Earth Cooled Since 1998

I know I have stated before that the earth has cooled since 1998 and some people think I'm crazy for stating this but now I have a quote to back up my claim. It comes from a story related to the recent lack in solar activity.



UK Met apparently thinks global warming will return but I think they are completely missing the boat here. The story goes on to say...



Again this is something I've said about CO2 and past climate changes. It is nice hearing this in a published report. I've stated many times that in reviewing the data from the Vostok cores that CO2 wasn't driving temperature change as it was very clearly lagging behind temperature declines.

With it being possible that we are shifting into a period of global cooling the question will be how bad will it get? A cool phase like the Little Ice Age will certainly pose interesting challenges for us to overcome.

Source: www.dailytech.com...

How many threads on this do we need? I count this as the fourth on this particular misrepresented Tapping report of solar cooling on ATS, which has been speeding its way round the kookosphere.

Well done for spinning it a different way. Tapping has had a bit to say already about how his own opinion since his views have been misrepresented. His latest comments to another 'sceptic' dude on the original 'investors business daily' article:


linky

So, yup, a quote from a dailytech article, which is not known for its honest reporting of the science, which just says 'data from met office' blah blah. You're not crazy, just wrong.

I'd post a graph or two, but you'd probably just ram any line you like through it again...so, this will have to do:

Met Office: climate change myths - myth 6

Why doesn't Patterson actually publish his 'excellent' correlations? Because all reliable data clearly shows that there is no correlation from about 1975. As solar has stayed the same, and even possibly fell, temps just keep on rising. As for the solar predictions, we did this to death in the other thread you posted. Yeah, about 0.2'C cooling, we'll be back to those cold dark days of the 1990s. Chilly Willy. But other forcings will still be acting (as noted by Tapping).

Then you repeat the lag blah blah canard as well. Wash, rinse, repeat.

There's also a video in my thread on american denialism that you might like to ignore.

Cheers.

[edit on 11-2-2008 by melatonin]

I'm sorry your religion has been exposed. I understand your need to defend it at all costs even if it means denying historic evidence and denying that maybe there could be a different side to the story other than your own. Any credible scientist would admit that he or she could be wrong. You make it pretty obvious that there is no possible way that you could be wrong thus eliminating credibility. I have no problem admitting that maybe the temperature trend since 1998 was a fluke and that things will reverse course and maybe polluting the atmosphere is a bigger problem that won't correct itself until we die off. I doubt you will admit that maybe the last 20 years that people call global warming was nothing more than a case of mistaken identity and that maybe it was nothing more than the result of a PDO positive phase just like global cooling prior to that was the result of a PDO negative phase.

Any scientist that claims he is absolutely right and couldn't possibly be wrong isn't a scientist. He or she would be a hack.

Just empty rhetoric really, I like the 'trend since 1998' fluke thing, all you have is a quote from some article stating something without evidence.

I can easily admit I could be wrong. For example -

I could be wrong.

But you just keep stating misleading claims even when corrected. That's not an endearing trait.



Quite an interesting comment, considering you posted an article which misrepresents the position of one of the people it uses for its own ends.

The information is correct. There has been a cooling trend since 1998. If you disagree you are welcome to start your own thread stating how the climate continues to warm since 1998 and you are welcome to post your own evidence supporting your claim. Happy posting.

reply to post by Indy

---

Indy...forget about it. He is on just about every thread I have posted. He shows the same charts and graphs over and over again. It goes way beyond religion for him.

Some people just don't get it.

Well the fact is the climate has changed in the last 100 years, and we are warmer than we have been in 1000s of years, and both of these are not helping us in any way.

Is this from a warming of coming out of a mini ice age? Is this from deforestation? Is this from Co2? Is this from solar fluxes? Who knows? But we better look at which ones of these we have some control over and continue to look for a connection.

The other fact that large parts of the earth that was once fertile ground with good rain fall 100 years ago is now giant dust bowls that is directly related to the increased avg temperature.

Something is going on...

I did some work tonight that will hopefully put an end to this nonsense. The charts I am going to include in this post are generated by MS Excel. The trend line is generated by it as well. There is no suspicious formula to create a trend that makes no sense. Data is based on satellite data that combines global land and sea surface temperatures.

The first image is Jan 1998 to Jan 2008. It is basically flat but there is the slightest trend cooler. But we'll call it flat because I think everyone could live with a temperature trend like that.

image source: http://attachments.climatepatrol.com/global-jan98-jan08_338974.jpg


Ok 1998 was a wild time. But what about since? Global temperatures started to decline again in December of 2000. This next image is Jan 01 - Jan 08

image source: http://attachments.climatepatrol.com/global-jan01-jan08_692288.jpg


The temperature trend becomes more pronounced in 2002. Jan 02 - Jan 08

image source: http://attachments.climatepatrol.com/global-jan02-jan08_824754.jpg


And finally the 5 year trend from Jan 03 - Jan 08

image source: http://attachments.climatepatrol.com/global-jan03-jan08_527131.jpg

You'll have to click on the images to see the big picture since the forums seem to chop off part of the picture. At least that is what I get with Firefox. Not sure if the same happens in IE.

Heh, I like that you went from 10 year down to 5 year. Increasing noise as you went. I think tamino has a post for you about noise and signal.

What data is this? I know it's 'satellite data that combines global land and sea surface temperatures', but that doesn't tell me much.

What satellite data set?

ABE: I'm guessing RSS at this point. It appears to be the denialists new friend. T'was UAH a while back...



[edit on 12-2-2008 by melatonin]

All I did in those is put in the departure from normal numbers and have excel build the chart for it. Excel also did the trend as well. You've been shown data that supports a very slight cooling trend for a decade and a steeper cooling trend for a 5 year trend and you want to try and dance around it by talking about noise? The one thing these charts aren't filled with is the BS that so many charts that AGW supporters post. The data is clean and unassuming. It isn't manipulated to meet any kind of agenda.

The data comes from Remote Sensing Systems website.

And your point is what? You are starting to sound desperate and pathetic in your attempt to keep a dream alive. Face it. Its over. You are starting to sound like Al Gore's campaign down in south Florida looking for a hanging chad.

Aye, thought it would be. I'll post later about it.

Noise is actually quite important, if were looking for a long-term trend. If you want to say 'it's been cooling since 2002', I'll just think it's a stupid comment, as it might be the case, but doesn't mean much. It's not much better than saying 'it's cooler in december than august in the northern hemisphere'. The same applies even for the 1998 issue, especially as it's cherry-picked by denialists for one reason alone.

I suppose the obvious question is, what happened to the Met office data on which the thread was based?



That it appears to be a new cherrypicked dataset. Keep what dream alive?

Heh, even if it was cooling since 1998 it wouldn't mean much. It's a cherrypicked date, now using a cherrypicked dataset. All it means is that there is not much a denialist won't do to score a rhetorical point.

ABE: back later...

[edit on 12-2-2008 by melatonin]

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say the Earth has cooled since 1998.

But maybe if there had been no humans on the planet the Earth would have cooled even more than it has? And, indeed, would not have been as warm as it was in 1998.

That's the basis of the real scientific (as opposed to the Gorelite media interpretation) of AGW. It's an underlying trend upon which natural variation continues unabated.

As I've said before, we could in theory enter another Ice Age and still have AGW happening!

[edit on 12-2-2008 by Essan]

Stop it, Essan. You'sa talking too much sense.

You actually mean that there could be many variables acting on climate at one time, that an anthropogenic signal doesn't require year on year warming?

Get away with you...

Your point that temperature data is flat or shows even a slight cooling over the past ten years doesn't represent a large enough period of time to use towards either global warming or global cooling.

So what are your conclusions from this? Also, what does a .3 above norm mean to you? Areas like Africa have been drastically changed by the increase in temperature in the past 100 years. Even one or two degrees will cause huge changes around the planet. If we are .3 from the norm what date is that norm based on?

OK, I'm back, rested, fed and watered. Lets see, where should I start...

Firstly, I'm interested to know why the Met data never made an appearance. As that is the basis of the thread.

Secondly, why RSS? Why not GISS, CRUT, NOAA, UAH etc? You didn't pick a data set that suits your position did you? It's bad enough you pick an anomalous peak year as a starting point (ask a statistician about such things). But, anyway, as you actually accept, although you do think this was being kind, the RSS data doesn't really show cooling, there's a negligible downwards trend, but this is probably well within the error range of the data itself.

Thus, from that cherrypicked data and period, it could be slightly warming, it could be slightly cooling, it could be a plateau. What you can't clearly claim is that it has been cooling since 1998. But to know this, we would need to see what you call the 'suspicious formula', heh. The formula is actually just the mathematical representation of the trendline - they are the same thing. So you seem to be showing your lack of understanding of stats yet again. Just go into options in the trendline window, it allows you to select the 'display equation on chart', which gives the straightline equation for that trendline. It's not magic or anything, it won't change the data. It's just a different representation of the same trend, which allows an assessment of rate of change.

Thirdly, as has been pointed out numerous times, even if you can clearly show cooling for a decade long period, it means little. As you show, depending on the short cherrypicked period of assessment, you can easily show cooling in an overall noisy long-term warming trend. That brings me to my piece de resistance...

Fourthly, and this is important. Why did you pick 1998-2008 and then jump to 2001-2008? So, we have a negligible trend for 1998-2008, and then cooling trends for the 7 year and less periods?

What happened to 1999-2008 and 2000-2008?

Not hiding anything are you?

Not even a little itsy-bitsy thing?

No cherrypicking at all?

Can we see that data?

Or did the internets cyber-doggie eat it?

[edit on 12-2-2008 by melatonin]

And we could (and have) have global warming with our without humans. In fact we have been in a LONG global warming trend since the last glaciation. Then you get these dimwits that come in and think that somehow in the last 30 years or whatever it has become AGW and that somehow natural GW has ended. And when the earth enters a cooling trend these same tools will try and drum up another excuse for somehow man is responsible. It is the same type of people that were screaming global cooling because of evil man back in the 70's. Their type is predictable and honestly boring. They are becoming exposed and to the AGW crowd it is a concern. If they were HONESTLY concerned about climate change they'd focus on the urban heat island effect which is far more problematic than CO2. But even these tools don't want to bring up the nasty issue of depopulating the planet.

The spin masters of climate change will be hard at work. Thats why they had to go from global warming to climate change because they looked like fools when global cooling didn't happen as predicted. So much like any religion they had to lose the loopholes. So no matter what happens they can claim they are right. Bust more and more people are starting to see them for what they are... full of BS.

melatonin can keep goose stepping to the IPCC. They will fight to the death because when people realize that the planet is cooling they are going to turn to these AGW nuts and they are going to run them out of town.

Even if the planet is cooling you can have AGW What total nonsense.

Melatonin and his constant attempts to derail threads that he doesn't agree with have earned him a first ever entry on my ignore list. Well done.

Actually what Essan posted there made a lot of sense to me. Think of it this way -- say that the natural cycle ought to result in a cooling of 3 degrees (don't ask me why, I'm just picking an arbitrary number for illustration purposes). Instead the temperature went down only 1 degrees. What happened to the missing 2 degrees? Human activity could've influenced it.

Make sense?