Recent Global Cooling Controversy

by metatron 236 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  mP

  mP-> brinjen:

  Thats not fair. YOu claimed its been hotter and then played some word games. If you claimed it was hotter, then your proofs better show the last 3 years were hotter. Dont try and stretch numbers that dont actually back your point of view. I personally think your assertion was wrong, but i stand corrected until numbers can be fetched from the bom. Still it is interesting that they have no simple graph of simple avgs for all years for some period of time. Its sad they dont, as that would answer a lot of questions.

  Brinjen:

  Can't look up the information for ourselves can we?

  MP:

  I did and couldnt find it, just like you.

  BrinJen:

  Or are we just looking to engage and argue to make ourselves feel superior?

  mP:

  Did i ever claim that ? I was just being honest. I only asked for raw numbers which none of us could find. If you cant find them either thats fine, but dont go inventing facts based on numbers you dont have.
• 

  brinjen

  As I said mP, answer my question about the La Nina effect and read that link properly. There are more links etc.

  While we're at it, post proof of your claim that the last 3 years have been cooler.
• 

  mP

  brinjen:

  You are right i have not provided raw numbers to say the last 3 years have been cooler. But i did try and say that the massive bushfires due to the heat and conditions that dried the land out have been absent in recent times. Sure its quite the same but i think these observations of mine are reasonably fair and you have not tried to counter them.

  We all know La nina is a cycle, its hardly fair to make claims given when it appears and what happens. Im not quite sure what your exact point regarding CC and LaNina was meant to be.
• 

  brinjen

  From the link I posted...

  " Another feature of recent climate in Australia is that background trends have continued; in the case of temperature, the warming trend is adding a warming bias to the natural variability. This was apparent even during the two recent La Niña years. While late 2010 through early 2012 were slightly cooler than the 1961–1990 average, the period was warmer than comparable wet periods of the past, such as those which occurred during the 1970s and 1950s. In other words, while the temperatures were below average, the warming trend held the values higher than they should have been without the trend, given the amount of rain that fell."

  I was up in Darwin in 2010, when the La Nina effect began. We pretty much had no dry season that year. It remained hot, humid and rained every single month up there during the southern winter. Not normal at all. The following wet season (which was a record in rainfall) we had a cyclone pretty much form over land. Again, not normal at all even for a La Nina cycle. There is a lot more to consider than just 3 years of data as well. Climate change has been talked about a lot longer than that (as we all know), so a much broader range of time needs to be considered. Up north, the dry seasons are getting shorter and the build-ups (aka "Troppo Season") are getting longer. Once-in-a-hundred-year weather events are repeating more frequently. Severe cyclones are appearing more frequently. It's a long term cycle... not just 3 years.
• 

  mP

  Brinjen:

  That highlighted paragraph is very bland, again it has no numbers to back your assertion. It memntions the 70s which others have shown was thought by some scientists to be the start of a cooling. its a little too convenient to compare against cooler years, a bit like comparing a hot summer against a winter.

  Im not doubting Darwin was hot as you mention, its prolly always somewhere between hot and really hot. But without knowing how often what you describe happens or how it compares to recent years past its difficult to judge. Just because you drop the words "once in a hundred years" doesnt mean the years in question were example of that. Im sure if i went to D in the hot season i too would think it was extra hot, but without checking somewhere like the BOM, i cant honestly comment how it was before.

  Dropping words and some interesting background doesnt count as proof, its just qi. comment
• 

  brinjen

  The comparisons to the 70's & 50's are to compare to other La Nina cycles. Apples with apples.

  My point about Darwin was not how "hot" it was. We all know Darwin gets hot. My point was the climate changing up there.

  And again, why the three years?

  http://www.extremeweatherheroes.org/science-of-extreme-weather/global-evidence.aspx
• 

  mP

  Well like i said the 70s were a time when the world was in a mini cool so its not really an exactly comparison. Since La Nins dont happen every where just looking at the 50s and 70s gives very few samples.

  The temp graph on that page shows the last few years the temp went down. Not by much but those years were not the hotest, which is exactly what i said. if we look at the graph we can see the avg tmp of about 2010 is less than that of the mid 1910s and late 1930s. What does that mean, not much. Then again what exactly does a 0.2 C increase mean ? What about 1800s etc ?

  Given the chart jumps below and above the average does that make sense ? How can the industrial age of the 1900s have so many years and decades below the average. How exactly is the average calculated ? I think the graph raises lots of interesting q more than it answers them. Its only a start.

  
• 

  brinjen

  There simply are not many La Nina cycles to compare to. The high amounts of rain have an evaporative cooling effect. This last one was still warmer than the previous. No one said that the temperatures would steadily climb every year progressively.

  While it felt cooler... ocean temperatures were up.

  http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/SST-records.shtml
• 

  mP

  MP:

  So how exactly can one make a statement about ONE la Nina being significant proof of a change or trend ?

  Brin:

  While it felt cooler..

  mp:

  http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/SST-records.shtml

  Cool down under, warm globally

  2011 was Australia's coolest year in a decade (2001–2011). Eight of the last nine years with sustained La Niña conditions recorded a cooler than normal Australian average temperature, except 2008, which was Australia's warmest year on record commencing with a La Niña.

  I guess i was right after all. Even the BOM agrees with me. All im saying is dont get swept by the media and their story telling, they tell lots of porkies and love to use big words when the truth is not quite as alarming.

  Brinjen:

  ocean temperatures were up.

  mP:

  Actually the article does not say that at all. The line

  Sea surface temperatures around the northern coasts of Australia were also above average during the 2011–2012 La Niña event, particularly between December 2011 and February 2012, though were not at the record-breaking levels seen in 2010. This would suggest a weaker influence on Australian rainfall.

  does not in anyway say what it is comparing against. It was hotter sure, but hotter than what ? It doesnt mention average in anyway.

  I would v much like to know how they compute this average, because iw ould imagine it would be hard to know averages of the ocean in the middle of no where far from land. Are old samples from the 50s just a single or few isolated samples or are they daily measurements like i would imagine they can do now ?
• 

  bohm

  mP:

  The temp graph on that page shows the last few years the temp went down. Not by much but those years were not the hotest, which is exactly what i said. if we look at the graph we can see the avg tmp of about 2010 is less than that of the mid 1910s and late 1930s. What does that mean, not much. Then again what exactly does a 0.2 C increase mean ? What about 1800s etc ?

  Given the chart jumps below and above the average does that make sense ? How can the industrial age of the 1900s have so many years and decades below the average. How exactly is the average calculated ? I think the graph raises lots of interesting q more than it answers them. Its only a start.

  It is such a travesty the supposed "experts" and "scientists" are all Joe Nobodys who just sit behind their screen, eyeball a graph and ask any odd question that pop into their mind without doing any research, and unless these questions are answered to their satisfaction (and unfortunately all these supposed "scientists" are entirely unaware of statistics and are basically too lazy to look anything up for themselves) they just keep to their pre-consieved notion the climate is getting hotter.

  I do hope you find the time to put some of your carefully researched observations into print. I mean, I bet nobody ever thought about how (for instance) the average in the graph you found was computed, and surely nobody bothered to write that down. We all know those are things no scientist would ever think about.