Global Cooling in 2009 (375 Sources)

[LoudHoward]

Which yes, just sinks the cooling arguement even further. Still, I find myself arguing with people who just don't want to believe the data for whatever reason, or use 1998 as a starting reference point and cherry pick less warm years to show what they want to show. I find it useful then to try and construct arguements against them that use their deceptive/incorrect data and still show warming.

 

[AOK Tiger]

From the IPCC report in 2001
Expected do nothing increase up to 2100 is 5.8 degrees centigrade.
This is an increase of 0.58 deg per decade
So the predicted temp change for the Decade 2000 – 2010 is + 0.58 degrees c.
The actual temp change for the Decade 2000 – 2010 is NEGATIVE.
Where is their prediction in ANY way accurate.

 

[DogB]

Those figures you've quoted have error bars on them. Over the course of thirty years or so the change (or lack of) will be big enough overwhelm the error range and allow us to be certain.

The current situation is well within the accepted error range. Which is not to say it’s not the start of a cooling trend. It may well be. But statistically there’s no reason to think such a thing…

….yet!

 

[LoudHoward]

From the IPCC report in 2001
Expected do nothing increase up to 2100 is 5.8 degrees centigrade.
This is an increase of 0.58 deg per decade
So the predicted temp change for the Decade 2000 – 2010 is + 0.58 degrees c.
The actual temp change for the Decade 2000 – 2010 is NEGATIVE.
Where is their prediction in ANY way accurate.

A couple of questions, since I'm too lazy to read the TAR

Did they state the projected warming throughout the 21st century would be linear?

What was the error range?

Where do you get the temp change from 2000-2010 from? Compared to something like this it would seem incorrect.

 

[BenBurch]

From the IPCC report in 2001
Expected do nothing increase up to 2100 is 5.8 degrees centigrade.
This is an increase of 0.58 deg per decade
So the predicted temp change for the Decade 2000 – 2010 is + 0.58 degrees c.
The actual temp change for the Decade 2000 – 2010 is NEGATIVE.
Where is their prediction in ANY way accurate.

Because they were not predicting linearity.

Really, I shouldn't need to tell you this since you read the report, right?

 

[Pixel42]

From the IPCC report in 2001
Expected do nothing increase up to 2100 is 5.8 degrees centigrade.
This is an increase of 0.58 deg per decade

"Do nothing" means "continue to emit CO2 at the current rate for the whole century". Which means the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to increase by 2-3 ppm per year, from about 370 ppm in 2001 to over 600 ppm by 2100. Obviously that means warming due to CO2 will accelerate as the century goes on, so that forecast increase in temperature is clearly not going to be linear.

So the predicted temp change for the Decade 2000 – 2010 is + 0.58 degrees c.

Falsely assumes linear increase.

The actual temp change for the Decade 2000 – 2010 is NEGATIVE.

Nope: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

the years since 2000 - the "noughties" - were on average about 0.18C (0.32F) warmer than years in the 1990s

 

[Peephole]

The actual temp change for the Decade 2000 – 2010 is NEGATIVE.

No, it's not. You're either lying or ignorant. The 2000s were the warmest years on record.

From the IPCC report in 2001
Expected do nothing increase up to 2100 is 5.8 degrees centigrade.
This is an increase of 0.58 deg per decade
So the predicted temp change for the Decade 2000 – 2010 is + 0.58 degrees c.

Nobody said the increase would be linear, doofus. Also, the IPCC TAR talked about a range of temperature increase from 1.4 to 5.8°C.

 

[Megalodon]

Some basic facts everyone should know by now:

Is there a downward trend since 98? No!



Were the 00's colder than expected from the long term trend? No!



Were the 00's the hottest decade on record? Yes!



Thank you for your attention.

 

[Meed]

Well done, Megalodon, you sexy shark.

 

[Megalodon]

Well done, Megalodon, you sexy shark.

Thanks! And the funny thing is, we can use a provisional value for 2009, and turn the "last 10 years" trick against the usual suspects.



Voilá, the last ten years warmed almost as fast as the 90's and faster than the 80's

 

[DogB]

Voilá, the last ten years warmed almost as fast as the 90's and faster than the 80's

So there was less CO₂ in the atmopshere than there was in the 90's but a little more than in the 80's?

Got it, thanks.

 

[Megalodon]

So there was less CO₂ in the atmopshere than there was in the 90's but a little more than in the 80's?

Got it, thanks.

No, not really, but you know that.

It's just annoying to keep explaining it again and again. Despite seeing a huge amount of heat buried in the ocean and record cryosphere melts, the 00s managed to be the warmest decade ever and, with 7 out of 10 years above the extrapolation of 1979-1999 trend, increased the slope of the overall trend.

We are exactly where the models predicted, in terms of temperature, and some of the other predicted effects are actually happening much faster than expected.

Yet delayers keep braying to whomever will listen, in the hope that they can maintain the status-quo just a little while longer, maybe long enough to get their pockets lined. As for the ones echoing the anti-intellectual bollocks for free all over the internet, only they know the motives that lead them to be willfully ignorant, year after year, resisting bravely any fact that might breach their defenses.

Now, guess which part of this post will be addressed

 

[DogB]

No, not really, but you know that.

You know I'm just joking.

Here - a pretty picure for you.

 

[BenBurch]

People who expect a nice linear response to inputs in a large scale natural system just don't understand the natural world very well.

 

[a_unique_person]

People who expect a nice linear response to inputs in a large scale natural system just don't understand the natural world very well.

Deniers have the luxury of having their cake and eating it too. The world is both

* too complex and chaotic to model
* the response has to be a perfect line from year to year.

 

[Marcuse]

@Poptech

2009 was another year of global cooling, which saw numerous low temperature and high snowfall records smashed.

If in 2010 if we will see numerous high temperatures and less snowfall, you will regard that as another year of global warming?

 

[BenBurch]

@Poptech

If in 2010 if we will see numerous high temperatures and less snowfall, you will regard that as another year of global warming?

You have it figured out.

 

[Trakar]

@Poptech

If in 2010 if we will see numerous high temperatures and less snowfall, you will regard that as another year of global warming?

We saw that in 2009 (and most years over the last 3 decades or so) and it hasn't proven convincing to some, why should another year of data they refuse to accept matter?

 

[DogB]

I'm starting believe this climate change malarkey.

This is just plain weird!