New Iceage? Much Evidence? - Global Cooling

[Scottish-Irish Skier]

<A name=OLE_LINK3>Reading the recent posts, here’s my tuppenceworth…

Nobody has of course accused me of being biased because my current research is funded by oil and gas companies as what I’m working on is not related to climate change. In any event, I’m not paid by them/have a contract with them; it is them that signed up to see what I’m doing. Also, the reps that come to the meetings are scientists (some are ex-students from my group) too, from R&D sections, not PR, and they’re interested in solving a current and very big problem in production operations, not in debating global warming. If I asked their opinions, you’d find GW’s and sceptics among them too. I think this would apply the world over unless a particular scientist was singing very heavily from the sceptic front and all his work related to this was funded by oil & Co.

The ‘going round in circles’ is a big problem on a forum/thread like this and I guess it’s only to be expected. Put a random selection of climate scientists (sceptics and believers) in a room to discuss the same topic and they’ll go round in circles too; a few will probably end up with lab coats at dawn to top it off (unless H&S calls it off of course!). You have people who have built their careers on this, and don’t like the idea that someone might question what they’re saying. This happens in all aspects of science.

Seems to me we have believers, sceptics and in-betweeners who are both well informed and less well informed. Put these in a thread where many posts are short/one liners (e.g. meaningless statements like, “so your saying decades of science is totally wrong? Yeh right, of course it isâ€), often it seems based on just reading the last few posts, and we have a recipe for disaster. End result is we go around in circles and nothing is really gained from threads on these topics.

Fact is, many people believe the ‘consensus’ is actually the ‘truth’ is because the media, governments, schools, Discovery Channel, Al Gore etc, are currently telling us that this is undoubtedly correct when it is in fact just the consensus, which can change very suddenly based on new findings. When someone just as clever (Dr X, Prof Y that at Z prestigious institution) as anyone on the IPCC says they are not sure that a particular conclusion is right, they are publicly derided for it and accused of putting the world in danger. IMO, this is very bad science but unfortunately is to a large extent true and is what greatly concerns me about the status of climate science; it is not that there is not good reason to be concerned about GW, it is not that there is not good evidence for it, but rather that any small concerns about conclusions of the IPCC et al. someone raises can turn them from Prof Emeritus to ignorant fool overnight. Eh? However, on the flip side, sceptics are often just as guilty of this too – accuse the GW’s of scaring everyone etc, say the whole thing is rubbish. Point is, that both sides are likely right in some respects and wrong in others (IPCC has made some big gaffes, e.g. vanishing of Himalayan glaciers, just as some sceptics have come up with some easily debunked theories) – history tells us that for many past big controversial issues. What we (everyone involved in the issue globally) is need to work out what is right from both camps, and that requires an open mind and a willingness to sometimes say ‘ok, I could be wrong and that’s a good point’. Once you learn to do that, it’s actually very refreshing and you’re on the road to making new discoveries.

How can we make this part of the forum useful/lead somewhere? That’s tricky. For me, in an ideal world, people would be in this part of the forum to learn from those that have more knowledge/are well informed in a particular area, but ideally not too heavily opinionated; that way people could get something from it.

Maybe we need an ‘I believe in AGW’ thread, an ‘I don’t believe in AGW’ thread, and ‘I’m not sure and want to learn more about AGW before deciding’ thread or similar. You need to set your profile to which you are once and can only post in your thread and sub-threads within it, but can read all the others. If at some point, from reading all three, if you so wish, you can get a mod to change your ‘view’ (only allowed once per set period) so you can jump camp. Maybe this is a silly idea, but it might create threads where ideas on either side of the debate (and in the middle) can be discussed at greater length, just possibly allowing people to learn something without the inevitable, sarcastic one-liners, circular debates and insults problem?

Just an idea.

Cheers,

SS.

[The PIT]

It's increasing in relation to the mini ice age but maybe on it's way back down again. Time will tell.

Good scientists should be able too discuss pro's and cons without circling the wagons.

As soon as data starts getting hidden as far as I'm concerned that means they don't have confidence or faith in their own work.

Good science is based on freedom of data exchange of ideas and frank discussions.

Bad science is based on hidden data and worrying about the next grant.

One item missing on the vote. Everything is within the previous extremes shown by the planet.

Edited October 30, 2010 by The PIT

[Scottish-Irish Skier]

It's increasing in relation to the mini ice age but maybe on it's way back down again. Time will tell.

Good scientists should be able too discuss pro's and cons without circling the wagons.

As soon as data starts getting hidden as far as I'm concerned that means they don't have confidence or faith in their own work.

Good science is based on freedom of data exchange of ideas and frank discussions.

Bad science is based on hidden data and worrying about the next grant.

One item missing on the vote. Everything is within the previous extremes shown by the planet.

Agreed on all points.

[pottyprof]

Maybe we need an ‘I believe in AGW’ thread, an ‘I don’t believe in AGW’ thread, and ‘I’m not sure and want to learn more about AGW before deciding’ thread or similar.

Hmmmmm.. We've already been down a similar line SS and while it sounds good in theory, we ended up sending in the UN..........

Politics is great until you get people involved, even in a climate discussion area.

[Devonian]

It's increasing in relation to the mini ice age but maybe on it's way back down again. Time will tell.

Good scientists should be able too discuss pro's and cons without circling the wagons.

As soon as data starts getting hidden as far as I'm concerned that means they don't have confidence or faith in their own work.

Good science is based on freedom of data exchange of ideas and frank discussions.

Bad science is based on hidden data and worrying about the next grant.

One item missing on the vote. Everything is within the previous extremes shown by the planet.

'

If any science that was paid for (grants mean 'paid for') is 'bad' science then there is very little 'good' science.

There is no hidden climate science data - allegations that there is are simply that, allegations. I think science based on allegation is 'bad' science.

Science isn't decided by vote.

Oh, and SS, are you paid for your work? if you are then by Pit's definition you are producing bad science

Edited October 30, 2010 by Devonian

[pottyprof]

'

There is no hidden climate science data - allegations that there is are simply that, allegations. I think science based on allegation is 'bad' science.

Did you forget that UEA were given a good slap for not dealing with FOI requests properly?

I'd call that hidden............ Not that I'd say the science was bad. Just hidden..

[The PIT]

Did you forget that UEA were given a good slap for not dealing with FOI requests properly?

I'd call that hidden............ Not that I'd say the science was bad. Just hidden..

And they effectively investigated themselves as well.

Of course I expect nothing less from you Devonian. A person who claimed to have met and know a certain Mr Jones well but under pressure had to admit this wasn't quite the case.

Edited October 30, 2010 by The PIT

[Scottish-Irish Skier]

Sorry, but you are loosing me here Dev. Again:

I could well be producing some wrong results – at least in what I’m concluding in my (not to do with AGW) research. I’m acutely aware of that and it is a constant problem/concern to me. Hence I’m at pains always to conclude that ‘this is what we think based on what data we have.’ The difference is I’m working on very controlled systems which should, hopefully be, easy. They are not at all unfortunately.

As for ‘hidden data’, this is a human thing. IMO It’s not so much about hiding data intentionally, it’s more about ‘oh cr*p, this data does not seem to agree with the theory. Therefore, it might be right/must be wrong. But why? Ok, I’ll put is aside and look at it later’.

There is a lot of cherry-picking in science – that’s how it is. I’m not going to quote older posts where I talk of my experiences of this.

Me? I put all data to my sponsors – whether it fits what we’re concluding or not. If it does not, then the conclusion could be wrong. I think/hope that is part of why I’m picking up good sponsorship. In the end, if I hid something, it’ll likely come around and bite me in the ass someday if I try to tuck it away/not worry about it.

Problem is, you could hide something for years, and maybe it would never be noticed. Even if it was, you could bluff your way out of it if you are high up the chain. Thankfully, most scientists don’t do this, but you can bet out of the ‘high profile/attention seekers’ there could be quite a few that might not hesitate too much.

As I’ve said before – the greatest weakness of science is that it is a human invention. Human emotions can’t be taken out of the equation. There are scientists that do this, there are those that don’t.

Cheers,

SS

[Scottish-Irish Skier]

It's increasing in relation to the mini ice age but maybe on it's way back down again. Time will tell.

.....

'

If any science that was paid for (grants mean 'paid for') is 'bad' science then there is very little 'good' science.

There is no hidden climate science data - allegations that there is are simply that, allegations. I think science based on allegation is 'bad' science.

Science isn't decided by vote.

Oh, and SS, are you paid for your work? if you are then by Pit's definition you are producing bad science

Ok, I see now. While each of the statements the PIT made are are largely true as written, it is the fact that they suggest a skeptic stance (they could in fact also fit quite well with a pro AGW stance, but might weaken that arguement) means we should not agree with them?

Of course the workings of the natural world are not decided by vote, but science is not the workings of the natural world. Science is a human concept/practice, i.e. the study of the workings of the natural world/universe in an attempt to understand it. In science, where we can't be 100% sure about something but we need to make an important decision based on it, we go for a concensus view. This is effectively just a 'vote', although is not necessarily a fair one depending on who is voting.

[Devonian]

And they effectively investigated themselves as well.

Of course I expect nothing less from you Devonian. A person who claimed to have met and know a certain Mr Jones well but under pressure had to admit this wasn't quite the case.

Ahh, so my character is thus attackable ...

The truth is I've never said I know Dr Jones 'well' and I'd hope you to withdraw the implication I'm thus dishonest. OK?

Ok, I see now. While each of the statements the PIT made are are largely true as written, it is the fact that they suggest a skeptic stance (they could in fact also fit quite well with a pro AGW stance, but might weaken that arguement) means we should not agree with them?

I didn't say or imply that, I wrote what what I said. Nearly all science is paid for and there is no hidden climate science. Several people have replicated the CRU figures using the freely data available.

Of course the workings of the natural world are not decided by vote, but science is not the workings of the natural world. Science is a human concept/practice, i.e. the study of the workings of the natural world/universe in an attempt to understand it. In science, where we can't be 100% sure about something but we need to make an important decision based on it, we go for a concensus view. This is effectively just a 'vote', although is not necessarily a fair one depending on who is voting.

Yes, I agree.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Devonian

[Scottish-Irish Skier]

I didn't say or imply that, I wrote what what I said. Nearly all science is paid for and there is no hidden climate science. Several people have replicated the CRU figures using the freely data available.

Ok, I get what you mean – i.e. whether funding pressures can make people avoid flaws/hide data.

I would certainly hope people would not do this, but it can and does happen – data is ‘hidden’ in science. As I mentioned in a previous post, I have seen ‘eminent’ scientists do this when a paper of theirs is proven as flawed, quote “the original data discs were lostâ€. It’s an embarrassing climb down and human nature can make that hard to do.

For the ‘climategate’ scandal; IMO, I don’t feel that it is a case of the whole global warming thing is made up and if the data was released it would show that, rather such data is unfortunately open to analysis in different ways which could lead to apparently different conclusions, particularly with respect to the ‘cherry-picking’ problem. In that sense I can see a reluctance of people who have the data to release it, particularly to ardent sceptics who are champing at the bit to rubbish it. The problem is that this reluctance is self-defeating in that it suggests to people that something is being hidden, whether it is the case or not.

However, there could well be bad data in there accidentally. Picking out good data from bad is an ever present problem. I have to do it all the time; some published data for what should be simple measurements is wildly inaccurate for a number of reasons and I have to somehow sift that out, hopefully without mistakenly eliminating something important because it looked like a mistake. There is no easy solution to the problem, particularly when relying on the data of others; if you did not make the measurements yourself, it is much harder to know if it might be flawed.

Cheers,

SS

[jethro]

Allowing for a natural drift in conversations, I'm struggling to see how the recent posts in here are even vaguely on topic.

Can everyone please refer to the title of a thread before posting, take a moment or two to consider if your thoughts are relevant to the topic.

There isn't a general ranting thread in this area any more, that decision was taken for a very good reason; this area has been tailored to meet the demands of the participants (as identified in the suggestions and ideas thread) and to minimise the potential for conflict which stifles debate. If your thoughts, ideas and views cannot comfortably fit into the topic of a thread then it's probably because both the team and those who participated in the suggestions thread identified them as not being needed or welcome.

Off topic posts will be removed.

[Methuselah]

You're right enough, Jethro. It's been hijacked (again) by those with axes to grind, IMO...

Could we, please, discuss the evidence (or lack of evidence?) for global cooling??

[Thundery wintry showers]

In that sense I can see a reluctance of people who have the data to release it, particularly to ardent sceptics who are champing at the bit to rubbish it. The problem is that this reluctance is self-defeating in that it suggests to people that something is being hidden, whether it is the case or not.

However, there could well be bad data in there accidentally. Picking out good data from bad is an ever present problem. I have to do it all the time; some published data for what should be simple measurements is wildly inaccurate for a number of reasons and I have to somehow sift that out, hopefully without mistakenly eliminating something important because it looked like a mistake. There is no easy solution to the problem, particularly when relying on the data of others; if you did not make the measurements yourself, it is much harder to know if it might be flawed.

I think a lot of the criticisms of climate science are overblown, but I think those two (in the above quote) are fair. I hope that we will see more openness and transparency in the future, but with the "denier" contingents being particularly vocal and keen to rubbish scientists' good work, and with copyright laws tightening up as time goes on, I won't be holding my breath on it.

However the science itself doesn't suggest any compelling evidence of global cooling- unless we're talking the cooling that is almost certain to arise between 2010 and 2011 due to El Nino being replaced by La Nina. The bottom line for 2010 is that we've had an El Nino that was a bit weaker than the 1998 one, and yet we've seen comparable global temperature anomalies, and in addition we had the "warm oceans cold continents" pattern for most of the 2009/10 winter which traditionally promotes lower mean temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere.

Overall I think the ENSO situation suggests about 0.1C of warming of the "baseline" since 1998, and that when we add on the changes in the PDO and NAO we can probably add up to another 0.1C on top of that, giving a continued upward trend of the "baseline" in increments approaching 0.2C per decade.

[johnholmes]

The original suggestions in a whole variety of papers by scientists/meteorologists and other ologists were never anything other than what has happened for many many years. Qualified people looking at the data they were able to find and giving their conclusions on it. Most went towards the GW idea, a few did not. A fair amount of heated discussion ensued but none of the name calling and other rubbish that this thread, or anything like it, seems to generate.

The 'slant' or whatever you want to call it is when certain politicians, taking SOME of the findings decided it was a political means of showing how concerned they were with the world. Mrs Thatcher to name but one.

That is the continuing problem NOT the work done by scientists, who believe it or not do pull one another's' leg about their particular theory. Remember all the hoo hah about the e mails?

I read most of the links provided in here and those I find on the web. As a professional meteorologist I was aware in the mid/late 80's that SOME were beginning to disbelieve the then accepted theory of the Ice Age is coming from Uni of East Anglia in favour of the rise in temperatures over the previous 100-150 years was PERHAPS a symptom of a change in the climate of the earth. If only it could have remained in the science field rather than ending up in the politics field. However the Met O must shoulder as much blame as anyone else as the Chief Executive at the time is the one who persuaded Mrs T to stump up the cash for the Hadley centre in the belief it would help keep UK meteorology at the forefront of the world meteorology.

[barrel1234]

Here's how I think things will go in the next 20 years.

1) global warming alarmism continues for a while

2)The earths Average temperature cools

3)The alarmists say that either the cool down is temporary and soon AGW will make the earth hotter than ever...... or that AGW has caused the earths balance to be upset and thats why the world has cooled bringing more harsh winters and natural hazards to the northern hemisphere (see the irony?).

[kold weather]

I think its pretty hard to judge what is actually happening, we've had a rather unusual 3-4 years in terms of the ENSO pattern which has been strong La Nina-strong El Nino and now heading back to a strong La Ninsa again, so your going to get quite a mixed signal from that, esp when you take into consideration how stale a good chunbk of the 00s before 06-07 actually was, only 2002 had any real meaningful ENSO event.

We'll probably cool a decent amount in the next year, Sea surface temps are already a little below average globally so we will have to wait and see when and if that starts to really impact on land temps as well 6-12 months down the line.

[knocker]

Sea surface temps are already a little below average globally so we will have to wait and see when and if that starts to really impact on land temps as well 6-12 months down the line.

Can you support that with some decent refs. because any data I've seen says the opposite. For example the N. Atlantic has warmed 1 deg, in the last 30 years and "In conclusion, these results demonstrate with high certainty that SSTs have increased globally over the past two decades, with an indication of an increased rise in recent years", from this paper.

http://www.leos.le.ac.uk/group/ejn2/FILES/JC_good-sst_trend.pdf

[kold weather]

I'm talking over the short term NOT the long term here, the global waters are below average because of a very powerful La Nina that may well become record breakingly strong. We are about as low now as we were in the winter of 07-08 when the last moderate La Nina was in place. The warmth in the Atlantic is probably holding things up for now for now globally to 07-08 levels despite the La Nina being stronger...

No doubt in the longer term its been warmer BUT we've had a powerful +ve AMO phase which may well have reached its peak between 2005-2010, we'll see, and also throughout IMO a good chunk of the 90s and 00s at the same time a +PDO, and when you have the ntwo of those in the same place then you are going to see warming of the system without a doubt over and above the background warming...why do people think the global temps shot up starting from the 80s?

Well thats when the +PDO phase really got going, then its gotten even faster during the 95-2010 period simply because we've had both warm phases for the oceans at the same time and that does make a difference on the global scale. Last winter was the perfect combo nearly of a slightly positive PDO, a strong El Nino and an utterly amazing +AMO and we are close to 1998 records and not above it...which suggests to me only modest warming globally due to AGW.

Still its really all subjective, but in the short term yes we are almost certainly cooling, and indeed I wouldn't be shocked if we end up nearly static in terms of temps over the nect 10-20 years globally with only a small increase because the oceans flip to thier negative/cooler periods which may well somewhat balance out the AGW which is happening.

[The Future]

I'm talking over the short term NOT the long term here, the global waters are below average because of a very powerful La Nina that may well become record breakingly strong. We are about as low now as we were in the winter of 07-08 when the last moderate La Nina was in place. The warmth in the Atlantic is probably holding things up for now for now globally to 07-08 levels despite the La Nina being stronger...

No doubt in the longer term its been warmer BUT we've had a powerful +ve AMO phase which may well have reached its peak between 2005-2010, we'll see, and also throughout IMO a good chunk of the 90s and 00s at the same time a +PDO, and when you have the ntwo of those in the same place then you are going to see warming of the system without a doubt over and above the background warming...why do people think the global temps shot up starting from the 80s?

Well thats when the +PDO phase really got going, then its gotten even faster during the 95-2010 period simply because we've had both warm phases for the oceans at the same time and that does make a difference on the global scale. Last winter was the perfect combo nearly of a slightly positive PDO, a strong El Nino and an utterly amazing +AMO and we are close to 1998 records and not above it...which suggests to me only modest warming globally due to AGW.

Still its really all subjective, but in the short term yes we are almost certainly cooling, and indeed I wouldn't be shocked if we end up nearly static in terms of temps over the nect 10-20 years globally with only a small increase because the oceans flip to thier negative/cooler periods which may well somewhat balance out the AGW which is happening.

Very good summary, thanks. I hope underlying AGW is "modest" as you suggest. Otherwise, if global temperatures do remain static or fall slightly over the next 10 to 20 years, more and more will reject AGW, CO2 emission will rise significantly and then the next generation will be in a real mess. Scientists and governments need to send a clear message out now about the -PDO etc and the affects on global temperatures now. They need to forecast the lower increases in global temperatures.

I think some scientists are having a competition about who can make the most dramatic statement about AGW and this will backfire.

[Essan]

I think some scientists are having a competition about who can make the most dramatic statement about AGW and this will backfire.

Well yes .....

Scientist warns ice age could start in 5 years

Forget warming - beware the new ice age

The mini ice age starts here

But of course they were saying exactly the same 40 years ago ......

[knocker]

Still its really all subjective, but in the short term yes we are almost certainly cooling, and indeed I wouldn't be shocked if we end up nearly static in terms of temps over the nect 10-20 years globally with only a small increase because the oceans flip to thier negative/cooler periods which may well somewhat balance out the AGW which is happening.

The one thing the oceans don't do is flip. And that is not subjective. For another objective point of view,

http://www.mccip.org.uk/media/3371/sea-temperature.pdf

And why do you think the energy balance in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere has altered and the regions become cooler if not for the millions of tons of excess CO2 pumped into the atmosphere? For this reason the mean temperature anomalies between 9.5 to 16km and 16-21 km are negative, particularly in the latter.

[Iceberg]

I'm talking over the short term NOT the long term here, the global waters are below average because of a very powerful La Nina that may well become record breakingly strong. We are about as low now as we were in the winter of 07-08 when the last moderate La Nina was in place. The warmth in the Atlantic is probably holding things up for now for now globally to 07-08 levels despite the La Nina being stronger...

No doubt in the longer term its been warmer BUT we've had a powerful +ve AMO phase which may well have reached its peak between 2005-2010, we'll see, and also throughout IMO a good chunk of the 90s and 00s at the same time a +PDO, and when you have the ntwo of those in the same place then you are going to see warming of the system without a doubt over and above the background warming...why do people think the global temps shot up starting from the 80s?

Well thats when the +PDO phase really got going, then its gotten even faster during the 95-2010 period simply because we've had both warm phases for the oceans at the same time and that does make a difference on the global scale. Last winter was the perfect combo nearly of a slightly positive PDO, a strong El Nino and an utterly amazing +AMO and we are close to 1998 records and not above it...which suggests to me only modest warming globally due to AGW.

Hi Kold, sorry have to disagree with a couple point (not that I want to )

The AMO was almost the same this year as in 98.

The PDO has been more negative than in 98.

El Nino was probably a good notch down on the scale from 98.

Yet their is a very very good chance that 2010 will be warmer than 1998 (almost a cert). At least according to the skeptics own satelite records.

We've had a negative PDO for the last 4 months.

Since 98 the world has on average seen a negative PDO, (not to mention lower SI) and still it looks like warming is ongoing.

I am not in way denying a link between PDO/AMO and global temps, but if we need a cold PDO, low solar and cold AMO just to get global temps to start going down we might be in a spot of trouble.

[weather eater]

Hi Kold, sorry have to disagree with a couple point (not that I want to )

The AMO was almost the same this year as in 98.

The PDO has been more negative than in 98.

El Nino was probably a good notch down on the scale from 98.

Yet their is a very very good chance that 2010 will be warmer than 1998 (almost a cert). At least according to the skeptics own satelite records.

We've had a negative PDO for the last 4 months.

Since 98 the world has on average seen a negative PDO, (not to mention lower SI) and still it looks like warming is ongoing.

I am not in way denying a link between PDO/AMO and global temps, but if we need a cold PDO, low solar and cold AMO just to get global temps to start going down we might be in a spot of trouble.

Good points, balls in your court sceptics.

[cyclonic happiness]

Humans will have to get a damn sight more clever to know the forecasts for the seasons!

Amazing how scientists will rule out things like migration times, leaf fall, hibernation times, because they don't fit into the narrow margins of their understanding.

That's what is good about this forum...ALL aspects are equally weighed up, dissmissed or agknowledged, no matter how improbable or irrational.

The whole mess of life cannot be counted or measured, just bits and bobs, we should look at the whole feeling/air of the forum for the winter forecast, maybe this will be as accurate as any scientific prediction of chaos?