Global warming or global cooling???

Question

NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html

Answer 1

Global warming.

This is just one below average winter, which doesn't mean a thing.  It happened in 1982, 1991-1992, 1999-2000.  EVERY TIME global warming came back stronger than ever.  Proof.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

discussed in detail, with confirmation, at:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/g...

As long as we keep making greenhouse gases in enormous amounts, global warming will dominate in the long run.  It's simple physics.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/di...

Answer 2

(A blatant re-posting)

The key to the debate is the addition or exclusion of the words "man-made" to the terms "global warming," "global cooling" and "climate change."

There are basically no credible climatologists who will argue that the Earth does not undergo regular climate change. It has done so on this planet since the rocks first cooled billions of years ago. Even in recent millenia the evidence for regular climate change is overwhelming and it has caused significant changes in human development and even our evolution.

The problem occurs when people with a political agenda added the words "man-made" to the phrase and then claimed the backing of all those scientists. In the 1800's, Europeans blamed the growth of cities and industry for the "mini-Ice Ages" that occured in fairly regular 12-year periods. They blamed the same sources for the periodic warming trends.

This pattern has continued to the modern day. In the 1970's there were "scientists" predicting a new Ice Age that would have had New York City locked in a glacier by 2000.

The anti-American crowd attempted to force the economy-strangling Kyoto Accords on the US in the 1980's during the transitional warming period. As things grew warmer they began arguing that US economic development was solely responsible for the change in climate and that the US had to throttle its industrial capacity and lower its citizens' lifestyle. Fortunately, Democratic party president Bill Clinton refused to play along and did not sign the Accords. Interestingly neither did several other countries, most notably Communist China. Many European nations did sign and are suffering for it dramatically. Most are learning how to ignore it now.

Following the Democratic defeats in the 1990's (and the failure of the glaciers to appear) the "man-made global warming" crowd and Al Gore came to the fore. Gore is still bitter over his perception that the "vast right-wing conspiracy" foiled his quest for the US presidency. Amazingly, the Democratic party and several of the "greens" played a role in his defeat as well.

The political moves to classify all climate change as "man-made" went into full-swing during Bush's second term and as the brief warming cycle of the time was drawing to a close. The popular media and a variety of anti-American groups had to acknowledge that the warming trend was ending, the predicted massive hurricanes did not occur, the models that had been used were in error.

The same group have now modified their models and theories to fit the failures of their previous ones. Unfortunately, many of their theories, such as man-made carbon dioxide being the sole cause of a pheneomena that can only lead to global warming, don't transfer well.

The "carbon credit" business is booming, however, and many are getting quite rich so they now have to support the concept that man-made carbon emissions may or may not have much to do with the change in climate ... BUT ... and this is great .... at least we are doing something.

In the end the argument hinges on the political desire of some to control the economic activity of others. Whether it is Third World nations seeking to hobble the larger nations' industries to even the playing field; the anti-US crowd worldwide that seeks to attack America in any capacity whatsoever; the anti-Bush crowd that seeks to target George W. Bush as the ultimate vessel of evil; the carbon credit profiteers such as Al Gore and others who are making billions off of the movement - Not matter who it is the overwhelming motivation is a political one and not a scientific one.

Answer 3

One year does not make a trend, and it is too early to say for certain, but it seems we may be heading for cooling for several reasons.

The oscillation of the oceans run in 30 year phases.  From 1940-1975 we had a cool phase (we had more and stronger like the current LA Nina, and less El Ninos) and temperatures dropped.  In 1975 for reason scientists do not know the PDO shifted to a positive phase and we had more El Ninos and less La Ninas.  Is this current La Nina the start of a new phase?  If so we shall see cooling.

The sun also goes through eleven year sun spot  cycles.  The start of Sun spot cycle 24  is late, which might indicate a weaker cycle.  If we do have a weaker cycle, and the Sun is responsible for the climate theory is correct, that should also contribute to cooling.

Answer 4

we're not cherry picking are we?

from the noaa site  that you posted:

"Global Highlights

"..... The presence of a moderate-to-strong La Niña contributed to an average temperature that was the coolest (in the US) since the La Niña episode of 2000-2001."

so there is an obvious reason that the north american weather was a bit cooler.  the same trend was not seen around the rest of the world.

one might also note that the cool years were both La Nina years.

might i suggest that if you're going to quote science, that you get it right.

if you don't, someone will point it out.

particularly when it's this easy.