Global Warming: On Hold?

“This is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950,” Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. “Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn’t have one.”

Instead, Swanson and colleague Anastasios Tsonis think a series of climate processes have aligned, conspiring to chill the climate. In 1997 and 1998, the tropical Pacific Ocean warmed rapidly in what Swanson called a “super El Nino event.” It sent a shock wave through the oceans and atmosphere, jarring their circulation patterns into unison.

How does this square with temperature records from 2005-2007, by some measurements among the warmest years on record? When added up with the other four years since 2001, Swanson said the overall trend is flat, even though temperatures should have gone up by 0.2 degrees Centigrade (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) during that time.

A look at the long term trend I think makes the situation all too clear:

All too often people confuse weather and climate.

One or two years cannot prove the end of a trend.

I’m not an AGW true believer, neither am I an AGW atheist. More like an AGW agnostic.

There clearly has been a long global trend of increasing temperature that correlates with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. It sure would be interesting if that correlation suddenly ended.

But again, it takes several years to confirm the end of a trend. It’s kind of like a recession: you can’t officially call it a recession until it is old news.

Only because the x-axis is short (130 years is not a long period of time) and the y-axis is stretched for maximum impact. Charts/graphs are fun to play with! :thumbsup:

Did the computer models the GW scientists use predict this cooling trend (and I mean before the signs of cooling started…waskally scientists…)?

I hope you’re right Robert - but I suspect it’s possibly wishful thinking (and just maybe a little reluctance to accept the impact this would have on our own standards of living if we accepted it?).

Time will tell of course - and in the meantime we can all take solace in the fact that our generation will be absolutely fine.

Surface stations are highly inaccurate. see:


You probably prefer looking at ocean temperatures then…

You heard a Global Warming protest scheduled yesterday in Washington, DC was canceled due to snow ? :smiley:

As an engineer who designs and builds instrumentation and control systems (DAQ) I don’t take that particular graph (global temps) too seriously. A 140 year time span of an earth that is 4.55 billion years old is a mere blip. If I’m trending data for a 24 hr time span, I don’t grab 60 secs worth of data somewhere in the middle and call it quits. You need to look at the entire time line.

I don’t think Abe Lincoln was measuring temp with a PT-100 Rtd in those days.

You have to look at the quality of instruments being used. The typical thermocouple out there for example, needs to be connected to a signal conditioner. There is cold junction compensation to be considered (at the terminals), plus the error of the instrumentation amplifiers within the Data acquisition equipment. Every step in that signal introduces error. 2.2degC is a typical error for such thermocouple device. I chuckle at that graph because it is in 1/10ths of a degree :slight_smile: and I wish I could get that close in my work!

No matter what type of device you use for signal acquisition there will always be error. We must consider that only in the last 20 yrs or so has technology has improved to the point where we can really “trust” it. But even so, it must be calibrated and the operation conditions must remain stable. Remember, today we are using microprocessor based signal acquisition equipment that can do mathematical algorithms (Al-Gore-Rhythms…sorry geek humor) in a split second. They didn’t have that during the Civil War period. That equipment had much more error and deviation than equipment today. even WW2 equipment is not as tight as todays. Comparing Civil War period data to modern day and expecting 1/10ths of a DEGREE resolution is foolhardy at best. Selling the general public on that 1/10ths degree difference is deception.

Well, one last post and then I’ll leave it.

But for those not convinced by air temperature graphs, and not convinced by ocean temperature graphs - it is also worth considering whether it it just another co-incidence that artic ice is also decreasing.

And on the question of what is the relevant time to look over to look for temperature changes - we need to look at what question is being asked. What scientists are asking is whether the current high levels of CO2 output is affecting global temperatures (and so we look over periods that are relevant to that question) - and the consensus amoung the elite scientific bodies is “yes it is”.

These figures show the current state of the ocean heat content anomaly. Historical data are from XBTs, CTDs, moorings, and other sources. A preliminary ad-hoc fall rate correction has been applied to the XBT data in an attempt to correct for biases between XBT data and more accurate CTD data. Recent estimates are based primarily on Argo profiling CTD float data. Satellite altimeter data from Aviso are used to estimate sampling errors.

Click on plot to download a PDF version.
[LEFT]Standard sampling error for globally averaged OHCA of the upper 750 m. This quantity was computed using sea surface height anomaly maps from altimeter data and the historical sampling patterns for in situ profile data in each year as discussed in Lyman et al. 2006. Sampling errors are not the entire error budget. Instrument biases and errors in the climatology are among the other errors that must be considered in a complete error budget. [/LEFT]

Your data may be a bit old. Overall, sea ice is the 3rd largest extent since 2002

CO2 is not decreasing, it is dramatically increasing in the atm. If your theory were correct, we should see temps dramatically increasing, we are not.

I think you misread me. Who said CO2 is decreasing??:confused:

It is a clear fact that the most reliable data over the course of several decades shows correlated increases in BOTH CO2 and global temperature. IF (big if) the CO2 continues its increase while the temperature starts to drop again in the next couple years like it did this year, THEN the AGW guys will have some hard 'splaining to do.

As for one year’s worth of data: outliers happen.

I expect all the technologically educated people are having fun with these numbers, (I do admire those who know what they mean, even if they don’t agree with one another) and no doubt all the GW affirming scientists are enjoying the grant money. But as one who is outside a LOT, and feels it on his own skin, and watches the ice and what condition animals are in and when the leaves fall and when they bud up and when the grass greens up to where I no longer have to feed hay, I KNOW at least my part of the world hasn’t warmed up. It’s getting cooler over the last couple of years at least.

I also remember well the tremendous heat surges we have had in cycles over the decades. I watched the water flows recede and the ponds’ drying rates and the days animals would stand in the creeks to cool off, and the ebbs and flows of heat-flourishing insects that I had to battle, and I held off overheating by stepping into the shade and drinking cold water by the quart and getting into creeks myself, and I KNOW it has been a lot hotter many times in the past than it has been in the last three summers.

There might be more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was before, and maybe the trees can’t eat it all fast enough. But say what the scientists will, hot is hot and cool is cool, and those changes come in cycles. Right now, we’re in a cool one.

There might be more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was before, and maybe the trees can’t eat it all fast enough. But say what the scientists will, hot is hot and cool is cool, and those changes come in cycles. Right now, we’re in a cool one.

We should be “in a cool one;” the sun is in a sunspot minimum, which should make temps much lower than normal. Instead, 2008 was the ninth hottest on record, and only one year before 2000 was warmer.

And the numbers for January 2009 are in. Much hotter than normal. Fifth hottest January on record, in fact. In spite of the fact that the sunspot minimum means significantly lower warming from the Sun.

That one is cause for concern. If things keep warming up during the minimum, what happens when the minimum ends?

Well, I’ll consider that if and when the temperature where I live rises back to normal. I will say I’m not at all surprised to hear the sunspot minimum means lower warming from the sun. That does help explain our cooler weather, particularly in the summer. I have experienced cool periods before, as well as warm ones, and perhaps I should find a source that tells when the sunspot minimums and maximums occurred to see if they correllate with my recollection of cool and warm periods. Probably do.

“…I KNOW at least my part of the world hasn’t warmed up. It’s getting cooler over the last couple of years at least…”

I tell you what, I’m freezing up here in Albany. I could use some warming right now!

I too grew up and still live in an agricultural type of lifestyle. I remember hotter years and conditions, but also remember bitter cold winters with lots of snow. I have pictures of me next to my folks Pontiac Catalina going thru an ENORMOUS snow bank in 69 or 70. I also remember the fear of the next Ice Age in the 1970’s. I remember ponds where the cows would water drying up some summers. The point is that the weather cycles for this planet are cyclic. Relax the sky is not falling :slight_smile:

I am not a climate scientist, but I do design and build process control and instrumentation, along with data acquisition systems (DAQ). I do understand very well temperature sensors and all the complexities that go into data acquisition. I also understand the practical limits to electronic instruments and what reasonable result may be obtained. I will say without hesitation that most folks really don’t know what they are looking at. That is not an insult to anybody, rather a real-world assessment of people and their individual abilities.

It really frosts me that there are those in the scientific community who are trying to SCARE ordinary people with impressive graphs and ominous numbers. Science is supposed to be objective; sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong. Being man enough to admit your theory was not right meant you are OPEN MINDED enough to learn more about the subject. And go back and unravel the parts that you missed the first time.

Science (and engineering to some extent) is now about performing experiments UNTIL you get the result you want. Nobody wants to hit the wall of failure and go back to start over. I believe it’s a function of our “everybody wins” culture, and perhaps the current crop of scientists/engineers never had anybody say no to them as children. But I’m an engineer, not a therapist :slight_smile: I’ll leave that for another discussion.

The art of good engineering and science I feel has been lost to this generation. I spent my years as a technician working with an old seasoned GE engineer, Vince. He was a slide rule WW2 era engineer but was very skilled on his Mac (anybody remember Appletalk?). He was a slave driver and drove me like a mule! But towards the end I really like that guy, he taught me how to be objective and open minded. Plus he taught me DISCIPLINE and good engineering practice. I’m not an old timer yet (I’m 42) but I don’t see the same level of discipline in the young crop of engineers.

And that’s another thing; engineering colleges are becoming very liberal. Right out of the gate the new crop of EE’s and MechE’s have a bias; plus an arrogance to anything tried and true. I’m not surprised that there is ridicule towards engineers and scientists who try to show other theories to CO2 increase or temp changes.

Exactly we are rather warm for what should be a “cool” period. Not to mention wasn;t 2008 a La Nina year which also means additional cooling?

I will have to agree with those that said a few years isn;t enough to see any sort of trend here. I mean really if you look at the temperature graphes posted there is a lot of jumping up and down over short terms. It isn;t just one smooth line straight up. In fact I imagine it would be very worrisome if we didn;t see variations over short time periods!

Anyway a couple good articles to read…
and in the begiining of this post some humor…

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit