http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

2/28/2008 6:27:18 PM

2/28/2008 6:31:37 PM

globally averaged temperature??

2/28/2008 6:32:28 PM

that dailytech editorial is pretty poorly written. This is moderately interesting, but they completely mangle the interpretation. They linked to another blog that they apparently got the data from that says this:

Quote :

"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."

- http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

And the link they have that attributes this to the sun doesn't make sense, because that article is claiming we've been in a downward cycle of solar activity, which isn't corroborated by the same temperature data Daily Tech is also trying to use to show that we're entering a new downward cycle.

Realistically, a single low point isn't enough to show anything, unless someone has a researchable causal theory that explains it. It could easily be spun as more evidence for Climate Change if someone wanted to do so. There's not enough information to say from that graph.

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 6:42 PM. Reason : link]

2/28/2008 6:42:06 PM

An oscillation below the statistical mean means nothing. If this trend continues then you have one your case. Just like how a few broken record highs and a record hot august last year is not enough to win the hippies with their doomsday global warming propaganda. From my remembrance the anti-global warming crowd argued the same point i am now.

Kinda reminds me how the GOP in congress are crying about the dems playing partisan hacks against Bush when in reality the GOP did the same thing when Clinton was in office.

2/28/2008 7:27:40 PM

IT WORKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2/28/2008 8:01:13 PM

Huh? I could have sworn that 2007 was one of the hottest years on record. I believe it was the 2nd hottest behind 2005, according to NASA.

Now just 2 months into 2008, we have some type of precipitous global cooling?

Somebody is fucking with the data.

2/28/2008 8:14:23 PM

the reports about 2007 being the hottest on record were completely fucked up. We were actually well below average for the first half of the year, and the second half of the year was nowhere close to as hot as it was in 1998, 2002, or 2005.

2/28/2008 8:18:29 PM

^Sounds like you are talking out of your ass again.

Quote :

"The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle. "

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

2/28/2008 8:30:00 PM

apparently you're posting false data out of your ass again. NASA came forward and admitted that they had fucked up their data in August of last year. The hottest years in US history was 1934, not 1998, after they went back and corrected their models.






[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 8:48 PM. Reason : updated charts]

2/28/2008 8:44:25 PM

Dude, you don't know what you're talking about.

You think you do, but you don't.

You're posting graphs of US temperature, we're talking about global temperature.

The data error they discovered did NOT make 1934 the hottest year on record. Some idiot armchair climatologists misinterpreted that data to believe so, but they were mixing up US temperature with global temperature, just like you. This is all old news and you should know this if you've been following things.

Go click on the link and READ IT. You'll see that the afformentioned data change is accounted for, and really doesn't make much of a goddamn difference.

After you've read the link, you can come back to this thread and admit you were wrong. Or just disappear. I really don't give a shit.

Fuck it, I'll just copy and paste the part directly pertaining to your claim:

Quote :

"Finally, we note that a minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth's surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century. As shown in Figure 4 and discussed elsewhere, the effect of this flaw was immeasurable globally (~0.003°C) and small even in its limited area. Contrary to reports in certain portions of the media, the data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record. Obviously the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis (Hansen et al. 2001), 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (not globally) but by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the uncertainty. "

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 8:56 PM. Reason : 2]

2/28/2008 8:50:06 PM

pwned

2/28/2008 11:44:51 PM

Last april was cooler than the average and August was the warmest EVER

2/28/2008 11:57:48 PM

global warming is global cooling

2/29/2008 8:27:51 AM

^ That's what I concluded. Get ready for some serious spikes in your graphs. I'm still waiting for snow

2/29/2008 9:58:04 AM

I am more interested in if the standard deviation of global temperatures has increased over the last 20 years than just an increase in the mean as compared to statistical records.

2/29/2008 10:23:14 AM

IF YOU DON'T THINK HUMANS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS DIP YOU MUST WORK FOR EXXON

2/29/2008 11:25:57 AM

A swing like this is neither newsworthy or unprecedented.


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

2/29/2008 11:29:32 AM

THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS THAT HUMANS ARE CAUSING THIS

2/29/2008 11:30:34 AM

the scientific consensus is that its cold as fuck here in maine. bring back global warming.

2/29/2008 1:21:46 PM

Quote :

"Huh? I could have sworn that 2007 was one of the hottest years on record. I believe it was the 2nd hottest behind 2005, according to NASA. "

Come on man, the hottest recorded year was back in the 30s. Don't try to give them any help here...

2/29/2008 1:53:40 PM

Quote :

"Come on man, the hottest recorded year was back in the 30s. Don't try to give them any help here..."

you're thinking of the national average

2007 was the warmest year on record globally on land. It was the 5th warmest if you count the ocean readings as well.

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 2:36 PM. Reason : http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html]

2/29/2008 2:29:22 PM

LOL, there's more to the world than just the US.

2/29/2008 2:43:22 PM

/message_topic.aspx?topic=438755&page=40

2/28/2008 4:25:57 AM

2/29/2008 3:26:25 PM

arguing against global warming is stupid. most of the power we get comes from non renewable sources.
Most of that power is eventually converted into heat... then do you think it just disappears?

Not to mention more and more air conditioned spaces only help... do you think they call them heat pumps for fun? no they pump the heat from

2/29/2008 3:34:17 PM

stop spewing your liberal propraganda

2/29/2008 3:43:02 PM

Such interesting and intuitive discussion. IT MUST BE THE INTERNETS!

2/29/2008 3:59:42 PM

Quote :

"arguing against global warming is stupid. most of the power we get comes from non renewable sources. Most of that power is eventually converted into heat... then do you think it just disappears? Not to mention more and more air conditioned spaces only help... do you think they call them heat pumps for fun? no they pump the heat from"

Damn, I hope this is a joke.

If not...well you're really not lending much credence to the global warming argument with that kind of logic

2/29/2008 4:00:59 PM

^ Indeed.

At any rate, as probably the only user here who has taken graduate-level courses on both global warming and global sustainable human development, I can say without a doubt that the global warming/global cooling/climate change issues are highly complex. Even the best scientists of the IPCC can only produce maybes and guesses--educated though those guesses may be--concerning future climate change and possible catastrophic events.


[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 4:19 PM. Reason : .]

2/29/2008 4:17:22 PM

Quote :

"Not to mention more and more air conditioned spaces only help... do you think they call them heat pumps for fun? no they pump the heat from"

lol wut

2/29/2008 4:18:48 PM

neither "global warming" nor "global cooling" are accurate representations of what's actually happening

"global climate change" is a better phrase, but it's still pretty poor

i agree with many others that "global climate destabilization" (or something along those lines) is a bit better

2/29/2008 6:50:47 PM

how about "global political agenda" or "global we got more statistics than we know what to do with"?

2/29/2008 6:54:35 PM

"global correlation = causation"

2/29/2008 6:56:29 PM

Quote :

"how about "global political agenda" or "global we got more statistics than we know what to do with"?"

I can agree with that.

Every single weather anomaly is accompanied by scientists jumping out of the woodworks trying to explain it via their newest climate model, with journalists just happy as hell to publish their far-reaching hypotheses.

This is just a sampling of the 'news reports' I've read over the past few months:

"Lots of snow this year? Must be a reverse reaction due to global warming!"

"Extra powerful hurricanes in 2005? There could be only one explanation: global warming!"

"Big waves in California this winter? The result of rising sea levels from, you guessed it, global warming!"


Sometimes journalists need to be skeptical before they publish every crazy claim made by a scientist as if it were fact.

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 7:32 PM. Reason : 1]

2/29/2008 7:30:43 PM

Quote :

"At any rate, as probably the only user here who has taken graduate-level courses on both global warming and global sustainable human development, I can say without a doubt that the global warming/global cooling/climate change issues are highly complex. "

What department?

Quote :

"arguing against global warming is stupid. most of the power we get comes from non renewable sources. Most of that power is eventually converted into heat... then do you think it just disappears? Not to mention more and more air conditioned spaces only help... do you think they call them heat pumps for fun? no they pump the heat from"

and lolz

3/1/2008 12:29:17 PM

what a waste of money, i could of told you that without you taking them graduate level courses....

3/1/2008 3:11:48 PM

^^ What difference does it make? Look it up.

^ It's not a waste of money, you idiot--these are two courses among many. I have learned a lot--some of what I have learned has confirmed my previously held positions; some warrants further examination and consideration.

What is the difference between climate change and global warming?

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/science.html#2

State of Knowledge

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

3/1/2008 7:53:24 PM

Linking from the Environmental Puppet Agency is an automatic loss in credibility.

3/1/2008 10:43:22 PM

^ You're such a fucking idiot. The vast majority of the information listed on the EPA's Web site is provided by the IPCC.

Feel free to dispute any IPCC position that you care to.

3/2/2008 1:59:47 AM

So the IPCC is credible now? You may want to note that in your global warming thread.

3/2/2008 2:18:22 AM

^ Can you fucking read?

Quote :

"Linking from the Environmental Puppet Agency is an automatic loss in credibility."

HockeyRoman

3/2/2008 2:45:10 AM

Quote :

"^^ What difference does it make? Look it up. ^ It's not a waste of money, you idiot--these are two courses among many. I have learned a lot--some of what I have learned has confirmed my previously held positions; some warrants further examination and consideration."

I swear to God, a class on this has no credibility if I don't know what department it's in. You took a humanities class on global warming with no technical aspect whatsoever? Whoop-de-fucking do.

you're just as full of crap as everyone else on the internet.

3/2/2008 9:26:57 AM

^^ Well let's see. The EPA's one of the only places that I could find that actually touts W.'s "Clear Skies Act" as some kind of positive compared to the Clean Air Act and is actually filing litigation against the state of California for mandating tighter pollution regulations. So what exactly is the Environmental Puppet Agency trying to protect, the environment or the Bush agenda? The answer is self evident.

3/2/2008 12:46:38 PM

^ I know it was the EPA's laws that were supposed to gain usage over the california laws, but I didn't know it was the EPA itself doing the suing. I thought that was more the automakers.

Either way, it was a ridiculous lawsuit, and made one thing clear. If you were worried about the federal government showing leadership in fighting global warming - you have nothing to fear. except the ice caps melting and the world plunging into chaos

3/2/2008 1:56:17 PM

Actually, upon further review it's California that is suing the EPA and rightfully so.

Quote :

"Governor Schwarzenegger today announced that California has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to act on California’s tailpipe emissions waiver request. "

Quote :

"Under the Federal Clean Air Act, California has the right to set its own tougher-than-federal vehicle emission standards as long as it obtains a waiver from U.S. EPA."

http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/8047/

So basically the Environmental Puppet Agency is dragging their feet granting the waivers needed for California to set cleaner air standards. But I am sure the Bush lackeys of TSB will find some excuse for why they can't seem to do their job of, you know, actually protecting the environment.

Quote :

"Un-fucking-believable"

[Edited on March 2, 2008 at 2:15 PM. Reason : ]

3/2/2008 2:13:04 PM

yeah, there's PLENTY of blame to spare for the EPA, they were mostly acting (or not acting) in the interests of other organizations. The fact that they never sat in the prosecutors seat themselves is the only difference.

And yeah, there have already been new developments on that turn in the last 2 weeks or so:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN2922095420080229

Quote :

"The Bush administration on Friday formally rejected California's bid for a waiver from U.S. law to set its own tailpipe emissions standard to reduce global warming."

NO! STOP TRYING TO FIX GLOBAL WARMING CALIFORNIA!!

3/2/2008 2:22:11 PM

If California changes their emissions standards of automobiles, it will "fix" global warming

3/2/2008 3:14:05 PM

wow - this far an no "number of pirates vs. global warming" chart?



[Edited on March 2, 2008 at 5:30 PM. Reason : .]

3/2/2008 5:29:18 PM

It can just as easily spike back up, even higher, over the next 12 months.

This is not a linear graph. Did the temperature keep spiking steeply after the 1997-1998 rise? The overall trend is an increase on the graph, so expect the temperature to continue with a gradual increase. Dips happen.

Nuclear winter is always around the corner as well, but that's a different matter.

3/2/2008 7:04:54 PM

Quote :

"If California changes their emissions standards of automobiles, it will "fix" global warming"

Quote :

"TRYING"

3/2/2008 8:59:08 PM