The End of the Latest El Niño Cycle

[Dashinka 24,952]

Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year their biggest and steepest fall on record.

The news comes amid mounting evidence that the recent run of world record high temperatures is about to end.

The fall, revealed by Nasa satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere, has been caused by the end of El Nino the warming of surface waters in a vast area of the Pacific west of Central America.

Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year their biggest and steepest fall on record

Some scientists, including Dr Gavin Schmidt, head of Nasas climate division, have claimed that the recent highs were mainly the result of long-term global warming.

Others have argued that the records were caused by El Nino, a complex natural phenomenon that takes place every few years, and has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions by humans.

The new fall in temperatures suggests they were right.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3974846/Stunning-new-data-indicates-El-Nino-drove-record-highs-global-temperatures-suggesting-rise-not-man-emissions.html#ixzz4RAkZpnoS

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[eieio 1,594]

Man-made global warming is also responsible for global cooling. If it warms up ,it was caused by man. If it cools down, it was caused by man. It is the perfect scam.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I have said it before, and I will say it again... The heating and cooling cycles of our universe existed billions of years before man did. In another billion or two years, I suspect our "blip" of a change made in the climate will be seen as minuscule.

[MarkPerry 488]

Global Warming is just a catch word to try to scam people.

[Dakine10 5,452]

The fall, revealed by Nasa satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere

I know the article says this is NASA's data, but I can't find anything at all about this on NASA's climate site.

NOAA has this to say:

The average global temperature across land surfaces was 1.29°C (2.32°F) higher than the 20thcentury average of 12.0°C (53.6°F)—the highest September global land temperature on record, besting the previous record set in 2015 by 0.11°C (0.20°F).

July and August were similarly the highest (or tied for the highest) on record, October was slightly cooler but not by 1 degree C. Something doesn't add up here.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201609

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

[bcking 3,157]

I have limited scientific knowledge in this area. My wife is a geologist in oil and gas and she has told me she thinks it is pretty clear and obvious that human activity is altering the planet's atmosphere and altering temperatures, though is unlikely to be the sole contributer to changes we are seeing. But as LFEHFN alluded, humans are but a blip in the world's history and will always be just a blip. We can exist for another 10 million years and we will still just be a blip. We may end up being the "cause" of the next major shift or mass extinction on our planet, but that doesn't mean that if we weren't here it wouldn't have happened due to something else.

Basically, based on what I've discussed with people who have the knowledge and background in this area and whom I trust (my wife and her colleagues), global warming is far from a "hoax", and the "man-made" element is not all "lies" (especially not Chinese lies hehe), however it is blown rather out of proportion based on the evidence. While we may be contributing, that doesn't mean the earth wouldn't have gone through a very similar period if we didn't exist.

[Dashinka 24,952]

It's not man, it's the termites!

Here is an excerpt from an article (link below). I also posted a link to a NY Times article essentially saying the same thing except for blaming man for the fact that termites are now an issue.

The first was learning that man produces only a tiny portion of all CO2 released into the atmosphere each year. In contrast, for example, termites alone release far more CO2 annually (and by several orders of magnitude) than all the burning of fossil fuels. The second was learning that there had been a global cooling scare in the 1970s.

http://climatechangedispatch.com/why-i-stopped-believing-in-man-made-global-warming-and-became-a-climate-skeptic/

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/31/us/termite-gas-exceeds-smokestack-pollution.html

[bcking 3,157]

It's not man, it's the termites!

Here is an excerpt from an article (link below). I also posted a link to a NY Times article essentially saying the same thing except for blaming man for the fact that termites are now an issue.

The first was learning that man produces only a tiny portion of all CO2 released into the atmosphere each year. In contrast, for example, termites alone release far more CO2 annually (and by several orders of magnitude) than all the burning of fossil fuels. The second was learning that there had been a global cooling scare in the 1970s.

http://climatechangedispatch.com/why-i-stopped-believing-in-man-made-global-warming-and-became-a-climate-skeptic/

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/31/us/termite-gas-exceeds-smokestack-pollution.html

Few things:

1. Not sure where the source is for "orders of magnitude". In the Times article they mention "two times as much as all the world's smokestalks". 1 order of magnitude would have to be 10 times as much

2. You mentioned it but don't seem to give it much credence - How is their comment about deforestation creating more resources for termites to metabolize not a valid point? The termites are responsible for knocking down large swaths of trees, but they can feast on the aftermath. Seems like a reasonable connection between man and termite.

3. I would imagine that if you look at the termite contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 100 years, even with point #2, it has been relatively stable (didn't see either article address this). Compare that with our own human contribution, which is rising rapidly. It is still a very small proportion, I agree, but our rate of rise is worrisome.

Again I dont think it is as big of a deal as the people in plastic kayaks protesting an oil rig think it is, but I also think we are contributing and earth would probably be "better off" without us. However, all plants and animals take advantage of Earth for their benefit. We are just the best at it

[Dashinka 24,952]

Few things:

1. Not sure where the source is for "orders of magnitude". In the Times article they mention "two times as much as all the world's smokestalks". 1 order of magnitude would have to be 10 times as much

2. You mentioned it but don't seem to give it much credence - How is their comment about deforestation creating more resources for termites to metabolize not a valid point? The termites are responsible for knocking down large swaths of trees, but they can feast on the aftermath. Seems like a reasonable connection between man and termite.

3. I would imagine that if you look at the termite contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 100 years, even with point #2, it has been relatively stable (didn't see either article address this). Compare that with our own human contribution, which is rising rapidly. It is still a very small proportion, I agree, but our rate of rise is worrisome.

Again I dont think it is as big of a deal as the people in plastic kayaks protesting an oil rig think it is, but I also think we are contributing and earth would probably be "better off" without us. However, all plants and animals take advantage of Earth for their benefit. We are just the best at it

I don't disagree that there are some anomalies in the two articles. Which one should've believed? The first article also goes into a few items related to the flawed models currently in use that contain dubious forcing functions to explain their predictions. The problem I see with man-made climate change study in general is that it is all model based with almost no way to determine the fidelity or confidence of the models themselves. Now models are used in almost every endeavor (technology, business, etc.), but they are only as good as the assumptions and underlying equations used to construct them.

[bcking 3,157]

I don't disagree that there are some anomalies in the two articles. Which one should've believed? The first article also goes into a few items related to the flawed models currently in use that contain dubious forcing functions to explain their predictions. The problem I see with man-made climate change study in general is that it is all model based with almost no way to determine the fidelity or confidence of the models themselves. Now models are used in almost every endeavor (technology, business, etc.), but they are only as good as the assumptions and underlying equations used to construct them.

Generally agree. I think there is enough out there to say that humans play a role, and so I inherently think it isn't a bad idea to try to minimize our role. However, I'm not going to flip out and try to live "au natural" or something. We still need oil, and will for quite awhile.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

As always the truth is somewhere in the middle

[Dakine10 5,452]

Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year their biggest and steepest fall on record.

Looking at it further, they appear to be alluding to the fact that October has been colder that it has been the past few years. Most land mass is in the northern hemisphere. Global mean temperatures over land mass are always lower at this time of year. So technically they always plummet between the middle of the year and now. The average global mean temperature for the year will still be on the warm side relative to other years.

We were on track to have the warmest year on record again this year, for whatever that's worth. If November and December follow this cooler trend we may not set a new record, but it will still be a warm year. The article would also not have had the same eye catching headline if they looked at the temperature over ocean and land mass, so I think there was a definite agenda there.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Dakine10

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

And yet, in the NE USA, temps are warmer than anyone can remember. No snow in many places that normally have it already.

[Dakine10 5,452]

And yet, in the NE USA, temps are warmer than anyone can remember. No snow in many places that normally have it already.

It has been here too. Globally though, I guess the satellite data shows winter is coming to the northern hemisphere.