Global Cooling

[Iceberg]

I will post up the document when I've finished writing it, hopefully Tuesday/Wed but maybe later as it's half term and I've got a few days off work.

Sorry I wasn't trying to picky, but just as the ten year trend to 1998 was one of extreme warming due to natural variations the trend particularly end of 2007, begining of 2008 was one of slight cooling of the high warm level due to natural variations of the opposite variety. The underlying climatic trend is though still up even this year.

I've tried to point this out in the past but feel that easy to view diagrams with easy to understand examples might well do the job better.

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

'the current cooling one has now been going on longer than the warming one did which 'inspired' all the AGW malarkey'

I would be ever so grateful if you could post the verified charts and/or data which shows that global cooling has now cancelled out the 'natural' warming of the last twenty years - if they exist of course. And also some kind of explanation of how 2007 (which I believe was the 8th warmest year on record, according to Hadley, in terms of global temperatures) could therefore be classed as part of some significant cooling trend ?

[Gray-Wolf]

and maybe this is the point, we are often accused of "cherry picking " data to suit but surely a record El-Nino year is data outside the range of natural variability and ,as such, needs to be discarded in case it 'skews' the data set. That said I strongly suspect that we will experience yet another 'record' Nino' event within 5 years and , if I'm correct, we'll see the same folk wishing the data expunged from any 10yr rolling average showing slowdown/cooling of global temps.

We cannot have it both ways. We either allow 'extreme' climate events or discard them from any attempt to organise any climate 'trend'.

To include both the last years La-Nina 'cooling' in any graph along side a record El-Nino 'warming' event is poor science . As I have said, next up is a strong El-Nino (one after next???), do we prove record acceleration of warming by posting the 'cooled' La-Nina year hard up against the El -Nino year????

[Android]

Wow look at this super warming we've had since May!

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2008.3

You know since May we've warmed 0.35C! That's equal to about half the temperature rise over the entire 20th century!

*p.s this post is of course sarcastic

[Gray-Wolf]

Wow look at this super warming we've had since May!

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2008.3

You know since May we've warmed 0.35C! That's equal to about half the temperature rise over the entire 20th century!

*p.s this post is of course sarcastic

No wonder our heating ain't on yet and our sweetpeas/geranium/lobelia/fuscias are still in full summer bloom.......will winter ever come????

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

. That said I strongly suspect that we will experience yet another 'record' Nino' event within 5 years and ,

GW

Why is that?

BFTP

[Gray-Wolf]

GW

Why is that?

BFTP

A subtle blend of statistics and 'trend'.

We are all aware that El-Nino events are becoming stronger and that the strongest we have so far observed was the 1998 event.

Giving us an 11 year (2 El-nino ) gap for a strong to mega event starting in 2009.

[Iceberg]

I will post up the document when I've finished writing it, hopefully Tuesday/Wed but maybe later as it's half term and I've got a few days off work.

Sorry I wasn't trying to picky, but just as the ten year trend to 1998 was one of extreme warming due to natural variations the trend particularly end of 2007, begining of 2008 was one of slight cooling of the high warm level due to natural variations of the opposite variety. The underlying climatic trend is though still up even this year.

I've tried to point this out in the past but feel that easy to view diagrams with easy to understand examples might well do the job better.

As promised the document is here.

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=50190

I am happy for those still supporting the global cooling theory to pick holes in it.

[pottyprof]

Thanks for that Iceburg... Interesting read.

[noggin]

I try not to link to blogs generally, as it doesn't go down well in some quarters, but I could not resist this..........

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/30/chil...owfall-records/

:lol: :lol:

[laserguy]

I try not to link to blogs generally, as it doesn't go down well in some quarters, but I could not resist this..........

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/30/chil...owfall-records/

:lol: :lol:

What else do you expect in a warming world,Noggin ?

More AGW madness here:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...5000117,00.html

[Thundery wintry showers]

Well, for those insisting that AGW doesn't exist or that we are cooling, a look at Iceberg's graph in the other thread is in order. What it proves or disproves might be open to some question, but the graphs are based on factual information and the background trend looks pretty clear to me.

Hypocrisy strikes again- the other articles attempt to refute AGW by pointing to individual cold events. Yet it's pretty much unanimously agreed that individual hot events do not prove AGW. So individual events can only be used as indicators of climate change if they're cold events? Er... I don't think so!

Not sure about there being a mega El Nino to come in the next 5 years. There almost certainly will be one in the future, but as the previous one before 1998 occurred way back in 1982/83, that's not 11 years, plus I don't think there's any regular pattern. At least we're past the stage where El Nino itself is blamed on "global warming", as the last decade has cast serious doubt on the notion that the frequency and intensity of El Nino events is increasing.

[Devonian]

I try not to link to blogs generally, as it doesn't go down well in some quarters, but I could not resist this..........

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/30/chil...owfall-records/

:lol: :lol:

I can't for the life of me see what relevance to the debate minimum temperatures across the USA on the 29th of October 2008 have?

Other, that is, than for the crowd at 'what's up' to direct some abuse (count the number of time the word 'idiot' is used in the comments ) in a certain direction...

Edited October 31, 2008 by Devonian

[Devonian]

...

Other, that is, than for the crowd at 'what's up' to direct some abuse (count the number of time the word 'idiot' is used in the comments :lol: ) in a certain direction...

Actually, my mistake :lol: , it was this wuwt thread I was thinking of...

[noggin]

I can't for the life of me see what relevance to the debate minimum temperatures across the USA on the 29th of October 2008 have?

Can you not? Seriously? I am genuinely perplexed..... :lol:

Edit....I am perplexed by your reply, Dev, not by any ir/relevance of the temperatures to the debate!!

What else do you expect in a warming world,Noggin :lol: ?

It's not warming, laserguy, it's changing.........do try and keep up with things :lol: :lol:

:lol:

Edited November 1, 2008 by noggin

[Android]

I try not to link to blogs generally, as it doesn't go down well in some quarters, but I could not resist this..........

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/30/chil...owfall-records/

B) B)

From the link:

Here, from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), is a list of these new or tied records for October 29th, 2008.I find the -25 below in Alaska interesting, since it bested the old record by 4 degrees.

Here are the 115 new or tied low temperature records:"

What I find amazing is how the blog author and many of the commenters just take it for granted that this is unusual. Noone thinks hey where does this fit in with the bigger picture?

I didn't look for long, and only really checked 2005 and 2006

But take a look at this

3rd May 2005 343 171

That is amazing. It's amazing how the blog itself nor all those comments on the blog don't look for other dates breaking.

I see on October 29th, 2001 there were 133 new or tied low temperature records:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...ted=Get+Records

New: 77 + Tied: 56 = Total: 133

Including the same place in Alaska besting the previous record by 5 degrees. There's a few more besting the previous record by 5 degrees.

The day before, October 28th, there were 156 new or tied low temperature records.

[Android]

I try not to link to blogs generally, as it doesn't go down well in some quarters, but I could not resist this..........

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/30/chil...owfall-records/

B) B)

From the link:

Here, from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), is a list of these new or tied records for October 29th, 2008.I find the -25 below in Alaska interesting, since it bested the old record by 4 degrees.

Here are the 115 new or tied low temperature records:"

What I find amazing is how the blog author and many of the commenters just take it for granted that this is unusual. Noone thinks hey where does this fit in with the bigger picture?

I didn't look for long, and only really checked 2005 and 2006

3rd May 2005

514 new or tied low temperature records

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=mint&month=5&day=3&year=2005&submitted=Get+Records

27 July 2005

367 new or tied low temperature records

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=mint&month=7&day=27&year=2005&submitted=Get+Records

5 December 2005

463 new or tied low temperature records

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=mint&month=12&day=5&year=2005&submitted=Get+Records

18 February 2006

419 new or tied low temperature records

24 March 2006

165 new or tied low temperature records

26 April 2006

160 new or tied low temperature records

Then I stopped

Edited November 2, 2008 by Android

[Android]

Wanting to see the even larger picture I graphed the number of new or tied low temperature records for each day from 2001 to 2008. Any day that has over 100 new or tied low temperature records gets a date label. You can see quite a few days have over 100, in fact two have over 900..

Be warned the image is quite wide, at one pixel per day the X dimension is over 2500 pixels..

If you squint or zoom in on the right hand side you can just make out 28th October 2008 having ~115 new or tied low temperature records.

I notice that blog post is being pushed out in other places as evidence for global cooling now..

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/n...global-cooling/

When asked why he had focused on a single days set of low min records the blog author replied:

Simple- because there seldom is a day like this when 115 record events occur. And becuase we know that the data used to detect the faint climate signal (0.7-0.9 C) may very well be swamped by microsite biases, city UHI, and artifacts of NOAA adjustments such as TOBS, FILNET, and SHAP, which all add a positive value to the data.

The low temp records listed by NOAA are irrefutable, since almost all localized site biases are positive. The snowfall records are also irrefutable, since you can't bias the existence of it.

A lot of folks don't like my reporting on these cold events, and to them I say "tough noogies", the MSM more than makes up for it by trumpeting every heat wave as "more proof" of AGW induced cliamte change. Care to place a bet on whether this story is reported on by NYT, CBS, ABC etc? - Anthony

How does someone who owns a blog which is evidentally read a lot from the number of comments manage to make such an error and noone spots it? I can't begin to understand how someone can think a daily count of anything must be unusual just because it sounds high without checking whether it actually is unusual.

Edited November 2, 2008 by Android

[Devonian]

Nice work Android! Have you graphed high temperature records by any chance?

Btw, I remember that comment at WUWT, and your question is dead right. All he needed to do was what you have to see what an unremarkable day October the 29th was.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Then I stopped

Goes to show how many cold records keep on getting broken. B)

BFTP

[jethro]

Can't help but smile at the fact that over the last few years we've been treated to an endless supply of media headlines, detailing each and every "warm" event as being proof positive of AGW. I agree that a cool day, week or month proves nothing. Once in a lifetime snow events prove nothing either (accept that some jammy sod got snow and we didn't) but sorry folks, you cannot have it both ways.

Many on here have held up "record warm" spells as proof we live in a warming world and it's all our fault; it's no good turning round and saying hey they don't count or prove nothing, just because we're talking of "cool events".

Level playing field folks, level playing field.

[Devonian]

Can't help but smile at the fact that over the last few years we've been treated to an endless supply of media headlines, detailing each and every "warm" event as being proof positive of AGW. I agree that a cool day, week or month proves nothing. Once in a lifetime snow events prove nothing either (accept that some jammy sod got snow and we didn't) but sorry folks, you cannot have it both ways.

Many on here have held up "record warm" spells as proof we live in a warming world and it's all our fault; it's no good turning round and saying hey they don't count or prove nothing, just because we're talking of "cool events".

Level playing field folks, level playing field.

It's more about putting such records in context. It's clear from the graph October the 29th was a poor choice of propaganda by Watts. There have been days with more cold records. And as I said, I'd like to see the graph for record highs as well and see what the trends are.

Anyway, it's all very well using 'but you did it first' as an approach but surely we need to learn move an and realise that it's trend and long term average change to that matter? I honestly doubt I dwell on daily records, if it did back in 2003 (I don't remember tbh) then I've learnt that, as I say, with temperature it's trends that matter.

Edited November 2, 2008 by Devonian

[jethro]

I'm not sure the choice of the word "propaganda" is appropriate and it certainly isn't helpful, if we're aiming at peaceful dialogue between both sides of this debate.

I can't remember if you dwelt on daily records either, but many did including some reputable sites, including the MET who are all to fond of holding up record warmth as proof.

Long term trends are the important records, open to cherry picking too though; which long term period are we talking about? The last five years don't show much in the way of "record warmth" - too short a period? How about the last 80 years? Mid 1920's - current; ups and downs but no long term warming of any note.

"You did it first" approach, well the pro AGW side did and continue to do so; no good jumping up and down in protest when the tables are turned. For every record warmth, there will be a record cold to counter it - tis the nature of the beast I'm afraid.

I just wish that both record warmth and record cold events received equal media coverage, sadly they don't; mmm perhaps your choice of "propaganda" was appropriate after all.

[Devonian]

I'm not sure the choice of the word "propaganda" is appropriate and it certainly isn't helpful, if we're aiming at peaceful dialogue between both sides of this debate.

I can't remember if you dwelt on daily records either, but many did including some reputable sites, including the MET who are all to fond of holding up record warmth as proof.

Long term trends are the important records, open to cherry picking too though; which long term period are we talking about? The last five years don't show much in the way of "record warmth" - too short a period? How about the last 80 years? Mid 1920's - current; ups and downs but no long term warming of any note.

"You did it first" approach, well the pro AGW side did and continue to do so; no good jumping up and down in protest when the tables are turned. For every record warmth, there will be a record cold to counter it - tis the nature of the beast I'm afraid.

I just wish that both record warmth and record cold events received equal media coverage, sadly they don't; mmm perhaps your choice of "propaganda" was appropriate after all.

I like this post. I denounces my use of the word propaganda then uses as part of it's peroration - neat B)

As to records, well, one record warm day would mean little, a record week more, a record month more, a record season more, a record year more, a record decade more and a record 30 years more. I think that is pretty obvious? So to dwell on the daily (be it hot or cold) record warth or cold is something none of us should do? So, the media is wrong so to do - though I'm not sure it does tbh - it' spells of weather than get their notice, other than one snowy flurry when it's all 'Arctic blast hit's Britain more to come'...

As to "For every record warmth, there will [my emphasis] be a record cold to counter it" well, until we see the warm records graph I don't think we can say that can we?

So, and I think I've said this before, the longer we go with high temperatures (and the globe is still very warm) without a further global warming the more I'll wonder what is happening. I'm sure if it warms you'll change your view?

[jethro]

I like this post. I denounces my use of the word propaganda then uses as part of it's peroration - neat B)

Glad to know my years spent working in the world of media weren't a complete waste

As to records, well, one record warm day would mean little, a record week more, a record month more, a record season more, a record year more, a record decade more and a record 30 years more. I think that is pretty obvious? So to dwell on the daily (be it hot or cold) record warth or cold is something none of us should do? So, the media is wrong so to do - though I'm not sure it does tbh - it' spells of weather than get their notice, other than one snowy flurry when it's all 'Arctic blast hit's Britain more to come'...

Shall we start a thread to keep track?

As to "For every record warmth, there will [my emphasis] be a record cold to counter it" well, until we see the warm records graph I don't think we can say that can we?

I think it's odds on we can.

So, and I think I've said this before, the longer we go with high temperatures (and the globe is still very warm) without a further global warming the more I'll wonder what is happening. I'm sure if it warms you'll change your view?

My view changing depends entirely upon the proven cause, a warming world per se proves nothing. Causation and correlation; all too often confused or forgotten in recent times.