30 YEARS OF GLOBAL COOLING HAS ALREADY STARTED

[sub-polar men]

Is that what happened during the little ice age for example? I read before that the jet stream was stronger then it is today during the little ice ice due to a colder arctic.

Yes. In the 1600s the the summer was very windy the jet stream was so strong and unstable it broke up in the autumn. polar continental air flow to the UK for months.

[noggin]

Why ,as opposed to 'the warmers' ,do the 'freezers' always sound so smug that the great global dying is to be facilitated through ice when the warmers do nothing but suggest ways for humanity to mitigate the worst of what they percieve is happening?

Come on you 'chilly willies' give us your 'way out' for the 1/3 of the population set to die on the onset of such cold and the 50% reduction of the remaining global population as the sheets begin to grow? Maybe releasing lots of CO2?

Hello G-W. I hope I haven't ever come across as "smug" about anybody dying

I am a "chilly willy" though!

I don't know where the figures of 1/3 and 50% come from, unless they are in a link which I haven't yet read, but, my brief thoughts are as follows...

to my knowledge, no-one here, of whatever thermal persuasion has suggested that we carry on polluting and abusing the planet as we have been doing, whether it affect climate or not. I along with lots of other people try to keep my personal contribution as low as possible. For me, this is brought about by a desire not to spoil our planet and also by being quite poor ( I drive a small car and do no more then 3,000miles per year, can't afford holidays, haven't got all the mod cons such as tumble drier, dishwasher et al, I re-use, I recycle, I don't waste, I even wear my daughters' old clothes rather than buy new ones for myself ) I do all that I can in this respect.

You see, I don't believe that we have to do anything to try and change the climate because I don't believe that we can. If we could, we shouldn't...it would be like opening Pandora's box, the results could be catastrophic, far worse than leaving the climate to do it's own thing. I am firm in my belief that it is natural cycles and that the heat has had it's day for now and it's the turn of the colder climate. I don't know what, if any effects this will have on mankind, but I am certainly not thinking that it will be catastrophic.

Yes, we need to clean up our act and nations should be working together rather than fighting and warring with each other (fat chance of that, I fear). The man and woman in the street could all do their bit with regard to living as unpolluting a life as possible (fat chance of that, also, whilst there is so much materialism around)

As far as coping with any catastrophic cold is concerned (and I don't think it would be that severe), well, we'll just have to adapt and hone our survival techniques! Although as susceptible as any other species we are also pretty adaptable.

I ain't being flippant, btw, but Mankind is not above being extinguished by nature, be it by an overheated planet, a frozen planet or anything else. Obviously I hope that this doesn't happen. I know I've said this before and it doesn't go down well in some quarters, but we've been here before with various predicted worldwide calamities and hey.....we're still here! Every generation has a fear for the next generation.....my parents worried about nuclear war; their parents worried about WW2. There is always a general generational worry and the current one is the environment. I'd wager (if I was a betting noggin) that the next generation will have it's general generational concern as well.

But I re-iterate that we have to clean up our act and work together and, like some Miss World of old, I really would like to see world peace.

Hi Jethro....thanks for the welcome!

[Chris Knight]

Hello G-W. I hope I haven't ever come across as "smug" about anybody dying

I am a "chilly willy" though!

I don't know where the figures of 1/3 and 50% come from, unless they are in a link which I haven't yet read, but, my brief thoughts are as follows...

to my knowledge, no-one here, of whatever thermal persuasion has suggested that we carry on polluting and abusing the planet as we have been doing, whether it affect climate or not. I along with lots of other people try to keep my personal contribution as low as possible. For me, this is brought about by a desire not to spoil our planet and also by being quite poor ( I drive a small car and do no more then 3,000miles per year, can't afford holidays, haven't got all the mod cons such as tumble drier, dishwasher et al, I re-use, I recycle, I don't waste, I even wear my daughters' old clothes rather than buy new ones for myself ) I do all that I can in this respect.

You see, I don't believe that we have to do anything to try and change the climate because I don't believe that we can. If we could, we shouldn't...it would be like opening Pandora's box, the results could be catastrophic, far worse than leaving the climate to do it's own thing. I am firm in my belief that it is natural cycles and that the heat has had it's day for now and it's the turn of the colder climate. I don't know what, if any effects this will have on mankind, but I am certainly not thinking that it will be catastrophic.

Yes, we need to clean up our act and nations should be working together rather than fighting and warring with each other (fat chance of that, I fear). The man and woman in the street could all do their bit with regard to living as unpolluting a life as possible (fat chance of that, also, whilst there is so much materialism around)

As far as coping with any catastrophic cold is concerned (and I don't think it would be that severe), well, we'll just have to adapt and hone our survival techniques! Although as susceptible as any other species we are also pretty adaptable.

I ain't being flippant, btw, but Mankind is not above being extinguished by nature, be it by an overheated planet, a frozen planet or anything else. Obviously I hope that this doesn't happen. I know I've said this before and it doesn't go down well in some quarters, but we've been here before with various predicted worldwide calamities and hey.....we're still here! Every generation has a fear for the next generation.....my parents worried about nuclear war; their parents worried about WW2. There is always a general generational worry and the current one is the environment. I'd wager (if I was a betting noggin) that the next generation will have it's general generational concern as well.

But I re-iterate that we have to clean up our act and work together and, like some Miss World of old, I really would like to see world peace.

Hi Jethro....thanks for the welcome!

Well said Noggin!

[BARRY]

Well said Noggin!

I concur

[Iceberg]

Yes. In the 1600s the the summer was very windy the jet stream was so strong and unstable it broke up in the autumn. polar continental air flow to the UK for months.

WE don't have a clue how strong the jet was back then, unless of course you can provide evidence. There are a number of other fallacies but lets start with this glaring one.

[sub-polar men]

WE don't have a clue how strong the jet was back then, unless of course you can provide evidence. There are a number of other fallacies but lets start with this glaring one.

You can find information on this from books such as:

The Little Ice age by Brian Fagan

Atmosphere, weather and climate by Roger G. Barry and Richard J. Chorley

To understand the dynamics of the zonal flow.

[bluecon]

If the world is cooling and it looks like it is it will be a disaster for mankind.

It will result in a large reduction of agricultural production, CO2 and heat will be reduced and that will be bad.

[Iceberg]

You can find information on this from books such as:

The Little Ice age by Brian Fagan

Atmosphere, weather and climate by Roger G. Barry and Richard J. Chorley

To understand the dynamics of the zonal flow.

Thanks for Answering.

I can't find a copy of the books on the internet, do you have any links to where it talks about how strong the jet was back in the 1600's. I am Generally interested as it's not just a case of trying to place complicated synoptics over the North Atlantic, States and Pacific but also to determine the strength of the wind that's 1000's of metres up in the atmosphere which can and frequently has no corresponding strong wind on the ground. If somebody can figure all that out hundreds of years ago when reliable temperature measurements barely go back that far then I am impressed.

General climatic surface observations can be made by measuring water levels back then, or though temperature proxies.

[VillagePlank]

This both assumes cycle 23 will be 'about 13 years long' and then make a prediction of solar activity for the next three decades odd. We don't know that, indeed, I think it's pure speculation - but my question would be do you base it on some kind of recognised science? What science?

I would contend that climate model output for the next thirty years amounts to speculation, too - and, I suspect, if I asked you to justify it, you'd just point me in the direction of a scientist. There's your answer - there's enough solar scientists out there for you to go and ask, and to go and check.

And, btw, if you want to know what field resonance, amplitude, and frequency come under, that'll be mathematics. I'm sure you've heard of that.

When people say this kind of thing I like, since I live nearby, to offer to accompany them to the Met Office in Exeter and point them to when they can go and make such accusations in person. I'm sure the people you accuse wont mind such things being said of them...

Anyway, if you do go PM me will you, I'd 'like' to be there

Yes, please I'll start by asking them where the funding for the Hadley Centre came from and under what remit.

Edited June 26, 2008 by VillagePlank

[johnholmes]

last bit is dead easy and I've explained it more than once.

short answer=Margaret Thatcher

[VillagePlank]

last bit is dead easy and I've explained it more than once.

short answer=Margaret Thatcher

Yeah, I know. It was founded in the basis of rooting out the cause, and solutions to climate change way back in 1990. You can read here opening speech, here.

My point was (and perhaps badly put) that where 'things' of such magnitude of climate change which will affect every individual on the planet, politics cannot be distended, therein. So for the poster, in which Dev seemed to ridicule (and I note your repsonse, John) I think it is unfair to put forward a position that anyone who claims that government jobs are reliant on climate change is necessarily an idiot.

What would you be saying if there were no specialised jobs seeking out climate change? That the government wasn't doing enough?

Seems self-evident to me.

Edited June 26, 2008 by VillagePlank

[johnholmes]

I have quite robustly defended those meteorologists and climatologists working in the Hadley Centre from just that kind of criticism, if you read pages back, I also commented that those of us in the day to day forecasting area were pretty gob smacked when the then CE of the Met O managed to persuade MT to have the centre built.

No one that I ever came across was anything other than a committed scientists, perhaps, naively, just grateful that they were able to get on with what they believed to be a very important side of climatological research.

So I stand by my view of the staff in the Hadley Centre, and I suspect, any other Meteorological National centre, as opposed to those who have their research individually paid by an organisation with a particular Axe to grind.

Now that should really spark of even more argument. But I do genuinely, again perhaps naively, believe that research within the main centres of meteorological excellence, UK Met, NOAA, ECMWF etc are rather different from some of the other research. I would also, by and large, include the IPCC report with the national centres. The problem there is that its much more political in the IPCC than the research which led to its report.

Edited June 26, 2008 by johnholmes

[VillagePlank]

I have quite robustly defended those meteorologists and climatologists working in the Hadley Centre from just that kind of criticism, if you read pages back, I also commented that those of us in the day to day forecasting area were pretty gob smacked when the then CE of the Met O managed to persuade MT to have the centre built.

No one that I ever came across was anything other than a committed scientists, perhaps, naively, just grateful that they were able to get on with what they believed to be a very important side of climatological research.

So I stand by my view of the staff in the Hadley Centre, and I suspect, any other Meteorological National centre, as opposed to those who have their research individually paid by an organisation with a particular Axe to grind.

Now that should really spark of even more argument. But I do genuinely, again perhaps naively, believe that research within the main centres of meteorological excellence, UK Met, NOAA, ECMWF etc are rather different from some of the other research. I would also, by and large, include the IPCC report with the national centres. The problem there is that its much more political in the IPCC than the research which led to its report.

.... and I am not implying or saying otherwise.

The point is, if I can spin it another way, these scientists need to get the word out, right? How are they going to do it? They need media and politicians - don't they? I think that that is the point in your last sentence - it's the dissemination of information that's political not the production of information. One that I would wholly agree with.

If I were pushed, I wouldn't point the finger, but I'd ask the questions; we know what the media do to information, and we know what politicians do to information, and that's where the vast majority of us get our information. Do they employ, for instance, a media advisor, and a political delegate (normally the Chairman, I guess)? They are a business in a business world - I'd be astonished if the converse were true.

As a question (so not implying or offending anyone), I'd like to know how it works in paid scientific research. Does a scientist wake up one morning and say hey! I've a great idea, get some funding, and then conducts the research? Or are there hierarchies in research labs. So, one, day, Mr Scientist, will go to work, and Mr Boss Scientist will say 'Today we'll be looking at the effect of human flatulence on biomass expansion. Eat your beans' Just interested, that's all.

Edited June 26, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

Yeah, I know. It was founded in the basis of rooting out the cause, and solutions to climate change way back in 1990. You can read here opening speech, here.

My point was (and perhaps badly put) that where 'things' of such magnitude of climate change which will affect every individual on the planet, politics cannot be distended, therein. So for the poster, in which Dev seemed to ridicule (and I note your repsonse, John) I think it is unfair to put forward a position that anyone who claims that government jobs are reliant on climate change is necessarily an idiot.

What would you be saying if there were no specialised jobs seeking out climate change? That the government wasn't doing enough?

Seems self-evident to me.

The offer still applies.

I've got the time to go to the Met O later next week, and I can point you to the Hadley Centre - though, to be more realistic than I was, you'd of course need an appointment and I doubt anyone would be erm, entirely delighted to listen to such entirely baseless attacks on their integrity (would you?). Btw, I did not use the word 'idiot' nor did/do I seek to suggest that anyone is one. People can be wrong without being idiots or anything like.

There is a fantastic library and records office at the Met O. Anyone who is interested in weather or climate has to visit it at least once - and make time to spend at least half a day there.

Edit: I note the chance of tone in you latest post.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

I can see why folk can accuse organisations of 'grant securing' behaviours. Just look at the Hoo-Ha at NASA recently when it emerged that their media guru had been doctoring Govt. releases to make them less alarming (so as not to pee off G.Dubya and compromise future funding).

If Organisations like NASA can be seen to be 'spinning' (even if it was just one geezer in a position of influence) then folk will wonder about others...won't they?

[Devonian]

I have quite robustly defended those meteorologists and climatologists working in the Hadley Centre from just that kind of criticism, if you read pages back, I also commented that those of us in the day to day forecasting area were pretty gob smacked when the then CE of the Met O managed to persuade MT to have the centre built.

No one that I ever came across was anything other than a committed scientists, perhaps, naively, just grateful that they were able to get on with what they believed to be a very important side of climatological research.

So I stand by my view of the staff in the Hadley Centre, and I suspect, any other Meteorological National centre, as opposed to those who have their research individually paid by an organisation with a particular Axe to grind.

Now that should really spark of even more argument. But I do genuinely, again perhaps naively, believe that research within the main centres of meteorological excellence, UK Met, NOAA, ECMWF etc are rather different from some of the other research. I would also, by and large, include the IPCC report with the national centres. The problem there is that its much more political in the IPCC than the research which led to its report.

I agree. I've listened to and met a Hadley scientist. He was simply interested in the science, immersed in it, a man lucky to be paid to investigate (discover even) what interested him. Biased? Political? Of course not!

Edited June 26, 2008 by Devonian

[VillagePlank]

The offer still applies.

Count me in I'm down the SW, hopefully, end of July, beginning of August, so might drag the tribe to Exeter to have a nose around. Be good fun, I reckon!

You think they won't appreciate me telling them that 'Of course, you're all bloody wrong! Even I can see that - haven't you read iceagenow.com?' or 'I know that you are slaves to the evil clutches of Brownistic hyperbole, and that all your families have been held to ransom by the arch-evil Chancellor Darling'

EDIT: Of course none of this is the point. The point is that climate change and politics is essentially linked, and, today, one cannot do without the other. This is NOT to say that the scientists on the shop floor are, therefore, necessarily biased.

Edited June 26, 2008 by VillagePlank

[sub-polar men]

Thanks for Answering.

I can't find a copy of the books on the internet, do you have any links to where it talks about how strong the jet was back in the 1600's. I am Generally interested as it's not just a case of trying to place complicated synoptics over the North Atlantic, States and Pacific but also to determine the strength of the wind that's 1000's of metres up in the atmosphere which can and frequently has no corresponding strong wind on the ground. If somebody can figure all that out hundreds of years ago when reliable temperature measurements barely go back that far then I am impressed.

General climatic surface observations can be made by measuring water levels back then, or though temperature proxies.

The link for the two books:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Little-Ice-Age-Cli...3341&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Atmosphere-Weather...3166&sr=8-1

Interesting Link : http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

About the jet stream in the early little ice age 1400s to 1500s.

Edited June 26, 2008 by sub-polar men

[johnholmes]

a question sub pm?

I have skimmed through the 3rd link you give above, I note the attempt to give cloud amounts from paintings, just a shade dodgy scientifically I would think, but can find no reference to 'about the jet stream....' you quote?

Can you show you me just where any work has been done elsewhere and the actual words in the link you give above about it please?

many thanks

[SnowBear]

One reference John. under Frequency of Storms.

Not too sure about this sub, the Jet Stream is a very very dynamic system which can move in a matter of days and there can be no records of it from so long a go. The very reason it is called the jet stream as far as I know only came about when jet air liners came into being and used the higher wind speeds in the jet streams to cut time down on flights and reduce fuel usage.

Dont think we can go on paintings either as John said, we do not know what time of day the paintings were done, what season, how the paint has changed colour over time, how light has effected it, nor how much "artistic license" was involved by the painter, eg. its a day whereby cloud covered 50% of the sky, but the painter only did 25% to make the painting appear more pleasing. Nor do we know how the painter in question saw colours, some may see one colour as a deeper colour as than someone else.

Edited June 26, 2008 by SnowBear

[johnholmes]

ta SB

the one sentence link says this

As the cooler air began to move southward, the polar jet stream strengthened and followed, which directed a higher number of storms into the region.

Yes we know that now but how/who is able to scientifically say the jet stream in centuries past did this or that.

I, at least, need some kind of rigorous scientific proof of that.

One cannot simply drop in sentences like that and then =qed, it does not.

The subject of climate change is emotive enough without the use of very lax terminology to supposedly prove something one way or the other.

I have to say there are one or two posts on here that are quite frankly pretty ridiculous in terms of scientific content.

Can we please have some genuine input with a bit more rigorous proof being shown or linked?

Edited June 26, 2008 by johnholmes

[sub-polar men]

a question sub pm?

I have skimmed through the 3rd link you give above, I note the attempt to give cloud amounts from paintings, just a shade dodgy scientifically I would think, but can find no reference to 'about the jet stream....' you quote?

Can you show you me just where any work has been done elsewhere and the actual words in the link you give above about it please?

many thanks

Note

This is not my Work. It been paseted

During the LIA, there was a high frequency of storms. As the cooler air began to move southward, the polar jet stream strengthened and followed, which directed a higher number of storms into the region. At least four sea floods of the Dutch and German coasts in the thirteenth century were reported to have caused the loss of around 100,000 lives. Sea level was likely increased by the long-term ice melt during the MWP which compounded the flooding. Storms that caused greater than 100,000 deaths were also reported in 1421, 1446, and 1570. Additionally, large hailstorms that wiped out farmland and killed great numbers of livestock occurred over much of Europe due to the very cold air aloft during the warmer months. Due to severe erosion of coastline and high winds, great sand storms developed which destroyed farmlands and reshaped coastal land regions.

reference

Scott A. Mandia

Professor - Physical Sciences

T-206 Smithtown Sciences Bldg.

S.C.C.C.

533 College Rd.

Selden, NY 11784

(631) 451-4104

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

[johnholmes]

I would love to see his work and how he proved it other than its what happens now and therefore must have happened then.

[sub-polar men]

ta SB

the one sentence link says this

As the cooler air began to move southward, the polar jet stream strengthened and followed, which directed a higher number of storms into the region.

Yes we know that now but how/who is able to scientifically say the jet stream in centuries past did this or that.

I, at least, need some kind of rigorous scientific proof of that.

One cannot simply drop in sentences like that and then =qed, it does not.

The subject of climate change is emotive enough without the use of very lax terminology to supposedly prove something one way or the other.

I have to say there are one or two posts on here that are quite frankly pretty ridiculous in terms of scientific content.

Can we please have some genuine input with a bit more rigorous proof being shown or linked?

We do not know exactly know how strong the jet stream was back then. But we do have a good idea from the increase of the baroclinic instability due to the increase north-south temperature gradient that rises from a colder would.

Edited June 26, 2008 by sub-polar men

[Mr Sleet]

I have to say there are one or two posts on here that are quite frankly pretty ridiculous in terms of scientific content.

Can we please have some genuine input with a bit more rigorous proof being shown or linked?

John if I wanted that an internet messageboard wouldn't be my first port of call I think this debate is entertaining amateur stuff, end of. And I think the Met Office scientists are probably very good, it is the spin that comes out of the climate centre that is dubious, it's hardly balanced IMO.