Why don't we hear about the record cold in the Southern Hemisphere?

Question

South America is experiencing a record cold not felt in 100 years.

Temperatures plunged to -22C in parts of Argentina, while snow fell on Buenos Aires.

In Chile, temperatures dropped to -18C.

In Bolivia, heavy snowfall blocked the nation's main motorway and forced the closure of several airports.

Bitterly cold weather in May caused some 20 deaths and forced the Argentine authorities to ration supplies.

A South American cold snap is causing Chileans to pay up to four times more for heat and electricity

Clearly this cold is not consistent with the consensus. This is supposed to be GLOBAL warming, not 'backyard' warming.

This shows that the Earth has been cooling over the last few years, and co2 is not causing warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286484.stm
http://www.petroleumworld.com/sati07081101.htm

Bob - South America is experiencing multi year of far below average temperatures. As always, and typical of believers, you just make statements of half truths and obfuscated information without backing up your claims.

Just like any other data, you dismiss the data, and people who don't agree with you. Global warming is selective science to weed out the data to give you the results you desire. This is why the IPCC reports are negotiated by politicians.

Global warming is a farce. The temps are cooling down, but then again, you seeonly what you want. This is why science should be objective.

Prove me wrong. Tell us what the climate is going to be in 6 months, 1 year, and 5 years from now, and show us your work to how you got to that conclusion.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

Answer 1

That's just short term weather in one region.

This is global climate:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

"This shows that the Earth has been cooling"? Global warming doesn't mean every day in every place is warmer. No reputable scientific "skeptic" claims the Earth is cooling.

Do you not understand the difference between short term weather and climate? Do you think this is going to convince people that "skeptics" have really good arguments?

EDIT - jim z - When have you ever seen me say short term warming somewhere is proof? I've often said it isn't. The long term NASA data is proof.

EDIT - Jello - OK. In five years the five year global average temperature will be warmer. There is no doubt about that. Proof:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mlo_record.html

You may not accept the proof. But you won't be able to find a "skeptical" scientist who will bet against me.

In 2005, Annan offered to take Lindzen, the MIT meteorologist, up on his bet that global temperatures in 20 years will be cooler than they are now. However, no wager was ever settled on because Lindzen wanted odds of 50-to-1 in his favor.

“Richard Lindzen’s words say that there is about a 50 percent chance of [global] cooling,” Annan wrote about the bet. “His wallet thinks it is a 2 percent shot. Which do you believe?”

I dismiss your data, because it's short term in one location. No other reason.

EDIT Mark G - No scientist on this site has cited short term weather as proof. We've pointed out that that's a mistake. Examples:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=At3hYJtb8ILptFy3HxfbfYHty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071112154222AAnYZFw&show=7#profile-info-woCsJzVYaa
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmOjBdl2bVvK.KqVecBFM6Tty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071113074435AAp30kb&show=7#profile-info-F20XDU9uaa

Answer 2

Use the search function. This exact same question is asked, oh, about every five to ten minutes here. The problem is here, that you've failed to grasp the very simple ideas of weather and climate. Weather is what the atmosphere is doing at a particular time and place, climate is weather averaged over a long period of time. What you're experiencing in Silicon Valley today, and what was experienced in Baghdad a few days ago, is winter weather. Albeit abnormally frigid winter weather, but winter weather nonetheless. And this winter weather isn't going to change the fact that the planet is warming. 2007 was the second warmest year ever recorded (an exact tie with 1998, the warmest) for the globe as a whole, the warmest ever recorded for the northern hemisphere, and 2008 is likely to be very similar. Oh, and as you can see, 1934 wasn't the warmest year ever recorded. Not even close. It was just the warmest year on record for the contiguous US (see below links if you don't believe me, and you don't). And, of course, contrary to what you claim, I'd say the exact same thing to a GW theory proponent touting unusually warm temperatures as proof of global warming. Lastly, your claim that temperatures have not risen in ten years is flat out wrong on a number of levels. First, there's too much noise for you to possibly have determined any statistically meaningful trend for a period as short as a decade. Not gonna happ'n, cap'n. Second, even supposing you could get a valid trend for the past ten years, that trend would be *positive.* See the third link in my sources for more info (not bloody likely, says you).

Answer 3

I'm glad that there are enough intelligent folks on here to actively dispel misinformation.

I'll join in the laughter of the petroleum world reference. And also say that citing the BBC kind of dispells the notion that these events are being "hidden" from us. BBC isn't exactly an underground news source is it?

As Bob says, the IPCC and other does not use weather events as evidence of climate change. A few days of cold snap do not have a large affect on annual or monthly temperature averages for a specific place, let alone the world. It is unfortunate when CNN and other mainstream news agencies bill Katrina or a heat wave as evidence of global warming, but don't mistake their ignorance as reflective of the studies going on in the scientific communtiy.

Answer 4

Citing petroluemworld could be a problem.
But dana, Bob cites nasa all the time, as if nasa wasn't biased either.

The government slants toward global warming significantly.
For the government agencies, EPA and NASA, global warming is big money too.

NASA: "Earth is a complex, dynamic system not yet fully understood. The Earth system, like the human body,
is comprised of diverse components that interact in complex ways. We need to understand the Earth's
atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, and biosphere as a single connected system.

From space the Earth can be viewed as a planet, with evident interconnectedness of the oceans,
atmosphere, continents, ice sheets, and life itself. Global-scale changes are observed and tracked,
and regional changes can be studied in their global context. The role that human civilization
increasingly plays as a force of change can be observed. NASA studies this dynamic planet to trace
effect to cause, connect variability and forcing with response, and vastly improve national capabilities
to predict climate, weather, natural hazards, and conditions in the space environment.

NASA's Earth science portfolio addresses six focus areas:

(1) Climate Variability and change;
(2) Atmospheric composition;
(3) Carbon cycle, ecosystems, and biogeochemistry;
(4) Water and energy cycles;
(5) Weather; and
(6) Earth surface and interior.

In each of these areas, NASA seeks the input of the Earth science community in universities and
elsewhere to identify the scientific questions to be addressed and to define effective strategies to
pursue the answers to those questions."

"NASA is developing predictive capabilities that will enable advanced assessments of the causes and
consequences of global change. These improvements will enhance scientists' ability to manage
coastal environments, agriculture, water resources, and aviation safety; monitor air quality, forest
fires, and impacts of infectious diseases and invasive species; and conduct hurricane forecasting and
disaster relief efforts."
(FY08 Budget Request)

NASA is very slanted to supporting global warming. Budgets for supporting NASA and the EPA are huge. These institutions have a vested interest in the debate about global warming because they stand to gain and loss funding based on the publics perception of global warming.

Is globalwarmingart.com not biased either?

Answer 5

What people forget is that it`s warming for the US and Canada but it's global disruption! The facts behind Global Warming is that earth is loosing it's protection agains the sun and the opposite, at this rate, we'll have temperatures like the moon or other planets without a good atmosphere: hot during the day where the sun can be seen and deeply cold everywhere else!

Answer 6

Same reason a heat wave isn't proof of global warming.

Hey, you know what? Little secret between you and me...
I don't believe a lot of the consensus, smoothed over, dumbed down, conservative, not too scary predictions either. I think we're going to get some really violent chaotic weather that nobody is predicting. It's not nice to fool with mother nature.

Makes about as much sense as your arguments.

Answer 7

The BBC are usually environmentally proactive (often at the expense of science). I suppose they consider that it's the morally right thing to do, even if it's not technically accurate.

I was expecting to see a comment along the lines of 'climate experts caution that higher temperatures are expected once the cold anomaly ends'. I'm glad they had the maturity not to do that.

Answer 8

LOL! I'm sorry, but it's just freaking hilarious that your second link is from 'Petroleum World'. LOL!

Typical Jello argument.

The lower 48 states = the entire planet
Parts of South America = the entire southern hemisphere
One cold spell = long-term cooling.

I wouldn't have even bothered to respond to such a joke of an argument if not for the hilarity of the petroleumworld.com source. LOL! Thanks for the laugh.

J.J. - please tell me you're joking.

The EPA was finally forced to regulate greenhouse gas emissions because they lost a lawsuit vs. the State of Massachusetts in the Supreme Court.

NASA's foremost climate scientist (James Hansen) was pressured for years not to speak out about the dangers of global warming.

The Bush Administration has been caught repeatedly censoring global warming reports.

Sorry, but your argument is ridiculous.

Answer 9

Is that a toque Bob has just put on?
Pretty sure that's new Dr.
Now either Bob is styling,or he's expecting some cold weather,eh Dr.J?

Answer 10

I had a pretty good laugh from Bob saying that it was just a short term weather in one area. If it warms, it is evidence of global warming and they never fail to mention that icebergs are melting (as if it is the first time that occured. Actually the more they grow, the more they tend to push into the ocean and hence the more they melt). If it cools, well we aren't supposed to mention those inconvenient facts because it is obviously doesn't support their agenda.