This just in: Great Ice Age of 2008 is STILL over

Posted on  

"This just in: Great Ice Age of 2008 is STILL over"

This is a follow up to the Climate Progress exclusive from April, “The Great Ice Age of 2008 is finally over — next stop Venus!” and May. NOAA’s National Climactic Data Center reported (here):

Based on preliminary data, the globally-averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the eighth warmest on record for May, the seventh warmest for boreal spring (March-May).

The image

But don’t worry deniers, you can still cling to the fact that …

“Cooler-than-average conditions occurred across … most of the northern half of the continental U.S.”

The rest of us can worry about the continued heat wave across Russia’s tundra, which is no surprise given the continued record ice loss in the Arctic (see “Breaking News — Tundra 4: Permafrost loss linked to Arctic sea ice loss“).

The year as a whole is still recovering from its cold beginning, so the January-May year-to-date period only ranked twelfth warmest. And yet, in spite of the cold beginning, Arctic ice sea is still on pace to meet or beat the 2007 record low (see here and update here).

Related Posts:

« »

32 Responses to This just in: Great Ice Age of 2008 is STILL over

  1. Nylo says:

    Warm vs warming. Cool vs cooling. Remember.

  2. John Hollenberg says:

    > Arctic ice sea is still on pace to meet or beat the 2007 record low (see here and update here).

    The first “here” in the above sentence has a broken link.

  3. Joe says:

    Fixed, thanks.

    Nylo: Warming vs. disinformation. Remember.

  4. Nylo says:

    GISS global temperature data, as well as UAH and RSS tropospheric temperature satellite data as they are provided by the corresponding institutions are now disinformation. It’s good to know that. I will do better next time.

  5. Joe says:

    The UAH data is certainly questionable, given who it is from and how they screwed up the analysis for so long, as I’ve blogged.

    The NASA GISS and Hadley data make clear the planet is warming (as NASA and Hadley have repeatedly pointed out). So do hundreds of studies based on observed data.

    Nylo, don’t kid us, you won’t do any better next time.

  6. paulm says:

    Another disappointing / irresponsible article – absolutle no mention of the root cause of these extreme weather events….

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/us/16midwest.html?th&emc=th

    What is the matter with journalists and educators – it is bizarre to say the least. We are stuck with our heads in the sand (oil).

  7. Paul K says:

    paulm,
    Are you saying that midwestern flooding is caused by “cooler-than-average conditions occurred across … most of the northern half of the continental U.S.”?

  8. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    Global warming is due to the billions and billions and billions pounds of very fine particles of rubber, asphalt and brake dust ejected into the air by high-speed vehicluar traffic. All of this stuff generated in the NH ends up in the Arctic. Since 1900, where has all this stuff gone? The answer is anywhere and everywhere.

    Western Europe is heating up due to increase in transporation waste heat because of the fans going to the football games.
    Excited fans put out an awful lot of body heat!

  9. paulm says:

    The extreme weather events we are seeing more and more are directly caused by the climate change specifically rising global average temperatures and regional temperature unbalances.

    If you reflect on this, it seems logical, without having to revert to complex modeling or a phd education. The fact that these changes are predicted by climate modeling across the board and climate experts re-enforces the nightmare ahead for us all.

    1 in 500 year events are going to be happening every other year probably from now on for a long ways in to the future.

    Pile on top of this peek oil and we are seeing the collapse of global civilization in the next 5 to 10 years unless we can sort ourselves out. But the likelihood of us doing this is low.

  10. Paul K says:

    paulm,
    Do you really see the collapse of global civilization in the next 5 to 10 years?

  11. paulm says:

    Well, the start of it anyway. It anit going to be what it is today. If we keep getting 1 in 500 year extreme events on a frequent basis things are going to get bad.

    It all depends on your definition of civilization. I say global as I see things regressing back to pockets small nations defending their resources and eking out an existence. We certainly wont be jet setting around, why people are finding it hard to commute to work at $4 (or is it $5 today) a gallon now. The cost of energy will be going up more rapidly than we think as we have a bad feedback – it take energy to produce the energy resources… etc etc .

    Most of our resources will be spent on survival – obtaining food and protecting it. I guess we might have some reserves left to try tackling CC. Of course it could all turn out to be not so bad if we get some leadership, motivation, are resourceful and are lucky.

  12. John Andrews says:

    The map is misleading. I don’t deny the anomalies, but they should represent equal areas, and the map does not do this. Makes it look much worse than it is. Typical of those at NOAA.

  13. Jay Alt says:

    The maps that NOAA uses are equal area projections. That is true of either the ‘full earth’ version shown above or of their US/local projections.
    And all the whining on blogs about the ways in which data & areas are presented are either a) sadly uninformed or b) deliberately misleading.

    http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/mapproj/gif/eckertiv.gif

  14. Dano says:

    John Andrews must think Greenland is the size of S America, else readers here will take his words at face value without thinking. Smarter denialists please.

    Best,

    D

  15. Mike says:

    Joe,
    It’s looking like the skeptics won’t be able to use the satellite data for June to show global cooling. The daily data from UAH through mid-month is hinting that this could be the warmest June in the satellite record.

  16. Dano says:

    I guess some who are below average allow themselves to be distracted by shiny objects. La Niña being a shiny object. Entreaties from denialist sites being written like shiny objects to dissemble away from reality.

    Best,

    D

  17. Nylo says:

    Mike, skeptics cannot use any data at all. Joe censures it.

  18. Dano says:

    Nylo:

    Are you a FUD spreader or easily distracted?

    La Niña is the shiny object that you are fetishizing. You shouldn’t fetishize children, so you must be a FUD spreader.

    “Global warming stopped in 1998,” has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the “El Niño of the century” coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend.

    […]

    The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the “El Niño of the century”. [emphasis added]

    Poor Nylo. Can’t denialists find anything that supports their small-minority view? Awww.

    Best,

    D

  19. Dano says:

    In Nylo’s world, the temperature is cooling by +.19.

    Brrrrr!

    Is it any wonder decision-makers don’t talk to denialists? Denialists can’t be trusted with facts.

    Best,

    D

  20. Dano says:

    In Nylo’s world, data are censored.

    Because we don’t want it to show the denialists are full of cr*p.

    Brrrr! Chilly!

    Best,

    D

  21. Nylo says:

    Actually, in Nylo’s world, temperature is warming or cooling depending on the time scope. That’s why Nylo predicts a global warming, and in spite of that, tries to stop people from ignoring the evident fact that we have suffered some recent cooling with sentences like “eighth warmest May on record”.

  22. Dano says:

    In Nylo’s world, FUD must be spread to sell more furnaces.

    This is why the delusionist/denialist fringe is a small minority: folks who have facts know the delusionist/denialist fringe was called on their BS long ago.

    So I do it again: Nylo, I call BS.

    Best,

    D

  23. Nylo says:

    Nice graph, I love it. When did I negate that we have suffered a global warming in the 20th century? I can’t remember.

    [JR: Denying you are a denier? Enough Nylo. You are wasting everybody's time.]

  24. Dano says:

    The last 10 years’ map.

    The last 7 years’ map.

    The last 4 years’ map.

    No cooling.

    Nobody believes you.

    Like I said: you’re full of it.

    Can’t the denialists do any better than this? Fake data? Misinformation? Is it any wonder decision-makers don’t talk to denialists? Denialists can’t be trusted with facts.

    Best,

    D

  25. Gary Herstein says:

    I know I’m going to regret this, but that has never stopped me in the past …

    It seems to be one of the mutiply repeated mantras of the denialists that, unless the next day is warmer than the previous, the next month, the next year, etc., then this refutes global warming. Now, it does not require anything like a meaningful grasp of even the most elementary aspects of statistics to realize that such an assumption is the most ridiculous sort of nonsense on stilts imaginable. As soon as one applies some statistics to the assumption, its patent idiocy becomes even more strikingly manifest:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/langswitch_lang/in for example.

    So my question to Nylo is this: Why do you keep waving around Red Herring’s (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html)? By itself, it is demonstrably irrelevant whether the preceding day/month/year was a record setter. The data is indicative of long-term, statistically meaningful trends. The facts that so much of the data so consistently pushes the numbers so significantly over the average *IS* significant.

    Yet somehow you never manage to mention those facts, facts which are the only ones that are genuinely relevant in this context. Any special reason for that?

  26. Gary Herstein says:

    Bollocks, the link to the Red Herring fallacy didn’t work because it was inside parentheses. Here it is:

    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

  27. Dano says:

    Yet somehow you never manage to mention those facts, facts which are the only ones that are genuinely relevant in this context. Any special reason for that?

    Denialists have nothing else.

    This has been a public service announcement from the Foundation for Simple Answers to Simple Questions.

    Best,

    D

  28. Nylo says:

    JR wrote while censoring: “Denying you are a denier? Enough Nylo. You are wasting everybody’s time”.

    My own personal prediction has already been posted before in several other threads. My own prediction for global warming is shown in the next graph, which uses the same GISS data just posted by Dano without negating any of its past values, my purely-climate trend proposal being the greenish straight line compared to the climate+weather red line given by the 5-year averaged temperatures in GISS and the purely-climate proposal approximately given by IPCC in blue. My climate+weather (i.e. recorded temperature) believed record is the same red line given by GISS and my future prediction is the greenish dotted line which continues the red line of GISS and therefore implies that I do not negate any of its past values. What I deny is the predictions for the future because I disagree with how much of the warming was climate change and how much was weather.

    http://www.elsideron.com/GlobalTempPredictions.jpg

    As you can see, I defend a global warming scenario created by GHGs. I have said that before many times but you seem to remember only what you want to remember. The only difference is that my scenario is far less alarmist than yours and IPCC’s, and predicts some short-term cooling.

    I am not a denier of any temperature change experienced since 1900. I have severe doubts though about temperature reconstructions that go farther in time, like the hockey stick. And I have even more severe doubts about “official” temperature predictions for the future. I personally deny that all the warming experienced is a climate change, as I believe that quite an ammount of it is weather. However I still think that some of it comes because of some climate change, and I don’t deny any of the experienced warming itself. Maybe you could get a better idea of what my opinions are if you stopped deleting them.

    [JR: Nylo -- The reason you are getting banned is that you keep repeating denier nonsense that wastes everyone's time. Who cares if you have "severe doubts" about the Hockey Stick? The U.S. National Academy of Sciences doesn't. I wonder which of you people should believe. And who really cares about your prediction of "short-term cooling." I think we will stick here with what actual science and factual observations show.]

  29. Dano says:

    There’s a separate thread on Deltoid for one of the pet addled denialists there.

    He gets to spout off in another room, if you will, without distracting anyone else. Nylo could write about his “severe doubts” while the rest of the planet discusses adaptation and mitigation.

    Jus’ sayin’. If I had the steady time for a blog, I wouldn’t do it, personally.

    Best,

    D

  30. Nylo says:

    JR wrote: “And who really cares about your prediction of short-term cooling. I think we will stick here with what actual science and factual observations show”

    I don’t care that you don’t care about what I believe.

    [JR: Then we are in agreement.]

  31. davidgmills says:

    Correction: I said no sunspots the last three years. I really did not mean zero sunspots only much fewer than were expected. This month, July, has actually had zero.