Global Cooling

[osmposm]

...and is the above pdf file equally laughable?

My apologies - see above for my edited/withdrawn post.

Edited September 15, 2008 by osmposm

[Mondy]

EDIT: Sorry, dismissive post by me about wording on petition card withdrawn after finding further details of credential-checking at project website.

It might have saved time and trouble, DXR, if you'd given a bit more detail in your post....but then that's not your style.

Humm, I was gonna reply to the above more seriously, but in truth, I really cannot be bothered.

Btw, first thing I did when finding the petition was to read it, all of it..guess that's why your post does sound so dismissive.

[pottyprof]

Can we please drop the attitudes? It adds nothing to the debate..

I can see the trashcan getting pretty full before long.. :lol:

Play nice...

[Chris Knight]

So Essan, is that Global temps can fall with AGW? So more CO2 can lead to cooling?

BFTP

isn't the point just that if you have a temperature graph zigzagging and wavering up and down all over the place then adding a steady warming will not stop it doing this.. Your zigs will just get slowly higher over time while on average your zags no longer go as low - So as we enter a period when the natural forcings combine in such a way as to cool the climate (such as now) you would expect to see the temp dropping, just not as much as it would have without the slow but steady background warming..?

I can imagine that this is a frustratingly hard hypothesis to disprove if you believe the proportion of warming caused by us is low but resorting to the suggestion that a few years of platea/slight cooling trend does the job is scraping the barrel a bit if you ask me. Also the absolute certainty that is used when making the statements reminds me somewhat of pressure sales techniques I've been at the wrong end of (this is a comment on the tone of various blogs I've read rather than anyone on here particularly)

On a related note I'd not thought about this before but I read something recently about the fact that while El Ninos increase the recorded temps they actually cause significant reduction in the overall 'heat content' of the 'biosphere' (not sure if that's the right word for atmosphere including seas but can't think of anything else). This is because the warm patch of ocean emits much more heat into space. La Nina would obviously have the opposite effect, depressing measured temps while causing less emission into space and effectively storing up heat.

Given this I would imagine a strong El Nino (losing heat) followed by a weak La Nina (depressing temps but not gaining as much heat as lost) then neutral conditions would result in a period of reduced temps as well. I've not heard anyone else saying this it just seemed to follow logically..?

Trev

An enlightened poster!

Just like massive Arctic ice melt leads to a colder winter! - Not warming, cooling. the temperatures go down as the heat is lost, and vice versa.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Chris Knight

[0000]

Can we please drop the attitudes? It adds nothing to the debate..

I can see the trashcan getting pretty full before long..

Play nice...

:o so it's not just mine paul hin? :lol:

No need for attitudes or egos as potty says,but it is a fascinating debate

Edited September 15, 2008 by hannegan

[osmposm]

Humm, I was gonna reply to the above more seriously, but in truth, I really cannot be bothered.

Btw, first thing I did when finding the petition was to read it, all of it..guess that's why your post does sound so dismissive.

DXR, I have apologized, and yes, with hindsight I should have spotted amongst the 10 button links the ones that exlained the credential-checking of the signatories. I had fully read several elements including the "Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research", but in something of a hurry neglected to read all of them. Shortly after I made my original post I went back to check that I hadn't been too hasty, found that I had, and edited/withdrew my comment just 10 minutes after I'd made it.

But it was unfortunate that the dominant feature of your post was an illustration of the basic petition form (which shows nothing but self-certification by a seemingly untraceable signatory), with no accompanying explanation or clarification from you: it would have been helpful if you had given us some. Alternatively, you could have posted instead this slightly fuller version of the petition card from the website; the name & address lines and 'specialized experience' box would have been enough to allay my suspicions about the petition's credibility:

The fact is that I seldom have time to delve in detail into every part of every link you give us: a pointer as to what you want us to look at would really be appreciated. I can "be bothered", as you put it....but I just don't have the time, sorry!

Edited September 16, 2008 by osmposm

[Essan]

What,you mean we can go faster but it means slower?

Yes you can :lol: Or, at least, we can have falling temperatures and still have AGW.

So Essan, is that Global temps can fall with AGW? So more CO2 can lead to cooling?

BFTP

No, global temps can fall due to other reason, but AGW means they won;t fall as much.

Imagine a room in winter with a heater switched on. The science says that the heater should warm the room. Someone argues that the window is wide open and thus the room is in fact cooling. True. But that doesn't change the fact that a) the science behind the heater warming the room is still correct and b ) the heater being on means the room will not cool as much as it would if the heater were not on.

And the same with planet Earth. Human activity is the heater, natural variation is the open window.

Now, what happens - in either scenario - when the window closes? For a while the heater has been on but there's not been much if any warming. Suddenly, the room warms up very quickly ......

Edited September 16, 2008 by Essan

[picog]

Exactly, if 20 million tons of SO2 released by a volcano (e.g. Mt. Pinatubo) can cool the planet by then how can releasing 27 billion tons of CO2 every year not have any effect?

The difference between volcanos and humans is that the volcano releases ghg in one big massive gush over a very short period of time, whereas we release them very, very, very slowly by comparison.

[Iceberg]

The difference between volcanos and humans is that the volcano releases ghg in one big massive gush over a very short period of time, whereas we release them very, very, very slowly by comparison.

I am not sure that really holds water as CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

[Gray-Wolf]

Do any of us know the impact that the 'staging' of our pollutants has had?? In the 1850's I guess all of the pollution was released less than 150m above the local ground level but as time progressed both the 'mix' of pollutants and the height it was expelled at changes with the last 'level' of pollution being rocket exhausts placed in all levels of the atmosphere.

I do not like the way contrails mess up my summer (when we have one ) days but when you consider the 'mix' of the pollution (not just H2O) and the height we place this into the atmosphere It must have some impact. If you look at the density of the atmosphere at 30,000ft then you'll see the concentration of pollutant increases as you expel it higher in the atmosphere i.e. 30grams of yeuk down here must end up more 'dilute' than 30grams of yeuk at 30,000ft..........or has my coffee not kicked in yet???????

[laserguy]

I am not sure that really holds water as CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

Not unless vegetation takes advantage of their new found bounty and gobbles it all up. Or if the oceans cool (as now) and absorb much of it. Or if it dissolves in water vapour to form carbonic acid etc etc. As for SO2,that is highly soluble and rapidly forms sulphurus acid (not sulphuric!!),which is why it's cooling effects are short lived. Much of the Earth's rocks and soil are high in calcium,presumably the calcium sulphate and calcium carbonate was/is formed by the reaction with carbon and sulphur from the above sources.

As for the recent (and in the case of the last 18 months or so of) precipitous cooling,I have a perfectly sincere question for those who adhere to the AGW theory: If it wasn't for CO2 maintaining 'artificially' high temperatures,what depths would those temps have fallen to,above and beyond what has already been observed? Is anyone seriously suggesting that would be a preferable scenario to a little warming,irrespective of it's cause? If the AGW theory is correct,then by now we ought to be in conditions akin to the LIA's without elevated CO2 levels,and that would be of infinitely greater concern than any of the projected/guessed/numbers plucked out of a hat levels of warming.

GW,the increase in aircraft contrails is a world government ploy to stop us seeing the incoming planet X :lol: !

[SP1986]

The difference between volcanos and humans is that the volcano releases ghg in one big massive gush over a very short period of time, whereas we release them very, very, very slowly by comparison.

Im not sure about that, in nature CO2 mounts up in geological timescales, we have released all our CO2 over 100 years or so, thats as good as an volcanic eruption, and will cause problems.

What people perhaps cant get a grasp of is whether we keep pumping CO2 or whether we stop pumping it completely were going to cause the Earth massive problems for at least a short while. So it's not just about global warming it's about the resources we have left. A huge release of CO2 into the atmosphere will make the troposphere very unstable, which is why were seeing lots of warming and cooling events in very close proximity at the moment, which is perhaps what people are confusing for a cooling event.

[Chris Knight]

Do any of us know the impact that the 'staging' of our pollutants has had?? In the 1850's I guess all of the pollution was released less than 150m above the local ground level but as time progressed both the 'mix' of pollutants and the height it was expelled at changes with the last 'level' of pollution being rocket exhausts placed in all levels of the atmosphere.

I do not like the way contrails mess up my summer (when we have one ) days but when you consider the 'mix' of the pollution (not just H2O) and the height we place this into the atmosphere It must have some impact. If you look at the density of the atmosphere at 30,000ft then you'll see the concentration of pollutant increases as you expel it higher in the atmosphere i.e. 30grams of yeuk down here must end up more 'dilute' than 30grams of yeuk at 30,000ft..........or has my coffee not kicked in yet???????

If you look at diurnal variations of CO₂ in cities and in rural locations, the variation between morning and afternoon levels of CO₂ can go from levels well in excess of 400ppmv to background levels of 360ppm in a few hours, even on still days. This is due to uptake by plants and expansion of the near surface air as it warms. Increased wind speeds disperse CO₂, and other pollutants. link

At altitude, the temperature is much less variable, and there are no natural sinks for aviation generated CO₂ injected directly into the upper air, except by solution into condensed water and precipitation.

Much of the yeuk down here, stays down here, and yeuk up there stays up there.

[Filski]

Clearing up a bit of misinformation.

Volcanoes release 1/150th of the CO2 that we release each year.

CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 80-100yrs. That means that some of the CO2 up there now was put up there during WW1. And the stuff we put up there now will still be around in 2100. (offtopic - water vapour stayrs up there for only 1-2months in comparison).

[VillagePlank]

Volcanoes release 1/150th of the CO2 that we release each year.

Sorry ...

This is information rubbish. If a volcano exlpoded today it would dwarf the extent of human CO2. You and I both know it. So why don't you say ...

"Volcanoes release 1/150th of the CO2 that we release each year, over a 30 year average"

.... unless, of course, you want to...

(i) Hide something

(ii) Make a political point

(iii) or don't know what you're saying.

<Grumpy> Grrrrrr </Grumpy>

EDIT: You should not claim something is misinformation, if you are not prepared to submit ALL of the truth, not some sort of idealised statement. The truth of the matter is, as you most probably well know, a big volcanic eruption will affect the climate for some number of years. No one disagrees with that. The amount of big volcanic eruptions is pretty small, so that enables you to claim that human induced CO2 far outweighs the volcanic equation? Sheer tripe.

Edited September 16, 2008 by VillagePlank

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

So Essan, is that Global temps can fall with AGW? So more CO2 can lead to cooling?

BFTP

No, global temps can fall due to other reason, but AGW means they won;t fall as much.

Imagine a room in winter with a heater switched on. The science says that the heater should warm the room. Someone argues that the window is wide open and thus the room is in fact cooling. True. But that doesn't change the fact that a) the science behind the heater warming the room is still correct and b ) the heater being on means the room will not cool as much as it would if the heater were not on.

And the same with planet Earth. Human activity is the heater, natural variation is the open window.

Now, what happens - in either scenario - when the window closes? For a while the heater has been on but there's not been much if any warming. Suddenly, the room warms up very quickly ......

That's why the analogy does not work. That's why Greenhouse is a wrong analogy. There is no window to close, the window is always open. Also it puts the fact that runaway warming will not and cannot happen as counter factors are equally as strong if not stronger, hence AGW becomes of no consequence. You see if the heater fails but the window remains open then it gets colder...and the heater up there is showing some form of failing.

BFTP

[stewfox]

Tonight, BBC2, 9o'clock......the second part of The History of Climate Change deals with things from an AGW "sceptics'" point of view.

I thought last week's programme was very interesting and was surprised that no-one here seems to have mentioned it.

I posted a comment on another thread, not sure if moderator will give this series a thread in its own right ?

It is so bias , although interesting

I like the heat wave shots from USA mid 80s ? episode 1 to 'show global warming'

It is a great pity it couldnt be open ended and of real value, I hope episode 3 is less political (Im sure there start with him standing in the Sahara)

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Don't understand that Noggin, I have never known a climate scientist who does not acknowledge natural cycles( how ever much the Anti movement would like to believe it).

Quite simply a leveling off of the increase was forecast, but It is largely impossble to predict ENSO more than 1 year in advance.

0.069 0.196 0.442 0.272 0.280 0.314 0.389

The above are the Hadley global temperature anomalies(all positive) as you can see with the except of March there is a clear monthly trend for the anomaly to increase as we move out of the La Nina phase. Indeed the Global figure for July was higher than any July before 2000 except the EL NINO driven 1998.

If we want to talk about short term trends the trend this year has clearly been warming.

The levelling off was 'forecast' after it was already underway. Your figures are taken from Hadley and as I posted elsewhere UAH, GISS show that half of this years temps are below the 70-99 average with the other 4 just above. Some will argue against predicting ENSO, Theodore Landscheidt started to produce very accurate results....until he died recently.

BFTP

[SP1986]

I posted a comment on another thread, not sure if moderator will give this series a thread in its own right ?

It is so bias , although interesting

I like the heat wave shots from USA mid 80s ? episode 1 to 'show global warming'

It is a great pity it couldnt be open ended and of real value, I hope episode 3 is less political (Im sure there start with him standing in the Sahara)

Thats the problem I feel, everything is so bias. If the pro-AGW's took natural variations into account when making claims, and the AGW sceptics accepted legitimate GHG science when making claims we would probably get somewhere closer to an accepted, realistic theory.

Which is why I don't watch programmes dealing with AGW sceptical or pro AGW programmes, because people minds are easily altered to believe what they watch, and it's a big big shame when we are trying to find out the truth about such potential problems.

[Filski]

Sorry ...

This is information rubbish. If a volcano exlpoded today it would dwarf the extent of human CO2. You and I both know it. So why don't you say ...

"Volcanoes release 1/150th of the CO2 that we release each year, over a 30 year average"

.... unless, of course, you want to...

(i) Hide something

(ii) Make a political point

(iii) or don't know what you're saying.

<Grumpy> Grrrrrr </Grumpy>

EDIT: You should not claim something is misinformation, if you are not prepared to submit ALL of the truth, not some sort of idealised statement. The truth of the matter is, as you most probably well know, a big volcanic eruption will affect the climate for some number of years. No one disagrees with that. The amount of big volcanic eruptions is pretty small, so that enables you to claim that human induced CO2 far outweighs the volcanic equation? Sheer tripe.

Since we are talking about CO2 which has a long life span in the atmosphere the long term average applies. The truth is that volcanoes are responsible for only 1/150th of the CO2 in the atmosphere when compared to human contributions. The short term effects from volcanoes you speak of have nothing to do with CO2 and is a short lived affair on the scale of 2-3 years before the dust/ SO2 gets washed out.

So while on the issue of accuracy... here's your humble pie.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Filski

[VillagePlank]

Since we are talking about CO2 which has a long life span in the atmosphere the long term average applies. The truth is that volcanoes are responsible for only 1/150th of the CO2 in the atmosphere when compared to human contributions. The short term effects from volcanoes you speak of have nothing to do with CO2 and is a short lived affair on the scale of 2-3 years before the dust/ SO2 gets washed out.

So while on the issue of accuracy... here's your humble pie.

Indeed ! Yes, the long term average applies.

During a 'volcanic eruption event' period is the CO2 level still 1/150th of the human induced variety? Seems a strange claim to me, but then, of course, you forgot to mention the average ..... again. Unless, of course, you *do* mean over the 2-3 years you are talking about. But then is the 2-3 years an average life time of volcanic contributions, or not (you don't say) and which average do you mean? Mean, median, mode? You don't say - is it for us to imply? Over what time frame are you measuring the 'long life span' in the atmosphere? Guess work for us, again, maybe?

Might just be better for you to post your source, I reckon.

Me ... humble pie? Every day mate, every single day. I'm always glad to be wrong.

Edited September 17, 2008 by VillagePlank

[laserguy]

http://www.climate4you.com/images/EQUATOR%...201998-2006.gif

Not much warming going on here. Where's the heat energy gonna come from to turn that around - the sleeping sun,pockets of warmth hidden somewhere in the ocean depths,CO2 generating heat from nothing?

[weather eater]

Thats the problem I feel, everything is so bias. If the pro-AGW's took natural variations into account when making claims, and the AGW sceptics accepted legitimate GHG science when making claims we would probably get somewhere closer to an accepted, realistic theory.

Which is why I don't watch programmes dealing with AGW sceptical or pro AGW programmes, because people minds are easily altered to believe what they watch, and it's a big big shame when we are trying to find out the truth about such potential problems.

I have to pick up on this Stephen because I don't think that’s the case, all the books/materials that I have seen from a AGW perspective have talked about natural variations, it seems to me that it’s only the skeptics that seem to dismiss anything but natural variations. As this is a global cooling thread could someone present some real hard evidence of global cooling, not just of a leveling out or a tiny small drop in global temperatures which could be a natural year in year out fluctuation? Certainly the governments of Russia, America, Canada, Norway, and Denmark don’t seem to think the earth and more particular the Arctic are getting cooler as the squabble over who gets the economic rights in the Arctic seems to indicate. The argument that GW is all a big con by governments to get more money via taxation is really a non starter, this is not to say that this card has not been played but the truth is the real money is in GW being a reality. The other truth here is that we can go round and round in circles talking about this subject but it will change nothing, there is not the will power in the world to change our impact on the environment.

[Gray-Wolf]

??????

I have to pick up on this Stephen because I don't think that's the case, all the books/materials that I have seen from a AGW perspective have talked about natural variations, it seems to me that it's only the skeptics that seem to dismiss anything but natural variations. As this is a global cooling thread could someone present some real hard evidence of global cooling, not just of a leveling out or a tiny small drop in global temperatures which could be a natural year in year out fluctuation? Certainly the governments of Russia, America, Canada, Norway, and Denmark don't seem to think the earth and more particular the Arctic are getting cooler as the squabble over who gets the economic rights in the Arctic seems to indicate. The argument that GW is all a big con by governments to get more money via taxation is really a non starter, this is not to say that this card has not been played but the truth is the real money is in GW being a reality. The other truth here is that we can go round and round in circles talking about this subject but it will change nothing, there is not the will power in the world to change our impact on the environment.

Hi W.E.!

you will find the same kinda thing over on the arctic ice thread this year. Because ice levels haven't dropped to the phenomenal lows of 2007 folk will claim 'recovery' even though it is the second lowest ice level ever monitored and the lowest ice volume ever monitored.

What use is it to pull up freakishly high temp years (or freakishly low ice levels) and make them some kind of 'mode' to measure all else by????

No fear, we recognise the unmistakable trends

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

The thing is with the global cooling arguement is it is circular in terms of concluding. Can we conclude that global warming in continuing if global temps drop? Can we conclude that global cooling doesnt exist if we only have a small time frame of data?

"How long is a piece of string?" is a phrase that often encompasses many of the discussions about cooling and warming with regards to enough evidence.