Global Cooling

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

ame='weather eater' date='19 September 2009 - 21:00 ' timestamp='1253390452' post='1591453']

Actually TWS, I'm open minded still, if temps where to continue to rise as per IPCC projections, then yes I would change my view!

Unfortunately not able to see the rest of your answer, but I would agree with that SC.

However as far as I am concerned at this time such a change of mind is a long way off. I am far from convinced about the IPCC projections, there are too many uncertainties that can easily derail the peramaters that the IPCC are following, many of them based on hypothetical science that needs a reality check outside the lab. The more I read about AGW, and the more I have got to understand about man made feedback assumptions, the more sceptical I have become - if anything. I see more and more holes and uncertainties and reliance on feedback assumptions that make projections over mutil decades virtually a lottery.

My statement about a change of mind being a long way off will no doubt be construed by a few as not being open minded.

But as far as I am concerned it is much better to see evidence from all angles of the science, make your own judgement and interpretation based on as smuch as you can understand and comprehend, and if that means that you come down on one side or other of the debate then so be it. It is your own judgement, not anyone else's - so it is not for them to judge you on it. As long as you know within yourself that you have looked at different angles, then that is all that matters - the only person you would be fooling is yourself, not anyone else. You can do no more than that, nor should you be expected to. Therefore it is not for anyone else to try and impose what they think is the correct stance for you to take.

It is for each to find their own. Sticking to it, in the absence of any compelling evidence to enforce a change of mind, is not a sign of being closed minded, nor being entrenched, nor any ridiculous assertion about clinging to a worry over the end of cold snowy winters (nice and fluffy and happy that they are)

It is indicative of being decisive in terms of making your own best judgement on your own best understanding of the evidence that is put in front of you..

[jethro]

I agree with the gist of what you're saying Tamara, everyone is entitled to make their own decision, for what ever reason and hold with that decision as long as they please. But, and it's quite an important but, the validity of that decision is wholly dependant upon what kind of information has been read or studied in order to reach the conclusion surely?

If the Red tops declare AGW to be a really big problem or indeed not a problem at all; how valid would an opinion be if formed from that information? If those reports impel someone to make their own further investigations via peer reviewed journals, and this in turn leads them to agree/disagree with the Red tops, wouldn't that decision be more informed?

[MR EXTREMES]

And where is your evidence for this statement, it seems to me that you make these statements because you have already made your mind up and thus these scientists must have other motives for continuing with their beliefs. If this isn't the case then present your evidence.

well to be honest i agree with sc look at the situation.

i remember reading alot since 2007 about arctic ice melt.

and it was said that last year and this year would see declines in ice which it has ofcoarse but not in the magnitude suggested.

in all honesty i dont think sc has to produce evidence simply going to other post topics and looking at evidence thats been posted already is enough.

and this evidence supports both sides of the fence.

with in my mind each bit of evidence is starting to cause massive confusing because some people or i should say alot of people would rather take ipcc and many others at face value.

should we just except what they say many have valid arguement on both sides?

so its true warming has happened but not as much as was first suggest and only small rise since 1998 if any,

so therefore is it possible this could be the start of a decline in global temps well we dont know until it happens.

so both sides have valid points.

but i myself feel this planet has gone through changes all through its lifetime,

and its only been in the last 50 years or so we have had the tec to monitor the earths changes so whats happened in the last 100 years might well be normal,

because its not enough time to suggest its man made.

if you consider the medievil period to be a true event then this climate we live in now is perfectly normal so to panic people is the wrong aproach.

its said that during the maunder minimum the earth went into the mini ice age,

we are now in a start of a minimum if it where to turn out after the minimum has passed the earth is warmer and it had no effect,

then we could use that as evidence then try and find out why the earth went into the mini ice age.

theres is just so much and i think the earths climate is much more complex than any computer on the planet and it will take atleast another 50 to 100 years minimum to get the truth.

but im firmly on the cooling camps side right now but not disputing the planet has warmed in the last 10 or 15 years up until 1998.

Edited September 20, 2009 by badboy657

[Gray-Wolf]

The paper that recently highlighted that we ARE in a long period of global cooling (offset this past 150yrs by our outpourings) seems to be being neglected here I feel.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090903163721.htm

Surely this is what this thread is about and seeing as we have uncovered a mechanism (long cycle) for general global cooling why aren't those who wish to see this result celebrating???

Maybe it's because the cooling has been offset this past 150yrs without one contiguous natural driver being present to account for this over-riding of the cooling?

With a combination of this long cycle cooling trend and The recent collaboration of much shorter cycle cooling drivers (PDO,AO, ENSO signals) augmenting this trend why are we not seeing more dramatic climatic impacts?

Is it possible that the same thing that reversed the general cooling trend throughout the 20th century is also strong enough to offset the (expected?) cooling?

What then occurs when these augmenting factors fade and the globe turns more neutral in it's drivers? or turns positive in it's drivers?

Maybe I'm wrong in my understanding but if something is already mitigating the cooling we should be experiencing then, when the peripheral drivers once again turn positive, won't we find ourself with the 80's/90's levels of warming?

What if we are increasing the very thing that is offsetting the current cooling trend? are we to expect that we will exceed the rate of warming experienced in the 80's/90's once the augmenting drivers turn positive again?

We seem to be being told by the authorities highlighting AGW that this is just what we are to expect post 2015.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

It isn't just about being entitled to have an opinion for the sake of it. That one keeps coming back and is not wholly representative of the objective and purpose that is at work here. At least not in every casse.

It is more to do with reading between the lines with people and perhaps trusting them and crediting them with enough intelligence to be able to make their own judgements based not just on a choosing a reasonably respected source but also from the starting point that if one is interested enough in a certain subject and, as much as possible, want to find out what the real truth might be then it kind of follows that you are not going to be sourcing a dodgy database/link/blog/childrens comic etc as that would rather defeat your objective.

And, following on from that - as my post alluded to, it would be proof that the only person that you are not being honest with was yourself. Even if you might be kidding others in the process.

Edited September 20, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[jethro]

It isn't just about being entitled to have an opinion for the sake of it. That one keeps coming back and is not wholly representative of the objective and purpose that is at work here. At least not in every casse.

It is more to do with reading between the lines with people and perhaps trusting them and crediting them with enough intelligence to be able to make their own judgements based not just on a choosing a reasonably respected source but also from the starting point that if one is interested enough in a certain subject and, as much as possible, want to find out what the real truth might be then it kind of follows that you are not going to be sourcing a dodgy database/link/blog/childrens comic etc as that would rather defeat your objective.

And, following on from that - as my post alluded to, it would be proof that the only person that you are not being honest with was yourself. Even if you might be kidding others in the process.

I might be being incredibly dense here (always a possibility) but I can't see where anyone has said otherwise.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I might be being incredibly dense here (always a possibility) but I can't see where anyone has said otherwise.

Clearly we are talking at cross purposes then aren't we perhaps?

I'm not saying anything any different to what I have said to you before, which appeared to have good mutual agreement, so not sure why there should be any difference now.

Edited September 20, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[jethro]

Obviously crossed purposes. Anyway, perhaps a topic for another thread; GW, I still think that article is confusing.

[Methuselah]

IMO Jethro, the entire subject is confusing:

On the one hand, any cooling is barely even significant; and, on the other, the warming has stalled or stopped?

It seems to me then that, with things as they currently stand, BOTH 'extreme' camps are floundering somewhat?

[laserguy]

It seems to me then that, with things as they currently stand, BOTH 'extreme' camps are floundering somewhat?

http://www.vancouver...4959/story.html

With particular emphasis on the last paragraph...

Meanwhile,let's all bury our differences,go for a pint and pick up where we left off in 20 years .

[Methuselah]

Sounds like a good idea, LG... :unsure:

The article is quite right in that Latif can't say, for certain, that warming will recommence in 20 years. What they don't say though, is that the very-same logic questions his claim that cooling will continue for 20 years, in the first place...

IMO, he can't know either!

[VillagePlank]

It seems to me then that, with things as they currently stand, BOTH 'extreme' camps are floundering

Spot on, IMO.

And given that any conclusion about warming slowing down, warming stalled, or cooling occuring, on such a small timespan, is inherently a complete waste of time. There are very good reasons why climate not should be looked at less than, say, the notional 30 year period, and, the complete lack of an ability to draw conclusions for timespans less than that is one very good reason.

The last ten years is curious; in the same way that the 10 years leading up to the massive 1998 (?) El Nino event were. People drew conclusions from that, and people will draw conclusions from the ten years, since. Statistically, of course, it's nonsense.

The bottom line is that enough warming has occured in the last 30 years, that a following 30 years of no, very slight, or high variance temperatures is required for this last ten years to be significant. Unless, of course, you can show why the warming occured, and the last ten years have occured.

My personal favourite is to use a 30 year moving average; and guess what - that's just as unenlightened as any other method I've seen.

EDIT: and that lot was just a fancy way of saying "need more data"!

Edited September 20, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Methuselah]

Spot on, IMO.

And given that any conclusion about warming slowing down, warming stalled, or cooling occuring, on such a small timespan, is inherently a complete waste of time. There are very good reasons why climate not should be looked at less than, say, the notional 30 year period, and, the complete lack of an ability to draw conclusions for timespans less than that is one very good reason.

The last ten years is curious; in the same way that the 10 years leading up to the massive 1998 (?) El Nino event were. People drew conclusions from that, and people will draw conclusions from the ten years, since. Statistically, of course, it's nonsense.

The bottom line is that enough warming has occured in the last 30 years, that a following 30 years of no, very slight, or high variance temperatures is required for this last ten years to be significant. Unless, of course, you can show why the warming occured, and the last ten years have occured.

My personal favourite is to use a 30 year moving average; and guess what - that's just as unenlightened as any other method I've seen.

EDIT: and that lot was just a fancy way of saying "need more data"! :unsure:

But, you're right enough, VP...To me, it looks like one of those x + y = 0 equations...Except that both x and y contain, within themselves, a subset of myriad other (including an unkown number of 'unknowns') constants and variables???

Need more data????

[VillagePlank]

But, you're right enough, VP...To me, it looks like one of those x + y = 0 equations...Except that both x and y contain, within themselves, a subset of myriad other (including an unkown number of 'unknowns') constants and variables???

Need more data????

Yes, of course, and the linear equations can be solved, easily, by Gaussian Elimination - although it is more efficient, but harder to implement using LU decomposition. I haven't got the results to hand - they are stuck on some backup at work, but I've done the exercise, and the results? Outstandingly non-linear, and remarkably non-conclusive. Of course, that's not what you meant, anyway :unsure:

This is not to say that extrapolation from the last ten years might not be useful. I think it is very important to see what people think and feel. That's the weather, and climate is derived, directly, from that. I also think, that whilst the clamour for evidence based reasoning is coming to a fore, here, I like the weather because, rather like gambling, it's fun, unpredictable, and it's something we all share.

And that's corresponds well with my conclusion about lack of data. Maybe coincidence, maybe bias (of course it is!) but that's just the way I feel.

Edited September 20, 2009 by VillagePlank

[weather eater]

well to be honest i agree with sc look at the situation.

i remember reading alot since 2007 about arctic ice melt.

and it was said that last year and this year would see declines in ice which it has ofcoarse but not in the magnitude suggested.

in all honesty i dont think sc has to produce evidence simply going to other post topics and looking at evidence thats been posted already is enough.

and this evidence supports both sides of the fence.

with in my mind each bit of evidence is starting to cause massive confusing because some people or i should say alot of people would rather take ipcc and many others at face value.

should we just except what they say many have valid arguement on both sides?

so its true warming has happened but not as much as was first suggest and only small rise since 1998 if any,

so therefore is it possible this could be the start of a decline in global temps well we dont know until it happens.

so both sides have valid points.

but i myself feel this planet has gone through changes all through its lifetime,

and its only been in the last 50 years or so we have had the tec to monitor the earths changes so whats happened in the last 100 years might well be normal,

because its not enough time to suggest its man made.

if you consider the medievil period to be a true event then this climate we live in now is perfectly normal so to panic people is the wrong aproach.

its said that during the maunder minimum the earth went into the mini ice age,

we are now in a start of a minimum if it where to turn out after the minimum has passed the earth is warmer and it had no effect,

then we could use that as evidence then try and find out why the earth went into the mini ice age.

theres is just so much and i think the earths climate is much more complex than any computer on the planet and it will take atleast another 50 to 100 years minimum to get the truth.

but im firmly on the cooling camps side right now but not disputing the planet has warmed in the last 10 or 15 years up until 1998.:unsure:

I think you've missed the point of what I was trying to say. Of course there is a debate on the science, but the question I put to SC was, where is the evidence that The bulk of the Scientific Community who support the theory Of AGW to one degree or another are doing so for reasons other than, because they support the scientific principle. I don’t pretend to know exactly how this stands in law, but it seems to me that the constant inferring that the said scientist's are in support of AGW theory, based on political pressure or financial gain without evidence to back those claims, is close to libellous. Lets by all means, as most are, debate the science, there are many questions that need answering, nothing wrong with being sceptical, but rubbishing people without evidence, just because they believe something other than you is wrong.

[MR EXTREMES]

indeed your right weathereater.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Yes, of course, and the linear equations can be solved, easily, by Gaussian Elimination - although it is more efficient, but harder to implement using LU decomposition. I haven't got the results to hand - they are stuck on some backup at work, but I've done the exercise, and the results? Outstandingly non-linear, and remarkably non-conclusive. Of course, that's not what you meant, anyway

This is not to say that extrapolation from the last ten years might not be useful. I think it is very important to see what people think and feel. That's the weather, and climate is derived, directly, from that. I also think, that whilst the clamour for evidence based reasoning is coming to a fore, here, I like the weather because, rather like gambling, it's fun, unpredictable, and it's something we all share.

And that's corresponds well with my conclusion about lack of data. Maybe coincidence, maybe bias (of course it is!) but that's just the way I feel.

:unsure:

Nay- I welcome your stance on the subject, you clearly come at it from a position of trying to find the ultimate truth, and the Leaky Integrator is a refreshing example of an alternative "sceptic" theory which is based on proper scientific methodology and analysis.

I also don't think these arguments about the significance of the temperatures up to 1998 or the 10 years since then are really of much use. There is a wide range of possible implications that can come from either or both sets of trends, but the only clear-cut fact that comes out is that it is too short a time span to justify reaching any strong conclusions. It is good to establish the key possibilities, but after that we just end up re-treading the same arguments with both sides eager to interpret trends to suit their desires.

My relative scepticism about the degree of AGW doesn't come out of thin air or desire to see it not be as bad as many fear (though I certainly have a desire along those lines). I have read countless peer-reviewed papers on climate change and, from time to time, come across papers which strongly suggest that it might not be quite as clear-cut as we are led to believe. At the same time, though, I am yet to read a peer-reviewed paper that casts doubt upon the existence of AGW, merely its extent.

[parmenides3]

There's a whole load I've missed since yesterday; sorry to go missing when it all starts off.

Can I clear up a couple of points which seem to pop up regularly?

1. The 'general scientific opinion' and motives for having such opinions. Either there is a large general opinion within the relevant sciences that AGW is happening, or there isn't. You can't both claim that there is no consensus and at the same time claim that the majority of scientists are self-interested lackeys of the system; this is inconsistent. I asked 3600 scientists with track records in climate related sciences what they thought, and about 1/4 thought the effect of AGW might be less extreme than the 'IPCC standard'; another 1/4 -1/3 thought the IPCC underestimated the problem, and the rest though the IPCC standard was there or thereabouts. In other words, whilst not all scientists agree with the detail, it does seem to represent the 'mean' opinion reasonably well. Not one scientist who responded said they did not think AGW was happening. (This was nearly two years ago; opinions may have changed since then.

2. Climate models. Just about everyone wants climate models to be better than they are, and to remove any inaccuracy or false assumptions. But the sheer size and compexity of the modelling makes this a slow and difficult process. these are huge computers with thousands of interdependent variable equations running hundreds of millions of calculations a second; and even then, it takes months to run a single 'projection' run, for example. Nobody thinks climate models are perfect, and nobody in the scientific community is suggesting that their output is 'gospel' as far as the future is concerned. But; there is considerable consistency between different models in different places; none of them is projecting a long-term cool down or return to historic conditions, and between them the range of possible future warming is quite a broad range, but all are positive. This is a source of great concern in climate science, because it appears likely that the differences between +1.5C in 100 years, and +5C, are huge, and the actual total anticipated warming is very important socially, politically, and practically.

3. Extreme views. It doesn't really matter what the subject is, whether it is climate science, or politics, or religion, or art, the range of individual views always contains the extremes as well as the broad middle ground. Personally, I worry about extreme views, because I have a sense that they are by their nature unbalanced, and because their proponents are often polemical, aggressive and violent about them, none of which characteristics appeal to me personally. The history of our world is littered with the corpses of the victims of extremism. We don't need it in climate discussions. But there are people who will differ in their opinion to me, and I respect their right to have these views, but I will spend my time willingly working to try to encourage these people to moderate the extremity of their views, beccause to do so seems to me right.

4. Pro and anti. Black and white. Righteous or heretic. This is to place all discussion into a context of contradiction, opposition and antipathy; the consequences are inevitable; conflict. If you want to pick a fight, fine, but AGW is not an issue which lends itself readily to absolutes or pointless labelling, and dialogue which is based on confrontation gives little benefit or value to anyone.

Enough for now,

P

[Shandiman]

Could I throw another tangent on the whole AGW topic?

As I stated last year when the Winter Forecast competition was run (any chance of the same again this year???? ) I tend to use Mother Nature herself to predict the weather longer term.

I have only been in Scotland for a couple of years, but even listening to the locals round about my location have noticed changes in the plant and wildlife activity over the last 10 years. More specifically certain types of trees/shrubs coming into flower and then going to seed about a month before they would normally go through this change, and wildlife cycles going through similar changes in regards to hunting and storing food away for hibernation. I believe that we are perhaps starting a GC of sorts, but it depends on how far GC will go. Even with the best sources of information and the best technology available, how can GC be accurately plotted?

Now, I am not following these threads as avidly as alot of people (apologies ), but I am reading up on them as often as I can. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinions on GW or AGW based on whatever facts and figures they have access to. I agree that more data made available would help with predictions and if there are firm, positive results from this to support GW or AGW then those people should feel free to digress and make available their results for all to see.

However, when you look at the last few months with the natural forces acting on the UK, it has been noticed that the weather has been a little on the topsy turvey side. Now El-Nino has obviously had some sort of an effect on this, but closer to home, the amount of ice melt from the Ice Corridor between Newfoundland and Canada has directly affected the Gulf Stream and shifted it a good few hundred miles south from its normal flow. If we have alot morepolar Ice Melt from the same area, perhaps we could be looking at a more localised GC and (at least for a short term period) we could have a mean temperature that reduces quite significantly !

I am not saying that this is what is happening, and that this is a foregone conclusion of what will happen, only an opinion that I have come to with Mother Nature as my prediction tool .

[weather eater]

parmenides, that was much more eloquently put then I could manage.

[parmenides3]

Hi Shandiman;

there is still uncertainty about whether changes in oceanic currents will result in considerable cooling in N Europe in the decades to come. Recently. the feeling seemed to be that the odds of a consistent slowdown in the THC, effecting our local climate, were about 1/4 for this century, and perhaps 50/50 for the next.

But the uncertainties are very large, and various measurements and research seem increasingly to suggest that the THC is a lot more variable than we used to think, and that it is already exhibiting possible signs of long-term changes. I don't think anybody, even the top scientists, are really comfortable that we have got to grips with this yet.

Small side point; best guess is that, even if there is a general THC slowdown and a localised cooling, GW will still continue globally, and temps. in 2080 in the UK are still more likely to be higher on average than they are now.

P

weathereater; ta mate.

[jethro]

4. Pro and anti. Black and white. Righteous or heretic. This is to place all discussion into a context of contradiction, opposition and antipathy; the consequences are inevitable; conflict. If you want to pick a fight, fine, but AGW is not an issue which lends itself readily to absolutes or pointless labelling, and dialogue which is based on confrontation gives little benefit or value to anyone.

Enough for now,

P

Amen to that P3.

[parmenides3]

Amen to that P3.

Hi J. Does this mean you've forgiven me? P

[Thundery wintry showers]

Small side point; best guess is that, even if there is a general THC slowdown and a localised cooling, GW will still continue globally, and temps. in 2080 in the UK are still more likely to be higher on average than they are now.

P

Some very good points in the earlier post about consensus, climate models, extreme views and pro/anti. Regarding the above, I recall the latest word, last time I looked at the IPCC and related sources, suggesting that a THC slowdown looked less likely to be imminent, or to substantially offset any warming trend, than was the case previously.

[parmenides3]

Some very good points in the earlier post about consensus, climate models, extreme views and pro/anti. Regarding the above, I recall the latest word, last time I looked at the IPCC and related sources, suggesting that a THC slowdown looked less likely to be imminent, or to substantially offset any warming trend, than was the case previously.

I'd have to spend some time hounding out the latest papers to give a proper answer to what's been happening since the AR4, it's really more my sense of 'what's been discussed' rather than hard theory. In 2007, thought was as you suggest; I think it may have modified a bit since then.

P