Twelve-month Long Drop in World Temperatures Wipes Out a Century of Warming

[www.dailytech.com]

have you seen this video on global dimming?

[www.informationclearinghouse.info]

explains a bit more about global warming and why we don't see all the effects.

Hi Lois. 2007 was the 2nd warmest year in recorded history.

[www.earth-policy.org]

That's weird -- according to my article, 2007 was one of the coldest years.

***********

Because my article says --

"...evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously."


[www.dailytech.com]

[wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com]

Here's a good article about the new "Global Cooling" situation --

[www.dailytech.com]

No. 2007's winter was one of the coldest in awhile.

What your article is saying is that Jan 2008's winter was colder than Jan 2007's weather. Hence an anomaly chart not a temperature chart.

By the way. Have you bothered to look at the data for Febuary & March?



Boing!

Even January 2008 (despite being cooler than Jan 2007 was above average, look at the chart [from your own article], look how low the 0 point is).

And here's the annual mean temperature chart from the last few decades.



You're cherry picking data and ignoring the obvious long term trends. Not to mention taking the words of conspiracy nutters and journalists over thousands of scientists.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2008 07:28PM by communitybuilder.

For every scientist who believes that 'global warming' is caused by humans, there's one who does not buy into it. And are you saying anyone who doesn't believe that global warming is caused by 'man', is a "conspiracy nutter"?

Also, this quote seems to be saying that the global temperatures over the past year have dropped -- so I guess the below quote means the year from about April of 2007 to April of 2008.

"...evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously."

Lois Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For every scientist who believes that 'global
> warming' is caused by humans, there's one who does
> not buy into it. And are you saying anyone who
> doesn't believe that global warming is caused by
> 'man', is a "conspiracy nutter"?

Pretty much, yeah. There are as many climate scientists who believe global warming isn't real as nutritionists who believe green vegetables are bad for you.

> Also, this quote seems to be saying that the
> global temperatures over the past year have
> dropped -- so I guess the below quote means the
> year from about April of 2007 to April of 2008.
>
> "...evidence has been supplanted by hard
> scientific fact. All four major global temperature
> tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS)
> have released updated data. All show that over the
> past year, global temperatures have dropped
> precipitously."

Not April, January. As you can see from the graph I posted (which is just an updated version of the one from the article) February and March were significantly warmer.

I think it is better to be cautious when talking about the global climate, since it is an exceedingly complicated thing. I think the global warming debate is becoming too politicised, whereas it is the scientists that should determine the veracity of global warming claims without any undue pressure.

There are many contributions to the global climate and to my mind it is not very well understood yet how everything works together. Modelling the climate is an exceptionally complex thing to do, and so is determining whether or not present levels are "unnaturally" high/low or whatever.

See for example this article which talks about some conflicting evidence [www.telegraph.co.uk]

I personally think there are bigger issues at the moment than greenhouse gas emissions, related to other forms of pollution such as heavy metals, plastics, the damage done by all this to the world ecosystem, factory farming, etc... and generally the big destruction of the natural resources of the world.

Cheers,
J

Polution is still Polution regardless of the speculated end result.

Greenhouse gases, such as water vapour and CO2, are not technically "pollution". CO2 is actually a very important and essential gas, completely critical to plant growth, for example. What is waste for most animals, becomes food for other living beings such as plants.

The same can't really be said of a lot of toxic chemicals we belch out all around the world, such as dioxins and other long lived industrial toxins.

Cheers,
J

Anything not done in a symbiotic relationship with nature is pollution. The CO2 generated from the over burning of forests, coal, oil, and natural gas is pollution... because it is in excess of what is able to be taken care of by nature. And interferes with her natural cycles...

Mercury is a perfectly naturally occuring element found in nature, infact our bodies even need some mercury. But just one gram of mercury is enough to pollute a 20 acre lake.

The same with oxygen... we cannot live without oxygen. But if there is more than 21% then problems start to occur. The excess oxygen will "burn" the lungs.

There is nothing wrong with CO2 in and of itself, it is the fact that we're releasing hundreds of millions of years of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere in only a couple hundred years that is the problem.

Unfortunately we may have already reaching a tipping point where the temperature will rise enough to trigger even more trapped gases such as millions of tons of methane in Siberia to be released. If this happens basically humanity is totally & utterly screwed (except for perhaps a few million people living in the artic circle.

to me, whether global climate change and its presumed affects is actually occurring or not is irrelevant. what is relevant is the way we are treating the earth and what sort of planet we're leaving for our children and grandchildren. all of the issues that are attributed to causes of climate change are serious problems in an of themselves, regardless of whether climate change is truly occurring. factory farming, overproduction, congested populations, overconsumption - these are problems in our daily lives, they impact our quality of life in a serious and apparently inescapable way, and whether that translates to an actual global climate change doesn't matter much to me. i want clean air, clean food, clean water, and a peaceful planet. nothing that's being blamed for climate change is conducive to these positive, necessary components of a beautiful, healthy life, and to me, that's a matter of utmost importance, regardless of whether global climate change is truly occurring.

am i just crazy or what?

chandelle

You're not crazy. I agree 100% that even if CO2 weren't the main catalyst for global warming that it would be a good idea to live more simply and in a balance with nature.

The global warming denalists mostly have been financed by automakers, oil companies and big industry to try to convince people that "business as usual" is fine. It isn't fine & this is becoming readily apparent. Even oil companies no longer try to deny the obvious as the evidence mounts.

100 years from now if we have not found a homeostasis with nature we will be finished (as a species).

Yes, I agree as well.

Cheers,
J

This is what I meant earlier when I said other problems are more pressing [www.guardian.co.uk]

We are on course to destroy this planet long before any climate change does it for us.

Although I do agree that a lot of the same problems involving climate change and the destruction of Nature are involved, they are largely intertwined.

This is also some very bad news, in my opinion [www.independent.co.uk]

Cheers,
J

get active...

getting involved in green peace and sierra club is a start. There is no reason at all we cannot enjoy life and be in harmony with the planet. We have all the technology and resources we need to do it.

The only problem is the mega transnats who want a larger profit... or thier stock to go up two points.