Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of wa

[scribblet]

Whoda thunk it huh David Suziki take that back, and Al Gore LOL

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monit...rticle10866.htm

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal 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.

[M.Dancer]

I got an ice cream headache today walking out of the office for coffee....

But as my Hero Dion said on the RMR....we shouldn't call it Global Warming....we should call it Global Climate Change....

[oreodontist]

When there is a blip somewhere in the world, the global warming cultists get into a state hysterical orgasm how it's 'proof' of doom to come.

Greece had a heat wave and it's 'global warming'....an arae of Canada 92 times larger has some record cold and the cultists dismiss is as 'weather'. I kid you not, there was a bit on the news last week about early flowers in Britain this year and it was....drum roll...evidence of global warming. The next day, in contrast, record low temps for a week in some part of Ontario and it was ...drum roll...'weather'.

The global warming cultists are akin to Creationists. Grasping at any straw 'to prove' their new found religion.

[Pliny]

There is no other explanation for this global cooling than the Sun is dying. Whew! Just in time to prevent global warming. We are a blessed species.

[jbg]

Over the past year, anecdotal 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.

You left out the snow in Buenos Aires, Argentina last July (link) and in Johannesburg, South Africa last June (link).

[eyeball]

Another extreme event on a world that's filled with extremists...hmmm, I somehow doubt that will make things any less extreme than they already are.

Link

Edited March 2, 2008 by eyeball

[Pliny]

Here's a good test.

Global Warming test

Edited March 2, 2008 by Pliny

[jbg]

Here's a good test.

Global Warming test

I took the test.

[Pliny]

I took the test.

Good for you! How did you do! I got 7/10.

[jbg]

Good for you! How did you do! I got 7/10.

I got the first three wrong, and one other wrong, so 6 out of 10. I guessed there wasn't global warming, not sure if the test meant AGW.

[Riverwind]

I got the first three wrong, and one other wrong, so 6 out of 10. I guessed there wasn't global warming, not sure if the test meant AGW.

The following points are not really debated by anyone familiar with the science:

1) Humans are causing the CO2 in the atmosphere to increase;

2) Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause *some* warming;

The real debate is about whether this warming is something to worry about.

It is unfortunate that alarmists have managed to convince many people with the argument that 1) and 2) are indisputable therefore our predictions of imminent doom by CO2 are also indisputable. A classic bait-and-switch technique.

It also makes it virtually impossible to inject rational thinking into the discussion because the only way to prove the alarmists wrong is to wait until after our economies are destroyed or hope for a major cooling spell. Unfortunately any natural cooling process must be strong enough to overwhelm the basic physics of CO2 induced warming.

Edited March 2, 2008 by Riverwind

[msj]

Whoda thunk it huh David Suziki take that back, and Al Gore LOL

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monit...rticle10866.htm

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal 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.

Ahh, yes the innumerates shall inherit the earth.

[Riverwind]

Ahh, yes the innumerates shall inherit the earth.

Yes, I can see why you posted the blog entry by an alarmist who can't do math.

Here is a standard alarmist graph from the IPCC reports and other sources: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a...Attribution.png

The temperature rise over the last century was ~0.6 degC

The 1 year temperature drop was 0.595 degC

To put it another way: a 100 years of warming was wiped out in one year.

What is more interesting is all of the similar drops over the course of the record co-incided with volcanos which makes the current drop even more unusual.

Edited March 3, 2008 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

Does anyone know what the actual ratio of believers is to deniers?

I'm perfectly willing to let the scientists take a vote on this and let the winners be the architects of our country's policies. I'd sooner do this than leave it up to the politicians. We could even set the same standard for moving to a proportional system of electoral representation, say 60% in 75% of all fields of science that relate to the climate. Would that be conservative enough?

[jbg]

Does anyone know what the actual ratio of believers is to deniers?

I'm perfectly willing to let the scientists take a vote on this and let the winners be the architects of our country's policies. I'd sooner do this than leave it up to the politicians. We could even set the same standard for moving to a proportional system of electoral representation, say 60% in 75% of all fields of science that relate to the climate. Would that be conservative enough?

No. Especially since most scientists are funded by government and/or academia.

[msj]

Yes, I can see why you posted the blog entry by an alarmist who can't do math.

Here is a standard alarmist graph from the IPCC reports and other sources: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a...Attribution.png

The temperature rise over the last century was ~0.6 degC

The 1 year temperature drop was 0.595 degC

To put it another way: a 100 years of warming was wiped out in one year.

What is more interesting is all of the similar drops over the course of the record co-incided with volcanos which makes the current drop even more unusual.

Maybe you should read his entry until you understand it.

A single year does not wipe out decades/centuries worth of trend.

It really is as simple as that. Well, okay, it would help if one would understand things like average, median, standard of deviation and such things...

[Riverwind]

I'm perfectly willing to let the scientists take a vote on this and let the winners be the architects of our country's policies.

You got to be kidding. Scientists are herd animals like the rest of us and tend to follow the crowd - especially when their livelyhood depends on singing the AGW tune.

This letter by one of the more respected climate scientists is quite telling:

http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-trop...rivate-citizen/

She starts off by saying:

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly..."

That statement alone speaks volumes about the state of the scientific community.

[Riverwind]

A single year does not wipe out decades/centuries worth of trend.

You read way to much into the original statement. It was never implied that it was as cold as it was 100 years ago. The statement simply points out the magnitude of natural weather events can be as large as the alleged warming. The statement is factually correct. Edited March 3, 2008 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

The statement clearly implies that we've been given a reprieve and there's nothing to worry about now.

[leonardcohen]

Thanks for the test, i'm sending

the link to to all my climate warming

acolytes.

I scored 8/10

[msj]

You read way to much into the original statement. It was never implied that it was as cold as it was 100 years ago. The statement simply points out the magnitude of natural weather events can be as large as the alleged warming. The statement is factually correct.

What is it about the title of the thread that you don't understand?

"Wipes out a century of warming" is inaccurate to say the least.

It certainly "reveals a disturbing statistical/mathematical incompetency that is rather embarrassing."

And that's just it: one doesn't have to believe in global climate change to realize the embarrassing errors being made here. One just has to know a little bit about statistics.

[jbg]

"Wipes out a century of warming" is inaccurate to say the least.

It certainly "reveals a disturbing statistical/mathematical incompetency that is rather embarrassing."

Look, fellows. This is La Nina, which goes a long way to explaining the drop. However, much of the "rise" of late is explained by the fact that after the "Great Pacific Shift" of 1977 El Ninos have prevailed over La Ninas. Both the previous 30 year "cooling" trend and the 30-40 year "warming" trends on either side of it are great events that swamp any human contribution, but may not swamp Interglacial/Ice Age cycles.

[msj]

Look, fellows. This is La Nina, which goes a long way to explaining the drop. However, much of the "rise" of late is explained by the fact that after the "Great Pacific Shift" of 1977 El Ninos have prevailed over La Ninas. Both the previous 30 year "cooling" trend and the 30-40 year "warming" trends on either side of it are great events that swamp any human contribution, but may not swamp Interglacial/Ice Age cycles.

I'm not referring to any cause for the measurable difference.

All I'm talking about is the innumeracy behind the interpretation of the numbers.

As the link I pointed out states - it's like looking at the minute by minute charting of the S&P 500 to try and determine the long term trend.

It is the gross innumeracy in action that I'm concerned about. I really don't care whether one side or the other gets it wrong - the point is that the error is embarrassing (or at least should be embarrassing - one would have to understand the error in the first place).

[Riverwind]

"Wipes out a century of warming" is inaccurate to say the least.

Only because you insist on interpreting it in a way that was not intended. As I said, the magnitude of the drop was equal to the total temperature rise this century.

[Riverwind]

--

Edited March 3, 2008 by Riverwind