Global Cooling

[jethro]

Be it warming or cooling the ramifications on both humanity and the global ecosystem

Apologies for editing your post and highlighting just one small part but IMO, this sums up one of THE most fundamental problems in this whole discussion.

Climate has ALWAYS warmed or cooled, there is no such thing as a static climate. We will always be in either a warming or cooling phase. At the very most, all we can say is in the last thirty odd years we've got a little warmer, the previous thirty odd years we got a little colder, prior to that we had a period of warming - climate does fluctuate NATURALLY. The problems lie in discerning if we have contributed to that or not, if so, by what measure.

To date, we still do not have anywhere near an accurate answer to that question. That's not me being a sceptic of AGW or denier or naysayer, that's just the facts of the science to date. All definitive statements to the contrary, no matter their source, are quite simply speculation.

Sure we can change our habits, try to live cleaner more eco sound lives, not wait for "proof" and I'm all for it, but we don't actually know if it will make one jot of difference to temperatures.

[Essan]

It's not just your opinion,Blast. It's a fact,and a fact that's as true now as it has always been.

It's not a fact and it never can be a fact - the fact is that CO2 can drive climate. Whether it ever has or ever will is another issue B) Hansen is totally convinced that CO2 has been the primary driver of climate throughout much of Earth's history. And I humbly suggest he's studied the subject more than any of us! Mind, I also humbly suggest he's so blinded by his own convictions that he's embarassingly wrong B)

As for global cooling - how the h*ll can a couple of years be deemed more significant than 150 years in terms of climate trend? You lot worry me sometimes ...... Try looking for the signal and ignore the noise

(Personally I think it could well be at least a decade or more before we see any significant increase in temps - and we may even see a climatically significant drop before then, though I doubt it'll be a significant as that of the 1940s. Each warm phase is warmer, each cool phase is less cool. Natural variability with underlying anthropogenic warming B) )

[laserguy]

Hansen is totally convinced that CO2 has been the primary driver of climate throughout much of Earth's history. And I humbly suggest he's studied the subject more than any of us! Mind, I also humbly suggest he's so blinded by his own convictions that he's embarassingly wrong

As for global cooling - how the h*ll can a couple of years be deemed more significant than 150 years in terms of climate trend? You lot worry me sometimes ...... Try looking for the signal and ignore the noise B)

Hansen and Co. will never,but never admit to being wrong on this. And I find a cooling of a couple of years of such a magnitude that it wipes out a hundred and fifty years worth of alleged warming very worrying indeed,particularly as there's no sign of it stopping,but every sign of it deepening.

[TEITS]

Each warm phase is warmer, each cool phase is less cool. Natural variability with underlying anthropogenic warming B) )

I tend to keep clear of this thread but even I find it difficult to argue with the above!

Edited October 20, 2008 by THE EYE IN THE SKY

[LadyPakal]

Or is it just the general rise in temperature as we come out of the last ice age, tempered by a regular drop in temp from an overlying warming/cooling cycle?

[Iceberg]

Hansen and Co. will never,but never admit to being wrong on this. And I find a cooling of a couple of years of such a magnitude that it wipes out a hundred and fifty years worth of alleged warming very worrying indeed,particularly as there's no sign of it stopping,but every sign of it deepening.

Laserguy please see my post in the new thread I've started.

I will compile a document specifically related to the effect of La Nina on the various temperature trends but early results find that ALL temperature records have been increasing this year and not in anyway decreasing or even stopping.

Please see my comments regarding baselines as well.

BTW I am more than happy to see any evidence against this.

We came out of the last iceage thousands of years ago, temperature proxies show no evidence of such a general rise.

I agree re Essan and that is the IPCC AR4 stance as well.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Iceberg

[stewfox]

Cheers Blast for that link.

Nice summary

I always win the bet when I say , you know of course the sun is nearer the Earth in our winter then the summer

[Gray-Wolf]

I tend to keep clear of this thread but even I find it difficult to argue with the above!

And there we have it!....because of the slow upward trend since the initial impacts of the industrialisation of the '1st world' we'd need to identify a much longer cycle of warming and cooling than those currently being mooted and a cycle which ,coincidentally, was in phase with our rapid industrialisation when shifting from 'cold' to warm.

For those who now have us at the end of the 'warming phase' and currently entering into a new 'cool down' period I would need to ask them for their collective evidence of both cycle length and the prior episodes matching their new 'cycle' over a period of time that left the observations indisputable.

Do not get me wrong, I'd love for some-one to identify such as then we could have an idea of the 'envelope' of change we were looking at instead of having our constantly moving (upward) goalposts of what to expect from our currently observed 'changes'.

That said, even if we were to find such a beastie I'd still need to know how our tinkerings are impacting on it (as I find it impossible to believe that the global impacts we have had since we hauled ourselves out of Africa 60 and 40 thousand years ago respectively do not reflect within this 'cycle').

[Cycles]

To be fair he did day that they might have happened, he admitted that Mann's graph was too simplistic and didn't take into account the peaks and troughs of climate.

However he clearly stated and showed that using almost any reconstruction available the peaks where nowhere near the peak seen today.

Also interesting that If Mann's reconstruction is incorrect, what does that say about GWO's 100% correlation with it.?.

Actually GWO look a tdipst about 10 available reconstructions. They all showed quite similar troughs and peaks for temperatures, not not similar magnatudes, or in other words some reconstructions showed higher temperatures and some lower temperatures. So GWO decided to use the reconstruction most critized for not showing what some feel are proper magnitudes. Thinking was that it worked well with an inferior reconstruction then it should work even better with other's. And remember, they all showed very similar timing on dips and peaks, they just did not agree on the degree of the dips and troughs.

So there is no bearing on the findings by GWO.

[Andy_]

I'm not massively knowledgeable about any of this, but i do agree with the warming/cooling phases. I think the government are overreacting a bit when you see how hot the earth has once been. Yes C02 can drive the climate but wont it eventually come to a point where it will balance out, the earth can cope i'm sure. Anyways, its good news if we are now in a cooling phase, that means more chance of snow for jarrow!

Its been rubbish recently, a cooling phase would be amazing. Be optimistic and take into consideration that part of this may be right

Btw, this is my first post ever LOL

[laserguy]

http://www.nationalpost.com/893554.bin

Where's this line going? Where will it end?

Welcome too Andy S. It's good here - stick around!

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.nationalpost.com/893554.bin

Where's this line going? Where will it end?

Welcome too Andy S. It's good here - stick around!

Agreed Laser, though unerveing to start posting it's a habit that quickly forms and this whole site is the place to 'develop' yourself so a hearty "welcome" from us all in the madhouse!!!

Funny old graph that L.G.! 2007 'the year without summer'.......yet the arctic melts

The lack of a 2007 summer makes it very easy to drop the line like that, shame the NOAA records seem to differ in it's take on land and ocean temps over that period.......maybe they had a glitch???

EDIT:

In fact, thought I'd help them out and give us an average ,though cooler, summer for 2008

:lol:

Edited October 20, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Android]

I took the liberty of updating the graph to latest month (for some reason it ends in July even though the article talks about September...being cold...well now it goes up to September)

[Roger J Smith]

Strong arctic incursions seem to be the theme of the next seven days. This looks to be one of the strongest negative temperature anomaly signals in a long time, one has to wonder if such a massive negative height and thickness anomaly over Greenland in late October might signal the development of a very strong mid-winter arctic air mass over northern Europe. I've noticed looking back at autumn 1962 and 1939, two cases where a cold winter followed a fairly long period without cold winters, that there were periodic pulses of very cold air similar to the one showing up on the GFS for next week, and that eventually Greenland to Scandinavia became blocked with a southerly tracking jet across the Atlantic and Europe.

We may be about to see that temperature curve heading sharply downward through March 2009. I'm leaning towards a prediction of a cold winter now for western Europe, and have already committed to a very cold winter in parts of North America although possibly not including the east coast until later stages. Alaska has been running 4-6 C below normal except along the north coast where warmer than average SSTs near Barrow are keeping the anomaly higher despite a northeast flow, however, that localized "anomaly in the anomaly" will soon be flushed out by the ice forming along the coast. Meanwhile, after a rather warm October in the prairies so far, a bitter cold blast is about to descend this weekend, sweeping rapidly through the Great Lakes on Monday and the northeast states. This will be in phase with the Greenland to Scotland northerly and a signal that the arctic is in a rapid expansion mode. This sure ain't 2006.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Hi Roger

Very interesting you mention 1939....that is the the basis of my winter forecast I'm preparing. I too think Western Europe will be very cold but maybe not as cold as that winter due to our current global standing with temps generally a little higher.........but possibly a sub 2c month is in the offing but very much so a sub 3c month during January. Really good to see you edging that way too. I think the hemispheric set up is in real good shape this year and I do believe that the jet has kicked south a la GWO and this for me will assist blocking to back west towards the UK/Western Europe. I made a post ages ago of my anticipated CET for DJF and Jan is sub 3c, I'll see if I can dig it up. I must say though I may revise this as the arctic is showing that potent cold is ceratinly on tap already!!

BFTP

[Thundery wintry showers]

Hansen and Co. will never,but never admit to being wrong on this. And I find a cooling of a couple of years of such a magnitude that it wipes out a hundred and fifty years worth of alleged warming very worrying indeed,particularly as there's no sign of it stopping,but every sign of it deepening.

Which magnitude would this be?

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

I'm not referring to the IPCC quotes on the site, but rather to the temperature graph- on which I see only a very marginal cooling over the last two years, in the context of the 150-year warming.

The graphs in a couple of above posts do show that the recent cooling has been more marked in the lower troposphere, which puts serious question marks over the extent of anthropogenic influences on the lower troposphere, or alternatively suggests a lot of natural forcing. However, the lower troposphere is not the same as the surface (i.e. the area that humans live on). The surface has warmed much more than the troposphere over the last 150 years, and cooled much less over the last 5.

Edited October 25, 2008 by Thundery wintry showers

[Android]

Claims that "150 years" of warming has been "wiped out" are like claiming in June that all the warming since January has been wiped out when a cloud covers the sun and it gets chilly for a few minutes.

[Essan]

Claims that "150 years" of warming has been "wiped out" are like claiming in June that all the warming since January has been wiped out when a cloud covers the sun and it gets chilly for a few minutes.

Yep. But it won't stop the coolers making such claims. And god help us if we have a normal winter for a change!

One day they'll learn the difference between weather and climate, signal and noise.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Yep. But it won't stop the coolers making such claims. And god help us if we have a normal winter for a change!

One day they'll learn the difference between weather and climate, signal and noise.

One day the warmists will learn that opposite thinking folk may know just as much as they do...and in many cases more.

BFTP

Edited October 25, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[pottyprof]

Yep. But it won't stop the coolers making such claims. And god help us if we have a normal winter for a change!

One day they'll learn the difference between weather and climate, signal and noise.

And the 10 year average shows cooling.. the 30 year avearage shows warming.. which one shows the current trend??

Dont get me wrong.. I agree that its going to take a good few more years to prove a trend that fits within something we can all agree with.. But are we warming or are we cooling at the moment.. from current obs.. what is happening??

I want a simple answer to the question using current details over the last 10 years.... warming or cooling?

If you cant answer the above in plain english then dont answer.. its simple.. warming or cooling??

[I can't believe it's not better]

Over the next few hours Sheffield is in a cooling trend

[pottyprof]

Over the next few hours Sheffield is in a cooling trend

[laserguy]

And the 10 year average shows cooling.. the 30 year avearage shows warming.. which one shows the current trend??

If you cant answer the above in plain english then dont answer.. its simple.. warming or cooling??

Simple answer in plain English - cooling! All this stuff about trends,the current cooling one has now been going on longer than the warming one did which 'inspired' all the AGW malarkey and it's fantastic plans for making everything alright again when there was nothing awry in the first place! And still they're at it,in the face of descending temps alongside ever increasing emissions. I suppose the economic downturn will see fewer emissions and the greenies will latch that onto the current slide in temps and cite it as proof of their crackpot theories. Honestly,there really is no hope.

[Iceberg]

But why a 10 year average and not a 1 year average or a 15 year ?. I am sorry it's not Simply if it were we wouldn't be discussing it.

As essen says when you can start to tell the difference between signal and noise then you really need to understand it.

The continued trend for background warming remains upwards (The signal) the noise which refers to shorter term variations will trend up and down according to natural 5-10-15 year cycles.

There is a reason for a 30 year trend, over that time frame the major natural cycles tend to be roughly neutral, over a 10 year trend they arn't. If you want proof I will post it next week.

Sorry edited to remove a comment about playgrounds as it was probably OTT.(probably) !.

Edited October 26, 2008 by Iceberg

[pottyprof]

But why a 10 year average and not a 1 year average or a 15 year ?. I am sorry it's not Simply if it were we wouldn't be discussing it.

As essen says when you can start to tell the difference between signal and noise then you really need to understand it.

The continued trend for background warming remains upwards (The signal) the noise which refers to shorter term variations will trend up and down according to natural 5-10-15 year cycles.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand about canceling noise out. The thing is, the 30 year average shows warming and is not the current trend.

There is a reason for a 30 year trend, over that time frame the major natural cycles tend to be roughly neutral, over a 10 year trend they arn't. If you want proof I will post it next week.

That would be great. I don't need the proof personally but anything to help understand how/why these figures are used has to be a good thing to help anyone new to this area..

Now about my question.. Plain English.. Current trend.. Warming Cooling..??