30 YEARS OF GLOBAL COOLING HAS ALREADY STARTED

[johnholmes]

You know as well as I do that 1850 was at approximately the coldest point in the last 1000 years or so and even the IPCC has admitted that the warming before 1980 was simply natural variation.

come on Andy if you are going to make a point please do it accurately, see the chart below from many thousands of years ago up to the present time, which, unless I am completely losing my marbles, (always a distinct possibility at my age), then it shows that it is indeed a cold part but only for 200-300 years not 1,000?

1=min and my version of the mean for 1601 and the same labelled 2 for 1851

Edited June 26, 2008 by johnholmes

[Andy_Calafell_Sheffield]

sorry if my attempt at being non controversial did not work for you.

I'm well aware about 1850, I was merely using a chart someone else had used to show one thing to show that the same chart could be used for the opposite point of view - nothing more nothing less - no hidden agenda mate?

My apologies for misinterpreting your chart. =]

You know as well as I do that 1850 was at approximately the coldest point in the last 1000 years or so and even the IPCC has admitted that the warming before 1980 was simply natural variation.

come on Andy if you are going to make a point please do it accurately, see the chart below from many thousands of years ago up to the present time, which, unless I am completely losing my marbles, (always a distinct possibility at my age), then it shows that it is indeed a cold part but only for 200-300 years not 1,000?

1=min and my version of the mean for 1601 and the same labelled 2 for 1851

I did make my point accurately, you simply read it wrong. I said 'the coldest point IN the last 1000 years or so', ie.Around 1850 was the coldest point in the time period between 1000 and 2008. I made no comment regarding the duration of the cold period.

Furthermore, although there are some which suggest that around 1600 was coldest whereas others suggest around 1850. Regardless of which data is believed, 1850 was still a very cold point in our recent climatic history.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Andy_Calafell_Sheffield

[johnholmes]

??

1601-1850=249 years mate, hardly the last 1000 years and the 1601 event was colder than 1851 or are we both wrong?

[Devonian]

John Holmes; Thanks for giving a link to that temperature chart.

However, why do you talk about on your document that GW posters would show; forget the last 10 years, if you look at the rise since 1850 then you will see the huge increasing trend in global temperatures.

You know as well as I do that 1850 was at approximately the coldest point in the last 1000 years or so and even the IPCC has admitted that the warming before 1980 was simply natural variation.

Erm, no the IPCC has not. They say (amongst other things): "Most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid twentieth century is very likely to be due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentration" (summary for policy makers 2007).

Therefore, in the grand scheme of things, temperatures rose for 20 years, and have now stabilized and dropped slightly within the last 8 years?

No, you have it wrong.

GW supporters are quick to 'conveniently forget', well from all of the debates I have seen, about what El Nino did to global temperatures in 1998, which was cause a sharp increase. However, they are quick to included La Nina as the major reason for our current slight cooling. Why? It amplies the temperature increases to make it more dramatic.

It's clear from the above that its not 'GW supporters' who have forgotten things...

besides, if what you say was right we'd be denying there are EN LN - we are not so what you say is I'm afraid just poppycock.

It seems to be that you don’t understand the correlation between solar cycles and global temperature. The correlation shows that an extra 2-years extension on the average solar cycle length would show about 20 years of cooling after the soler minimum.

Well, when you're right but other people don't understand you just have to keep explaining it until they do.

So, I suggest you go through it again, perhaps with more examples so we can better understand.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Devonian

[Andy_Calafell_Sheffield]

??

1601-1850=249 years mate, hardly the last 1000 years and the 1601 event was colder than 1851 or are we both wrong?

I thought they were both of the same event, all data I have ever read suggests that the the 'Little Ice Age' ended after 1850, so that means they are the same event?

I admit I have been inaccurate with my exact datings of this period, hiwever, you know that I am saying that 1850 was a one of the coldest periods in our recent climatic history so the only real way for temperature trends to change after that is by increasing, so in regards to that chart stating, warming after 1850 .... the majority of that is accounted for by our natural variation.

[johnholmes]

how can two events almost 250 years apart be the same event?

I don't disagree with your comment that 1851 was one of the coldest years all I'm trying to get you to agree with at the moment is that 1601 was colder?

[Andy_Calafell_Sheffield]

Devonian- I search the internet, viewing forums discussing Global Warming as I pass and reading media articles. I have reads numerous pro-GW articles and posts that make the argument, ' the recent leveling-out of global temperatures is most likely due to La Nina and its cooling effect'.

Perhaps it may just be by chance, but I rarely read posts where it is acknowledged that a large portion of the warming trend during the 1990's was due to the strong El Nino.

I will refer you to charts depicting the Lower-Troposphere temperature trends posted by Filski a page ago. Looking at these charts show that the average temperature has only been slightly above the values it was in 1985 and the levels have stabilized since about 2003. The only real stand out 'spike' of warming is due to ElNino around 1998.

how can two events almost 250 years apart be the same event?

I don't disagree with your comment that 1851 was one of the coldest years all I'm trying to get you to agree with at the moment is that 1601 was colder?

Yes, it was my mistake and 1601 was colder.

From wikipedia (perhaps not the most accurate source?) : Beginning around 1850, the climate began warming and the Little Ice Age ended.

Your guess is as good as mine.

[bluecon]

The Earth is cooling and it will take an extreme effort by the AGW alarmist to keep the belief alieve that a tiny increase in manmade CO2 will fry the Earth and only more taxes will solve this.

[Roger J Smith]

This is much ado about who knows what ... we don't know for sure that the Sun is going to stay quiet, it's just a rather long inter-peak quiet spell not that unprecedented yet.

Also, we don't know for sure from the CET records and other evidence that a moderately quiet solar phase would have a large impact on temperature, and we don't even know (speaking as a partial skeptic) that the observed warming is due to continue for any reason.

We do know that the jet stream in the Little Ice Age was probably further south (in this hemisphere) but we don't know that it was stronger, it might have been weaker and more prone to buckling and blocking. The climatic difference between the Little Ice Age and the 20th century is not so vast that the two periods are two separate climates, rather, it's a case of adjusted frequencies. The period 1985-87 in the UK would have been lost in the background noise of the Maunder minimum, so you've seen it for yourselves.

I would just say this, Sub-polar Men is (are) just throwing the same sort of a football into play as the IPCC or Ken Ring or Roger J Smith -- he's stating an opinion that some unknown number of people will take as right or wrong, and that some unknown amount of time will pass before it looks good or bad for his prognostication.

I don't know who this hurts more, but basically, it's no worse and no better than the UN report, Al Gore's book, or any one of the fifteen forecasts that SB might care to post for a given time frame ... at least not today. At some later date, he might look like a genius or an idiot. And so might any of us.

You'd be further ahead to predict the outcome of sports events than to speculate on the future course of the weather, at least beyond a week. And you could make more money doing it too. Hope this is not too much reality for one post, but there you have it, and I'm in the same boat (although it won't stop me from making forecasts, I won't know if I'm improving if I don't validate forecasts).

[Mr Sleet]

You know as well as I do that 1850 was at approximately the coldest point in the last 1000 years or so and even the IPCC has admitted that the warming before 1980 was simply natural variation.

come on Andy if you are going to make a point please do it accurately, see the chart below from many thousands of years ago up to the present time, which, unless I am completely losing my marbles, (always a distinct possibility at my age), then it shows that it is indeed a cold part but only for 200-300 years not 1,000?

1=min and my version of the mean for 1601 and the same labelled 2 for 1851

Thanks John. That graph makes me wonder what all the fuss is about re: global warming. :o

[trevw]

Thanks John. That graph makes me wonder what all the fuss is about re: global warming.

looking at the x axis it doesn't go beyond 1970 ish? also worth noting its Northern Hemisphere only so while obviously relevant to global temperatures it is incomplete on its own..

[johnholmes]

but if you added the values since the end of that graph, its end point, or at least the mean is still higher than it shows on that chart.

So I'm not sure why you make the comment you do?

The purpose of me using the chart from BC to NEAR modern times is to show that, be you a GW believer or a GC(Global Cooling) believer you can use which part of the chart you want to make your point look correct.

The overall idea I'm trying to get across is that basic data can be, and is, manipulated to whatever the person using it wants.

Edited June 27, 2008 by johnholmes

[SP1986]

Now I'm not an expert on climate change, but what I do know from reading the thread is that the poster appears to be revelling in the 'apparent global cool down'. Of course I would have expected a slightly more unbiased tone!

Note to poster: Next time, write the title in lower case (It made me sceptical before I even read it)

Just a few things though, generally if the jet stream was particularly strong at first causing perhaps lots of baroclinic development, due to the nature of a north-south gradient, I would expect the general pattern to stay relatively the same as it is now, ie yes stronger westerly flows, but the outturn would probably result in an equally potent corresponding flow elsewhere, a pattern that could potentially last a long time if engaged with a jet of this energy however relatively it would probably just result in similar global temperature to what we have currently, and that is not taking into account any anthropogenically induced warming.

This leads me to the conclusion that any theory about global cooling at the this stage is conjecture, what's more supposing global cooling where to take place, I would expect the cooling to span more than thirty years. Any rapid cooling under that time could drop us into an ice age, but I don't for one minute believe that will be the case under the current climate state!

Sorry Sub-Polar but I don't buy your hypothesis, but well dressed up with meteorological theory, have a drink on me !

[Mr Sleet]

looking at the x axis it doesn't go beyond 1970 ish? also worth noting its Northern Hemisphere only so while obviously relevant to global temperatures it is incomplete on its own..

Yep , you're quite right

[johnholmes]

see post 87 which makes the relevant comment I would have thought?

[VillagePlank]

Now I'm not an expert on climate change, but what I do know from reading the thread is that the poster appears to be revelling in the 'apparent global cool down'. Of course I would have expected a slightly more unbiased tone!

Note to poster: Next time, write the title in lower case (It made me sceptical before I even read it)

Just a few things though, generally if the jet stream was particularly strong at first causing perhaps lots of baroclinic development, due to the nature of a north-south gradient, I would expect the general pattern to stay relatively the same as it is now, ie yes stronger westerly flows, but the outturn would probably result in an equally potent corresponding flow elsewhere, a pattern that could potentially last a long time if engaged with a jet of this energy however relatively it would probably just result in similar global temperature to what we have currently, and that is not taking into account any anthropogenically induced warming.

This leads me to the conclusion that any theory about global cooling at the this stage is conjecture, what's more supposing global cooling where to take place, I would expect the cooling to span more than thirty years. Any rapid cooling under that time could drop us into an ice age, but I don't for one minute believe that will be the case under the current climate state!

Sorry Sub-Polar but I don't buy your hypothesis, but well dressed up with meteorological theory, have a drink on me !

... and the statistical and non-linear mathematics complete backup this assertion. Indeed, if we are in a cooling we won't 'know' it for another ten years at least - which will put the see-saw about level against warming/cooling, statistically speaking, should the cooling mirror the recent warming.

I am 'Mr Fence Sitter' and I'd love to see cooling, I'd love to see my kids play in six foot snow like I did as a child, but, rationally speaking (and there's a good definition of exactly what that means elsewhere on this site) there's no evidence to support the theory that any cool-down is endemic.

Indeed, any person with even a slight perusal of mathematics is much more likely thinking it's an example of a step-function. One which can corrected at the blink of an eye.

Time will tell.

The shame is another ten years of stuff like this.

Edited July 1, 2008 by VillagePlank

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

... and the statistical and non-linear mathematics complete backup this assertion. Indeed, if we are in a cooling we won't 'know' it for another ten years at least - which will put the see-saw about level against warming/cooling, statistically speaking, should the cooling mirror the recent warming.

I am 'Mr Fence Sitter' and I'd love to see cooling, I'd love to see my kids play in six foot snow like I did as a child, but, rationally speaking (and there's a good definition of exactly what that means elsewhere on this site) there's no evidence to support the theory that any cool-down is endemic.

Indeed, any person with even a slight perusal of mathematics is much more likely thinking it's an example of a step-function. One which can corrected at the blink of an eye.

Time will tell.

The shame is another ten years of stuff like this.

My assertion even from a couple of years ago was that I believe GC will take over but it will take to about 2012-2015 for this to be realised. Indeed IMO it will be 'obvious' by then that we will be in the grips of GC. I based this on the theory that we would be entering a deep solar minima and that 24 will be quiet and 25 being very quiet. Now 2 years down the line and I am really sitting up and paying attention. Why? Firstly the global drop over the last 15 months is 'notable' but currently not too meaningful. However, if one looks at the solar cycle state 24 is at leastb 15 months late and the sunspot number is very very very low and continues to rattle some 'experts'. Also I have mentioned [as predicted by astro-physicists] that there is a perturbation cycle linked to the solar cycles which bring an approximate 30 year domination of La Nina and El Nino. El Nino cycle brings warmer climbs and La Nina the opposite. Right on cue in Feb 07 the new cycle started and El Nino 'vanished' and in came what has been a decent La Nina event. Coincidence? not on your nelly. Also, and this is different to La Nina, is the PDO which has entered a negative phase. These events don't always combine but as they have I think this has brought the 'notable' 15 month cooldown. Now if the deep minima was to come to fruition [looking better as each month passes] and these two oceanic cycles continue for the expected period then I think that 5-10 years down the line we will see an established pattern which will be strong enough to reverse the previous warming. The behaviour of the two polar regions lends to my scepticism because they are doing the exact opposite which falls into line with the earths orbital pattern of the sun. I think RJS mentioned that man's impact certainly is felt with Heat Island effect and i fully concur as there is an impact.....but you can see where I'm going. Global Cooldown....not yet but signs are there that the mechanism to move us into that certainly 'could' be occurring.

BFTP

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Is the early onset of polar melt part of this cooling???

[millennia]

http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Is the early onset of polar melt part of this cooling???

GW - this graph is the one the media hacks at the Independent and BBC reproduced in the last week to make a story about "No Ice at the North Pole". Zoom into the picture and you now see the departure of this year from last year's anomalous melt. However, as I get fed up of pointing out, early July is too early to make a forecast! However, why don't I just join in and extrapolate the 2008 data and assume it holds the same percentage below the average. I therefore predict :lol: an extent of 7.5m sq km at the end of this month.

Anybody wanna start a sweepstake (any takers should post to Arctic Ice)?

Edited July 3, 2008 by millennia

[Mr Sleet]

GW - this graph is the one the media hacks at the Independent and BBC reproduced in the last week to make a story about "No Ice at the North Pole". Zoom into the picture and you now see the departure of this year from last year's anomalous melt. However, as I get fed up of pointing out, early July is too early to make a forecast! However, why don't I just join in and extrapolate the 2008 data and assume it holds the same percentage below the average. I therefore predict :lol: an extent of 7.5m sq km at the end of this month.

Anybody wanna start a sweepstake (any takers should post to Arctic Ice)?

Millennia

I laready started this game back on Carinthians thread back I think in early May. I predicted a NH ice area minimum of 1-2 million sq.km above last years minimum.

Gray Wolf predicted that it would all go.

[millennia]

Millennia

I laready started this game back on Carinthians thread back I think in early May. I predicted a NH ice area minimum of 1-2 million sq.km above last years minimum.

Gray Wolf predicted that it would all go.

Missed that - sorry.

[beng]

The GISS figure for June is out

+0.26C Coldest June since 1996.

Coldest first half of the year since 1996 too.

[Nick L]

The GISS figure for June is out

+0.26C Coldest June since 1996.

Coldest first half of the year since 1996 too.

Well most of the past 12 years have been very warm so it really isn't too hard to be cooler than them. Interesting stats though, shows that despite a warming climate there are the odd declines in temperature.

[Yozzer]

Check out this link. Should provoke some heated debate. The study was peer reviewed apparantly, although not sure what 'peers' they were!!

global cooling

[VillagePlank]

Check out this link. Should provoke some heated debate. The study was peer reviewed apparantly, although not sure what 'peers' they were!!

global cooling

Yeah, we've come across Mr Casey, before. Not a reliable source, unfortunately, and an expert at media manipulation and the art of the written word.