I suspect we won't be seeing any of these articles on the Front Page of the New York Times:

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age

January 2008 - 4 sources say “globally cooler” in the past 12 months

Global Warming? It's the coldest winter in decades

It seems in the past year the Earth has cooled enough to virtually wipe out the warming we've been told we must fret about and put into motion anti-carbon/emissions initiatives, treaties and laws that would effectively destroy the Western world's economies.

Questions for debate:

1) What is likely to be the next indisputable weather related crisis we will face?
2) How likely is it that the world will embrace this next crisis despite past false alarms?
3) Contrary data be damned we all know Global Warming is killing the planet and that America is to blame; right?
4) Is it possible that man through science really doesn't know much about how temperature on this, or any planet, works?

It is situations such as this that they changed it from Global Warming to "Climate Change". It is more encompassing, and therefor they can attribute any weather event to their religion.

From your third source on your first source:


An "anomaly" - from your own source. Why does this ludicrous thread even exist? Just so people can flaunt their ignorance?

I didn't get this from Drudge actually. And I don't see how what Anthony Watts clearly didn't say but had retracted has anything to do with the Global Something Menace.

1) What is likely to be the next indisputable weather related crisis we will face?

Most weather crises are local, so I'll go with a drought. Or possibly a flood.

2) How likely is it that the world will embrace this next crisis despite past false alarms?

This isn't a crisis, it's a cold winter.

3) Contrary data be damned we all know Global Warming is killing the planet and that America is to blame; right?

I used to be a skeptic on whether global warming was real, and whether humans were causing it. I've seen enough data now to believe that both are true.

I don't believe we should immediately reduce CO2 emissions as much as some environmentalists advocate. I've seen claims that we must cut 90% of emissions within 20 years. That's bound to cause more harm than good -- unless you ignore the human costs of joblessness, poverty, starvation...

We should, however, invest in alternative, non-fossil energy sources. We should do that because the CO2 we're currently putting in the atmosphere isn't getting removed, and we don't know what will happen if it keeps going up this fast. Look at it this way: we now know that we have a powerful lever that we can use to warm the climate. That's nice, we might need it someday. If solar output is really decreasing, we've got a pretty good idea how to throw a few extra blankets on the planet and keep our farmland from turning into permafrost.

I'd like us to have a powerful lever (or a few) that can push the climate toward the cooler side, too. I think we're more likely to need that in the next century.

4) Is it possible that man through science really doesn't know much about how temperature on this, or any planet, works?

We don't know nearly enough. The biggest problem with climate models, as I understand it, is they don't model cloud formation very well. Remember, water vapor is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. And clouds are the most effective way of reflecting solar energy, too. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is both a cause and an effect of cloud formation. (Clouds can only form if the air is saturated with water vapor, but the presence of clouds casts a shadow that reduces further evaporation.) Cloud formation occurs at scales smaller than the computer models can calculate over the earth as a whole. It's hard enough for short-term weather forecasters to get this stuff right for a small area a few days in the future. Try doing it for the whole planet for the next century.

There are some subjects when they are presented in certain ways, that are simply not worthy of debating at all. This set of questions SUPPOSES far too much from a jumbled mess of unclear data that has had its own author retract part of the hypothesis. For me to "take the bait" with the questions framed as they are and with the drippingly sarcastic and, IMHO, erroneous conclusions supposed by the very form the questions take, make it pure folly to dignify them with a response.

Sourcing blogs as though they were as credible as most scientists in the discipline of climatology is almost as bad as Lush Rimbaugh's recent crowing about a bogus scientific paper refuting global warming while not knowing his ample and pompous back end was being "pranked".

I have no comment on the questions for debate due to their form and lack of reasonable qualification and sourcing.

One wonders then why you bothered to participate in this thread then. You obviously have nothing to contribute to it other than one of your usual trollish rants.

4) Is it possible that man through science really doesn't know much about how temperature on this, or any planet, works?

It's entirely possible as the current debate illustrates. But, this debate has moved in a large part from the arena of science into the political domain. That makes it much less analytical.


Aquilla

I saw the links over on the cyber Grand Central Station for news and opinion, the Drudge Report, and I thought I wonder how long it's going to take for one of the usual AD denialist suspects to latch on to it and offer it as the latest debunk on AGW? Not long apparently.

Folks it's referring to one month out of the year - Jan. 2008, which was unusually cold by recent standards. GW theory anticipates variation within a longer term upward trend in temperature. If you go back and check the past monthly temperatures you'll see dramatic monthly variations are common although this was a bit unusual in degree. It seems like this point about long term trends versus shorter term variations has been made umpteen times on this board. What about one month not being a long term trend don't you get? The cold trend after 1940 went on for years but this ultimately did no damage to AGW theory because the dimming forcings were for the most part located. Why should one month mean anything special?

Edit. Here's a link from the first article offered.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/...past-12-months/

Note the caveat offered at the bottom of the new linked article.

Dingo this is mentioned by Wertz in the first post. I do like however how nothing matters when it comes to GW. It's cold, that's Global Warming. It's hot, that's Global Warming. It rains, it snows, tsunami, hurricane, earthquake, 2006 elections, divorce rate - it's all Global Warming. Any dissent is denialism. Folks this is irrefutable science and science must never be questioned.

Also Dingo they are talking about Jan 2007 to Jan 2008 (we call that a year) not just the month of January.


Wow, you threw up a lot of words for no comment. Do you get paid by the character or something?

For the record, I do not like how the questions are formatted. We should be able to debate seriously and not sarcastically.

This past year has seen a dramatic downturn in global temperatures. All of the scientific reporting outlets have shown this. What we need to do is analyze the situation and figure out what caused it.

If we can't determine what caused it, this should give us insight into our lack of understanding of how the system works. If we can pinpoint a cause (less solar output, for example), it might give us insight into mechanisms which are causing increased warming.

We should not jump up and down and say "See, you were wrong all along!!", we need to understand what is going on. My feeling so far is that we don't fully understand the mechanics underlying the entire system. Yes we have some intuitive guesses and we have some data, but relying on models to predict the future when the models could be wrong is not the right approach.

The comment about "erasing nearly all of the global warming" is of course a dumb one. Temperatures are not scorecards. The trends and the causes of those trends are what we should be interested in. It would be just as bad as saying that there has been a 65-75 degree C per century temperature drop over the last year.

However, we can say at this point that we have had a large, unexpected drop in global temperature in the last year (January 07 to January 08). February, from my anecdotal viewpoint, has been VERY cold, so the trend continues. Of course, we can all conveniently forget that AGW predicts warmer winters being much more common than warmer summers. What happens with the Arctic sea ice (which is back to historical normal levels) this summer will be most interesting.

Yeah, I noted that afterwards. Sorry Wertz, I should have read ahead and good catch.


You're absolutely right. The sun and the wind and the rain and the snow and the tide don't go off and hide because of global warming. However the glaciers continue to recede and the ocean continues to rise and far more warming records occur than freezing ones although both as predicted continue to happen.

Just out of curiosity where did you hear about an earthquake being related to global warming. That's one I've missed.


It depends on what the dissent is about. If you are saying adding carbon gas, a known GHG, is not contributing to global warming then I would have to say you are denying the evidence that scientists have documented and analysed and is right out there to see. However there are certain elements to the discussion which warrant intelligent dissent, for instance whether or not there is a strong relationship between warming of the sea and increasing hurricane intensity. The jury is still out on that although I think the indications are strongly suggestive of a link.


Apples and oranges. They are comparing the month of Jan. 2007 with the month of Jan. 2008. That is a month to month comparison. In fact I understand the year of 2007 was a fairly warm one.

Can you show me where they are comparing months?

Everything I posted is talking about a YEAR of cooling.

Well, you might try looking at the data collected on world temperature for 2007 by some of the organizations cited. Here for example is a News Release from NASA's GISS published when they released their figures for 2007.



This doesn't sound like a year of cooling to me.

And Here is something from the Hadley Center for a slightly different year ending.



Together with a possible explanation for a cold January 2008.



Your Blog is deliberately deceptive in the manner it reports data. Why am I not surprised?

Links that contradict yours
2007 8th warmest year in recorded history - Climate Research Unit, East Anglia university
Winter, Spring and autumn 2007 average or slightly above average in UK - UK Meteorological Office
Winter 2007 the warmest since records began

Links that support yours to a greater or lesser degree:
Has Global Warming stopped? - News Statesman magazine, December 2007 (essentially in agreement)
2007 a warm year by historical standards overall, but cooled below record levels by unusual "El Nina" effect

One thing is clear above all else - there is no single body that collects all of the meterological data from every weather station on the roof of every school, hospital, government building, etc on the planet as it is collected. Sometimes it takes many months or even years to collate. Every analysis of very recent data (including whole-year data for 2007, which only finished two months ago) is therefore using only partial data.

Also, please note that the anecdotal and localised figures of it being the coldest winter for some time in North America don't tally with an average temperature (but very dry) winter in the UK. Global warming theory only says that the average global temperature will be on an upward trend. This does not mean that every year has to be warmer overall than the last (and as the 8th warmest year since records began, and since all the warmer years were in the last 15, this does not indicate there is no trend or that the trend is changing).

1) What is likely to be the next indisputable weather related crisis we will face?[b]
It'll still be anthropogenic global warming. One swallow does not make a summer, and one off trend year does not mean there is no trend. If the cooling trend really exists, then the next ten or twenty years will be cooler than average.

[b]2) How likely is it that the world will embrace this next crisis despite past false alarms?
Past false alarms (the new ice age proposed in the 1970 and 80s) are what has made AGW so damned difficult to persuade people of. Some people (I'll venture to bet that you'd be one of them, BA, or were until a few years ago) still do not accept that there is a warming trend, let alone that man's activity could be a factor, let alone the main causative factor.

3) Contrary data be damned we all know Global Warming is killing the planet and that America is to blame; right?

No. Global warming is changing the planet in unpredictable ways that threaten current civilisation and the survival of many people and ecosystems, but not in ways that threaten the existence of life on Earth itself. America shares the blame proportionate to its status as the largest per capita producer of greenhouse gases, most notably methane and CO2.

4) Is it possible that man through science really doesn't know much about how temperature on this, or any planet, works?

Anything is possible. Though as more evidence is collected, we not only learn more, but science gets better at making its predictions and at identifying trends. That's what science does, for the most part. Identify facts from data, then come up with theories explaining them. The more data that then fits the theory, the more likely it is that theory is correct. Data - facts - that do not fit the theory once it has passed a certain weight of supporting data (and we're talking balance of probabilities, here, not beyond reasonable doubt, though some theories have passed that point and become, to alll intents and purposes, facts themselves e.g. gravitation) does not automatically invalidate it.

With all of these reports that contradict each other, it seems the debate isn't over. Was 2007 the 8th warmest, slightly above average, coldest or the warmest? Can somebody help me with this? If the science is so irrefutable, and the debate is over, why is there no consensus as to which year is the hottest?

Questions for debate:

1) What is likely to be the next indisputable weather related crisis we will face?
2) How likely is it that the world will embrace this next crisis despite past false alarms?
3) Contrary data be damned we all know Global Warming is killing the planet and that America is to blame; right?
4) Is it possible that man through science really doesn't know much about how temperature on this, or any planet, works?


1) God only knows;

2) There are chronic and acute crises; we'll always address the acute ones; the chronic, not so much until they become in whole or in great part acute;

3) No; global warming is a great excuse to make market in carbon credits and help some folks to make lots of money. No one can answer these questions: with mathematical precision, what are the causes of warming?; how long will warming last?; and will warming ever reverse and go to cooling?.

I have seen several British studies indicating recent heating is directly attributible to increased solar activity.

Mankind has nothing if not hubris; a few warm years do not mean a mini ice age will not come in 25 years. Our studies of ice floes and other "old" organic matter seem to indicate (if one thing can be definitely true) that our climate does change some from time-to-time....;

4) Yes. We suffer from hubris--see 3 above.

There will always be a debate over the minutia of data and how to weight it. However the debate on whether human caused GHGs is making a significant contribution to the increase in global warming is pretty much over in any serious sense in my opinion.


Or days if you like. Off of the graphs. Notice the ^T accompanying a blue vertical parameter line with a temperature change inserted. To me the only meaningful point is that one is considerably lower than the other and they are on the same date a year apart. Inserting long term cold trends with such limited information only reveals the writers agenda. If I were to do the same but reversed the progression from down to up and claimed from this and only this there was a long term trend toward global warming you would be absolutely right to call me on it. It is the measured long term trend that is meaningful and clearly variations from month to month and year to year are going to occur within that long term trend.

For year comparisons the standard protocol is to compare calender year with calender year. To take the highest single earth temperature in 7 years and employ that as your point of departure for a faux trend is, taking a page from NH5, "deceptive." It is relevant only in that if you set up a certain standard, namely a year to year date starting anywhere, the change is historically radical. That's different from meaningful.

scubatim

Did you read the links?

They only contradict each other because they look at different snapshots of the data. The first on I posted considers the full-year global averages for 2007 (at least, such data as was available in December 2007 when the report was published, which probably means January to November only).

The second only publishes data for the United Kingdom, but for the whole of calendar 2007.

The third only considers global data for the "winter" of 2007, defined as the period between the winter solstice in 2006 and the vernal equinox of 2007 (roughly speaking, this means January, February and March of 2007). (For comparison, the really cold winter gripping North America is officially winter 2008 not winter 2007.)

There are only contradictions here when everything gets boiled down to headlines. 2007 as whole

I think this is why there is so much confusion over the subject (and lots of other science-driven topics). The media does not, generally, contain many scientists, and not many scientists are used to dealing with the media. The scientific idea of a paper for peer review that qualifies it's findings using probabilities doesn't sit well with the media (and the public) demands for "just tell us what the answer is".

And those demands drive media people (and their darkside counterparts, PR people) to pull out the extremes of the predictions to tell the "best" story - "best" in this case meaning the one that sells the most papers or garners the most ratings, rather than the one that is the most accurate.

Elements of atmospheric water coalesce into droplets and accelerate toward the mutual centre of mass of these atmospheric droplets and the Earth
is scientifically accurate, but it makes for a lot less eye-catching headlines than
The sky is falling!,
or the rebuttal piece of
Panic-monger tries to undermine the farmyard way of life.

1.) I think a popular school of thought can be erected for proponents of both extreme cooling and overheating.

2.) Not too likely. As a planet, we've been lazy in dealing with curbbing our pumping of foreign substances into the ozone layer. I don't think this can change very much.

3.) China, India, and the developing world still have an edge on carbon emissions and will increase their margin over America's output in the next five to ten years. Americans have no incentive for maximizing resources, however. We're a compulsary consumerist state, we can't help but buy buy buy regardless of the consequences and the cost in fuel, etc.

4.) Yes. But just because we don't know how Mars works, for example, doesn't mean we need to launch a nuclear assault on it because its there.

Since this thread has a solar focus as related to recent cooling I thought I might trot out this article to offer some perspective on the part the sun plays. The chart shown in this article posits a roughly 24 year cycle of changing solar intensity tending to follow an approximate sine curve pattern. Interestingly it has us presently on the bottom of that curve. In addition it provides an interesting discussion of solar and its influence on GW, like is the next decade or so going to have an enhanced GW effect related to the cycle?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-we-hea...le-Ice-Age.html

One thing that is discussed as a depresser of global warming is the Maunder Minimum, a weakening of solar radiation in the past, leading apparently to some deep freezing of the earth.



Rather than being the scare mongering politically agenda driven outfit the denialists claim it to be this article in Salon explains how in fact the IPCC is more prone to err on the conservative side and why it has this bias. Oh yeah, and he explains why the word "consensus" is absolutely the wrong word to apply to reports offered by the IPCC.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/...arming_deniers/

If the cooling persists for a couple more months it will be more like a trend. Right now it can easily be dismissed by the GW “fanatics” as part of the GH scenario. But imo we may be at the end of the warming trend or near it – and when the cooling becomes clear the whole GW/CO2 fiasco falls apart.

Not if the forcing that's causing the dimming is discovered. You seem to forget the cold period following 1940. That went on for years. Somehow the GW/CO2 theory didn't turn into any fiasco.

It's about the evidence Ted, not your denialist agenda.