100 years of global warming 'erased' after record worldwide temp drop

[Jayems]

Another story to fuel the global warming debate on Calgary Puck.

Now there is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.


That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down.


Some scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity — which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.

Interesting.

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

Edit:

Photon has posted this retort below, but I thought I'd add it up here beacause it contradicts what the original article says in case you miss it.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2...the-sun-again/

[Blaster86]

I know someone who is really big into this. Apparently the Sun is just not generating enough energy right now and that this happens every so often.

[JimmytheT]

One year? Hardly a good sample. Before one goes down this road, a trend would need to be established for at least a few years. This seems more like natural regression (ups and downs), moer than anything.

I do agree that our climate would be more influenced by the energy output of the sun on a relative basis, than the make-up of our atmosphere (for obvious reasons).
VVVVVVV
EDIT: Well I have just read that the sun's output only varies +or- 1% annually. Therefore I am reneging on my above statement.

[photon]

Which one is right? Duh. NASA. The Daily Tech columnist evidently confused a below-average January temperature for an entire year’s worth.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2...the-sun-again/

I don't know enough to weigh in, but I saw this this morning and thought I'd post it since it's relevant.

[JimmytheT]

Originally Posted by photon

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2...the-sun-again/

I don't know enough to weigh in, but I saw this this morning and thought I'd post it since it's relevant.

Nice jump in there photon. Phil Plait always has a good retort for these things.

[MelBridgeman]

to think we can win a battle with the sun!!! arrogrance!!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by photon

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2...the-sun-again/

I don't know enough to weigh in, but I saw this this morning and thought I'd post it since it's relevant.

Well that about settles this one.

[photon]

I don't know if it settles it, the author of the original article responds in the comments, and the comments are long and detailed enough that I stopped reading Probably interesting to someone with more knowledge of the area though.

[FlamesAddiction]

Global climate CHANGE is not just global "warming". Until people realize that, it's pointless to even talk to them about it.

The overal trend is that of a warming planet, but that is not to say that there won't be ups and downs, and periods of extemes (cold and warm).

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Global climate CHANGE is not just global "warming". Until people realize that, it's pointless to even talk to them about it.

The overal trend is that of a warming planet, but that is not to say that there won't be ups and downs, and periods of extemes (cold and warm).

Or as Photon's link puts it:

It’s getting hotter in some places, colder in others. Wetter in some places, drier in others. In some ways I wish it were as a simple as things warming up. It’s not.

[Thor]

Lets see, Brit Hume reporting, Fox news reporting....

I'm shocked they would promote anything that calls into question that Global Warming is real.

Thank Allah for the internet.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Or as Photon's link puts it:

Exactly.

Eradic daily temperatures, and unpredictable seasonal variations. The bigger picture over the next few decades points to an overall warming trend, but the peaks and valleys on the curve also become more extreme.

When people talk about "global warming", they are talking about the big picture (the entire planet over several years). When talking about year-to-year changes, the term "global climate change" is more applicable.

[OBCT]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Global climate CHANGE is not just global "warming". Until people realize that, it's pointless to even talk to them about it.

The overal trend is that of a warming planet, but that is not to say that there won't be ups and downs, and periods of extemes (cold and warm).

Yes.

I also don't qualify as knowledgable enough to offer a super-educated opinion, but I've heard from some more knowledgable people that the "long"-term trend projects to warmer, warmer, and then sustained COLD for a long period of time. IE. an ice age.

One must consider that there are varying degrees of trends. In the broadest scope of things, a single, isolated year of increased or decreased temperatures is not problematic. Unfortunately, whether indirectly or directly, and whether due to tides rising or an eventual ice age (or both!), increasing greenhouse gases emitted into our atmosphere certainly have the potential to be a cause of dramatic, irreversible damage to the biospehere.

[The Yen Man]

What I don't really get is how you can possibly take the last 100, or even the last 1,000 years and use it as a trend. I mean, the earth is what, about 4.5 billion years old. So in order to even have a trending period that can give a signficant trend, you need at least 0.05% (and that's being really generous). So 0.05% of 4.5 billion is 2.25 million years.

Is there evidence that the Earth has been steadily warming up for the last 2.25 million years? If not, how can people even claim global warming is a trend?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

What I don't really get is how you can possibly take the last 100, or even the last 1,000 years and use it as a trend. I mean, the earth is what, about 4.5 billion years old. So in order to even have a trending period that can give a signficant trend, you need at least 0.05% (and that's being really generous). So 0.05% of 4.5 billion is 2.25 million years.

Is there evidence that the Earth has been steadily warming up for the last 2.25 million years? If not, how can people even claim global warming is a trend?

In the past 2.25 million years, there have been several warming and cooling periods. From geological,fossil, and glacial evidence, we can typically know the rates of warming in cooling.

In the past few hundred years (basically since the industrial revolution), we have seen global changes in climate that do not compare to others in history (barring a cataclysmic event; such as meteor impact or simultaneous massive volcanic explosions).

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

In the past 2.25 million years, there have been several warming and cooling periods. From geological,fossil, and glacial evidence, we can typically know the rates of warming in cooling.

In the past few hundred years (basically since the industrial revolution), we have seen global changes in climate that do not compare to others in history (barring a cataclysmic event; such as meteor impact or simultaneous massive volcanic explosions).

since the industrial revolution or since the Little Ice Age?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

NASA admits global warming (for your lefties) or climate change (for your righties) is indeed happening and that it is a result of human industrial activity and acknowledges that something must be done. NATO identifies global warming or climate change as the second greatest security threat to the defense alliance in the next decade. Those are two pretty substantial bodies, with completely different agendas, idenitifying the issue as being a massive threat to our existance and way of life. Isn't that enough?

I'll say this again, because it seems to get lost on people. There is concensus amongst the scientific community that global warming is happening, and that it is a result of human activity. Concensus does not mean unanimity, but does mean that the vast majority of those involved have agreed upon a cause. That cause is CO2 theory. Scientists from all different fields, with different specialities, have compiled their studies and come up with a unified theory. It is this unified theory where there is concensus. Yes, there are other theories out there, but there is no concensus amongst those who promote those other theories. They only concensus amongst those scientists is their belief that CO2 theory is incorrect. They fail to agree on a unified theory to explain what is causing the changes in our planet, which gives them no serious weight to challenge the concensus unified theory. The only reason that they get the press that they do is because of the powerful entities that exist that desire to cloud the issue and maintain status quo, for massive profits and increasing control and power. Until a unified thery can be presented to counter the CO2 theory, the other commentary is noise. Dismissing the theory does nothing if there is no other unified theory to explain the changes.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

since the industrial revolution or since the Little Ice Age?

Since the industrial revolution.

Remember, we are talking are warming "rates", not warming "amounts". Even during the "little ice age", of which there have been several of in the past 1000 years, the subsequent warming was never at the rate that it was after the industrial revolution.

The "little ice age" is also a bit of a misnomer. It implies that it was a global event like a real ice age, when in fact, it occurred in several localized areas, but at the same time, many areas (particularly in the southern hemisphere) did not see cooling during that period.

From Wiki, but sourced from peer reviewed scientific sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png



If someone wants a cool science project for their kid, create 2 small scale domed "Earths". Fill one with atmosphere air and the other with CO2. Warm them both up to the same temperature and then see which one holds the temperature longer. This has been done, and the CO2 holds the temperature longer (but it usually takes longer to warm up innitally). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why applying more CO2 and other GHGs to the atmosphere will have a similar effect on the planet.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

NASA admits global warming (for your lefties) or climate change (for your righties) is indeed happening and that it is a result of human industrial activity and acknowledges that something must be done. NATO identifies global warming or climate change as the second greatest security threat to the defense alliance in the next decade. Those are two pretty substantial bodies, with completely different agendas, idenitifying the issue as being a massive threat to our existance and way of life. Isn't that enough?

Even George W. Bush has acknowledged global climate change.

[Wookie]

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-complexity.html