Posted on 02/13/2008 6:31:47 AM PST by dangus
Over the past year, a remarkable cooling trend has brought ocean surface temperatures down to temperatures reached in the 1940s. Now, land temperatures have followed. Planet-wide land temperatures were actually significantly *below* the 20th-century average. This is not a refutation of global warming by an attempt to debate how sound the alarmists' dataset is. This is based on the same data sets used by Al Gore, Dr. Hansen, and the IPCC: Global Warming is, for now, history.
Global temperatures are about the coolest measured since 1994, about the same as the phenomenally large "La Nina" of 2000. By 1994, climatologists were warning of global warming, but there was a frank rebuttal: the earth was no warmer, yet, than it had been in the 1940s. There had been warming from about 1900 to 1944, but this was before significant amounts of green house gases were released. From the 1940s through the 1970s, the globe actually cooled slightly. And from around 1980 to the early 1990s, there had been some slight warming, according to problematic earth-bound sensors anyway, back to the peaks reached in 1944.
Then it happened: The mid 90s were progressively warmer (we're talking hundredths of degrees, mind you.) But 1998 saw a massive warming event called "El Nino." The following year, "La Nina" brought temperatures back to where they had been a few years earlier, but at the start of the new millennium, temperatures rose to near the heights of El Nino... and stayed there.
Finally, the predictions of global warming seemed to be coming true. Plus, even though the warming had been only a quarter of a degree since 1944, they had statistical grounds for asserting the warming was accelerating, and were soon predicting that the next century could see temperatures soar as much as ten degrees.
When the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changed issued their report in early 2007, they had noted that 2006 was the second warmest year in history. The hockey stick presentation the IPCC had used to assert that the current temperatures were warmer than the Medieval Warm period of a millennium ago was quickly shown to be completely fraudulent; A statistical model had been conconcted which made it impossible to demonstrate historic warm periods, no matter what the data entered was.
But even before that, I had said to myself, "But still... there's an El Nino again now, and the Earth is still no warmer than it was a decade ago. How is that consistent with an accelerating warm trend?"
The statistics available were ambiguous. On the one hand, the Earth was no warmer than it had been a decade earlier. On the other hand, what had been a phenomenal aberration in 1998 had become commonplace in the new millennium. So I started to watch the new data emerge, using ocean surface temperatures because these generated less statistical noise and showed clearer trends.
A La Nina event (which causes cool temperatures in the Pacific) developed, as was no surprise. (I'd almost say these could be thought of as rebounding events after a La Nina, except earth scientists of all stripes would clobber me with ways in which this analogy was misleading... it's not actually known why La Nina events follow El Nino events.)
The La Nina event of 2007 brought statistical balance to the El Nino event of 2006. Although I may have grabbed some attention with vanity headlines declaring the oceans were cooling, my reports to Free Republic presented this data as merely demonstrating that there had been no accelerating of global warming.
This was certainly big news: If no acceleration takes place, global warming is harmless. And additional degree Celsius over the next century would probably be a good thing, and the increased carbon dioxide which caused it would have beneficial effects to agriculture which would far exceed what few negative effects might occur.
But now something far more startling has happened: The El Nino has dissipated, but global ocean waters have still continued to cool. By this, I mean that the sea surface temperatures, globally averaged and adjusted for seasonal variations, have declined. What's more, land temperatures, which had shown a greater warming trend over the past few decades, plummeted, from a near-record high last February (according to some data sets, it was a record high), to temperatures considerably below the 20th century average this past January.
I will publish another report when the February data is complete. So far, it appears that most of the Indian ocean, the second largest ocean in the world, has suddenly cooled. And the rest of the world's oceans don't seem to rebounding in temperature any. So I'm expecting I'll have still further cooling to report. ----------------- Note: Free Republic requires sources to have URLs starting with "Http://" so the source link is merely the page which links to the data. The actual data are from these pages:
Global land temperatures (land station monitoring): ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat Global ocean temperatures (sea surface): ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat Total Global temperatures (weighted average of the above tables): ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
Is that Al Gore you’ve added to the OMGs and ONOZs
Did you check to see how GISS, NOAA, and the Hadley Centre UK rated 2007?
It’s man-made global cooling! Women and poor peepulz hardest hit! The U.S. needs to send even MORE money to the Thurd Wurld!
/illiterate moonbat gullibility mode
I go to the linked site and I see a graph showing global temperatures up .58 degrees over mean.
Excerpt from another very good article
.....Everyone is entitled to their opinions and everyone is entitled to be wrong. However, advocates should be held to a far higher standard when they have access to a powerful public platform, as do Suzuki and rock stars like Bono and Geldof, who also use their fame to push personal, usually uninformed, views. Sadly, these are the people who are granted direct access to politicians while credible scientists and experts are ignored. Of course, the hypocrisy of their lifestyles seriously undermines their credibility. John Travolta telling me to save energy from the cockpit of one of five personal jets needs no comment.
Similarly, Al Gore’s giant carbon footprint stomps on his credibility.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1824
Al has a house here in Nashville. If he’s there do you think he’d come over and help me scrape the global warming off my windshield?
MANBEARPIG......the enemy of the Religion of Gore.
google South Park and Manbearpig.
We will likely hear more about catastrophic “global climate change” and less about catastrophic “global warming” in the coming months.
It was my understanding that these large bodies of water were largely unresponsive to brief shifts in atmospheric temperature because of their great depth and density, lagging by hundreds of years (and taking an average of that). So I don't understand a "sudden" change.
That began a couple of years ago. Being that GW is largely an unmanaged hoax to get liberals elected, we won't hear much at all about it if there's a Democrat sweep.
>> Did you check to see how GISS, NOAA, and the Hadley Centre UK rated 2007? <<
The NOAA called 2007 the fifth warmest year on record. That means that despite the El Nino, it was still cooler than 1998, and the last three years. Since I’m reporting a temperature plunge that happened in 2008, the rating of 2007 doesn’t include what I’m reporting on.
I’m not terribly interested in the spin they put in it, however. I’m using their data (GISS and NOAA), in spite of the tremendous amount of fraud which has been demonstrated. For instance, NOAA still hasn’t adjusted their US temperatures downward, even after admitting that they had been inflated by bad practices.
Incidentally, check out the temperature stations in continuous use for the last 70 years which are rural. Most show no increase in temperatures at all from 1940 to 2007. unfortunately, these are a tiny subset of the temperature stations used. But I’m using the entire data sets of the most hysterical global warming alarmists, anyway.
Go to the links I posted at the end of the article. The main site I linked to is using stale data.
But...but...the Goracle claimed it to be so true that "the debate is over."
It couldn't be...that...
...he LOST the debate?
or...shudder...
he was wrong?
Could it?
Now, you unwashed masses go live in mud huts and wear grass skirts and shut up already.
>> It was my understanding that these large bodies of water were largely unresponsive to brief shifts in atmospheric temperature because of their great depth and density, lagging by hundreds of years (and taking an average of that). <<
That’s correct, which is why I explained in the article that by “ocean temperatures” what global warming alarmists and I mean are average temperatures of the surface of the ocean.
Actually, I’ll re-emphasize this: I’m not debating whether global warming has taken place. I’ll concede, for the sake pf argument, that it has. What I’m showing is that it has been significantly reversed!
What about Y2K? Can we stop worrying about that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.