The end of Global Warming?

**Greebo** · 10-20-2008, 02:53 PM

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...s-go-poof.aspx

Excerpt

In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.

Still, the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures -- they're going down, not up.

Interesting read - according to the chart therein, we're back to 1908 temperatures and on a downswing.

**monkeywrangler71** · 10-20-2008, 03:11 PM

Consider the source.
The National Post is a right wing rag that publishes an anti-global warming article at least once a week.

**Greebo** · 10-20-2008, 03:15 PM

Maybe so - but how do you explain this?

**Russ** · 10-20-2008, 03:20 PM

thats because the EPA made the diesel fuel producers switch to ULSD. Saves the planet I tell ya.

NOT!

**monkeywrangler71** · 10-20-2008, 03:28 PM

I don't, if you want an explanation ask a scientist. I'm just as unqualified to interpret climate data as Lorne Gunter.

Originally Posted by Greebo

Maybe so - but how do you explain this?

**Greebo** · 10-20-2008, 03:33 PM

I think the downward turn at the end over the last two years is pretty easy to interpret...

**MoonMommy** · 10-20-2008, 03:46 PM

Isn't it just they have gone back to a "norm" or 0 line? What would bother me about the data is the small changes that occured (smaller movement of the line about 0) in the past and this huge change now. So...will it go down to .3 below the 0 making for a really cold spell? Where does the data extrapolation lead?

**MomToTwoBoys** · 10-20-2008, 03:53 PM

The planet will always fluctuate with its temperature because if it kept going up all the time or kept going down all the time, we'd either burn alive or freeze to death.

I'm partially kidding!

I'd say that the changes made in the last few years where the temperature actually started going down would have been things that people started doing a while back. It would take alot of large changes in terms of CO2 emissions and other environmental factors to happen before the planet started responding to it.

Remember back when people made such a big deal over the hole in the ozone layer?

**Greebo** · 10-20-2008, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by MoonMommy

Isn't it just they have gone back to a "norm" or 0 line? What would bother me about the data is the small changes that occured (smaller movement of the line about 0) in the past and this huge change now. So...will it go down to .3 below the 0 making for a really cold spell? Where does the data extrapolation lead?

Well, the 0 line could be anywhere, as its a measurement of change since a specific date, and one really shouldn't read TOO much into it - but over 2 years its clear that, if that graph is accurate, the global average temperature has been falling, and has returned to 1980 levels, very quickly.

But heck, this might actually be a dow jones chart.

**Greebo** · 10-20-2008, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by MomToTwoBoys

The planet will always fluctuate with its temperature because if it kept going up all the time or kept going down all the time, we'd either burn alive or freeze to death.

I'm partially kidding!

I'd say that the changes made in the last few years where the temperature actually started going down would have been things that people started doing a while back. It would take alot of large changes in terms of CO2 emissions and other environmental factors to happen before the planet started responding to it.

Remember back when people made such a big deal over the hole in the ozone layer?

If that's true, then we've clearly done enough and need to stop reducing CO2 emissions any more or we WILL all freeze to death.

OTOH if the author is correct, and CO2 emissions are a negligible part of the climate equation, and the major change to climate is based on solar activity, well... then tain't much we can do about it either way.

I don't claim to know - but I really DO doubt that we've seen such a significant drop in CO2 emissions since 2006 to make that kind of change, that quickly.

**monkeywrangler71** · 10-20-2008, 04:53 PM

If you look at the actual data line and not the trend line that has been drawn on top of it, the latest reading has shown a significant increase over the previous and is in fact back over the "0" line. The trend line is deceptive in that the data shows dips in previous years of similar length and size that did not in fact result in a lowering trend.

But, since I have no idea what factors effect this, or even, for that matter, what exactly is meant by a lower troposphere temperature anomaly, I would have to read a significant number of scientific journals before this data would mean anything to me. As, I am sure, it makes no more sense to Lorne Gunter, who is by all reasonable standards of measurement, an idiot.

**Russ** · 10-20-2008, 05:00 PM

Global warming is made up by Al Gore.

I refer to the Dust bowl era of the 1930's. What created that drought? No rain, high temps and the dust was created by the poor farming techniques of the time.

A lady used to come into our meat market in the 80's complaining about the government sending rockets into space which was causing drought conditions.

I asked what caused the drought in the 30's? She never complained again.

**Gwyddyon** · 10-20-2008, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Greebo

Maybe so - but how do you explain this?

Creative graphing. It's amazing what you can do with a carefully chosen scale. Do a Google Image search for Global Temperature Graph. It's interesting how the image changes if you adjust the (temp) scale on the y-axis and go back a few more decades and the x.

**peanut** · 10-21-2008, 02:15 PM

Actually, global temperatures are connected to a lot of factors. The connection I would like to see is the one that compares volcanic gas discharges in the atmosphere to temperatures.

I grew up in a family of scientists. Global warning was always just a red herring to us. I was taught we have no proof it's really happening. Unless someone 100,000 years ago set up a meterological station somewhere and recorded temperatures on a daily basis...and left us the data somewhere! It's just plain not good science to create a theory with such a magnitude for widespread change on hypothetical data.

The scientific community gets really hot on this topic. There's some definite funny business going on with the journals and who's reviewing the articles and studies and making the decision to print them. Some journals are based on better science than others. Right now there are a lot of pseudo-science journals on the market that are very misleading to the public. One reason I always head back to Dad and his friends for their take on the real situation. They compare our situation today in science to like it was during the Renaissance... a lot of good stuff coming out, but also a lot of misleading science.

Jean

**Gwyddyon** · 10-21-2008, 05:34 PM

Unless someone 100,000 years ago set up a meterological station somewhere and recorded temperatures on a daily basis...and left us the data somewhere! It's just plain not good science to create a theory with such a magnitude for widespread change on hypothetical data.

I take it you're not a fan of ice cores and tree rings as climactic indicators, then?