One datum does not a trend make.

Come on Kim, you should know better. The global warming alarmist kooks out there will blame this record drop in temps on....global warming. Everything that happens on this Earth can be explained by man-made global warming, it's part of their plan. And once they get their economic choking policies in place the world climate will apparently cease to change. And if it does change it will be described as minor comparted to what would have happened had we not enacted their draconian policies.

The answer is simple. In case you haven't noticed, the terminology has changed. The proper term isn't "Global Warming" anymore, it's "Climate Change". The newer term can be applied to any perceived deviation from the "norm".

Too hot? - That's "Climate Change!"
Too cold? - That's "Climate Change!"
Lots of hurricanes? - That's "Climate Change!"
Not enough snow? - That's "Climate Change!"
Too much snow? - That's "Climate Change!"
Too dry? - That's "Climate Change!"
Too wet? - That's "Climate Change!"

It all works very nicely!

With all due respect, cliche dissenting republican, global warming is the reason for cooling. Global warming is at fault for everything. My band's van was totaled. If global warming hadn't expanded the gases in the tire, it wouldn't have blown out. It doesn't matter that it was at night in the northeast in February. IT'S BUSH'S FAULT. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!!!

One datum does not a trend make.

Posted by wolfwalker

Except, of course, when it's datum that falls in line with the "global warming" nuts' (and especially Algore's) Chicken Little dance. Remember Hurricane Katrina? When that happened, the nuts used it - "one datum" - to predict that "global warming" would cause many more Katrina-type storms each year. Then what happened? Two years of virtually nothing. Now the nuts say that "global warming" is causing less Katrina-type storms. They make the evidence fit the theory, which makes the theory unfalsifiable and thus scientifically invalid.

"Over the past year, anecdotal evidence.."

Anecdotal def, not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts and not facts or research.

Here are the facts for the year 2007
"For 2007, the global land and ocean surface temperature was the fifth warmest on record. Separately, the global land surface temperature was warmest on record while the global ocean temperature was 9th warmest since records began in 1880. "

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/ann07.html

The answer is simple. In case you haven't noticed, the terminology has changed. The proper term isn't "Global Warming" anymore, it's "Climate Change". The newer term can be applied to any perceived deviation from the "norm".

Posted by Gizmo

I know. "Climate change." What a stupid phrase! It's meaningless because the climate is ALWAYS changing. "We have to stop climate change!" Uh, yeah... Good luck with that.

Of course, when they use the phrase, what they really mean is "global warming." They had to come up with a new phrase for it to dismiss all the contrary evidence to their b.s. Chicken Little "theory."

If man causes global warming, then how did man cause global cooling -- And then, why can't man do what ever he wants, if it's too hot, make it cool, if it's too cool, make it hot.

Anyone think to look at the sun? Now why would we want to do that? It seems to be having missing sunspot difficulty since October 2005.

Go ahead, burn more food, feel good about yourself while you are starving people -- Heck I bet the kooks can even come up with a ribbon to wear for those who starve the most people.

Anecdotal def, not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts and not facts or research.

6. Posted by BarneyG2000

Are you honestly that stupid? Try reading more than just the first paragraph, chucklenuts:

"But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously."

Hard. Scientific. FACT

You clowns are so brainwashed that you can't even conceive of being wrong and will conveniently ignore "inconvenient truths."

I distrust anecdotal evidence, either for or against something.

The global warming folk have posted pix or data for several years now on increases in air/water temperature, decreases in ice mass/area, shrinkage of glaciers, etc.

There are certain specific situations where being warmer elsewhere leads to thicker ice somewhere else. One example, IIRC, is Antartica interior where greater snow falls occur due to evaporation, etc. in the surrounding seas as lost ice shelves expose more water surface. Thus, warmers can wave off what they would term isolated examples.

If one wanted to "make' global warmer folk respond to this data, one would likey have to use same-month pix and data of the warmers' own favorite poster-child spots. For example, has Arctic ice used by polar bears gotten back to previous extent in summer (not now in winter)? Another might be Grinnell Glacier in Glacier National Park in July - that one gets used a lot. A third might be ice shelves off Antartica in the late summer there - that always seems to be cited.

That is, post before-and-before-and-after pix and data, using the pre global warming as the first "before", the warmers' stuff as the second "before", and the new stuff as the "after" to demonstrate that those spots have changed back, at least some.

IMHO, the above might work, other approaches just get folk hand-waving at each other from the comfort of their own ideological trenches.

I distrust anecdotal evidence, either for or against something.

10. Posted by jim2

Then read more than just the article's opening paragraph.

Here's one of the Grinnell pix sequences to which I referred:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Grinnell_Glacier_jpg

If someone could get a same month of the year shot of Grinnell Glacier that showed that it had regained some of its earlier extent, then that would have impact.

Well, He created the internet (God bless His soul) so He can certainly be trusted to allow us a cooling down period to acknowledge His greatness in predicting that heat is really cold and cold is really hot.

Thank You Al Goracle.

Jason -

Be constructive, I exhort you. To folk who study long term climate trends, one year of data is essentially anecdotal. The warmers have decades of data backed up with lots of real world pix showing the effects. If one wanted to bring more balance to the discussion, one would have to have pix showing that the poster-child spots may have at least begun to return to former state.

Anything else, like a single year of low temp, would be dismissed (and with some basis) as an anomaly or simple fluctuation in an otherwise obvious trend.

Have pix of a restored Grinnell Glacier in July or a restored Laresn B ice shelf, and even the warmers would have to reconsider.

Be constructive, I exhort you. To folk who study long term climate trends, one year of data is essentially anecdotal. The warmers have decades of data backed up with lots of real world pix showing the effects. If one wanted to bring more balance to the discussion, one would have to have pix showing that the poster-child spots may have at least begun to return to former state.

Hope, as they say, springs eternal. Except in this case it's brainwashing, not hope.

So much for AL GORE and the nit wits at GREENPEACE and the ENVIROMENTAL DEFENSE FUMNs fruadulent TV ads which just proves AL GORE is plain out of his mind and is a habitial liar

Jason -

Your glib throw-away remarks lack substance.

I have visited Glacier National Park many times over the last couple decades, and have hiked up to and onto Grinnell Glacier almost every visit. I have personally witnessed the fact that it has receded substantially just in that time. I hate it that my kids (who hiked with me) may well see Grinnell become a simple ice field, instead of a glacier in their lifetime. Should Grinnell Glacier gain size, I would be among the first to applaud.

Consider that your tactics in this very thread closely emulate the ones you ascribe to the ones you are against. That is, you grasp tight to a datum that seems to support you, even as you dismiss the data that conflicts with it.

It boils down to the fact that the 'Global Warming'...er 'Climate Change' proponents have demonstrated supreme arrogance in their claims that mankind is the sole reason that the climate changes.

They ignore the possibility of solar activity, and the history of mini ice ages, and dwell on the relatively minute history of temperature recording to 'prove' their point.

It is like islanders who sacrificed their young to the volcano god. If the volcano doesn't erupt after throwing their virgin sacrifice into the volcano, then their actions have appeased the volcano god. If the volcano erupts again, then they must sacrifice more virgins until they run out. They were arrogant to believe that their actions alone would determine if there were more eruptions.

There are alternate views of 'climate change' including solar sunspot activity. There is also the theory based on the fact that the earth slightly wobbles on its axis as it goes around the sun. Thus, places that had colder climes are warmer, and other places are facing colder temperatures. The Gorebots want us to sacrifice our economies and our futures to the god of 'climate change' when we cannot possibly keep the earth from wobbling on its axis.

The universe and the nature of things are much greater and less ikely to be affected by the puny efforts of man.

No, Jason, one datum never establishes a trend. No matter which way it goes, no matter the topic. It's a basic rule of science: you can't generalize from a sample of one.

They make the evidence fit the theory, which makes the theory unfalsifiable and thus scientifically invalid.

Exactly. Finagling the data is ALWAYS a mistake, no matter which side you're trying to support. Which is why I never accepted "global warming" fearmongering ... and also why I never accepted the rigid "it's not happening" denialist position either. The data says, clearly and unmistakably, that there's a significant warming trend over the last fifty-odd years, and it's noticeably stressing the biosphere. The data also says there's a steady increase in atmospheric CO2, due primarily to the burning of fossil fuels. Everything beyond that is hypothesizing. One year of cooling is interesting and deserves further study, but it isn't enough to overcome fifty years of a warming trend. At this point it's an anomaly in the data. Nothing more.

Jason -

Your glib throw-away remarks lack substance.

17. Posted by jim2

Jim, when you post something of substance, I'll respond with substance.

But since you want to talk about glaciers, then let's talk about glaciers:

http://newsbusters.org/node/13798

Gosh, look at that. Glaciers around the world have been found to be growing, not shrinking. Well, as with the current cooling trend, lack of Katrina-type hurricanes, and ice caps growing, these glaciers' growth must be because of "global warming," too.

Jason -

I am content to let readers decide on substance.

As for Crater Glacier, your cited source stated why it was growing. In brief, it's a new glacier forming in the shaded crater created by the Mt. St. Helen's eruption. Hardly a global warming disprover! The others named in the source appear to be higher altitude ice bodies, so it could be that they are indeed among the ones that have been shown to benefit from general increases in precipitation. BTW, Gem Glacier in Glacier National Park may be another.

The best way, IMHO, to rebut the global warmers, remains to be showing that many of the locations they themselves have been showcasing over the years show reversal.

Of course, you may continue to be dismissive and indulge in hand waving orgies all you wish.

Glaciers around the world have been found to be growing, not shrinking.
Jason

Wow, that article cited two whole glaciers that are growing (actually only one growing and one stable). That disproves everything. Try this article instead:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0706/feature2/

You can click on "Maps" on the left tab to see what glaciers they analyzed. Unfortunately, in the print edition there was also a graphic showing "Cumulative change in average thickness" of these sixteen, but I couldn't find it on the National Geographic website. To summarize, only one of those 16 had ice growth (of 13.8 m), while the other 15 averaged ice loss of 17.8 m.

One datum does not establish a trend, but a YEAR of sharply lower temperatures in a lot of places is a helluva lot more than one.

barneyG2k: Unfortunately, using NOAA for global temperature reconstruction no longer works, as they've let too many of their monitoring stations be overtaken by urban sprawl, and have such wonderful situations as a thermometer sitting next to a running air conditioner, or in the middle of a parking lot, causing those sudden increases which impressed so many global warming zealots. There are some interesting photo/data plots which show that the stations with the highest increases in temp over the last few decades are also the ones which are located in areas with noticeable amounts of artificial light after dark (more urbanization = more street lights = more heat in the "urban heat island effect").

jim2: Actual glacier researchers have shown that humidity (for the area around the glacier), not surface air temperature, is the biggest control on glacier size. Which is interesting, since global warming theory has touted, time and again, the idea that we should be seeing increased humidity from increased temperatures. On the other hand, the recent increase of glacier accumulation (and the sharp return of the arctic ice pack at a record rate) follow the "insolation" theory quite well.

The fact that worldwide temp measurements have been shown to be so sharply lower and snow measurements and arctic ice cover have been so sharply increasing over the course of a year (again, not one piece of data, but many) just emphasizes how extreme the temp drops are.

On Gem Glacier, compare it to Grinnell in the following pix (pix have both glaciers in same shots):

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/repeatphoto/gg_trail11-98.htm

Note how Grinnell has shrunk yet Gem has remained constant all the way back to 1911, even though the two glaciers are almost side by side in terms of latitude and longitude. One difference, of course, is that Gem is several hundred (maybe a thousand?) feet higher in elevation than Grinnell.

This effect is what I called the high altitude one.

So, does Gem's constancy since 1911 disprove global warming? You can use that one, too, Jason!

Just remember, though, that if you use Gem Glacier in your anecdotal arguments, to crop out Grinnell Glacier just below it.

Everybody remembers Eisenhower's warning about the, "military-industrial complex," shoot, it has become the siren call of some.

Few if any recall -- and it is never repeated -- the second of the two specific warning he made in that very same speech:

"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

The scientific-technological elite, Eisenhower truly was prescient. Read the speech, it could have been written today. DKK

Cirby: One datum does not establish a trend, but a YEAR of sharply lower temperatures in a lot of places is a helluva lot more than one.

No, it's still only one datum: one year of apparent cooling, against a lot of years of apparent warming. It could be just a coincidence.

Tell me, don't you find it a bit inconsistent to insist that all those years of NOAA data for apparent warming are inaccurate due to poor sensor placement, then turn around and claim that one year's worth of data indicating apparent cooling from the very same sensor net is valid enough to base firm conclusions on? Anthony Watts's expose of the problems with the weather sensor network is enough to convince me that none of its data is truly trustworthy -- neither the data for warming, nor the data against warming.

"The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models." Dr. Joanne Simpson (from Anthony Watts site)

I don't understand why folks get carried away with glaciers. A lot of non global things influence the growth or shrinkage of glaciers. Variables such as precipitation, deposition of particulates (especially soot, like from diesels) and prevailing winds probably have more to do with the growth or shrinkage of an ice field than a half degree of air temperature change. And on top of that, they have been steadily shrinking since about 10,000 years ago, so why should today be any different?

I've also heard the idea that the climate models predicted what is happening in the Antarctic, but I think that is really a dodge. As I understand it, the models said the warming air would cause increased snowfall over the continent causing increased ice field growth. What appears more accurate is that the pole area is getting colder which leads to faster down sloping winds. That's not what the modelers were saying a few years ago.

What bothers me the most is that the bureausciencists who cry for funding and claim to be repressed are the same one who produce the temperature reconstructions that the catastrophe is based upon. It's distressing to see where they have gone back and 'adjusted' prior decades downward while leaving present readings the same. The dust bowl/draught nineteen thirties are now cooler than they were before and a medieval warm period has disappeared. I don't know any regular science that allows or approves of such manipulation of data without publishing means and methods.

RicardoVerde -

The glaciers in the US, particularly the ones in Glacier National park like Grinnell Glacier, were formed in the "mini-ice age" centered around 1600:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Those same ice bodies have been in retreat ever since that time, though the last half-century or so has seen by far the greatest drop in ice mass and ground coverage. It is also correct that the greatest drop is quite congruent time-wise with the great increase in human activities that could contribute to it.

Some folk hold that the incremental contribution of human activity is very small or even negligible and, instead, point to the activity of the sun. That is, they say things like the last century or so has seen higher solar activity than the period before when the glaciers formed, and that the sun's incremental contribution has been vastly greater than that of man.

I don't know which - if either! - answer is correct.

There seems little doubt, however, that 'we" have experienced global warming over the last couple decades, but I don't necessarily "blame" man. If this year's data shows the trend may be stabilizing or reversing, that's fine by me. I've got grandkids with whom I want to hike in Glacier.

Quite frankly, I've been freezing my hootie-hoos off down here in TN this week. My office is like a deep freeze and the heating unit doesn't work properly. Just where IS all this global warming when I need it the most? Perhaps I should run outdoors and spray a can of hairspray into the air so we could all play golf tomorrow afternoon. Seriously.

Barney continues to cite to discredited work. It is hilarious.