Global Cooling

[jethro]

I'd hazard a guess that it was trapped by increasing CO2,NO2/Methane and water vapour......

Guesses won't do I'm afraid

[Gray-Wolf]

Guesses won't do I'm afraid

Then hows about your 'disappearing cirrus' Man?, he says that tropical temps fluctuate really quickly (as much as 10yrs global warming over a few week period?) what happens to this heat when it 'flip flops ' to cool?

Also

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_eart..._study_999.html

Would give another driver to introduce (or reduce) heat into the system.

To me the fact remains that we oughtn't to be putting a number of known greenhouse gasses into the system when we don't fully understand the systems external 'drivers'.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Our croc bones on Ellesmere island (75N) attest to the fact that in the Eocene this is just what happened.

I thought we had to compare like-for-like Earths, and couldn't draw conclusions from things that occurred millions of years ago...?!

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

I thought we had to compare like-for-like Earths, and couldn't draw conclusions from things that occurred millions of years ago...?!

CB

I would think the Eocene would come under that remit surely? Continental positions were similar to today so similar ocean currents/atmospheric systems etc the biggest difference was ice sheet coverage and CO2 levels (a place where we appear headed).

Now surely you would not wish to seem so pedantic as to require all the parameters to be the same as ,I'm sure you know ,that would prove impossible (even to the point that you'd need similar levels of human population/impacts to 'match' completely).

[Admiral_Bobski]

I would think the Eocene would come under that remit surely? Continental positions were similar to today so similar ocean currents/atmospheric systems etc the biggest difference was ice sheet coverage and CO2 levels (a place where we appear headed).

Now surely you would not wish to seem so pedantic as to require all the parameters to be the same as ,I'm sure you know ,that would prove impossible (even to the point that you'd need similar levels of human population/impacts to 'match' completely).

That's precisely my point! I argued exactly the same point that you have just done over a year ago and found my reasoning ignored or rejected.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

CB

(EDIT #1 - when did the winking smiley change...?!)

(EDIT #2 - I decided the new winky seemed too taunting, so I've changed it to a straightforward smiley now!)

Edited January 13, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Methuselah]

Again Pete there is no proof, that humanity has had any effect on rising temperatures. Theories do not make it true!

That there's no proof is not the point, SC...There's no proof of a lot of things that we all take for granted. I cannot prove to you that the Sun will rise tomorrow; hopefully, though, after the event, we will both agree with each-other's observation?

Is Creationism any less garbage, because there are some things which we don't understand about evolution?

[Solar Cycles]

That there's no proof is not the point, SC...There's no proof of a lot of things that we all take for granted. I cannot prove to you that the Sun will rise tomorrow; hopefully, though, after the event, we will both agree with each-other's observation?

Is Creationism any less garbage, because there are some things which we don't understand about evolution?

But to raise taxes on something unproven, is to say the least bizzare. No one denies we did warm, but to say it is down to man, based on speculation, is crazy!!

[jonboy]

Thanks for that link Iceberg; the paper is about Tropical vertical temperature trends, as far as I'm aware Spencer has not been responsible for the "no hotspot" stuff. I'll have a dig around later to see if I can find the controversy about now using wind shear.

I'm not aware that "the entire science community" have proved his satellite recordings to be wrong, I think there have been calibration problems in the past but other than that, I thought they were sound. Have I got that wrong? Can you link to something please?

It's the cloud stuff which I find most interesting as it really is the corner stone of the theory of AGW; NASA confirm Spencer's findings, that new article appears to support it too.

The IPCC freely admit ocean currents and clouds are THE two huge unknowns in all this, they've assumed positive feedbacks. If these positives turn out to be negatives in the OBSERVED responses, then it throws their whole projection scenarios into complete disarray.

Jethro

As you say 'Its the cloud stuff which is really intresting' Given that we appear to have or are entering a quiet sun period whereby solar wind etc is reduced which allows more cosmic rays to reach earth which in turn generates more cloud and understanding how all this fits together is a real key for me when we talk about Golbal warming/cooling. There is a lot more to the whole process that just GHG's and until we have a better understanding of the whole for me the debate just goes round in circles

[Devonian]

Jethro

As you say 'Its the cloud stuff which is really intresting' Given that we appear to have or are entering a quiet sun period whereby solar wind etc is reduced which allows more cosmic rays to reach earth which in turn generates more cloud and understanding how all this fits together is a real key for me when we talk about Golbal warming/cooling. There is a lot more to the whole process that just GHG's and until we have a better understanding of the whole for me the debate just goes round in circles

This GCR > cloud theory is all well and good but there is no evidence it actually happens to any meaningful degree - unless you can provide some? Indeed, if it was important we'd surely have noticed by now?

Besides, anyone would think GCR's provide the only source of condensation nuclei for clouds when the reality is there are plenty already (not the least salt particles from the oceans - of which we are not short...).

BTW, over the last year the globe has warmed - look at any of the measures for the proof. So, I really don't get why all the talk is of cooling.

But to raise taxes on something unproven, is to say the least bizzare. No one denies we did warm, but to say it is down to man, based on speculation, is crazy!!

So, we should never act upon anything until it is proven? Humm, then the Met Office better not ever issuer another severe weather warning ever again...

As to crazy and speculation well, if you think that, it's clear to me you haven't studied the science for long enough. It is not either crazy or speculation.

[jethro]

Then hows about your 'disappearing cirrus' Man?, he says that tropical temps fluctuate really quickly (as much as 10yrs global warming over a few week period?) what happens to this heat when it 'flip flops ' to cool?

Also

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_eart..._study_999.html

Would give another driver to introduce (or reduce) heat into the system.

To me the fact remains that we oughtn't to be putting a number of known greenhouse gasses into the system when we don't fully understand the systems external 'drivers'.

Oh Ian, I could kiss you for that link!

Remember my thread about the decline of the Earth's magnetic field? I was convinced there was a connection to climate change, research was so sparse it was difficult to conclude anything definite. Seems I wasn't barking up the wrong tree, nor lost all my marbles.

[Essan]

But to raise taxes on something unproven, is to say the least bizzare. No one denies we did warm, but to say it is down to man, based on speculation, is crazy!!

We're still paying taxes introduced to finance the war against Napoleon. Taxes are not fair. They are not logical. They are introduced by politicians - possibly the most inept, useless and self centred people this side of Arcturus XI. And they have no more to do with climate science than a peanut shell and broken drawing pin does.

[Solar Cycles]

This GCR > cloud theory is all well and good but there is no evidence it actually happens to any meaningful degree - unless you can provide some? Indeed, if it was important we'd surely have noticed by now?

Besides, anyone would think GCR's provide the only source of condensation nuclei for clouds when the reality is there are plenty already (not the least salt particles from the oceans - of which we are not short...).

BTW, over the last year the globe has warmed - look at any of the measures for the proof. So, I really don't get why all the talk is of cooling.

So, we should never act upon anything until it is proven? Humm, then the Met Office better not ever issuer another severe weather warning ever again...

As to crazy and speculation well, if you think that, it's clear to me you haven't studied the science for long enough. It is not either crazy or speculation.

Dev, I've been studying it long enough to know, that with AGW. What you see, is what you don't get!

[Devonian]

Dev, I've been studying it long enough to know, that with AGW. What you see, is what you don't get!

Well, you are completely wrong. But, hey, just like me you've probably listened to the good people at the Met Office, Hadley Centre in Exeter eh?... I didn't think so, you just know better than them?

[VillagePlank]

Well, it's not compelling, rather very interesting, that if you plot, from a single station, in this case Greenwich, that sunshine hours seem to drop in line with average temperatures .... a lot more work is needed, though.

Data from here

Data is ((minC+maxC/2)*10) and sunshine hours.

Lot more work needed, but, as is common sense, if it's cloudier it tends to be cooler.

[Solar Cycles]

Well, you are completely wrong. But, hey, just like me you've probably listened to the good people at the Met Office, Hadley Centre in Exeter eh?... I didn't think so, you just know better than them?

I'm not a sheep Dev, I prefer to search for the truth, thank you!!

[jethro]

Well, it's not compelling, rather very interesting, that if you plot, from a single station, in this case Greenwich, that sunshine hours seem to drop in line with average temperatures .... a lot more work is needed, though.

Data from here

Data is ((minC+maxC/2)*10) and sunshine hours.

Lot more work needed, but, as is common sense, if it's cloudier it tends to be cooler.

If you're in the mood for work, any correlation between this: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/ftpcosmicrays.html

and cloudiness?

[Devonian]

I'm not a sheep Dev, I prefer to search for the truth, thank you!!

I'm not a sheep either SC, I prefer to search for the truth as well. I can thoroughly recommend the Met office library, or the IPCC, or NOAA, or the CRU, or university atmosphere science departments, or.....for the truth of the subjects we debate.

[Solar Cycles]

I'm not a sheep either SC, I prefer to search for the truth as well. I can thoroughly recommend the Met office library, or the IPCC, or NOAA, or the CRU, or university atmosphere science departments, or.....for the truth of the subjects we debate.

The IPCC is not the best place to seek the truth for starters.

[Devonian]

The IPCC is not the best place to seek the truth for starters.

On the contrary it's the best digest of the science available. Of course, if you reject that science then, yes, you wont like it

[VillagePlank]

If you're in the mood for work, any correlation between this: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/ftpcosmicrays.html

and cloudiness?

I'm still working on sunspots, a leaky integrator, and the mean global temp

More later ... (needless to say, recent posts have resurged my interest, being that the clouds are also a potential candidate for leaky integration)

Edited January 13, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Essan]

The IPCC is not the best place to seek the truth for starters.

It's better than the tabloid media

But if you eschew all science, where do you find the truth? Channellings from Planet Zeta?

I'd suggest reading the science and not believing what media commentatiors tell you they thing the science says. They're know to misquote out of context

Or maybe the Daily Express is the fountain of all knowledge and we who follow the science are mindless sheep who cannot see the light? And I speak as one who does not agree with the IPCC .......

Edited January 13, 2009 by Essan

[pottyprof]

And I speak as one who does not agree with the IPCC .......

:o

[Snow Cat]

Here are a couple of interesting articles I found. I expect that some of those pro-AGW will jump on this with "debunked" or "political". If you don't agree that's fine, but if you put the political views aside there are some interesting theories there which I thought might interest some people. The first one Behold, the Iceman Cometh - a rather long page, repetitive in places, I've copied some of the main points from the articles here and included a few of my own comments:

"During ice ages, as glaciers move over the land they pick up rocks, grind them into powder and, when they retreat at the end of an ice age, they leave this ground rock spread out across the continental areas they covered. This powdered rock contains tiny microorganisms which mineralize the soil, providing a superior form of fertilization. Over the next 10,000 plus or minus 2000 years the soil loses more and more of its fertility as the sedimentary rock dissipates."

"Glaciation starts when the minerals in the soil are so depleted that they cannot support plant life."

"Plant life loses vigor, becomes weak and can no longer resist pests and disease the way healthy plant life can. As it weakens it is unable to absorb CO2 and atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide increase dramatically. Trees lose their ability to resist fire, and millions of acres of forests are destroyed every year, throwing more CO2 into the atmosphere."

Interestingly, this ties in with the article from last week Canadian Forests Now a CO2 Source which says:

"Canada's forests, which account for about 7% of the world's total forest lands has long been considered a major carbon dioxide sink, but things have recently changed, according to a Chicago tribune article, written by Howard Witt. Scientists have concluded that Canada's precious forests, stressed from damage caused by global warming, insect infestations and persistent fires since 1999, have crossed an ominous line and are now pumping out more climate-changing carbon dioxide than they are sequestering"

More from the first article:

"The greenhouse effect of an increase in atmospheric CO2 is to increase cloud cover over polar latitudes. The clouds have a cooling effect as well as providing the snow for glaciation."

"All that's really required to bring on glaciation is the delivery of massive amounts of moisture to the polar regions where it falls as snow or adds to cloud cover that shuts out sunlight and prevents the polar ice caps from melting in summertime. "Where does the moisture come from?" he asks. Differential heating (greater at the equator, less in high latitudes) leads both to an increased temperature gradient between the equator and the poles and hence stronger circulation from the equator to the poles and to increased evaporation in equatorial waters which makes available more moisture to be transported to the poles."

"Cold fronts come from the polar regions, as Foley remarked. The colder it is around the North Pole, the colder the fronts it sends south will be. If the polar regions are in the process of getting warmer, they can't send the kind of bone chilling cold fronts south which the northern U.S. is now experiencing. Period."

"Listen to an e-mail message Professor Ellen Mosely-Thompson sent to Wednesday on the Web in an attempt to clarify media reports which focused solely on warming: "Not only did I report evidence for recent

warming (emphasis was upon the tropics, subtropics, Tibet, and the Antarctic Peninsula region), but I also pointed out that there are regions which have exhibited cooling in the last 30 years.""

Some of the points here make sense to me. Excessive CO2 causing excessive moisture - more cloud cover equalling lower temperatures, the oceans warm and the ice caps melting would indicate less cold fronts and yet still record low temperatures like the deep cold in Alaska. Back to the theories:

"The burgeoning levels of CO2 superheat the tropics and subtropics, setting in motion the buildup of polar ice and snow."

"Zink goes on to explain that scientists have focused their attention only on "the first stage result" of the greenhouse effect. He adds that they fail to recognize that the greenhouse effect is the trigger that sets off glaciation."

"As the ice and snow caps grow deeper and heavier, the surface beneath is compressed, forcing the underlying magma south from the Arctic and north from the Antarctic."

"As we've already noted, it is getting hotter in many areas of the world. And colder in others. The heat is creating clouds and moisture and transporting them to the poles where they block out sunlight and drop increasing amounts of snow on the growing ice pack."

"As the ice pack grows, it becomes a giant air conditioner that sends icy blasts of air into the temperate zones, first in winter, and then for longer and longer periods until most of the globe is in the deep freeze almost year round."

"As the glaciation process continues, winters get longer and longer, Colder air reaches further and further toward the equator, summers get shorter and shorter, and growing seasons slowly vanish."

"The phenomenon of ice and snow cap weight increase causing a flow of magma desperate to find release also increases seismic activity. The number of earthquakes has increased dramatically in recent years."

"The increased weight of the ice pack also depresses the earth's surface at the poles, forcing what John Hamaker called the underlying "gunk" supporting the surface southward at the North Pole and northward at the South Pole. This in turn creates increased volcanic activity (and earthquakes) as the gunk is forced to the earth's surface. (Dr. Kaplan wrote that when the "gunk" is forced up through cracks in the ocean bottom west of the U.S. Pacific litoral, it warms the ocean waters, creating what we call "El Nino.")"

Some may debate that point although I have read such as the below that there has been more volcanic activity in the oceans than thought and I don't know how much has been mapped:

"According to Felix, the oceans are warming as the result of widespread underwater volcanic activity which he thoroughly documents is now happening. He adds that "We’ve forgotten that this isn't the first time our seas have warmed. Sea temperatures also shot upward 10º to 18ºF just prior to the last ice age. As the oceans warmed, evaporation increased. The excess moisture then fell to the ground as giant blizzards, giant storms and floods (Noah's Deluge type floods), and a new ice age began."

"German-American researchers have discovered more hydrothermal activity at the Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean than anyone ever imagined."

"The Gakkel ridge extends about 1800 kilometers beneath the Arctic Ocean from north of Greenland to Siberia, and is the northernmost portion of the mid-ocean ridge system. To their surprise, the researchers found high levels of volcanic activity. Indeed, magmatism [blazing hot magma flowing from eruptions] was ‘dramatically’ higher than expected. Hydrothermal hot springs on the seafloor were also far more abundant than predicted."

"Researchers he reported said "Naturally occurring bubbles of liquid carbon dioxide were observed rising from the ocean floor, ” according to the Associated Press. "For the first time ever, scientists using a camera-equipped submarine have been able to witness an undersea volcano during an eruptive episode. Exploring the ocean floor in an area known as the Mariana Trench, last year researchers found bubbles of liquid carbon dioxide being released into the sea, enlarging up to a thousand times and turning to gas as they drifted upward. This flow seeks escape through volcanism which results in emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, as well as hurling millions of tons of dust into the upper atmosphere where it lingers for months on end, shutting out even more sunlight at the poles."

"A single volcano, provided it's eruption includes sufficient sulfur compounds, can lower the global mean temperature by as much as 1 degree C. for many months."

"There has been an increase in the number of volcanic eruptions in recent years."

The conclusion:

"The end results are colder and ever lenthening winters, more and more tectonic activity wreaking havoc all over the globe, more and more destructive storms, and natural disasters of an undreamed of

magnitude."

"The point of all of this is quite simple: the process is a natural one -- and once started it cannot be stopped."

Food for thought.

[Methuselah]

The IPCC is not the best place to seek the truth for starters.

And you know that from experience?

[Solar Cycles]

And you know that from experience?

The IPCC is politically motivated, who will bury anything that doesn't prove that man is to blame for past warming temperatures. They have far to much to lose now, and like all wounded animals, they are dangerous!