Global Cooling

[Thundery wintry showers]

The assumption "warm = life, food, cold = misery, wars" etc is often trotted out by those who condemn the love of snow. My arguments against it in the GW/AGW context are much the same.

Extremes of cold, up to a point, can be coped with, and people just acclimatise to the extra cold. For example, Moscow doesn't have significantly more cold-related deaths than London despite winters being about 15C colder on average, and wintertime lows occasionally falling below -30C. What hits hard and causes excess deaths and disruption is extremes of cold relative to the long-term average. Variability has a similar assessment- extreme variability is tolerated better in places where variability is normally high (e.g. Moscow) than where it is normally low (e.g. London). Thus, a two-week snowfall would cause much more disruption in London than in Moscow simply because people are less used to it.

However, above a certain level, extreme cold inhibits prosperity no matter how much we acclimatise.

Heat is much the same. People in the Mediterranean are generally tolerant of summer heat and drought because it is the norm there, whereas as soon as such weather penetrates into northern Europe (take France in August 2003 for an extreme case) chaos ensues. But again, only so much heat can be coped with, it is no accident that most of the hottest countries in the world are developing countries.

Global warming is likely to help make extremely cold regions more hospitable, but is also likely to make hot regions less hospitable. In particular, if it occurs quickly over a short time, it may happen too fast for people to be able to keep up with the change- again, see France, August 2003. In addition there is a risk of catastrophic sea level rise caused by the melt of glaciers, land-based ice sheets (chiefly Greenland) and thermal expansion of the oceans.

[SP1986]

I kind of add to Ians argument in a different way, cold IS vital to the Earth, cold is earths cleaner, and in some places it's clock. For this country there are many reason why, in the current natural state we do not want significant warming, in large due to the deciduous cycling of vegetation and the natural cycling of animals which is vital for their survival. So we do require cooling in the current state, and the natural process of the earth is to cool, to cleanse and restart, thats my belief.

I do believe we are in a warming trend, I believe the data, and whilst I prefer warming, I realise that the current population of deciduous woodland, and particularly coniferous vegetation which is so so important to our plant is under threat if warming is to accelarate again. Earth is not a planet without cures though, and I believe the planet will respond before it gets too far.

I do believe we will not see significant surface warming with a warming climate at first though, I read a research paper, (cant remember which one it was recent by Jenkins and Jennings or someone similar to that name) which analysed the upper air temperature values and concluded that if warming is going to occur, we will probably see the upper air (upper troposhere) warming before surface temperatures respond in any great way.

[laserguy]

.....if warming is going to occur, we will probably see the upper air (upper troposhere) warming before surface temperatures respond in any great way.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...rss_june_08.png

Still no sign of that - the 'classic' giveaway signature of CO2 induced warming,apparently.

I think the above two posts from TWS and SP have misinterpreted what I said regarding cooler temps. As we all know,extremes of warm or cold can and do occur whatever the prevalant trend happens to be. Lord knows I've been berated often enough for highlighting the increasing episodes of severe cold around the world just lately,and being told in no uncertain terms that it means nothing in the grand scheme of AGW. Sigh.

No,I wasn't referring to extremes but a gradual and sustained move to lower temps and the catastrophic effects that would have on growing seasons (check out the carnage inflicted in the USA this year due to just that),as well as on a world which is becoming increasingly paranoid over energy supply security (and that's at a time of 'unprecedented' warmth when things should evidently be at the leading edge of cosiness!). Any cooling from here on in can only exacerbate an already grim and deteriorating situation. I know the enviro types have a different slant on this,but I've consistently maintained that this is the reason world governments (at least those who are dependant wholly or partly on imported energy) are getting so flustered at reducing emissions and hence consumption of a dwindling means of doing so. Carbon footprints? Carbon dioxide bubble-headedness more like. Soon the UK will have near zero consumption as it becomes a nation of pen-pushers,McDonalds burger flippers and dole wallahs placated with their lot in life by five hundred tv channels advertising 'made in China' stuff,while all our manufacturing has cleared off to the far East with their 5p an hour labour costs,and our CO2 conscience is sated. Brilliant.

[Roger J Smith]

Should we also have a thread for "global stasis" because there is an awful lot of near-normal weather showing up, it could be the start of a trend.

[VillagePlank]

Here's another one for the melting pot.

As I understand it, they've composed the time series data of temperature into four intrinsic mode functions, using empirical orthogonal function analysis, and determined, that, at most, CO2 accounts for only 40% (ish) of atmopsheric warming.

[laserguy]

intrinsic mode functions, using empirical orthogonal function analysis,

Look,is there really any need for that? My head's in bad shape as it is,what with this damn 'flu .

[VillagePlank]

Yup - apologies ...

Empirical Orthogonal Function

[laserguy]

Yup - apologies ...

Empirical Orthogonal Function

Ta VP. Will read when my head's stopped knocking like a Velocette single with a knackered big-end.

[stewfox]

And every year we hear of 'record-breaking cold' in one location or another as a demonstration that the planet isn't warming at all. Here in the UK the problem is more in the opposite direction - up to now we seem to have warmed more extremely than the world as a whole, and we 'pros' may have over-emphasized our own depressing experience in our arguments. But then if the British winter is at all colder this year (please, PLEASE can it be), we both know that there will be a host of posts celebrating the end of global warming.

I think it's safer to take a longer, wider view, but keep giving the picture as we see it all along the way - even though we may turn out to be wrong in some of the things we originally thought. No final answers, but our best informed and honest opinions - just like the best science, in fact.

Every week the Global warming brigade cynically publish a cute polar bear on a floating ice berg , why cant the global warming cynics have there fun ?

Im sure no one on here at least is going to take seriously record heat in one place record cold in another as 'hard evidence' of global warming /cooling

However wide spread record cold/heat is worthy of debate

Media need hype a 0.2C variation in global temps doesn't sell papers

A 20c in Jan (London) or -5C does

What I don't like is the total bias of the media towards global warming even this recent BBC2 programme

Also this guy got a lot of media attention and was on the BBC as he was going to Kyayk all the way to the North pole (the very top)

I see in small article he got within 620 miles of it , how far would he have got in 1979 625 miles ??

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/life/environment/2008/09/08/173682/N%2E%2DPole.htm

Should we also have a thread for "global stasis" because there is an awful lot of near-normal weather showing up, it could be the start of a trend.

Reminds me of a Not the Nine O'clock new sketch with the weather for Saudi Arabia

The next day was going to be hot, very dry and sunny and dark at night

The weekly forcast was going to be hot dry and sunny and dark at night and the long range forecast was going to be hot dry and sunny dark at night

The great thing about near normal weather for the UK of course is for most it's not considered 'normal' and its certainly vaired

I'm off to Sharm el Sheik on Sunday and I see the weekly forecast ranges form highs of 96 to 98 and lows of 79 to 80. Dry and sunny of course

Makes me proud of the UK's normal weather

[Thundery wintry showers]

I do find certain aspects of the BBC's coverage of "climate change" somewhat dubious.

Again I detect some circularity in Laserguy's arguments that warmth means cosiness, as they rely upon the assumption that warmth means cosiness. It may well be the case that in many developed countries, a modest amount of warming might benefit economies, but of course you also have to factor into the extra deaths caused by the likes of August 2003 France heatwave, and extra summer air-conditioning bills. In developing countries a modest amount of warming could well have the opposite effect- pushing marginal communities over the edge.

And anyway, if the argument is that AGW is twaddle, why the defensiveness over the idea that warmth is good? Surely if AGW is twaddle (which I maintain is a massive IF!) then there's no need to defend the idea that warmth is good, for the only reason for defending that I can see would be "if AGW is real, we still shouldn't bother doing anything about it, because warming is good".

[Anti-Mild]

I was disappointed by the BBC programme on Sunday that was meant to give the AGW sceptics view. The way the programme was presented was designed to present each of the main arguments to global warming and then shoot each of them down in flames. No mention was made of the theory that temperature leads CO2.

[SP1986]

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...rss_june_08.png

Still no sign of that - the 'classic' giveaway signature of CO2 induced warming,apparently

That may be because you posted a graph of the lower troposphere, which, if you look properly does show a gradual warming trend, although very small in the relative anomalies, negligible maybe, but there certainly isn't any cooling trend there that I can make out. The problem is I feel, people tend to take the spikes literally. Im not sure who analysed that graph, but where they really looking at the same graph I am? The anomaly graphs dont really work though when looking for trends, you need actually temperature data graphs, all that graph tells you is that the anomaly has gone up, and in effect the spike could be high relative temperature in March and a low relative temperature in June, which does not tell you how much the climate has warmed.

My post wasn't directly in response to yours though Lg, it was just some of my own compiled thoughts.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I was disappointed by the BBC programme on Sunday that was meant to give the AGW sceptics view. The way the programme was presented was designed to present each of the main arguments to global warming and then shoot each of them down in flames. No mention was made of the theory that temperature leads CO2.

Yes, I forgot to elaborate a little on my point about the BBC's portrayal of global warming. They do seem to have a pro-AGW bias, as is shown by their attempts to link everything under the sun with AGW wherever possible. Sceptics' views tend to be annihilated, or if they make a good point, a weakened version of their argument is presented and refuted. But another problem is the way they try to "simplify" the scientific basis for AGW, such that their case for AGW ends up being based on a terribly over-simplified version of the science, a version that often doesn't add up and could well fuel scepticism.

For example, one recent BBC program made out that the fact that CO2 concentrations have shot up shows that humans have caused CO2 concentrations to shoot up. In reality, on its own, it proves nothing of the sort, all it proves is that CO2 concentrations have shot up. Yet there is plenty of scientific evidence out there that supports the notion that humans are largely responsible for the increase, all they needed to do was use some of it! There's too much propoganda, and too little actual science.

My suspicion on the CO2-temperature feedback is that it's probably a positive feedback, increased temperature encourages increased CO2 and vice versa, but due to other counteracting mechanisms we don't see a runaway warming as a result.

[laserguy]

Again I detect some circularity in Laserguy's arguments that warmth means cosiness, as they rely upon the assumption that warmth means cosiness. It may well be the case that in many developed countries, a modest amount of warming might benefit economies, but of course you also have to factor into the extra deaths caused by the likes of August 2003 France heatwave, and extra summer air-conditioning bills. In developing countries a modest amount of warming could well have the opposite effect- pushing marginal communities over the edge.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/09/18/...-as-a-negative/

Aren't we all going in circles? Wherever and whenever global warming or whatever is mentioned within earshot of joe public it always,but always focuses on catastrophism and never the positives. Which might far outweigh the negatives. Why might that be the case,I ask in all sincerity?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Well, because the evidence strongly suggests that, while a very modest amount of warming (say the 1-2C at the lower end of the IPCC range) might benefit the planet as a whole, a significantly greater warming would almost certainly have more downsides.

The article linked to focuses only on water stress, not impacts of a wamer planet as a whole.

Changes in atmospheric circulation and changes in atmospheric composition (warmer air can hold more moisture- see Clausius-Clapeyron relation for more details) may lead to more flooding in some areas, more drought in others, and more of both in some places too. Sea levels are likely to rise substantially due to thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of land-based ice caps. Significant temperature increases may make marginal areas of the developed world inhospitable.

In addition, if there is a significant human input into the climate system, it is by no means certain that we'll just see a steady warming of 2 or 3C and then stop. It may well trigger additional feedback mechanisms which could in turn make the climate more unstable than it would be with little or no human intervention, say a large warming, or even a large cooling, over a short space of time. In essence, coming out of an era of climate stability, huge risks of climate instability are a nasty prospect, and especially if we may be contributing to this.

By circular arguments I don't mean debates going around in circles. I mean arguments of the form: "Assume A is true. Therefore, we have evidence B, fitted around the premise that A is true. From evidence B, it follows that A is true." Or, more simply, A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true.

[laserguy]

Thank you for the quick reply,TWS. I've little doubt that much of what you've just said is reasonable. The only way I can respond is to say that there is no evidence,never mind proof that human CO2 emissions are influencing climate. As this is starting to drift off topic (probably my fault!) it might be best if we left it for now and picked up on it elsewhere,later. Regards,LG.

[stewfox]

Again I detect some circularity in Laserguy's arguments that warmth means cosiness, as they rely upon the assumption that warmth means cosiness. It may well be the case that in many developed countries, a modest amount of warming might benefit economies, but of course you also have to factor into the extra deaths caused by the likes of August 2003 France heatwave, and extra summer air-conditioning bills. In developing countries a modest amount of warming could well have the opposite effect- pushing marginal communities over the edge.

There would be far more deaths if The Earth cooled by 2c rather then warmed by 2c

15,000 French died in that heat wave , far more would die in a colder winter then average

89,000 i see did in the cold winter of 62/63 in the UK (31,000 normal winter over 65s from the cold)

http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/conte...05/s1522717.htm

Cool it an excellent reference book

Edited September 19, 2008 by stewfox

[weather eater]

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/09/18/...-as-a-negative/

Aren't we all going in circles? Wherever and whenever global warming or whatever is mentioned within earshot of joe public it always,but always focuses on catastrophism and never the positives. Which might far outweigh the negatives. Why might that be the case,I ask in all sincerity?

And what might they be. It seems to me that what we have amongst the anti GW fraternity is an inability to make their minds up, first let’s refute AGW then if we can’t win that argument lets just emphasis the benefits of a warmer world. Let’s look at some possible outcomes of GW if it continues in the predicted manner. Sea level rise, well people can move away from flooded areas, the problem being the people already living away from flooded areas are going to get a bit miffed about an influx of environmental refuges. Then there's the problem of areas of the world becoming un-inhabitable, yet again a vast influx of people into areas already densely populated, large scale population movements have a habit of starting wars. Freak weather events, well we haven’t a clue have we, don’t know what types or whether they will occur at all, Then there is our duty of care for the other creatures that inhabit this planet, short of a deity or at least one that seems to take an active interest we have a duty to see that the bio diversity of the earth is maintained. Of course vast areas will be opened up for the extraction of oil, gas and other resources pumping out even more greenhouse gasses and hey we might be able to make wine as good as the French, wow.

I really hope this is all a natural cycle but most of the evidence points at that not being the case and most of the scientific world seems to agree including many former skeptics. Nobody on this forum would like to see fantastically cold winters something to tell my grandchildren and just for the sheer joy of being able experience the extraordinary, that would be fantastic. In my opinion the dangers far out way the positives. And as yet nobody has produced any sound evidence of real cooling, record low temperatures being achieved somewhere or other does not refute AGW, to the best of my knowledge no proponent of AGW would suggest that natural fluctuations will not occur in a warming world,

As for the BBC program about climate change I thought it was very good it showed clearly to my mind what the skeptics evidence was and how it had been refuted, I would suggest that the reason some thought it biased was because it didn’t agree with their personal point of view. I also agree with TWS that it would help the whole debate if the media stuck to the science and didn’t mention climate change every time we had anything other than bland weather, freak weather events are not new and have IMO little or nothing to do with GW most of the time.

[Thundery wintry showers]

There would be far more deaths if The Earth cooled by 2c rather then warmed by 2c

15,000 French died in that heat wave , far more would die in a colder winter then average

89,000 i see did in the cold winter of 62/63 in the UK (31,000 normal winter over 65s from the cold)

http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/conte...05/s1522717.htm

Cool it an excellent reference book

Not necessarily. Excess people die when we have extreme cold relative to 1. the long term average and 2. normal variability within the long-term average.

There would be many excess deaths if the earth cooled by 2C over a short time span, but not if it happened over a long time span because people would adapt to the change. Moscow doesn't have significantly higher winter mortality than London despite much colder winters and much greater variability- it can drop below -30C in the coldest winter spells there.

The above article is referring to the media's mis-information about the Met Office's winter 2005/06 forecast, suggesting the "coldest since 1963" when in fact the Met Office had merely said it would be colder than most recent winters- and for much of central, eastern and southern Britain their forecast was more or less spot on.

I agree with Weather eater's assertion that there seems to be a tendency of "let's refute AGW, and if that fails, let's make out that AGW would be a good thing", and to my mind, even if it doesn't stem from a desire to maintain the "status quo", that's where it leaves us, i.e. conclusion- do nothing about it.

[weather eater]

Nobody on this forum would like to see fantastically cold winters something to tell my grandchildren and just for the sheer joy of being able experience the extraordinary, that would be fantastic.

More than me I meant to say.

[stewfox]

Not necessarily. Excess people die when we have extreme cold relative to 1. the long term average and 2. normal variability within the long-term average.

There would be many excess deaths if the earth cooled by 2C over a short time span, but not if it happened over a long time span because people would adapt to the change. Moscow doesn't have significantly higher winter mortality than London despite much colder winters and much greater variability- it can drop below -30C in the coldest winter spells there.

Im sure the elderly are not all droping dead in Las Vegas either, which can hit 100f for days on end, the air condition might freeze you though

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_ori...n_newsweek.html

The point is not about putting on an extra coat or taking one off but the evidence that suggest a colder planet would lead to more deaths

[Thundery wintry showers]

It's all very well providing point-scoring links that take up one extreme position or the other, but for every link that "disproves" anthropogenic global warming there is another link that "proves" it. I note that the site linked to has the agenda "do nothing about it, keep the status quo" again. Once again, these people who want to see economic growth and consumption maximised at all cost fail to recognise another, more definite limiting factor- what happens when we use up most of our fossil fuel reserves? Oops.

I can't be bothered to sift through the whole lot, but did scan a bit. There are some fair criticisms of Al Gore's video in there, though some dubious ones as well (the Arctic might not have been warming faster than the rest of the globe up until 2001- but since 2002, it's consistently been by far the most anomalously warm region on the globe). Al Gore's video was rather biased, though so was the "Great Global Warming Swindle".

And I still haven't seen any evidence that a warmer planet will result in less deaths. Turning it on its head by saying "a colder planet will cause more deaths" both misses the point, and is unsubstantiated as it doesn't define how much colder the planet gets. It may well be, for instance, that a colder planet would mean more deaths in societies that are marginal because of cold, but less deaths in societies that are marginal because of heat.

As for the assertion that in the USA "up to 174,000 less people are being killed because of lack of cold"- says who, and how reliable is the statistic?

[laserguy]

And what might they be. It seems to me that what we have amongst the anti GW fraternity is an inability to make their minds up, first let's refute AGW then if we can't win that argument lets just emphasis the benefits of a warmer world..........

Well,I'd abandoned this thread because of the direction it was taking,but I cannot let this go. The last thing that this 'member of the anti AGW fraternity' has is an inability to make up his mind. I can't speak for others. My point was that the committed(?) AGW believer refuses to entertain the notion of any warming being other than a disaster. As for vast areas being opened up for oil,gas etc,I personally do not have drilling equipment,and frankly couldn't care less if BP found a googolplex barrels of oil or never another drop again. Wine? Again can't speak for the bone idle masses who haven't a clue what it is or where it's made except that it comes in bottles from the supermarket or the local 8 til late. I make my own (for the missus),same goes for beer. But what's this got to do with anything?

Last time I looked,most of the recent converts were from the pro AGW side towards the sceptics. That's to be expected of course as cooling becomes more evident,don't want to be left high and dry on a sinking ship now. I deliberately didn't watch the BBC show because I knew full well where the bias would lie,and I didn't fancy shelling out for a new telly in these financially challenged times. Going by the comments on here I was absolutely right. Know who subsidises the Beeb over and above our totally insufficient license contribution? Yes that's right,the same people who preach the AGW nonsense in order to reduce our emissions. Believers watched it eagerly I guess,knowing that the Beeb would champion the cause. What do you mean if GW (what happened to the 'A'?) continues in the predicted manner? Let me whisper into your ear and let you in on a little secret....

I don't know what the proportion of AGW believers is,compared to those who flat-out reject it. Or those who have no idea/couldn't give a monkeys. Of course,anyone who challenges AGW must be in the pay of big oil or run a polluting factory,or have a fleet of gas guzzling limos or whatever. What utter garbage. Big Al's the man for that! Personally,I refute it for no other reason than I can clearly,so blindingly clearly see it for the incredible scam that it is. I've nothing whatsoever to gain out of my stance,but me being me can't stand aside whilst wrong is being done. I'd like to think that is what drives most sceptics/deniers too.

TWS, I've never encouraged the continuance of the status quo,really you should have twigged that by now! In fact,it should be clear to all that it cannot go on,my objection is using climate as the tool to lever public attitudes. The argument that,well it won't hurt to be careful just doesn't wash with me. How many billions have now been literally thrown away on 'tackling' (grr) climate change which could have been far better spent elsewhere? No-one,but no-one knows what future climate will be like,how can the unknown be prepared for? Meanwhile in this currently benign climatic regime,millions still die of starvation but it's alright to research and prepare for the unknowable whilst gleefully spending unknown billions to provide a running track for a few guys 'n' gals in 2012. Meanwhile,tackling this non-problem is one of many factors making it hard for honest folk to get to work/keep the work/live from day-to-day. I've had enough of it all to be honest. You all run along and save the planet by whatever means you wish. I'll be standing by to applaud if you do.

[Thundery wintry showers]

The problem is the statement that AGW is a load of nonsense, then when someone challenges that idea, then saying "but warming would probably be a good thing", then when that's challenged, going back to saying "AGW is a load of nonsense".

Why is there a need to be defensive of the idea that warming is a good thing, despite a fair amount of evidence on the contrary, when one's initial position is that AGW is tripe and not happening anyway? The argument "warming is a good thing" is commonly used by the anti-AGW camp to argue for continuing to keep polluting the planet.

The point that keeps being missed is that measures to reduce our pollution and reduce dependency on those dwindling fossil fuels are measures that will, in themselves, help reduce the extent of any anthropogenic contribution to climate change. Measures do not have to address just one cause or the other. I am quite happy to agree that many current environmental policies stink, but that doesn't mean that the idea of environmental policy is bad, just that it is being implemented in a poor way at present.

[Chris Knight]

Not necessarily. Excess people die when we have extreme cold relative to 1. the long term average and 2. normal variability within the long-term average.

There would be many excess deaths if the earth cooled by 2C over a short time span, but not if it happened over a long time span because people would adapt to the change. Moscow doesn't have significantly higher winter mortality than London despite much colder winters and much greater variability- it can drop below -30C in the coldest winter spells there.

The above article is referring to the media's mis-information about the Met Office's winter 2005/06 forecast, suggesting the "coldest since 1963" when in fact the Met Office had merely said it would be colder than most recent winters- and for much of central, eastern and southern Britain their forecast was more or less spot on.

I agree with Weather eater's assertion that there seems to be a tendency of "let's refute AGW, and if that fails, let's make out that AGW would be a good thing", and to my mind, even if it doesn't stem from a desire to maintain the "status quo", that's where it leaves us, i.e. conclusion- do nothing about it.

Every year the seasonal temperatures drop by much more than this in the UK and elsewhere in the mid latitude NH.

I will make a prediction.

Even if there is not an excessively cold winter this year, in the UK and around the northern hemisphere there will be a higher than average death rate amongst the elderly due:

to fear of inability to pay for fuel costs, leading to

lack of sufficient heating

lack of sufficient nutrition

depression

If you can help anyone living alone, or as couples isolated because of age, I urge you to help them out this winter in every way you can.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Chris Knight