Over a year go, I wrote a flippant post about global warming and the lack of hurricanes. Too often my sarcasm hides my points instead of illuminating them. With that being said, trying not to be sarcastic or flippant, What do the supports of global warming do with this: Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling.
From the article (my emphasis):
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 seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to wipe out most of 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.
Not to pick on Cineaste, but he is the most ardent defender of the the theory of man-made global warming. Here are some things he said in the last debate.
Look at the global picture of average temperature and you won’t be able to deny that it’s increasing.
….
But I can verify what I think is true and you can’t verify what you think is true. You reject the facts of global warming why? WISHFUL THINKING: because you have provided no data indicating that global temperature is stable, cooling or that it is just a temporary trend like the middle ages. It’s wishful thinking that what is happening is temporary, you don’t actually know and you have nothing to back it up. The scientific information we have overwhelmingly corroborates with man made global warming.
This current data seems to indicate that there is more in play than simply man’s activity causing the temperature to increase. Even if it is increasing now seems to be in doubt, at least for some. Many international scientists are warning of a cooling period because of solar activity, which they say is a much larger influence on global temperatures than man’s contribution.
I honestly can’t see how this type of a drop in temperatures could have been forecast by the global warming predictions. What does this data mean? Is it just an outlier? How is this explained by global warming?
In closing, I don’t want to be snarky, but this snark from Ace struck me as too funny:
I can’t wait to hear the spin.
And to hear, inevitably, that the models were “slightly off” and it turns out excesss CO2 cause Ice Ages, not hothouses. Different models, different theories… but the conclusion is always the same: Human industry and even existence itself is a scourge that must be eliminated before we all melt to death/freeze to death/suffer in dangerously-lukewarm seasonal “sweater weather” to death.
Interestingly, the global warming crowd are shifting their anti-carbon emphasis from the risk of global warming to changes in the oceans that carbon can cause – and that might be a better argument.
Looking at the chart, are they claiming that a month constitutes a trend?
Here is another chart that over a longer period that includes the data from the one you linked, Aaron. See?
It's not a month, it's over a year. All four of the major, respected temperature outlets reported the largest decrease in temperature from one year to the next.
It is still a short period of time, though less damning than a month.
Agreed. I'm not saying this ends the debate, but it should add information to the discussion and not dismissed simply because it doesn't fit the global warming model.
Does global cooling cause the ice sheets to melt on the poles?
I've read reports about the ice at the poles growing recently. That's my point. It is an inexact science and even more inexact when you try to start placing blame on one factor – man's influence – while ignoring everything else.
"The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years."
Ummm… How is this even possible when your chart starts in 1988? Also the temperature dip your chart touts is still higher than the 1992-93 average temperatures. Do you even bother reading the charts before you write this "stuff" up?
"It's not a month, it's over a year."
Look at the your chart. Temperatures 0.4 and above seem consistent with the other temperature swings on the chart. The drop below 0.4 happened in much less than a year's time, maybe a month or two. Do you think that's a trend? I don't. We'll see if the trend continues over the next decade.
I recall reading something in the last week or two about changes in the sun maybe cooling it down for a while (I can't remember the specifics, however). Maybe this accounts for the shift.
It's not "my chart." It's a story to which I linked, but I think part of the explanation is that the chart is only one of four and does not include all the dates as you said. The point is that in the past year, the Earth's temperature has dropped significantly and has been recorded by all the major tracking outlets.
Of course they all use one month as the comparison. You can compare the temps from July one year to January the next. They are using the same month from each year to get a larger picture of the trend. The same is done in the graphs showing an increase in temps.
The idea that it wipes out all the warming of the past 100 years follows the claim that the Earth has warmed around 1 degree C in that time period. The writer's point is 0.75 is most of 1, therefore if the cooling off in the past year is correct, most of the warming would be "wipe[d] out." No?
As I said earlier, I don't think this ends the debate, but I think the information should be evaluated to see if it is a trend, to see if issues such as sun spots are playing a larger role in our temperatures than man's activities.
Cineaste, I do want to say I appreciate your calm demeanor in this discussion. I know you are passionate about this issue, so it means a good deal to me that this can be civil and non-accusatory.
I did a Google search on Michael Asher. It turns out that he has an ax to grind. Some of his other blog entries include…
Prove Global Warming is Bad, Win $125,000 in Cash
UN Admits to Long-term Alarmism over AIDS Epidemic
Academic Misconduct Alleged in Climate Research
Reseacher: Arctic Temperatures "Not Especially Warm"
As you can see, he's a hack. In my eyes he's lost all credibility on this issue. It's very obvious why Aaron and other deniers like him so much. Quoting him on Global Warming carries as much weight as quoting Micheal Behe on evolution. None!
Thanks, Aaron. I am passionate about it, but only because I am convinced it's a real threat to everyone. I personally, get nothing out of trying to convince conservatives about it except a headache, but at least I can say I tried.
Well, the reality is, we'll be taking money AWAY from disease research and relief efforts to do global warming research and work, you better hope you're right.
Cineaste, on Asher: I don't "like him so much." I had never heard of the guy. I just linked the story in which he used the data from all the respected collecting outlets. Because he has written critically of man made global warming in the past, he is a "hack" with no credibility.
You seem to have set up an impossible bridge Cin. You want evidence from someone that global warming is not happening, but any evidence that is reported by someone critical of global warming is not considered. Can I simply dismiss all supporters of global warming as "hacks" because I am skeptical of them. Can I dismiss all evolutionists as lacking "credibility" because i see holes in the theory? That's not a very beneficial or fun game to play.
the debate will not be ended because now western coporations have jumped onto the hysteria band wagon, hoping we will fill our homes with "green" junk, which carries a higher price tag of course, versus the old regular wal-mart brand non-green junk.
now, our GW friends has change the question, so to speak, when we found the answer, in that the earth seems to be moving toward a cooling cycle. they now speak of "global climate change". ah, more shadow and shroud for us to consider. if this is the case, and the earth is actually cooling, we as mankind may be caught between a rock and a hard place. if our pollutants from burning "naturally occuring" fuels is the cause of are cooling world(oh my!)and we accept the fact that is being pushed that it is immoral to assault mother earth with such, how will we stay warm in the winter? wood burning – immoral. coal usage – immoral. nuclear electricity – immoral. natural gas – immoral. a nice thick fur coat – immoral.
eating animal flesh to add layers of fat to our bodies – immoral.
oh, arch bishop Al, guide us …………………………….
"I just linked the story in which he used the data from all the respected collecting outlets."
I think you linked to him because he showed data that fit your preconceived notions of global warming. I notice that you didn't link to any of the majority of science sites that show global warming is very real. My method of evaluating global warming is looking at the data that's reported by the scientific community as a whole. You, on the other hand, evaluate global warming by latching on to any scrap of information that says otherwise. I think you do this because in your mind, and the minds of the right wing WASPs, there is some kind of evil conspiracy by the world's scientists. You don't know what their motives are, all you know is that scientists as a whole are not to be trusted. The fact of the matter is that there is a lot more data out there showing that the earth is getting warmer.
If you are truly impartial about this and not grinding your own axes, look at these pictures.
In pictures: How the world is changing
What conclusion can you draw from them? Is the Earth cooling or warming? Do you have any contrary evidence? Before you ask… no, the liberal scientists didn't photoshop these for propaganda. These pictures are real.
Actually, I have some questions about those photos, and I do NOT immediately conclude that the earth is warming.
1. Were they taken during the same time of the year? Many places look MUCH different in Summer than Winter.
2. Erosion happens naturally on the coasts, so at least two of those pictures are probably just normal erosion, having naught to do with temperature.
3. The pests in Alaska, again, may not be temperature related.
And again, we have to ask the questions:
– we all admit that warming has happened in the past independent of man's pollution. Is it really that much faster now? Or do we ASSUME so? How do we determine the time scales in the past? Using evolutionary old-earth guesses against the geological strata? Not believable to a YEC, if not many others.
– is warming really bad? I mean, historically speaking, weather is more severe during cooling cycles, and warmth, though it causes change, is generally BETTER for mankind and most living things
Those are glaciers, they've been there for thousands of years. They don't disappear during the summer and return during the winter. Do shrinking glaciers indicate a warming trend or cooling a trend?
Enough already. I've had it. I agree with you guys. It's all just a big liberal scientist conspiracy for some reason. If you have any messages you want to leave behind for the rapture, I'll pass them on for you.