Global Cooling!

[Bill Tabor]

Since global warming has taken up so many threads and time here in the past, I thought it only reasonable to share these two articles mentioning a global cool down the last 12 months that apparently has supposedly nearly erased all global warming for the past 100 years....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333328,00.html

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/

 

[Jeff Snyder]

Measured = signal + noise... To get to the signal, you need to find ways to remove the noise. Just as it's imprudent to claim that any particularly "hot" year is indicative of a longer-term warming trend, it's equally imprudent to claim that any particular "cold" year is indicative of a reverse of that trend (or the start of a cooling trend). A 12-mo mean temperature that matches that of several years ago does not mean that the large-scale TREND is reversing. Not every year will be warmer than the previous. I certainly expect some much cooler-than-average years, but I just foresee more warmer-than-avg years than cooler-than-average years (which means an upward trend is present). One year temperature != long-term climate trend reversal!

 

[Paul Austin]

Measured = signal + noise... To get to the signal, you need to find ways to remove the noise.

LOL - We are always trying to find ways to remove the noise in Stormtrack forums! And I just decreased the signal to noise ratio with that comment, sorry.

I saw the article and found it interesting, but Jeff's right. It would be like claiming that the US is likely to see 2000+ tornadoes this year based on Jan and Feb. Or that the annual tornado count in the US was trending downward after 2006.

If mean temps in several years in the next decade or more show a similar decline, then one could begin suggesting a trend, even if a few measured higher. A decade may be a little on the short side, so obviously a longer trend period would be more reliable.

 

[Bill Tabor]

The phrase about erasing all global warming (temperature wise) for the past 100 years is from the article...not me. Sure, you are both correct that it is silly to assume 1 extreme data point invalidates all the other 100 year data, but I did find it interesting that when the warmest year on record was expected we got one of the coldest. Plus the other issue discussed here in both articles is the concept that solar cycles and fluctuations have much more to do with global climate temperatures and weather patterns than green house gas. I've been hearing a lot of that lately and apparently there are groups studying this and they have some evidence of it potentially being true.

 

[mrobinett]

I love it!!! Im just surprised at the sources.

 

[Rocky Rascovich]

Two things that divides humanity more than ever, politics and religion... and now a third, global warming... true or false?

I'm so sick and tired of these global warmingista's that are so hell bent to blame this climate shift on human's and humans alone... and us as American's in particular....

This IS my last rant on this.

 

[Darrin Rasberry]

Two things that divides humanity more than ever, politics and religion... and now a third, global warming... true or false?

Without sticking my fingers to a dangerous level in the forbidden pie, I've found that the third depends somewhat on the first two (regarding interpretations of the facts, that is).

 

[Jay McCoy]

Consider the source: one has to assume anything released by Fox News has to have a corporate/radical right wing bias, and cherry-picked data.

Thats what most MSNBC lefties actually believe. Oh its Fox so it must be a conservative agenda piece.

No matter who presented the article it uses facts that cant be questioned. The original articles about this wasnt even written by Fox. They just picked it up and commented on it. This has been discussed on a number of news and scientific sites.

There is a nice artcile written by the "daily Tech" where they write...
"Over the past year, 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"

Hard to argue those facts when it was suppose to be a record warm year. Maybe it is only 1 year but it shows we really know nothing about what really effects our planet. We think we have this enormous power to cause it when we are nothing but a nuiscance. Things like solar storms and volcanoes can do more damage in minutes than we could in 1000 years.

 

[Aaron Kennedy]

Things like solar storms and volcanoes can do more damage in minutes than we could in 1000 years.

Tell that to the amazon rainforest? How many species of wildlife have we wiped out in a few centuries compared to natural disasters? I'm not sure why it is so hard to see how humans can impact climate. What about the cornbelt? Do you think mean dewpoints in these areas was as high before we started planting corn everywhere?

FYI: a warmer climate could lead to more snowfall for some areas. More evaporation and water vapor in the troposphere -> more latent heat to feed cyclones. Stronger cyclones -> more snowfall for areas that are below freezing regardless (keep in mind were quibbling over a few degrees C).

Now consider more snowfall over a larger area. Higher albedo on average, more reflected solar radiation, cooler temperatures due to less absorption. Most feedbacks revolve around moderating the globe and trying to equalize the energy surplus/defecit from one region to another. All about the globe trying to reach equilibrium.

 

[Jay McCoy]

Tell that to the amazon rainforest? How many species of wildlife have we wiped out in a few centuries compared to natural disasters?.

Andin a matter of minutes an atsreoid killed of almost every living creature on this planet!

I am saying we dont know near enough to claim we are the cause of global warming or that it isnt a natural cycle. We have had numerous ice ages which also means we have had followup warming trends. We have been warming since the end of the last ice age. The polar caps have been melting for thousands of years so why now do we freak out? Most of North America was covered in ice. This argument is more about politics and people making money off of fear than historical facts. Ok so say we are causing this warmup. What cause the last one?? Dinosours farting?? Solar cycles?? We have no clue.

 

[Tony Perkins]

Citing the Wisconsin snowfall makes me laugh. Regardless of the global warming debate, extremes happen every year locally somewhere on the planet. Look at how many "100 year" labeled events happen every year on a local scale. A persistent stormtrack over the same area doesn't mean squat, we're below average here in most of neighboring Minnesota, and I'm guessing we have 49 other states without record snowfall.

This argument is more about politics and people making money off of fear than historical facts

I've never understood who is making money here off fear. (Who?) If we are putting resources into developing alternative energies, why on Earth are people opposed to that?

 

[Robert Dewey]

Damn... I was banking on Global Warming to bring an early Spring/Summer.

 

[Aaron Kennedy]

Ok so say we are causing this warmup. What cause the last one?? Dinosours farting?? Solar cycles?? We have no clue.

We have a pretty good idea what has caused past climatic changes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

The key is rapid climatic events such as Younger Dryas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas )... those are tougher to figure out.

FYI: this article is as ridiculous as many of the global warming articles that come out in the news stating the caps will be completely melted in 40 years, etc. so don't think I'm trying to only call out one side of the debate.

I got a personal kick out of the solar activity being low... um duh??? We're at the lull in the solar cycle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot-bfly.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png

 

[Scott Lincoln]

We have a pretty good idea what has caused past climatic changes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

The key is rapid climatic events such as Younger Dryas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas )... those are tougher to figure out.

FYI: this article is as ridiculous as many of the global warming articles that come out in the news stating the caps will be completely melted in 40 years, etc. so don't think I'm trying to only call out one side of the debate.

I got a personal kick out of the solar activity being low... um duh??? We're at the lull in the solar cycle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot-bfly.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png

Thanks for posting this, Aaron. I've been looking for the graphs showing the solar output for a while now. I knew in my head that we had been seeing a solar output reduction for a while now (on the order of several years) but was debating someone about this and they seemed to think we had 'just started' to see a decline. Looks like our period of cooling can be mostly explained by the moderate La Nina in combination with some areas of cooler oceans from ice contributions, and solar output reaching a minimum. I guess we'll see what the research says once people start doing some papers on this rapid-cooling event.

 

[Mikey Gribble]

Tony said...
"I've never understood who is making money here off fear"

I'm staying out of this whole deal, but companies that develop alternate sources of energy, countries that would benefit by emissions standards/trading, and countries that are classified as undeveloped (off Kyoto) are the ones that would/do make money off hyping up global warming. If you look into it there are a lot of interests out there.
The thing I've never understood is the whole evil oil company perspective. Who buys the oil? You and I. Our country runs on oil, like it or not. We have to have it. And they are energy companies, not oil companies. Their sole purpose is to make money. If there was a viable alternate source of energy out there they would be all about exploiting it, but there isn't one right now. The technology simply doesn't exist. I can assure you that when the technology does come about though it will be the evil oil companies pioneering it.