Global Cooling

[VillagePlank]

La nina is responsible for cooling, that with low solar activity. But all the warming can be contributed to El nino and a very active sun. Or do we not attribute these facts to warming!

I am afraid that this is inconsistent with the very definition of 'climate' which is long term averages of weather related phenomena.

I'll try to put it another way to spare you an analysis of y=mx+c and it's subsequent non-linear polynomial curve fits (by order of degree)

If there is, say, an underlying warming trend - let's say 0.2C per decade - then how are you going to spot it? We can't look at daily temperatures because they are, for want of better data, some 10C difference between night and day. We can't look at monthly data because we all know in the summer the highs can be as much as 20C difference (or indeed exceed) to that in the winter.

In the same vein we can't look at annual temperature for precisely the reasons you give, and we can't make a decision upon it; even though you'd like to - and this is a warning to all those who point to 'this year is a record nth warm year!' And, again, we can't even look at 20 years data - el nino and it's opposite simply do not occur enough.

Frankly-I've had enough of all this. The data speaks for itself, and, whilst conjecture is good fun, it has no place when talking about a real and present danger - one that, in all honesty, I am not convinced of.

The difference between you and I, though, is that I find it far too difficult to post, because some muppet might find it compelling.

Edited December 23, 2008 by VillagePlank

[PersianPaladin]

I am afraid that this is inconsistent with the very definition of 'climate' which is long term averages of weather related phenomena.

I'll try to put it another way to spare you an analysis of y=mx+c and it's subsequent non-linear polynomial curve fits (by order of degree)

If there is, say, an underlying warming trend - let's say 0.2C per decade - then how are you going to spot it? We can't look at daily temperatures because they are, for want of better data, some 10C difference between night and day. We can't look at monthly data because we all know in the summer the highs can be as much as 20C difference (or indeed exceed) to that in the winter.

In the same vein we can't look at annual temperature for precisely the reasons you give, and we can't make a decision upon it; even though you'd like to - and this is a warning to all those who point to 'this year is a record nth warm year!' And, again, we can't even look at 20 years data - el nino and it's opposite simply do not occur enough.

Frankly-I've had enough of all this. The data speaks for itself, and, whilst conjecture is good fun, it has no place when talking about a real and present danger - one that, in all honesty, I am not convinced of.

The difference between you and I, though, is that I find it far too difficult to post, because some muppet might find it compelling.

Arguably; albeit we can look at how ENSO produces anamolies against the background mean (such as a longer range of neutral states).

Albeit, I'm not sure I'd like to isolate these events as main drivers.

Edited December 23, 2008 by PersianPaladin

[VillagePlank]

Arguably; albeit we can look at how ENSO produces anamolies against the background mean.

Frankly = shut up.

[PersianPaladin]

Frankly = shut up.

Lol....how very engaging of you.

[Admiral_Bobski]

To Essan and Gray-Wolf I would recommend reading the "Leaky Integrator" thread.

Merry Christmas :lol:

CB

[SP1986]

Can I just remind certain people: http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?act=SR&f=8

[Optimus Prime]

Current 7 day global mean;

Unusually cold across North America and Canada compared to recent years. Things look set to turn warmer across the eastern seaboard, and so obviously colder still for western areas. Maxcimum temperature around -5c for Chicago on Thursday then 11c for Friday.

[Iceberg]

But OP what has that got to do with Climate change ?., or Global cooling ?

CB The leaky thread is interesting but where is the heat being stored ?.

[VillagePlank]

Can I just remind certain people: http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?act=SR&f=8

Yup. Me=Guilty. Sorry to all concerned, will self-ban for a while

(if you search the archives you will find plenty of evidence of me providing plenty of rational and reasonable argument to points of view which amount to lay science. Sometimes, enough is enough; and my response is only as a complete retort to the tangent to the points I was making which amount to mathematical trusims, and, furthermore, are inarguable particularly as they do NOT provide a telling platform for either side of the AGW argument. I must go, now, I guess)

CB The leaky thread is interesting but where is the heat being stored ?.

Before I go (lol) the oceans - 2/3rds of the the Earth's surface and including some of the most under researched area of the planet.

Edited December 23, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Solar Cycles]

I am afraid that this is inconsistent with the very definition of 'climate' which is long term averages of weather related phenomena.

I'll try to put it another way to spare you an analysis of y=mx+c and it's subsequent non-linear polynomial curve fits (by order of degree)

If there is, say, an underlying warming trend - let's say 0.2C per decade - then how are you going to spot it? We can't look at daily temperatures because they are, for want of better data, some 10C difference between night and day. We can't look at monthly data because we all know in the summer the highs can be as much as 20C difference (or indeed exceed) to that in the winter.

In the same vein we can't look at annual temperature for precisely the reasons you give, and we can't make a decision upon it; even though you'd like to - and this is a warning to all those who point to 'this year is a record nth warm year!' And, again, we can't even look at 20 years data - el nino and it's opposite simply do not occur enough.

Frankly-I've had enough of all this. The data speaks for itself, and, whilst conjecture is good fun, it has no place when talking about a real and present danger - one that, in all honesty, I am not convinced of.

The difference between you and I, though, is that I find it far too difficult to post, because some muppet might find it compelling.

I hope you continue to post VP, might not agree with you, but that's why we post. The world would be a boring place if we all felt the same!

[SP1986]

Yup. Me=Guilty. Sorry to all concerned, will self-ban for a while

(if you search the archives you will find plenty of evidence of me providing plenty of rational and reasonable argument to points of view which amount to lay science. Sometimes, enough is enough; and my response is only as a complete retort to the tangent to the points I was making which amount to mathematical trusims, and, furthermore, are inarguable particularly as they do NOT provide a telling platform for either side of the AGW argument. I must go, now, I guess)

And so you have made some reasonable and rational arguments for the case of truth but that's even more reason not to ruin with insults! No need to ban yourself VP!

Go if you will, but I'm sure you will be back, so when you do you are welcome to carry on the good, more rational side of your arguments.

[Iceberg]

Yup. Me=Guilty. Sorry to all concerned, will self-ban for a while

(if you search the archives you will find plenty of evidence of me providing plenty of rational and reasonable argument to points of view which amount to lay science. Sometimes, enough is enough; and my response is only as a complete retort to the tangent to the points I was making which amount to mathematical trusims, and, furthermore, are inarguable particularly as they do NOT provide a telling platform for either side of the AGW argument. I must go, now, I guess)

Before I go (lol) the oceans - 2/3rds of the the Earth's surface and including some of the most under researched area of the planet.

I have to admit i hoped you would say the sea, it's the most logical place, the only problem is that sea warming is lagging atmosphere warming, that the heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere is lagged by around 3-6 months, but even with a very cool sea (like this year) you arn't seeing very cool months. It's an interesting theory but there is nothing to support it and quite a bit of evidence to suggest that it isn't happening.

[Optimus Prime]

But OP what has that got to do with Climate change ?., or Global cooling ?

I thought that was pretty obvious. The warmest October on record to something much colder for December. Is that not evidence of Global Cooling?

[Gray-Wolf]

The report on the link between solar output and climate had a 10 to 30yr 'response time', due to the slowness of ocean processes, in redistributing warming in the lower latitudes.

Anyone who watches the hurricane season will know how some areas, where hurricanes exist, seem to now be in a state of permanent in positive SST anomaly (esp. since we lost the worst of 'global dimming'). All of this heating must ,via the various currents, travel north.

We always knew that the 'warming' we measured didn't seem 'enough' and maybe the deep sea currents are the 'missing chunk' of warming.

If we believe in this '10-30 year' transit period of heat accrued in the tropics, during 'active' solar periods, up to the northern latitudes then we have to accept that any 'greenhouse warming' also includes some 'hidden heat' that peculates out over time.

The recent Arctic response may reflect the increased heating during the 80's (post 'global dimming') meaning we still have 98' in the pipes 'somewhere'!!! If we ever needed to know an 'end date' for summer ice in the Arctic you could guarantee it will be the 'warm surge' that represents 98'!

Seeing as we know the temperature of the planet over the past 30 yrs maybe we ought to think on the time periods of some of the major deep sea currents feeding up towards the arctic and how the heat burden of each is set to impact the Arctic (there may be some unfortunate timings with heat spikes from differing periods arriving synchronously within the arctic).

And then there are the recent happenings within the Antarctic (since 2002) also attributed to warmer sst's......

The failure of recent cold signals to offset the general Global temperature trend may be only the start of an unforeseen reinforcement of AGW.

[Iceberg]

I thought that was pretty obvious. The warmest October on record to something much colder for December. Is that not evidence of Global Cooling?

Well yes but only in the same way that winter is cooler then Autumn.....Sorry OP I am not trying to be perdantic but thats weather which goes up and down all the time, not climate.

[Roger J Smith]

Natural cycles of warming may start up again in the future.

Right now, all the public perception in this part of the world is fixated on extraordinary cold events. The Fraser River has frozen over for the first time in at least forty years, nobody can remember it happening then but temperatures were about the same so possibly it did. Of course that's not the end of AGW, nothing will be, it seems to me -- they will keep morphing the theory until it becomes whatever works best in 2020.

If understanding continues to grow about natural variation, then perhaps the science will evolve past this stage and have a reliable future forecast lasting years rather than weeks.

I don't know for sure how it will go, but I'm just reporting the facts, the general public in North America are astounded by how cold it is, how severe the snowstorms have been at what is often a very early stage of our winter here (often people say it won't really turn cold until New Years).

So be forewarned, the days of ready public acceptance are gone now, in the absence of continuous reinforcement from obvious warming events, and even the more aggressive AGW spokesmen have gone silent. Perhaps they are digging themselves out somewhere.

[laserguy]

So be forewarned, the days of ready public acceptance are gone now, in the absence of continuous reinforcement from obvious warming events, and even the more aggressive AGW spokesmen have gone silent. Perhaps they are digging themselves out somewhere. :lol:

One more time,and with feeling - "2008,the year AGW leaves the building". Unfortunately,it's ghost continues to haunt those who would actually rather it stays .

[Methuselah]

I have to admit i hoped you would say the sea, it's the most logical place, the only problem is that sea warming is lagging atmosphere warming, that the heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere is lagged by around 3-6 months, but even with a very cool sea (like this year) you arn't seeing very cool months. It's an interesting theory but there is nothing to support it and quite a bit of evidence to suggest that it isn't happening.

I think it has something to do with a quantity known as specific heat capacity. Try heating a boulder with a 2kW fan-heater, and see how long it takes you?

[Solar Cycles]

By low and high solar activity do you mean as in received w/m2, at top of atmosphere, or do you mean how the Sun's activity effects how cosmic rays reach us, or both, or both in what proportion? Do you accept the measure of climate forcing , w/m2? How much, iyo, additional w/m2 does human produced ghgs add to the climate system and how much do you think the solar effects (which I hope you have explained as per my question) add?

To answer your first question yes to both, though still lot's of research to be done in how cosmic rays effect us. As for GHGs, simple answer they have a zero effect. Warming causes more water vapour to be in the air, and more C02. How can the product of warming be the cause of it?

[Methuselah]

To answer your first question yes to both, though still lot's of research to be done in how cosmic rays effect us. As for GHGs, simple answer they have a zero effect. Warming causes more water vapour to be in the air, and more C02. How can the product of warming be the cause of it?

Oh dear!

[Admiral_Bobski]

CB The leaky thread is interesting but where is the heat being stored ?.

Where's the heat being stored? Have you noticed a global warming trend over the past 30-50 years...?

Merry Christmas

CB

[jethro]

Merry Christmas folks! Hope you all have a good one.

[Gray-Wolf]

Merry Christmas folks! Hope you all have a good one.

Ditto.

[Iceberg]

Just to get something out in the open first. Looking at the ENSO predictions, it looks like 2009 will be yet another La Nina year, as it comes on the back of one last year, I'd say that global temperatures for 2009 will only be slightly higher than the global temperatures for 2008 (So still a top 10 year). But only slightly.

Looking towards the second half of 2009 particularly the last 4/5 months indications are increasing that we will move into a El Nino Pattern and the trend to a top 3 year temperature wise looks to be most likely to me.

What does this mean, well we will have to put up with a few more silly comments about global cooling from people that seem unable to grasp medium term climate variability but unfortunately the the evidence of the warming trend won't be far away and by this time next year it's quite likely we will be talking about record high months again and argueing about whether or not there is a global conspiracy to frig the temperature data......

[Snow Cat]

I don't profess to know as much about the weather or climate as some of the people on this forum. I've read many posts that have gone totally over my head with technical details, and yet I don't think I'm unintelligent on the subjects either. I've been interested in the weather for some time, have read many books, scientific papers, charts and data over the last few years.

For what my opinions worth, I don't go along with the co2 and global warming stuff. I'm quite interested in Landscheidts prediction of solar cycles and his prediction of a coming solar minimum (the sun is already quiet) and agree that there will likely be a coming cooler spell. My main belief is that the earth has warmed and cooled a number of times over the past century, let alone thousands of years when temperatures have been higher than they were recently. So I don't see the need to cause a big stir over it.

Wasn't it only the 1970s that people were warning about a coming ice age and then recently there was warning of a runaway warming event. I don't think a runaway warming event can happen, even if it did get warmer there's the old adage what goes up.. must come down. The IPCC's predicted temperature rise is already looking off target with temperatures having gone down the past year (which they didn't predict) and yet it's kept going by those saying "but it's an overall trend" or putting the timescale back to keep the theory going.. "the warming will continue after x number of years" etc.

I don't think there's any point in one camp trying to win points by stating they are right about something that hasn't even happened yet. <_< If the earth does warm a lot then the global warming camp will use it to say "I told you so" to the debunkers and if the earth cools a lot then the debunkers will use it to say "I told you so" to the global warming camp.

As with other posts I have read on this thread, a lot of it seems to be more about winning an argument or putting someone down for the sake of being right and getting one over on someone else, something that I have no wish to do. I wanted to add my opinion but in doing so have no intention of trying to persuade anyone else to come over to my thinking and nor do I put others down for what they think either.

I can quite understand why some people believe in global warming, but having looked at the details for myself I just don't go along with that personally.

Cheers.

Edited January 6, 2009 by Snow Cat