Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

#1
OrangeEmpire

OrangeEmpire

The White Debonair
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
74,987
Likes
60
#1
DailyTech - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

7390_hadcrut.jpg

World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

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.
A compiled list of all the sources can be see here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.
Click to expand...

Thoughts?
 
#2
#2
All you nancies that traded in your SUVs for compacts and Hybrids are contributing to the problem!!!
 
#4
#4
I will say this over and over again, Mother Nature is a mean ole hag, she does as she pleases. Not very scientific, I know. For every action you get an equal and opposite reaction.
 
#5
#5
Al Gore has eliminated global warming. After inventing the internet I honestly did not think he could do any better than that....Now look at him...gone and saved humanity.
 
#6
#6
therealUT said:
All you nancies that traded in your SUVs for compacts and Hybrids are contributing to the problem!!!
Click to expand...

Thats right, I am doing my part, I am putting as many miles as I possibly can in my Tacoma, pulling a trailer full of landscape materials. The faster we get rid of that baaaaaaaaad gas, and big oil, the faster we can get into energy independence......:p
 
#7
#7
OrangeWilly said:
Al Gore has eliminated global warming. After inventing the internet I honestly did not think he could do any better than that....Now look at him...gone and saved humanity.
Click to expand...

He looks like he ate humanity, and then jumped the desert cart to boot....:birgits_giggle:
 
#9
#9
iceman9 said:
I will say this over and over again, Mother Nature is a mean ole hag, she does as she pleases. Not very scientific, I know. For every action you get an equal and opposite reaction.
Click to expand...
mother nature......:no:
 
#11
#11
JZVOL said:
TennTradition should be stopping by anytime now...
Click to expand...

Did someone call?

No...I've actually stopped by a few times, but no one was saying anything I felt I needed/wanted to comment on. The article is pretty well written. We are on the tail end of the 11-year solar cycle, so a downturn was expected - but I would say this has been a colder winter than almost all expected. That probably has something to do with the fact that there is still no real solar flare activity - although it was expected to be kicking back up again months ago. If we don't see the sun cycle back up as expected, we will see this trend to continue. I do like the fact that the article does reiterate the point that climate scientists recognize that solar activity and cycles are the biggest driver of climate - not CO2...that is often something that is misinterpreted and leads to a lot of confusion.

The interesting point will be where do we spike to when the sun does return to increased solar activity. If the sun's activity kicks back up and we don't see temperatures return to levels of the last few years, then the climate scientists have some serious questions to answer.

Another interesting side issue is that I would be really interested in knowing what the average sulfur particulate concentration is over the Asian land mass considering the Chinese are building the equivalent of a 1 GW coal-fired power plant a week...they will need to get used to these kinds of winters if they don't clean up that exhaust, you would think (and get used to acid rain out the rear).
 
#12
#12
TennTradition said:
Did someone call?

No...I've actually stopped by a few times, but no one was saying anything I felt I needed/wanted to comment on. The article is pretty well written. We are on the tail end of the 11-year solar cycle, so a downturn was expected - but I would say this has been a colder winter than almost all expected. That probably has something to do with the fact that there is still no real solar flare activity - although it was expected to be kicking back up again months ago. If we don't see the sun cycle back up as expected, we will see this trend to continue. I do like the fact that the article does reiterate the point that climate scientists recognize that solar activity and cycles are the biggest driver of climate - not CO2...that is often something that is misinterpreted and leads to a lot of confusion.

The interesting point will be where do we spike to when the sun does return to increased solar activity. If the sun's activity kicks back up and we don't see temperatures return to levels of the last few years, then the climate scientists have some serious questions to answer.

Another interesting side issue is that I would be really interested in knowing what the average sulfur particulate concentration is over the Asian land mass considering the Chinese are building the equivalent of a 1 GW coal-fired power plant a week...they will need to get used to these kinds of winters if they don't clean up that exhaust, you would think (and get used to acid rain out the rear).
Click to expand...

You think that most liberals by now would understand this concept. Guess those $$$ in front of their eyes are the reasons for their blindness.
 
#15
#15
It's all about money. Who stands to gain more by this global warming theory than Al Gore and some of the "scientist" who are given millions if not billions to study the warming of our planet. Of coarse their findings are going to support their theories. If not they would have to find a job! If they would not present it as fact people would not be so resistant. I think we all want a clean environment.
 
#16
#16
g8terh8ter_eric said:
You think that most liberals by now would understand this concept. Guess those $$$ in front of their eyes are the reasons for their blindness.
Click to expand...

I don't think that it is an issue of liberals vs. conservatives. Just because solar activity is the largest driver of climate doesn't mean that CO2 isn't also a driver. It also doesn't mean that greenhouse gases aren't an issue. Just because something isn't the biggest driver doesn't mean that it isn't a key player.
 
#17
#17
KB5252 said:
It's all about money. Who stands to gain more by this global warming theory than Al Gore and some of the "scientist" who are given millions if not billions to study the warming of our planet. Of coarse their findings are going to support their theories. If not they would have to find a job! If they would not present it as fact people would not be so resistant. I think we all want a clean environment.
Click to expand...

You're cracking me up. There is a lot of money out there for scientists to take if they can find a way to show that CO2 does not drive temperatures upward. They aren't taking it because they can't show it...

I particularly like the real job comment...classy.
 
#18
#18
TT, your knowledge on this stuff is amazing! What is it you do for a living?
 
#19
#19
TennTradition said:
You're cracking me up. There is a lot of money out there for scientists to take if they can find a way to show that CO2 does not drive temperatures upward. They aren't taking it because they can't show it...

I particularly like the real job comment...classy.
Click to expand...

They aren't taking it because it is not offered in most cases. I have still not seen any study that can show a link between co2 and the global temp. How can you study the cycles since they tend to cover long stretches of time? It is a theory at best. Scientist who differ in opinion do not get the resources of those that do! There was a study about a year or so ago that shows that is the case. During that global climate conference that was held some time ago many scientists reports were left out of the final report, completely ignored.
 
#20
#20
I can't speak to GW research specifically but there is a bias in academic research outlets and funding towards or away from certain theories.

Reviewers (both grant and journal) play a large role in determining "outlet" for research programs and findings. It isn't an agenda driven thing as much as it is a structural issue in what is considered important and valid at the time.

In other words, if the prevailing thought is in one direction and most reviewers adopt that direction, it is harder for research that is counter to that direction to break through.

In my field, we see this more as a methodological issue than a topical issue. There is a bias towards some methods and research not using those methods is often rejected even though the findings may be accurate (or as accurate as research using the preferred methods).
 
#21
#21
volinbham said:
I can't speak to GW research specifically but there is a bias in academic research outlets and funding towards or away from certain theories.

Reviewers (both grant and journal) play a large role in determining "outlet" for research programs and findings. It isn't an agenda driven thing as much as it is a structural issue in what is considered important and valid at the time.

In other words, if the prevailing thought is in one direction and most reviewers adopt that direction, it is harder for research that is counter to that direction to break through.

In my field, we see this more as a methodological issue than a topical issue. There is a bias towards some methods and research not using those methods is often rejected even though the findings may be accurate (or as accurate as research using the preferred methods).
Click to expand...
Thank you for the info. I do not claim to be an expert, I have no college education, but try to keep up with topics that interest me. I sit on the fence because I do believe that interesting points are made by both sides. I want a clean environment but do not want us to mortgage our future to do so. We need a long term study on the subject.(1,000 years or so which is impossible I know)
 
#22
#22
JZVOL said:
TT, your knowledge on this stuff is amazing! What is it you do for a living?
Click to expand...

I'm an engineer ... but I left the working world a few years ago and I'm a graduate student now.

I used to be really skeptical of global warming theory because I felt like it was a popular wave of environmentalism with little basis. Once I got to grad school and met some well-respected climate scientists (some once skeptics themselves - but more skeptical of uncertainty in the modeling than of the theory), I decided to take some classes and learn more about it. Over the course of about a year I became a lot better informed and completely changed my understanding and opinion of climate change. There's still a lot that I don't understand...but I at least picked up a pretty good general understanding and the vocabulary/basis set to go out and learn on my own about it...
 
#23
#23
Let me qualify my comments. I don't think scientific research that doesn't support GW is being thwarted. It may have a harder path to break through the review process but on the other hand, there is likely more $$ for climate research in general so it (research counter to prevailing thought in GW) may actually be receiving a net benefit.
 
#24
#24
volinbham said:
I can't speak to GW research specifically but there is a bias in academic research outlets and funding towards or away from certain theories.

Reviewers (both grant and journal) play a large role in determining "outlet" for research programs and findings. It isn't an agenda driven thing as much as it is a structural issue in what is considered important and valid at the time.

In other words, if the prevailing thought is in one direction and most reviewers adopt that direction, it is harder for research that is counter to that direction to break through.

In my field, we see this more as a methodological issue than a topical issue. There is a bias towards some methods and research not using those methods is often rejected even though the findings may be accurate (or as accurate as research using the preferred methods).
Click to expand...

Good post vinbham.
 
#25
#25
volinbham said:
Let me qualify my comments. I don't think scientific research that doesn't support GW is being thwarted. It may have a harder path to break through the review process but on the other hand, there is likely more $$ for climate research in general so it (research counter to prevailing thought in GW) may actually be receiving a net benefit.
Click to expand...

That is a good point, and one that I thought you were probably making in your first post. I guess you can almost call it funding inertia...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top