Skip to comments.Has the world started cooling? Hints from 4 of 5 global temperature sets…
Posted on 03/13/2013 10:26:09 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Im not keen on short term trends at all, they have a habit of flicking in and out of statistical significance with each months new data, or even switching from cooling to warming. But for what its worth, and only time will tell, perhaps the world entered the downswing of the PDO cycle in temperatures circa 2005.
If the world was entering a gently cooling phase, this is what it would look like
Syun Akasofu pointed out that there was a simple 60 year oscillation of global temperatures (about 30 years of warming, about 30 years of mild cooling) on top of a long slow rise that started more than 200 years ago. He predicted that we were at the top of one of the cycles, and were about to see the beginning of a cooler cycle. This early data suggests he may be right.
The cooling for the last eight years is statistically significant in 4 of the 5 major air temperature datasets. One, UAH, shows a small (statistically insignificant) rise since 2005.
And heres the political point: how many of the policy makers, the media, or the public are even aware of the current trend? Approximately no one. Ill bet even most skeptics didnt know it.
Cue critics wholl tell me Im cherry-picking data
Note Im not suggesting that this shows CO2 doesnt cause warming, Im not suggesting this is evidence (yet) that the models are wrong (theyre wrong, but for other reasons), Im not even saying that the world is definitely cooling. Im pointing out that if we were entering a cooler phase, this is what it would look like.
Perhaps the most important thing about these graphs is to juxtapose that claim the world is still warming in recent years. If statistical significance is where you hang your hat, the warming trend is not statistically significant, and yet (at the moment anyway) it is statistically significant to say the opposite about the last 8 years in 4 out of 5 datasets.
Btw, all five of the datasets have uncertainties of about 0.05 degrees C, so any change less than that is statistically insignificant.
UPDATE: Graph title corrected in the RSS graph.
The short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook. The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot.
Our fine planet is most definitely beginning to cool.
And, it's all my fault.
I replaced too many incandescent bulbs with CFLs before waiting to see if there was a cooling effect.
See my profile page for some climate graphs that give a better perspective on the whole thing.
If I could offer a thought here...
But I'll read it tomorrow...cause I am closing shop up here.
well past an oldster's bedtime.
It don’t matter...warming...cooling...it is climate change...must be man made...more taxes needed to stop man made climate change! /S
I’m trying hard to reverse the cooling trend. Own 2 SUV’s now.
There are plenty of cycles on top of not only the multi-decadal oscillation, and the rise out of the Little Ice age. The biggest, of course, is the temperature rise out of the last real Ice Age some 12000 years ago. There’s nothing to say we aren’t nearing or at the peak of that warming trend too, and on our way back down into the freezer again.
Sleep well! :-)
Who in their right mind would be worrying about warming at a time like this ?
You guys got it all wrong!!! It be dem Chemtrails, dontcha know?
I be lisnin to dis climate EXPERT on Kook to Kook AM as I type.
He be tellin me all about dem thousands of airplanes dumping all kinds of chemicals in the air...blood, metals, chemicals, and all kinds of stuff. Da gobmit trying to change or kill all of us.
It all be a consprcy, dontch know?
“...and on our way back down into the freezer again.”
Looking at the past interglacial warm periods - our current period is a bit on the long side, so I would not be surprised if we are not due for a REAL, mile-thick ice over Seattle, Ice Age.
Some scientists think that these ice-age periods can kick-off in a matter of years-decades, not the hundreds to thousands of years one might think. (I have read other papers that talk about rapid cooling on the order of weeks to months as well - but not sure how much the data backs up their ideas).
This article is just more proof of this hoax
The government funded this hoax . gov spent trillions of $ in grants to fund decades of this totally fake research .
This alone proves that government(socialism) can never work. they are totally unaccountable to reality, to truth , to efficiency etc. If you open up a private business you are accountable to the bottom line, to efficiency, to your customers. government agencies are not and idiots in universities receiving government grants to do global warming research are not accountable to anything .
Then they and the news media use this fake research to further grow government and take away our freedom. And many sheep believe the government and news media brainwashing. They actually believe capitalism (big oil etc) are destroying the planet with global warming. And when I tell these liberals and other sheep that global warming is a hoax many laugh , others look at me like I'm crazy. the media and gov are the problem. We should email this to Rush and drudge etc.
Wow, the temperature of this planet goes up and down, who knew?
True enough. There have been numerous articles on just that. In fact, that's where I first heard of Anthony Watts. He was challenging the temperatures reported by weather stations where the local environment had changed (eg, paving or nearby structures added) which caused the reported temperature to increase.
I am no expert on global warming, but I do try to make sure that my friends and acquaintances are made aware of such developments, as well as the ClimateGate revelations. The MSM isn't going to tell the public about information which would cause doubt that global warming was occurring or that it was man made. So, we have to bypass the MSM, making them more and more irrelevant.
If the public remains ignorant, it will be because people like us, who have read the information, have failed to point our friends to the places on the internet where they can read it themselves.
Only if the 0.05 degrees was a bias, rather than a fluctuation. If I take 100 independent measurements of a variable (say temperature) with a population standard deviation of 0.05 degrees, the standard deviation of the mean is 0.05/squareroot(100)= 0.005 degrees. That's how averaging works. The same sort of thing operates when taking annual measurements and fitting them to a trend line. The standard deviation in both the intercept and the coefficient are reduced by averaging. (In y = m*x + b, b is the intercept and m is coefficient.)