i am sure it was already "debunked". Now only why should i believe those who debunked it and not this Easterbrook guy?
The following is a rebuttal of Don Easterbrook's Global Cooling is Here
As to why you should believe one over the other, if you have an open mind then read both articles, weigh the arguments in your own mind and make your own decision. If you don't have an open mind then believe what you want to because no one can change your mind anyway.
Additionally Don Easterbrook makes the oft cited argument that the planet has actually cooled since 1998 which has been debunked so often as to be redundant, but here is yet another.
AP/Independent Statisticians Debunk Climate Change Deniers Using Their Own Data
The fact that Don Easterbrook makes this scientifically untenable claim is yet another reason to doubt his other claims.
And what about this graph?
What is this temperature anomaly?
Both good questions.
Strangely enough the graph Timmaigh posted is not in temperature anomaly with respect to the 1961 to 1990 baseline, it's in actual degrees centigrade!!
That's because it's not a graph of global mean temperature at all. It's a graph of actual temperatures in central greenland based on GISP2 (Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2) data. The first thing to point out is that as such this merely represents the temperature record from a single region and so while it is a contribution to the global record it is by no means reflective of the totality of global mean temperature. In other words this is a graph of local *weather*, not a graph of global *climate*.
You can tell this at a glance anytime anyone posts a graph where there is any noticeable variation due to the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA). Anything that shows this is pretty much limited to areas whose weather is significantly affected by the North Atlantic ocean. On any kind of global record the MWP and LIA show up as little more than a random squiggle on an otherwise squiggly line.
The second thing to point out is that the caption mentions that this graph is "modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997". This is hardly a reference that is sufficient to be able to locate the original graph but after a significant amount of effort I did in fact locate the source study in the archives of the Journal of Geophysical Research. If I didn't know better it was almost as if Dr. Eastbrook didn't want anyone to verify his source.
Temperature, accumulation, and ice sheet elevation in central Greenland through the last deglacial transition
I believe that the following graph from page 8 of the above study is the source of Dr. Eastbrook's graph.
So Ok nothing too dramatic going on here. For one the time axis has been reflected and the scale altered from 10,000 year increments covering a 50,000 year time span to 1,000 year increments covering a 17,000 year timespan. I do get very suspicious of altered axes in graphs but all in all this is not all that bad although I do think that it does stretch incredulity somewhat to be able to point out events from the graph in such detail.
But whatever. The point is that this is still a graph of local weather, not a graph of global climate. Also note that this data has been "smoothed" using a 250 year filter which is again something that seems to me to preclude precise dating of specific events, particularly of recent history within the last 50 years or so.