last ten years or so you see a stagnant global temperature by every major set of data we have available. And depending on what year the graphs start you can actually see a slight decline in global temperature. The fact is we haven't witnessed any global warming this past decade and global warming advocates are trying to figure out how to get around that.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Without clicking through them:
- Monthly and seasonal records don't mean much on the global scale. If we can't take years of declining global temperatures to make a point you surely can't use one month to make a point.
- Sea Temperatures aren't global temperatures.

If you take the last ten years or so you see a stagnant global temperature by every major set of data we have available. And depending on what year the graphs start you can actually see a slight decline in global temperature. The fact is we haven't witnessed any global warming this past decade and global warming advocates are trying to figure out how to get around that.

You all keep saying that stuff and I can't find any data that supports it. Believe me I am looking. It does not seem to be there.

From NASA:






From NOAA. ( not sure if this will work )

[WickedLou9]

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

Recent analyses of temperature trends in the lower and mid- troposphere (between about 2,500 and 26,000 ft.) using both satellite and radiosonde (weather balloon) data show warming rates that are similar to those observed for surface air temperatures. These warming rates are consistent with their uncertainties and these analyses reconcile a discrepancy between warming rates noted on the IPCC Third Assessment Report (U.S. Climate Change Science Plan Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1).

There has been a general, but not global, tendency toward reduced diurnal temperature range (DTR: the difference between daily high or maximum and daily low or minimum temperatures) over about 70% of the global land mass since the middle of the 20th century. However, for the period 1979-2005 the DTR shows no trend since the trend in both maximum and minimum temperatures for the same period are virtually identical; both showing a strong warming signal. A variety of factors likely contribute to this change in DTR, particularly on a regional and local basis, including changes in cloud cover, atmospheric water vapor, land use and urban effects.

Indirect indicators of warming such as borehole temperatures, snow cover, and glacier recession data, are in substantial agreement with the more direct indicators of recent warmth. Evidence such as changes in glacial mass balance (the amount of snow and ice contained in a glacier) is useful since it not only provides qualitative support for existing meteorological data, but glaciers often exist in places too remote to support meteorological stations.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

You all keep saying that stuff and I can't find any data that supports it. Believe me I am looking. It does not seem to be there.

Almost all of the data supports it. From 1998 we actually had an insignificant amount of global cooling. Since 2002 we've plateaued.

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Climate facts to warm to | The Australian

Your graphs are all well and good, but ocean temps and individual stratosphere temps do not correlate to the actual global temperature. Those graphs are typically a bit harder to find and I'm too lazy to search. But NASA, the IPCC and every major climate data group that I'm aware of recognizes the current trends and they're trying to figure out why it is happening. They've even, gasp, started attributing it to less solar activity. Which is something their opponents have been blaming the warming on for some time. They're now saying CO2 is very, very important, but there are other factors like the sun we have to take into consideration.

[JaJae]

You can say the decline is insignificant, but what is very much a reality is that the global warming on our planet has stopped for the past decade or so. Is this long enough for a trend? Possibly not, but it is real and it goes against every computerized climate model and every previous projection. And we're still using those faulty projections to discuss global warming and make future predictions which have proven to not only be wrong, but opposite of what we've seen for many years now. Yet global warming theorists don't tell you this. In fact, the majority of Americans probably has no clue the global temperatures have been declining or stabilized for the past decade. So even while the head of the IPCC discusses the issue, the media doesn't report it. I think the reason for it isn't that the cooling has been minor or insignificantly lower, but the very fact that by reporting it they'd have to change their entire angle on their reporting of global warming and they'd piss off the fringe groups. And more importantly they'd have to admit that they've been falsely reporting the reality of global warming for a decade while painting the skeptics and critics to their reporting as nutjobs. The reality is the garbage they have been reporting has been no less nutty than the information coming from the skeptics.

The journalistic integrity of global warming is complete garbage. It's just as bad as the "science" that supports it. Here's what I believe to be the facts of global warming:
1. The earth has warmed over the past century.
2. CO2 is a factor in global warming and had some part in the warming.
3. Nobody knows for sure just how much of an impact it had. It could be relatively minor for all we know, and there is no evidence that shows it is a prime explanation for our warming.
My opinions:
1. We're spending too much time focusing solely on CO2 when there are other factors.
2. The "science" for global warming is complete garbage and wouldn't pass for science in any other field.
3. Professional global warming opinions are more political than scientific from the top (IPCC) down (classrooms)

I had a professor in college who I believe to be a realist when it comes to CO2 based global warming theorists. He just gave the facts. Things like the the majority of scientists claim CO2 has such and such a percentage of impact on our global climate and human quantities of CO2 are X. He wouldn't go into the political crap and he basically said there hasn't been a climate model that has been anywhere near accurate or reliable so he didn't understand the big hoopla over them. He basically said it's great that we're trying to model global temperature, but we can't do it yet so we need to stop relying on them as evidence for our global warming theories. That type of thinking wouldn't pass in any other scientific field. Imagine working with atomic particles and basing theories off models you know don't work and calling your results sound science. You'd be laughed out of any other science convention save for climatology. Not only that, but the media and global warming theorists love to focus on those models. I just think the whole thing is laughable and absurd.

[motivez]

So wait a second

Lou has posted data from NASA showing a rise in temperature since 1880 (with short dips and whatnot every now and again, but an overall warming trend)

Your data seems to be focusing on one of the little insignificant dips instead of the overall trend, the trending data you've posted completely cherry picks the time period to look at to draw a specific conclusion, whereas Lou's focuses on data since the beginning

What site did you get those pictures from? I don't see a link except an Australian newspaper..

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

So wait a second

Lou has posted data from NASA showing a rise in temperature since 1880 (with short dips and whatnot every now and again, but an overall warming trend)

Your data seems to be focusing on one of the little insignificant dips instead of the overall trend, the trending data you've posted completely cherry picks the time period to look at to draw a specific conclusion, whereas Lou's focuses on data since the beginning

What site did you get those pictures from? I don't see a link except an Australian newspaper..

A couple sites.. images.google.com had em.

The second image was meant to point out the differences between January this year to last year, but the data shows this past decade which was my point. Over the past decade we haven't had any warming. For the past century has our climate warmed? Yes. Has it warmed for the past decade? No.

From NASA:
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs

[WickedLou9]

These little anomalies don't jive with what we are seeing in the world around us. Sea levels rising steadily year over year, ice pack melting steadily year over year. Spring coming earlier and earlier year over year. The great barrier reef is beeing bleached dead by the rise in temperatures. You can't just ignore all of this.