Temperature Monitors Report Global Cooling

The Daily Tech, Drudgereport ^

[crusty old prospector]

A twelve-month long drop in world temperatures erases global warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that 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.

Meteorologist Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change every recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

[ScratInTheHat]

Man I’ve been looking for a good solar cycle link!

Thanks!!!

[Hazwaste]

Didn’t you hear? It’s down to 1 billion years now.

Everybody panic!

[cogitator]

Is it just me or are “glowball cooling” articles becoming more common?

Yes, they are, because every skeptical site out there is latching onto a cool La Nina year as "proof" that global warming has "stopped". And all these articles get posted here.

When the La Nina ends in May/June/July, average global monthly temeperatures will return to normal or above-normal. Write it down. I've got a particularly tasty sauce good for headwear if necessary, but I don't expect to have to use it.

[Rurudyne]

But will that really matter if Solar Cycle 24 stays at minimum levels? A mild summer in the northern hemisphere (much as Australia, for example, is apparently having now) with not much ice melt followed by another cold winter is a real likelihood at this time and not just a matter for skeptics and AGW to take notice of.

I don’t mean that a chart of the coming months temperatures vs the previous year’s will continue to decline as it did in 2007 (it could well flat line for all that’s worth); however, one thing may well be finally true: people may have to come to the realization that climate change here on Earth is governed by the state of “Glowball Warmth” since it is the Sun’s output that is the underlaying fact behind global warmth no matter how it may be trending.

And if this cold-snap isn’t just a cold-snap and goes on to cause problems they may reassess their opinion about how bad “warming” actually is, too. Warm periods (and there have been warmer periods than just recently in human history) have historically been good to human civilization and, by logical extension, to nature as a whole because we have not (even at this time for much of the world) been far from subsistence. Cold, on the other hand, has been bad for everyone each and every time.

[cogitator]

But will that really matter if Solar Cycle 24 stays at minimum levels?

Yes! The solar effect is not that big.

A mild summer in the northern hemisphere (much as Australia, for example, is apparently having now)

Australia's summer is still above normal for January.

Though the cold and snow and ice is getting the headlines (as usually is the case in winter), look at where it's been warm -- and how widespread. The reason this is a cold January, climatologically, is due to the cold in the Pacific Ocean (La Nina) and the cold in central Asia and northern Africa, primarily. That may be due to a near-average tropical Atlantic, which may be experiencing a cooling effect from the La Nina in the Pacific.

since it is the Sun’s output that is the underlaying fact behind global warmth no matter how it may be trending.

If we didn't have the Sun we wouldn't have global warming; we'd be near absolute zero. Global warming is not currently due to changes in the Sun.

And if this cold-snap isn’t just a cold-snap and goes on to cause problems

Wait until NH summer.

Warm periods (and there have been warmer periods than just recently in human history) have historically been good to human civilization

Warm, yes. Rapid and unpredictable changes, no.

[LiveFreeOrDie2001]

So will global cooling lead to shrinkage...?

[mwilli20]

Have you read what must be done to clean up a broken “Big Government” bulb?

Do you have a link to that? I have been trying to send the info to a GW-believing friend. Thanks...

[cogitator]

So will global cooling lead to shrinkage...?

Undoubtedly.

[mwilli20]

I am worried that we have already lost the battle. They have managed to monopolize the sources of information, co-opt all the corrupt scientists they need, and denigrate the other side as “bought-off hacks” or “deniers”.

Our spineless CEOs and political leaders, with few exceptions, have seen the battle lost and are simply jumping on the bandwagon to ensure they are not left standing at the station when the train leaves.

They have already begun passing legislation in all corners of the globe and the thing is pretty much cemented.

I believe that if we stop warming or if we cool, their line will be, “The sun is responsible for the cooling but we need to accelerate the reduction of CO2 levels because when the Sun ‘returns to normal’ it will be that much worse with higher levels of CO2 than today”

In a sense they will claim that Mother Nature, our dear Gaia, has given us a reprieve, a little time to act before it will be too late.

[mwilli20]

The hot air ducts next to the temperature monitoring stations aren't active as much lately.

You're on to something. Can you imagine how much cooler they would read if they were properly maintained and distributed?

[Old Professer]

Your map shows the St. Louis area at 3C above your base period; for the month of Feb so far, 22 days have been below average with over 12 being more than ten degrees F below.

http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KSTL/2008/2/27/MonthlyHistory.html

An unusually high day near the 1st. of the month is the only convincing point.

Surrounding stations will concur.

Are they using real time raw observations or more of the corrected, adjusted stuff?

[LiveFreeOrDie2001]

So, you’re sayin’ we’re gonna be chasin’ our tails.

Anyone got a picture of a dog chasing it’s tail...?

[cogitator]

Does the fact the map was for January affect your analysis? (You probably noticed; if not, this is FYI.)

I can't get a February map until early March. I'll be curious to see how much different it is than January. There will be some differences, of course.

[avacado]

"Global warming causes global cooling that causes the global warming to cause the global cooling... like DUH!!!

[avacado]

The map is wrong! The Houston, TX Area should have a blue dot. We had a below average temperature January.

[jwalsh07]

"The average temperature in January 2008 was 30.5 F. This was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 49th coolest January in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade."NOAA

How you gonna square that circle with your anomaly graphic?

[AFPhys]

I agree: if this comes about, the “Gore-Hansen Minimum” would be a very appropriate name.

[AFPhys]

Thank you.

I didn’t discover this link, but I think it important that anyone who frequents these threads take a look at it. Please repost it whenever you are able to do everyone a favor!

[magellan]

Kind of brings a whole new meaning to “hockey stick”.

[cogitator]

We had a below average temperature January.

Well, looking at the map, the red dot isn't big.

It's not easy to evaluate average temperature. I went here:

Climate in Houston, Texas

and here:

Southern Regional Climate Center -- Texas Summary January 2008

According to the latter, for Houston-Bush airport the average high was 62, the average low was 42, so the average temperature was 52 -- which is exactly normal. Dividing the averages from the other site gives an average temperature of 51.75 (this is all Fahrenheit, of course).

But that's not the way that the climate monitors do it. They quality control the data and then average it over an entire area (5x5 degrees, maybe?), so hopefully they combine several averages to get a better picture of the region. From the looks of it, the region was just barely above normal -- see the tiny blue dot corresponding to Alabama, and just to the west the small red dot corresponding to Arkansas/far eastern Texas? Those are both smaller than the 1 C dot size. So, given what the report says and what the dots seem to indicate, it looks like roughly general agreement at the precision possible from these representations.