Is This The Beginning of Global Cooling

[FONT=Arial]By Allan MacRae[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Many scary stories have been written about the dangers of catastrophic global warming, allegedly due to increased atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) from the combustion of fossil fuels. But is the world really catastrophically warming? NO. And is the warming primarily caused by humans? NO.

Since just January 2007, the world has cooled so much that ALL the global warming over the past three decades has disappeared! This is confirmed by a plot of actual global average temperatures from the best available source, weather satellite data that shows there has been NO net global warming since the satellites were first launched in 1979. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
**
[/FONT][FONT=Arial]Since there was global cooling from ~1940 to ~1979, this means there has been no net warming since ~1940, in spite of an ~800% increase in human emissions of carbon dioxide. This indicates that the recent warming trend was natural, and CO2 is an insignificant driver of global warming. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Furthermore, the best fit polynomial shows a strong declining trend. Are we seeing the beginning of a natural cooling cycle? YES. Further cooling, with upward and downward variability, is expected because the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has returned to its cool phase, as [FONT=Times New Roman][size=3][FONT=Times New Roman]announced by NASA[/FONT] this year. [/FONT][/size][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Global warming and cooling have closely followed the phases of the PDO. The most significant pattern of PDO behavior is a shift between “warm” and “cool” phases that last 20 to 30 years. In 1905, the PDO shifted to its “warm” phase. In 1946, the PDO changed to its “cool” phase. In 1977, the PDO returned to its “warm” phase and produced the current warming. In 2007-8, the PDO turned cold again, so we can expect several decades of naturally-caused global cooling. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Some scientists are predicting that this cooling will be severe, and is a greater threat to humanity than global warming ever was. Meanwhile, politicians are still obsessing about global warming. [/FONT]

icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/is_this_the_beginning_of_global_cooling/

also see:

astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/10/is-this-beginning-of-global-cooling.html

Well, where are all the global warming whackos going to get their grant money from now? Oh, I know! They’ll just switch over to global cooing!

Some of them were on the “New Ice Age” movement in the late 70’s and early 80’s.

I think they’re going by the euphemism “climate change” now. Smart move really; now they’d be right no matter what happened.

I was looking forward to global warming to lower my heating bills this winter… Well, nuts to that.

Ah… Nostalga… I remember this when I was in 3rd. grade. I’ll never forget it. I had an image of my home town turned into a frozen tundra, wearing winter gear in summer and woolly mammoths running free and wild all over the place.

all you had to worry about was wooly mammoths? we had dire wolves, everywhere. .

“Global Warming” is a misnomer. “Climate Change” is more accurate. A leading scientist describes the difference:

democracynow.org/2008/7/3/global_disruption_more_accurately_describes_climate

*JOHN HOLDREN: I don’t like the term “global warming,” because it’s misleading. It implies something that’s mainly about temperature, that’s gradual, and that’s uniform across the planet. And in fact, temperature is only one of the things that’s changing. It’s a sort of an index of the state of climate. The whole climate is changing: the winds, the ocean currents, the storm patterns, snow packs, snowmelt, flooding, droughts. Temperature is just a bit of it.

It’s also highly non-uniform. The largest changes are occurring in the far north in the Arctic, in the Antarctic Peninsula in the far south. It is certainly not gradual, in the sense that it is rapid compared to the capacity of ecosystems to adjust. It’s rapid compared to the capacity of human systems to adjust. *

Interesting, but hardly conclusive.

A few spike years in either direction are not enough to establish or disprove a trend. Trends, by definition, are longer in range than the plummet suggested by just over a year’s worth of data.

I await the Barbarian’s always entertaining defense of the AGW concept.:wink:

“But, Boss, de model, de model!”

:rotfl:

I suppose it’s not going to help that we’re taking another old fridge to the dump tomorrow. :smiley:

Might need to order another ton of coal or maybe actually purchase wood for the furnace. :wink:

All kidding aside we had to set the heat pump to heat this week. We normally don’t need it till the first week of November.:frowning:

Hate to be a party pooper, again, but here’s the NASA data on global surface temperatures…

Incidentally, the “lower troposphere” story is not news. It’s predictable from the models that predicted the continuing warming trend documented above.

**Interpreting Differential Temperature Trends at the Surface and in the Lower Troposphere

B. D. Santer, 1* T. M. L. Wigley, 2 D. J. Gaffen, 3 L. Bengtsson, 4 C. Doutriaux, 1 J. S. Boyle, 1 M. Esch, 4 J. J. Hnilo, 1 P. D. Jones, 5 G. A. Meehl, 2 E. Roeckner, 4 K. E. Taylor, 1 M. F. Wehner 1

Estimated global-scale temperature trends at Earth’s surface (as recorded by thermometers) and in the lower troposphere (as monitored by satellites) diverge by up to 0.14°C per decade over the period 1979 to 1998. Accounting for differences in the spatial coverage of satellite and surface measurements reduces this differential, but still leaves a statistically significant residual of roughly 0.1°C per decade. Natural internal climate variability alone, as simulated in three state-of-the-art coupled atmosphere-ocean models, cannot completely explain this residual trend difference. A model forced by a combination of anthropogenic factors and volcanic aerosols yields surface-troposphere temperature trend differences closest to those observed. **
Science 18 February 2000:
Vol. 287. no. 5456, pp. 1227 - 1232
DOI: 10.1126/science.287.5456.122

Imagine that.

BTW, as you know from previous discussions, the “Scientists said we were going to have an ice age” story was a myth.

**Study: Global cooling a 1970s myth
Asheville, N.C. (UPI) Feb 21, 2008
A U.S. climatologist said there was no consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed for a new ice age.

Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center said a survey of scientific journals of the era showed that only seven supported global cooling, 44 predicted warming and 20 others were neutral, USA Today reported Thursday.**
terradaily.com/reports/Study_Global_cooling_a_1970s_myth_999.html

Time to get a new story, guys.

Maybe catastrophic global warming and catastrophic global cooling are going to combine and cause our destruction twice as fast.

Actually, I think that’s what some people are saying.

Where does NASA take these temperature recordings?

:eek: :rolleyes:

OK, here’s another perspective. This graph shows global temperatures in the lower atmosphere and the first thing to notice is that it looks nothing like the graph of surface temperatures you provided. Given that the greenhouse theory of global warming requires that the lower atmosphere warm before the surface it is significant that the data for the lower atmosphere shows … very little warming since 1990.

Here is Dr. Roy Spencer’s evaluation of the chart:

"When one takes into consideration that the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and the warming from the 1997-98 El Nino event were not part of any underlying long-term trend, we can imagine that globally-averaged temperatures were flat from 1990 until 2000, then there was a brief warming until about 2002, after which temperatures have once again remained flat."
weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#GW101

Again, since lower atmospheric warming is what the greenhouse theory requires, this chart is much more relevant to understanding the situation than the one you keep providing. More relevant to the theory but, alas, not as supportive.

http://forums.catholic.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4308&stc=1&d=1223756512
Ender

O

K, here’s another perspective. This graph shows global temperatures in the lower atmosphere and the first thing to notice is that it looks nothing like the graph of surface temperatures you provided.

That’s because they aren’t surface temperatures. :shrug:

Given that the greenhouse theory of global warming requires that the lower atmosphere warm before the surface

Not any theory I’ve seen. Where did you get that?

it is significant that the data for the lower atmosphere shows … very little warming since 1990.

And yet, down here, where we are, it’s been getting steadily warmer, just as the theory predicted. Where did you get the idea that the atmosphere had to warm before the surface?

Oh, Doc Spencer, again… :rolleyes:

BTW, if you do a regression analysis of the data from the lower troposphere, you’ll find something rather enlightening. Give it a try.

By far the best article I’ve seen to date is located here:

geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Finally an article with data from as many factors as possible. The study references climatologists, who actually study these things, geological historical data and many other factors. It is not the usual non-scientific pseudo scientists manipulating data for other purposes

Finally someone asks in this article and explains whether the data in this topic is statistically significant. Just about every argument I’ve heard pro man made global warming is debunked. It is even absurd to consider.

Scientists are coming around (Finally).

31,000 scientists have formed a petition to stop this nonsense.
oism.org/pproject/

The quote made famous by Mark Twain states: there are lies damn lies and statistics. The main article demonstrates how the global warming “experts” leave out very crucial data to make their point.

I hope you all enjoy reading and studying this link as much as I did.

Joe B

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