How could April be the 29th coldest April in 114 years when Co2 is at record levels?

Question

"The average temperature in April 2008 was 51.0 F. This was -1.0 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 29th coolest April in 114 years."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

Co2 levels are still at 114 year highs. When is "science" going to find that there is no relationship between co2 and climate temperatures?

Global warming is over. It's time to move on......

Answer 1

This is getting to be fun, "Okay"... let them exclude North America or  the entire continent if they prefer. Just don't bring it up again as a example in warming either. Can you spell fence hopping?

Answer 2

Duh... Because it's "GLOBAL Warming", not the "United States Warming"!  Anyone who constantly “confuses” the US with the globe probably should not be arguing on this topic, or any other topic for that matter.

Global warming and the greenhouse effect are not that hard of concepts. Maybe you should read scientific literature instead of headlines.

Answer 3

Put is in perspective - the 1 coldest April 29 in 1 location of the world.  Has very little effect on the climate numbers because they are averaged over the long term.  

You constantly keep people confused trying to equate weather with climate because you cannot pick scientific arguments apart unless you misled and mis-direct.  The science shows a very clear relationship between CO2 and temps.  This is not even a point being debated anymore in the scientific community.

Answer 4

I believe that IF the surface monitoring stations were actually repaired, there would be evidence of global cooling.

Scientists are relying on flawed temperature data...... not only in the U.S., but world-wide.

Answer 5

Because of the chemtrails   lol

Answer 6

Give our plants credit for a great job of removing the CO2. Most of the CO2 figures are based on what they want it to be. Look at oxygen level is 20.9% . When the O level drops we have a problem. When it drops below 19.5 % we will pass out. Then we will have a problewm.

Answer 7

These people who say it is "global" and not "united states" should realize that it's been cooler in China, the middle east and yes, even ANTARCTICA this year than in a lot of years past.

Feh.  You give them numbers and facts when they ask for them and they still don't see reason.

Media blinders.

Answer 8

Actually, you are looking at US climate only. The emperor still has plenty of clothes. You're the naked one.

April is not even out for the GLOBE. Why don't you caveat that with US temps??? You are being disingenuous and you know it!

EDIT - And CO2, according to NOAA (your link), does have a link to warming. When are you going to learn, or just stop being dishonest?

http://www.research.noaa.gov/climate/t_g...

Answer 9

I think that you are forgetting the main tennant of AGW, and that is that anything that can, in any way, be attributed to Global Warming is, in fact, a global phenomenon.  Anything that could, in any way, show that Global Warming is not happening the way that was predicted by the Liberal Gods, is a local phenomenon.

Bristlecone pines that only grow in one region of the United States and no where else in the entire world are clear and present indicators of Global Warming.  However, any drop in temperature, no matter how wide an area, if it does not include literally ever thermometer on the planet, is only local weather.

Just like any other time in history when the Government gets involved in Science, the science part disappears.

Answer 10

Oh my God, you are so right Doc, 1 month of data that covers only the U.S, that’s the end of GLOBAL warming.

yeah sure!

It's not time to move on, it's time you took a geography lesson.

Answer 11

weather ≠ climate

Climate is determined by averaging weather over an extended (generally 30 year) period.  Fortunately, the worlds climate scientists understand this, otherwise one month they'd be saying "the world is warming slowly", the next month "the world is cooling", the next month "the world is warming rapidly", etc., etc.  Surely, you can understand how silly that would be.

And finally, it's important to NOT confuse the contiguous 48 states of the US with the entire planet.  Global warming is a "global" problem and it's necessary to analyze "global" surface temperatures to track the trends.

Answer 12

from the same site;

Global Highlights

    * The global land surface temperature was the warmest on record for March, 3.3°F above the 20th century mean of 40.8°F. Temperatures more than 8°F above average covered much of the Asian continent. Two months after the greatest January snow cover extent on record on the Eurasian continent, the unusually warm temperatures led to rapid snow melt, and March snow cover extent on the Eurasian continent was the lowest on record.

    * The global surface (land and ocean surface) temperature was the second warmest on record for March in the 129-year record, 1.28°F above the 20th century mean of 54.9°F. The warmest March on record (1.33°F above average) occurred in 2002.

    * Although the ocean surface average was only the 13th warmest on record, as the cooling influence of La Niña in the tropical Pacific continued, much warmer than average conditions across large parts of Eurasia helped push the global average to a near record high for March.

    * Despite above average snowpack levels in the U.S., the total Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent was the fourth lowest on record for March, remaining consistent with boreal spring conditions of the past two decades, in which warming temperatures have contributed to anomalously low snow cover extent.

    * Some weakening of La Niña, the cold phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, occurred in March, but moderate La Niña conditions remained across the tropical Pacific Ocean.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008...

Answer 13

GW isn't real.

The earth hasn't warmed any in the last decade, a trend that is likely to continue:

When the United Nations World Meteorological Organization recently reported that global temperatures had not risen since 1998, the explanation given by WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud was that the cool spell was the effect of the Pacific Ocean's La Nina current, "part of what we call 'variability.' "

Well, oops, the Earth will do it again. According to a report by German researchers published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, shifting Atlantic ocean currents will cool parts of North America and Europe over the next decade as well.

Climate science is in its infancy, and pretty much every proposition is controversial. The earth's climate is hugely complicated, and important aspects of it are poorly understood. In the last few years, our ability to study ocean temperatures has greatly improved:

Understanding the ocean's effect on climate took a quantum leap forward in 2003 when the first of 3,000 new automated ocean buoys were deployed, a significant improvement over earlier buoys that took their measurements mostly at the ocean's surface.

The new buoys, known as Argos, drift along the world's oceans at a depth of about 6,000 feet constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity, and speed of ocean currents. Every 10 days or so a bladder inflates, bringing them to the surface as they take their readings at various depths.

Once on the surface, they transmit their readings to satellites that retransmit them to land-based computers.

The Argos buoys have disappointed global warming alarmists in that they have failed to detect any signs of imminent climate change. As Dr. Josh Willis noted in an interview with National Public Radio, "there has been a very slight cooling" over the buoy's five years of observation.

The computer models that predict global warming are ridiculously primitive. They still can't recreate the past accurately, let alone predict the future. As Howard Hayden, professor of physics at the University of Connecticut, says, they take "garbage in" and spit "gospel out."

Also remember with 'scientists' were saying 30 years ago:

•“...civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.

• By 1995, “...somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.

• Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor “...the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.

• The world will be “...eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age,” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.

• “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” biologist Barry Commoner, University of Washington, writing in the journal Environment, April 1970.

• “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from the intolerable deteriorations and possible extinction,” The New York Times editorial, April 20, 1970.

• “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half...” Life magazine, January 1970.

• “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.

• “...air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone,” Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.

• Ehrlich also predicted that in 1973, 200,000 Americans would die from air pollution, and that by 1980 the life expectancy of Americans would be 42 years.

• “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.

• “By the year 2000...the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine,” Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.

Global warming theory has been around for a while; I learned it as a college student in about 1970. But it didn't get much traction then because the Earth was in a deep freeze. Some years later, environmental hysteria focused on global warming rather than cooling because, coincidentally, the climate started to warm. That warming has stopped, at least for the time being, and many scientists believe that a harsh cooling trend will begin around 2020. If that happens, environmental activists will be urging us to burn all the carbon fuels we can get our hands on in order to stave off the next Ice Age, much as they advocated an international project to paint the polar ice caps black so as to absorb more heat in the 1970s.

It may well be that the long winter of 2007-2008 came just in time to avert the disaster that would ensue if the general public ever took environmental hysteria seriously.

Here in MN, we still have ice on the lakes, latest ice out in 100 years of recorded history.  This past week, and into next week we will be 15 degrees below normal.  Brutal cold here all winter.  AGW and GW crusaders will tell you that's just 'weather', why isn't warmth 'weather'?

I agree, AGW or GW is over, time for the next media/liberal political issue driven crisis.   (ever notice how an issue is chosen that never has a real solution?)

Answer 14

AGW has gone from an unlikely theory to scientific fact purely for political reasons.

I see the Australian government is trying to bring in some fuel taxes to stop global warming.  It seems global warming is going to remain a scientific fact at least untill the next budget is handed down.

Answer 15

I agree with you 100% it is over because it never happened, and it is not happening

Answer 16

There are some indications that global warming is occuring but it doesn't mean it will continue.

Answer 17

Just goes to show you:  Global Warming doesn't affect the United States of America...we MUST be God's chosen people.  If the rest of the world simply became states of the US, they'd experience freedom and perfect weather, too.  

In fact, that HAS to be the answer to the problem of global warming:  Join the US to end global warming.  Can't argue with the facts.

Answer 18

Of course if we only count the US... which is the way people like you think.

Listen to the two words... the first is global. That means you need to look at... em, the globe.

Answer 19

I'm glad you can attribute straight-laced numbers and predictability to weather.  You should use your mastery of analysis and go into forecasting tornadoes.  You could save lots of lives I bet.