The four major agencies tracking Earth’s temperature, including NASA’s Goddard Institute, report that the Earth cooled 0.7 degree Celsius in 2007, the fastest decline in the age of instrumentation, putting us back to where the Earth was in 1930.
The four major agencies tracking Earth’s temperature, including NASA’s Goddard Institute, report that the Earth cooled 0.7 degree Celsius in 2007, the fastest decline in the age of instrumentation, putting us back to where the Earth was in 1930.
Poor NASA, wonder what crow tastes like ?
And two weeks ago, NASA had to admit that they have been incorrect for the last 30 years in claiming the Antarctic Ice Caps are shrinking and in fact have been growing a steady rate of .06% per year.
Of course, they then claimed that although they were wrong for 30 years, the growth is cause by – you guessed it – Global Warming.
Still doing the Fear Mongering Shuffle to keep the “research” dollars flowing in.
It must have been that carbon credit I bought last week.
how cool LOL
Would that 0.7 degree decline, be before or after the “data of the highest quality” was adjusted?
I’d hate to spoil the party with the facts, but here is the actual NASA website:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
Inconvenient truth for Al Gore and the Chicken Littles.
Don’t expect the MSM to mention this, even though it’s extremely newsworthy. Surely they’d like to do headlines such as “Global Warming Reversed” or “Al Gore Wrong” or “Don’t Worry About Climate Change Anymore”? I thought those media types never failed to miss an opportunity to sell more papers by having such shocking front-page headlines…
They must be in on the scam, too, then.
No, no, no!! They must be using actual data, not the revised and sanitized data approved by Hansen.
Expect a retraction or correction in the near future, these truthes will not be tollerated by Hansen and Gore.
“Nothing to see here, move along” will be the next utterance from NASA.
Maybe Hansen will ask the US law enforcment agencies to establish a “truth squad” like Obama did.
Oh dear,
what will I do now with that beachfront property I bought in Iqualuit?
Oh dear,
what will I do now with that beachfront property I bought in Iqualuit?
Oh dear,
what will I do now with that beachfront property I bought in Iqualuit?
“Oh dear,
what will I do now with that beachfront property I bought in Iqualuit?”
no problem . . your outdoor pool is now a rink.
Sorry about multiposts.
Sometimes there’s no recognition at all that a response has been sent.
Anyway, it’s a GREAT location
NASA GISS still shows 2007 as being right up there with 2005. UAH satellite data show something different though.
We know that true warmers don’t believe in the UAH data, prefering the “corrected” and “adjusted” data supplied by GISS.
Wow if the earth cooled 0.07 C in 2007 what will it cool with Dion’s airplane spewing all that particulate matter?
…putting us back to where the Earth was in 1930.
Which, weirdly enough, is the decade the “hottest year on record” lives in.
Thanks set you free for that most enlightening article. In reviewing it I noticed that with the exception of the paper on solar irradiance all of the references were papers in which the lead author was — Hansen. And the article was written by (surprise, surprise) — Hansen.
Quick question though, could you kindly explain how (according to his graphs) in 1880 they were able to calculate the “global temperature change” to within 0.2 deg C?
I don’t have time to follow and read the link so I guess I’ll watch it tonight on the evening news.
The article states that “the Earth cooled 0.7 degree Celsius in 2007, the fastest decline in the age of instrumentation”.
To get this they use the monthly temperatures. By using that logic, as John Cook points out the months of February and March of 2008 reinstated 75 years worth of warming.
Regards,
John
Yeah, I saw that news, it was the leading headline for the last 48 hours for
CBC
CTV
Global
CBS
NBC
CNN
ABC
FOX
etc.
etc.
/
Of course what is a promise worth nowadays?
Harpers even mashed on a few of those lately but softened up some of the lumps as far as I’m concerned.
Since the economy’s headed back to 1930, it only makes sense.
Just waiting for the former globals warming crowd (now climate changers) to respond with – “See!! We told you climate change was happening!! It’s unpredictable!! Even our predictions were wrong!! The sky is falling… yada yada yada”
I wish global warming had actually lasted – I feel a draft…
Will Mr. Cross ever admit that just maybe he was a little caught up in the cascade? The trend has been down since 2000/2001.
Looks like the Shitliner is coming in to port…though, Suzuki/Gore won’t be bothered by these facts.
Still waiting for an answer to my question.
The headline is misleading. GW has not paused.
GW has stopped.
Rewrite Headline:
Global warming has stopped. Global cooling is happening.
…-
“Global warming has paused
“Recent studies by the Hadley Climate Research Center (UK), the Japan Meteorological Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of East Anglia (UK) and the University of Alabama Huntsville show clearly that the rising trend of global average temperature stopped in 2000-2001. Further, NASA data shows that warming in the southern hemisphere has stopped, and that ocean temperatures also have stopped rising.”
http://newsminer.com/news/2008/sep/27/global-warming-has-paused/?opinion
Hey, this does help Michelle Obama’s children!
John Cross
“”””” By using that logic, as “””””
people like you don’t use or understand LOGIC
John still hasn’t answered my question about how you can accurately predict the impact and effects of the CO2 output from humans into our climate system if you do not know the quantity and impact of the thousands of other inputs and outputs that also affect the same system.
Nor my question. Well? . . . (crickets chirping).
DrDave
Maybe set you free is a cricket or at the very least chooses to communicate in cricketease from time to time.
Syncro
Chairman Kaga: I was not aware I had been asked that question. Do you have a reference to where you asked it?
Regards,
John
I just put over $2000. into my 1000 gal. propane tank which with a normal Northern BC winter should get me to the end of Feb.2009. Thank you Mr. Campbell for adding a carbon tax on to that. Since the election is next May, it should be nice and fresh in my mind when I fill up again next march. Idiot. Global warming…….please.
Syncro:
I’m on your side.
At the same time, it has to be said mankind has affected the environment in some way since the day of creation.
I’ve always taught my kids that to come to a reasonable decision, it’s important to examine critically all points of view before coming to a conclusion.
My current position is that AGW is a bunch of hooey, but I remain open-minded on the topic and reserve the right to change my mind when new facts are presented.
jlc:
Sometimes there’s no recognition at all that a response has been sent.
Sometimes a post will appear immediately at the comments page and other times you’ll have to refresh/reload the page.
maz2 writes:
Rewrite Headline:
Global warming has stopped. Global cooling is happening.
All the more reason to run around in panic mode (lighting one’s own hair on fire for dramatic effect, sympathy and front page issue coverage optional) screaming, “It’s worse than we thought! Now we’re not really sure WHAT’S going on! Time to increase government funding and impose ‘green’ carbon taxes and emissions trading!”
Yeesh.
“I was not aware I had been asked that question. Do you have a reference to where you asked it?”
It was in a previous thread where you used that bank account analogy I’ve seen a couple of times. But to be fair you were debating with three other people at the time and responses were posted constantly, so mine may have been missed.
Anyways, you can answer it now. How can you accurately measure and determine the impact humans create with their CO2 output into an open system without measuring or quantifying the impact of EVERY input/output into that same system? All of the inputs and outputs aren’t constant, and some inputs/outputs probably aren’t even known. So how can you determine that a recent rise in the global temperature is due to human CO2 output?
Using your bank analogy, and I’m going by memory here, you set up the situation where a bank account has $100 in it. Humans deposit $7 into it (CO2 output), but at the end of the year the account has $103 in it. Thus, you conclude that the rise in dollars (CO2) in the account is due to humans.
I believe my counterpoint to the example was how can you determine that extra $3 is due to human input if you don’t know the other withdraws/deposits into the account and who performed them? Say you do start out with $100 in the account and you put in your $7. Someone (some natural process) withdraws $105. Another someone (natural process) deposits $101 into the account, but their deposit is 15% larger than they usually deposit (however, you don’t know that). In this case, is the extra $3 in the account entirely due to your deposit? What if the balance in the account is less than $100 at the end of the year, yet your deposit amounts increased?
Now take that same example, but increase the number of people accessing the account by a thousand. You can’t easily come up with that conclusion.
Chairman: Thanks for a clear comment delivered without invective!
When you say “is the extra $3 in the account entirely due to your deposit?“; I suspect that a number of people get caught up on that.
To me that is looking at it backwards. The key question is not what the extra is due to, but what would the total be if the $7 was not deposited – i.e. if we deposited nothing into the atmosphere.
In your example, even if the natural process you cite (call it NP1) does deposit $101, in that year, it is our $7 that tops up the account to $103. Now, if NP1 is 15% larger this year than the previous year (or say next year), and that caused the balance to be less than $100, then we have no problem! The atmosphere analogy to this would be that we put 7 Gt of C into the atmosphere, but the total in the atmosphere decreased. If that was true then we wouldn’t be discussing this and we could all go and buy Hummers!
But we have quite accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2 (and that is a necessary assumption for my analogy) and they show no overall decrease of CO2 on a year to year basis for the last 50 years or so (there is of course a seasonal change which we can see).
The above is more of an exercise in math, but there is observational evidence (based on the isotopes of carbon) that indicate the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is from very old carbon (like what you would expect from the burning of fossil fuels).
Regards,
John
Where’d the quote come from? Like others have already mentioned, here’s an excerpt from the Goddard Institute Jan 08 data release on the issue:
“The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the “El Niño of the century”. The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.”
“but there is observational evidence (based on the isotopes of carbon) that indicate the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is from very old carbon (like what you would expect from the burning of fossil fuels).”
I don’t know or care who is arguing whether the CO2 comes from fossil fuels or the ocean, but I would like to point out that the above “logic” is wrong.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the oceans control CO2 levels, as they undoubtedly have in the past, then we would still see a higher percentage of fossil CO2 in the atmosphere. It is true either way. Anybody who can drive down 15 out of Montreal can see those huge smokestacks pouring CO2 into the atmosphere. The argment is that they are just filling in an amount of CO2 that would be there anyway from the oceans, which, I believe, hold 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. Unless you are arguing that the fossil CO2 is immediately “well mixed” with the CO2 held in the oceans. Is that what you are claiming?
I don’t mean to argue that we are not raising CO2, just that your logic is not the proof that you think it is.
It is also true that we date the beginning of the industrial era to one of the globally coldest eras in the current interglacial. Look at the hockey stick, imagin that the “blade” never happened, and think what the planet would be like had the in place trends at that time continued.
Answer, the world would be very different. Glaciers were already expanding into European villages at that time according to historical records. We could be spiralling into an ice age at this very moment, and most of Canada would be on its way to being a wasteland, as it has been for 90% of the time for the past five million years. You wouldn’t want to go back. Not with the current population of the planet, in any case.
Tim: To be clear, the argument based on isotopes is separate from what I call my bank account analogy. The isotopes argument is based on the fact that we can see that the isotope ratio in the atmosphere is changing. This indicates that there is an increase in in “old” carbon (carbon 14 has a half life of about 5,700 years).
This observation is consistent with what you would expect from an increase in burning fossil fuels.
I am not sure I follow your ocean argument. Are you saying that the ocean is outgasing carbon that is so old that it has little or no C 14 and thus changing the isotope concentrations? I confess have not heard that position before, but it is an interesting idea.
Three problems that I see with it are that first, most of the CO2 exchange with the oceans takes place with the surface which does not, in general, have carbon that old (and even some deep water is only about 800 years old). The second thing is that there is currently no observation that would support a net ocean outgasing. Finally, the third issue would be that this would not explain why we have been seeing a recent change in the atmospheric ratio.
Regards,
John