Cycles
-
Posts
427 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Cycles
-
-
1. If the data is unreliable, why do you use it to identify cycles in your book?
Reply by David...The old ice cores of course are not as reliable as today's instrument readings, and do not show the spikes in temperatures or CO2 during 200 year global warming/cooling.
Literature indicates the newer ice less than 3000 years old (approxminately) have more problems than older ice...takes time for compaction.
2. I showed you that high resolution data is available from deeper in the ice cores, and that it is internally consistent and exhibits none of the variation you talk of.
Reply by David.... the references I read for my book did indicate problems I mentioned (smoothing, eliminating noise), and of course this would eliminate spikes in temperatures and CO2.
3. Why is Fischer wrong? And that data is available for the last 1000 years
Reply by David...Stated why above, new ice is very different from old ice
4. You repeat that oft-debunked "temperatures have not risen in 12 years" BS.
Reply by David....there was a high temperture peak followed by similar peaks during the past 9 years, but not an increase in temperatures. Please look back to 1930 through 1939...the same thing happened then.
5. Where is the IPCC saying what you suggest? And where does the IPCC deny the existence of natural cycles, given that the most important ones are accounted for in AR4?
Reply by David.... You can research the latest statements from the IPCC...they indicate the IPCC now recognizes some natural cycles, and they recognize temperatures have not risen during the past 10-years.
Actually the United Nations Climate Group (the man that just resigned) said most of this also.
6. In any one decade, solar forcing may just about do enough to negate a rise, especially if aided by ENSO, but the additional GHG forcing is still 'banked' by the Earth over that time, so when the ENSO/solar forcings go back to normal or positive values, temperatures will rise above where they were on the previous occasion that the ENSO/solar forcings were positive.
sss
Reply by David....wait until next winter with no El Nino. There is much more cold air available in the Arctic and Antarctic than during the period 1998 through 2007.
-
Literature I read for my book indicated that ice core samples are very unreliable during the past 3,000 years or so...and yes I read Fischer, but data is unreliable. It takes several thousands of years for ice to form through the process of compacting snow. So how is it that you continually site new ice data as being relilable and with small deviations of CO2?
And again I stand by what I said concerning ice core samples older than 5,000 years. There is a long term mean taken during these samples, and by doing so it dampens out warm/cool cycles which occur every 200 years. And it is common knowledge among researchers that these readings are not as accurate as an instantaneous reading by today's instruments....thus in some instances we are comparing apples to oranges when it comes to comparing old data versus today's data.
My research was quoted properly from the research papers I read. And yes anyone can argue differences in approaches, that is why there are thousands of papers out there with differeing views concerning reliability...probably is not a concensus on reliability.
And we should look at the IPCCC. Just a few years ago they said temperatures were running away and unstopable unless we stop putting CO2 into the air. Well, temperatures have not risen in 12 years (remained flat). And now the IPCC is recognizing some natural cycles by indicating temperatures could remain steady for 30 years....how can this be if CO2 is the cause for rising temperatuere? Every time we pick up an IPCC article they change their thinking...
Meanwhile, I have not changed my thinking or forecast. Earth is in phase 1 of global cooling with phase 2 only about 19 years away.
Regards
David
-
The high resolution Fischer study shows how low the internal variability for CO2 measurements within an ice core is at high sampling resolutions. For the above-mentioned hi-res region in the Fischer dataset, the mean difference between neighbouring measurements, once the rising trend of the glacial termination is removed, is 8.76ppm, with a standard deviation of 8.8ppm. This indicates excellent agreement between neighbouring measurements, and no sign of the wild scatter you talk about. And crucially it is in the relatively slowly-accumulating Vostok ice core.
sss
Please let me know if I am wrong, but is the Fischer study for newer ice and with the high resolution you are talking about? It is the newer ice I have heard has problems because of the age of it (too new.
Data I looked at for the older ice had much less resolution (600 to a few thousand years old), and thus providing mean values for many warming-cooling cycles during the period in question.
-
I have listed below many of the references I used. And I do remember some sources indicating problems with using new ice (newer than a few thousand years old). And you are right, those using the new ice have good resolution such as what you mentioned (few hundred years).
The older ice data cited in my book is for period well beyond several thousand years ago, and the resolution is several hundread years out to several thousand years...just as I mentioned in the book.
For their data noise was filtered out, and of course values meaned over the several hundred to several thousand year period.
Big question concerns the noise filtered out...is it totally noise, or is it spiked in CO2 during the 200 year recurring global warming cycles??
References...
3. Barnola, J.-M., P. Pimienta, D. Raynaud, and Y.S. Korotkevich 1991. CO2-climate relationship as deduced from the Vostok ice core: A re-examination based on new measurements and on a re-evaluation of the air dating. Tellus43(
:83- 90. 4. Barnola, J.M.,Raynaud D., Lorius C., Historical CO2 Record from the Vostok Ice Core, Laboratoire de Glaciologie et de Geophysique de l’Environment, 38402 Saint Martin d’HeresCedex, France,.
8. Fischer, H. Whalen, M., Smith, J. Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations. Science, 12 Mar 1999: 283: 1712-1714.
13. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, at the Earth Institute at Columbia University http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/
14. Mann M.E., Bradley and Hughes, 1998, American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 26, No.6, p. 759-762
20. Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Benders, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delayque, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pépin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999. Climate and Atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.
1. 1000 year and 2000 year temperature reconstructions from Wikipedia (Figures 21-22) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparisons.Png#Reconstructions
2. (dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures, The Holocene, 8: 455-471.
3. (blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations, Geophysical Research Letters, 26(6): 759-762.
4. (light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction, Ambio, 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years, Science, 289: 270-277.
5. (lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network, J. Geophys. Res., 106: 2929-2941.
6. (light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability, Science, 295(5563): 2250-2253.
7. (yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia, Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15): 1820. DOI:10.1029/2003GL017814.
8. (orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews of Geophysics, 42: RG2002. DOI:10.1029/2003RG000143
9. (red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future, Geophys. Res Lett., 31: L13205. DOI:10.1029/2004GL019781
10. (red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data, Nature, 443: 613-617. DOI:10.1038/nature03265
11. (dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records, Science, 308: 675-677. DOI:10.1126/science.1107046
(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the w:Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [2] was used.
-
From Fischer et al (1999), the most recent of your three ice core references:
" The internal temporal resolutionof ice core air samples is restricted by the age distributionof the bubbles caused by the enclosure process (10).This age spread is about 300 years for Vostok (11)and 140 years for the TD ice core (9) at present butabout three times higher for glacial conditions (11)."
Not 4000 years, as you claim. And these numbers are for relatively old ice too.
The ice age - air age difference is 2000-6000 years depending on the time period, but this is a totally different concept to the time for closure, which controls the temporal resolution. Maybe you confused the two concepts?
I plotted the Vostok ice core samples and the plot was available only had meaned data points for anywhere from about 1000 to 4000 years...did not have points anywhere near 140 years or 300 years. The values are meaned over a long period of time to rid noise (such as seen in 4 or 5 year running means for world temperatures during the past 100 years). Yes they may analyze data every 140 or 300 years or so, but it is then meaned over a much longer period of time.
And it should be noted that takes several thousand years for snow to compact to form ice, thus new ice from 4 to 8 thousand years ago does have problems as you noted in the earlier thread. I recognize this and talk about it during power point presentations. This is the main reason we do not have a history of CO2 from 1900 back several thousand years.
Regards
David Dilley
-
1.
What's the length of the lunar cycle? you quote 27.5 or 27.3 days, in consecutive paragraphs. Why use the sidereal cycle instead of the synodic cycle, when many phenomena are correlated with the latter?
2. You mistype the latitudinal displacement of the high pressures, 4442km is rather a lot.
Who is "Bryon", presumably you mean "Bryson"?
3. While Jean Meeus is a well-respected calculator of astronomical phenomena, surely you could have found, and used, a better reference than a 1981 article in Sky and Telescope, a magazine for amateur astronomers, when you were looking for data on lunar cycles?
4. Lake Vostok virtually ice-free 420,000 years ago? Interesting theory, no reference in your 'book'. Given the EPICA core has >800,000 years ice only 500km away, this seems obviously unlikely,
5.This age spread is about 300 years for Vostok (11)and 140 years for the TD ice core (9) at present butabout three times higher for glacial conditions (11)."
Not 4000 years, as you claim. And these numbers are for relatively old ice too.
The ice age - air age difference is 2000-6000 years depending on the time period, but this is a totally different concept to the time for closure, which controls the temporal resolution. Maybe you confused the two concepts?
6 The permafrost is not 'newly exposed', but is melted by the warming Earth. Of course you gloss over (ignore) the comment about their effect as greenhouse gases by Rind.
sss
Quick answer to some of your question.
Item #1 I used different data than most researchers, exacted the data myself and this is the average lunar month the data showed...27.3 strong cycle using perigee and declination, so it differs from a straight declination cycle once the mean is taken.
Item #2 Yes there is a typo or two....this is a free book with no grant money, did our best with limited resources...and thank you for pointing out the Bryson mispelling in that one stance, we had not caught that one, most understand and get by it just fine.
Item #3 I am sure someone would have complained about anyone I used.
Item #4 Ice in Lake Vostok only goes to about 450,000 years ago...so it is different than the one you mention 500km from it...that is quite a difference and conditions can be different
Item #6 I am talking about permafrost newly exposed as glaciers retreat and melt, and as the 200 year warming cycles warm northern areas...so it is newly exposed in most cases.
Some good suggestions by you, but I could not cover all in my limited book available "free" for all to read.
If you would like to help with a more indepth book...we should do it.
Thank you for your comments...and it was nice to see they did not change my findings.
Regards
David
-
What's your source for suggesting that ice core gas is not isolated until 4000 years have passed? No denier blog please, but a respectable source, from someone who has actually done the science, maybe even a peer-reviewed paper that has stood the test of time? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
sss
References including a reference for ice cores are in my ebook on my web site.
David
um...we've jumped from recent records to geological records.
Geological drivers of climate are generally different, with much bigger magnitudes of scale.
Have to admit I don't know what to make of the above...it's a bit like walking into a bar, asking for a Whiskey and getting handed a glass of milk.....
Your wrong on the 1 to 4K period, wrong on the 200/300 year warming cooling cycles not showing, wrong on the averaging of 4K years.
Sorry David.
Must admit sometimes the IPCC papers do appear to come from a group walking out of a bar...I surely agree with you on this.
But the averaging is documented and is how it is done...they do not take a 1 year reading like the IPCC group does.
Sorry if I have burst some bubbles, so to speak.
Regards
David
-
I agree in part David, but was talking about recently i.e last 100 years, since this is the timescale you refered to re warm/cold record.
Geologically speaking past climatic conditions are far from perfect, but kind of irrelavent as we arn't currently talking about geological drivers or comparisons.
But my research is based on past climate, past and future lunar cycles as the driver of climate. So it does have a great deal to due with what is happening now "climate intrustion fight between warm and cold" cyclical climates. If we are not comparing like data (present to past), then we cannot achieve the proper goal.
Regards
David
-
Not true re ocean areas unless you have no faith in reynolds re-analysis etc.
When I talk about ocean temperatures, I am referring to satellite temperatures comparing ocean temperatures to ocean temperatures prior to accurate measurements. We do not have a good handle on ocean temperatures at the peak of the interglacial periods that occur approximately every 123,000 years. When temperatures and CO2 peaked 123,000 years ago, do we know how warm the oceans were as compared to todays oceans? No we do not. Did we have glacial melting? Yes we did and during all 5 peaks of what I call mega warming cycles which occur approximately every 120,000 years.
And CO2. The IPCC and other groups indicate that instrument readings of 385 ppm has never occured before (during the past half million years). We must remember that ice core samples taken to determine CO2 are meaned over a 1 to 4 thousand year period (unlike todays 1 year mean). By doing so, spikes which are called noise are eliminated. Thus mean values of 280ppm taken over the course of a 2 or 3 thousand year mean eliminates individual 200 year warming and cooling cycles. Thus the mean of 280 ppm likely has spikes well above 300 ppm (and possibly near 360 or greater).
Maybe we should take the 385 ppm during the past year and average it with data over the past 4 thousand years...what do you think we would see?
Regards
David
-
Thankyou for answering my question. We all know the El Nino distributes temperatures around the global due to the change in the atmospheric circulation. And we all know that record high temperatures normally have record low temperatures occuring elsewhere.
I was merely asking the question about 100 year records falling, cold and warm. And some of both are occuring. But during a warming earth it would seem more difficult for 100 year cold temperatures to occur, thus it should point somewhat to what I was referring to...a possible transition from warming to cooling, just like you see in the spring, a transitional fight between spring and intrusions of winter/or summer weather.
Just pointing this out, we have not seen this occurance so dramatic during the past 15 years, or perhaps since the 1940s following the ending of the first global warming 9-year temperature spike. And yes, the El Nino is also playing a large role in what we are seeing.
Regards
David
-
I still have not seen my question answered from 3 pages ago..
So here is a question again. The very cold and snow areas of the earth are seeing 100 year records tied or broken. Are the warm areas seeing the opposite...100 year records?
The ocean areas we do not know about, records do not go back far enough, using satellite data versus sparse shipping reports is the same as comparing apples to oranges.
Regards
David
-
But if we're talking global warming, surely the distribution of records are irrelevant if global temperatures are still high?
Absolutely not. If 100 year cold and snow records are being set and high temperature records are not...then we must have more cold air than usual under these circumstances (El Nino).
Regards
David
-
You'll have to run that one past me again David, sorry, The land masses have been very warm, the seas have been very warm, the Arctic has been very warm, so how can there be more cold available ?
Cold has certaintly been displaced into large chuncks of the populated developed countries, for a few areas more cold is available, but for most areas less cold is available surely. ?
You kind of double talked in your two paragraphs. Yes, some areas are quite warm, but some areas are seeing snow and cold not seen for 100 years.
So here is a question. The cold and snow areas are seeing 100 year records tied or broken. Are the warm areas seeing the opposite...100 year records?
The ocean areas we do not know about, records do not go back far enough, using satellite data versus sparse shipping reports is the same as comparing apples to oranges.
Regards
David
-
But the important point that SSS was making is that it hasn't resulted in a net cooling across the Northern Hemisphere (when if anything I would expect it to do so in the short term, because of the resulting default to cold over Eurasia and warmth over the oceans). With a weaker El Nino than in 1998 but similar global temperatures I think it's entirely consistent with a continued underlying warming trend- it may not be accelerating as yet (as it will need to in the future in order to reach the mid to high part of the IPCC's range) but it is still there, I reckon somewhere around 0.15C/decade.
I agree we have not had net cooling this winter, with the primary reason being the El Nino. But there is more cold air available this winter and the past 2 winters than any time during the period 1997 to 2007. Difference this winter is the El Nino influencing high latitudes on either side of the strong upper level ridges.
-
NW Europe and parts of the USA have been cold this winter, but the Northern Hemisphere as a whole has been unusually (record-breakingly) warm. Hence there is no evidence there to support a southward shift in the jetstream producing a cooler hemisphere. The evidence to me suggests that whatever perturbation, PDO, solar forcing, whatever, that has moved the jetstream south, has forced a redistribution of temperatures within the hemisphere, but not a cooling of the whole hemisphere.
BFTP, there's no evidence for a slowing in the warming trend.
Your statements seem to indicate your unawareness of a strong El Nino in place, with this causing a strong redistribution of temperatures, usually happens during an El Nino.
Yes this El Nino is a little different than other's, but it did act normally in causing cooler than norm winter over the southern United States, troughing in the Eastern pacific and Atlantic.
Because earth is in a transition between global warming and cooling, more cold air has been available in mid to high latitudes to produce cooler weather south of the arctic jet. Meanwhile El Nino forced warm air has penetrated north across the eastern Pacific into high latitudes of Alaska and Canada.
Regards
David
-
Getting back to the purpose of this forum "Sea Level Rise Will Double Due to Melting of Antarctica"
I noticed the very first post indicated the study was up to the year 2008.
Queston...has the melting slowed or even began ice restoration in the Antarctic since 2008? And the same for the Arctic?
Regards
David
-
Here is a copy of the approximate 200 year Lunar Cycle and the ice core temperatures during the past 100 years.
Please note when the low term mean position of strong lunar declinations fall to their lowest point, the first spike in global warming temperatures occur, then the second spike as the lunar cycle begins shifting northward.
-
NSSC and Badboy
It is correct that nothing really changes. Here in the states, and in the climate world, those who see their objectives disproven (either political or anthropogenic warming) are the first to counter with ridicule and slander (minds closed instead of trying to learn). Basically this means they are on the run and cannot counter with science, or with sound political ideas.
I know my non mainstream research and thinking will continue to be controversial for several years to come. And this why I have been hitting the road with speaking engagements...many curious minds out there, all of whom want to learn and hear the truth.
Regards
David
-
Frankly, GWO, whilst your theories are, on the face of it, sound and numerically good, it is an exercise in curve fitting, and not much else.
Sorry.
I have read your e-Book, and it has little substance apart from assertions about cycles that have little or no evidence, apart from numerical data.
Again, sorry mate, but it's a crock of sh....it
Numerical data fitting climate cycle curves...my, sure sounds and looks like proof. AGW people cannot fit CO2 data to show CO2 is the cause of warming. Actually it is the reverse, temperatures rise first and then CO2 through natural processes.
It is well documented that Milankovich Cycles have a great influence on climate cycles. The lunar cycles are a part of these cycles, so are you ignoring known science?
Regards
David
-
All sources are referenced at the end of the ebook. Also referenced where data can be found. The 1000 year temperature graph was plotted using known data sets provided to me and referenced in the book, the corresponding 1000 year lunar cycles were calculated by me, the raw data site is referenced in my book.
The temperature graphs beyond 1000 years were not done by GWO, although the analyses of were done by GWO.
All data can be reproduced by anyone willing to take the time to do so. \
Absolutely no false data was included within the book...all referenced sources are available online.
I understand that my research is not mainstream, and thus difficult for most to comprehend. This is why I offered my time to explain any items of concern. What I usually encounter instead is critism by those who will not open their mind to non mainstream thinking, or by those who will not even take the effort to look at my ebook. It is free on my site, absolutely nothing stopping you.
Bashing my work by one individual serves no purpose, unless he is the greatest scientist on earth and knows everything about carbon dioxide, natural cycles, and man's influence. Sorry, I must be talking about GOD.
So if we are here to only bash, and not learn. Then I am out of here.
Regards
David Dilley
-
Perhaps some skeptism does come from the timing of my forecast concerning the beginning of the current El Nino. I had originally forecast the strongest El Nino in over 10 years to begin around Christmas 2009 to January 2010. Unfortunately my timing was premature due to the very strong entrenched La Nina. Therefore it took longer to form than usual, and thus instead of forming on the mid-point peak of the PFM cycle (see El Nino secton www.GlobalWeatherCycles.com), it formed 6 months later on the right hand side of the PFM peak. Yes the timing was off a little, but the El Nino did form on the peak of the PFM cycle as predicted, and it is the strongest EL Nino in over 10-years.
As far as global warming or cooling goes, we are at the beginning stage of cooling and thus there is still interaction between the warm and cool cycle, much like early spring weather where you have some days much like spring and some intrustions of left over winter.
It will take several years for warm ocean currents to cool, and of course this years El Nino clouds any issue, with the exception that it is a strong El Nino. And I do agree, El Nino often act different from one to the next.
When I am a presenter at an event, I am often in the middle of the road on many issues. I do not adhere to everything said by the so called Skeptics, and/or AGW. Both sides throw out either exagerated statements, or statements from poor sources.
I welcome opinion, especially if you become familiar with my work, and it is free to read on my web site.
Lastly; I have a 1 hour power point presentation which provides updated graphics and better graphics than my book. During the past few months I have been the guest speaker at many functions, and will continue to spread the truth about carbon dioxide and Natural Cycles of temperature and carbon dioxide.
I would love to present somewhere in Great Britain, Irleand area this summer.
-
As I was saying, El Nino normally brings warmer winters and this instance it did not over the U.S., yes it did in some areas, and that is to be expected.
My main point is that we would expect the northern hemisphere to be warm during an El Nino winter, but over here there has been 3 severe winters in a row. Next winter without an El Nino will be very interesting temperature wise.
But, it is hard to neglect such record snow and cold during the past 2 winters...much of which had not been seen since prior to the warm period of 1997-2008.
Then it comes to the melting of glaciers. Past cycles during the last half million years strongly indicate we are now in a cooling cycle and that rises in sea levels will have to wait until the next warming cycle in about 200 years.
Regards
David
-
that is an OTT statement if I ever read one David.
Said without any proof other than your belief in 'natural cycles'. For the large snowstorms you quote to have been rain then the overall temperature globally let alone over the north American continent, would need to be several degrees warmer than it currently is.
I respect your views David although, after reading your e mail book, I am not convinced by a fair amount of what you say but lets stick to reality and posts with some depth in them please.
I have to say neither do I believe all that IPCC publish.
John
It is a fact the United States was below the long term mean (temperature) during January and February, even with an El Nino. Normally the United States would be warmer with an El Nino, but it was not. Many of the years from 1998 through 2007 saw rainy winters here, and not snowy winters...and this occured without the aid of warm El Nino years.
Florida is having one of the coldest years in 100 years, earliest snow ever in Houston texas, most snow ever in Dallas texas and some of the mid Atlantic states, most number nights with below freezing temperatures in north Florida, snow in central Florida.
Oh, guess it is global warming. Or could it be the El Nino circulation brought milder air into western and eastern Canada, but yet more cold air was available than prior years to still enable cold enough temperatures for snow?
Yes some areas of the globe have been warm during this El Nino winter, and some have been cold and snowy. Pretty difficult to say global warming is well entrenched when we see snow and cold records fall that have been in place for 100 years....thought global warming only began about 80 years ago.
Regards
David
-
The El Nino is weaker than the El Nino of 1998, yet global temperatures are comparably high. If anything, this is evidence for a slight underlying warming trend over the last 12 years, not a cooling.
The United States has set all kinds of temperature and snow records the past 3 winters, with this winter more so than other's for snow. Yes, direct link to El Nino. But, earlier El Nino's were more rain than snow during the 1997 to 2007 period. What this means is that although the El Nino is causing warming this winter, it likewise means there is more cold air available than anytime during the past 10 years...thus cooling.
Seems the IPCC was 99.8 percent sure man is causing warming (as of a few years ago), and likewise confidence of a melt down. Sure is a high confidence level with global cooling likely occurring for the next 100+ years. Need to look at the next warming cycle between 2130 and 2200 for the melt down.
:83- 90. 
General Climate Change Discussion Continued:
in Climate Change
Posted