New Iceage? Much Evidence? - Global Cooling

[greybing]

I have no knowledge of the data so consequently I have not a clue if the worlds temperature on average is increasing or the opposite.The weather where I am seems to have got cooler with next to no heatwave events in summer and longer cold spells in winter.].

[Nights King]

A short video from Joe B here although he sugests a return to 1970's conditions so quite conservative for him really.

http://www.weatherbe...a-mini-ice-age/

Edited June 22, 2011 by mullender83

[Village]

Eh?

The METO are simply doing what we've done for many, many years in this country - keeping a temperature data set.

If this projected deep Solar minimum comes to fruition, how else are we supposed to measure the impact upon climate if not temperature? What should be measured instead? TSI measurements won't tell us much, it varies but not by a lot. Sunspots are already counted the world over.

I can't think of one official body which claims temperature causes anything, fluctuating temperature has many causes, including the variability of the Sun and CO2 emissions.

Hi Jethro,

The OPEL report which the Meto are promoting clearly concludes that it is air temperatures which make people change their lifestyles. I have heard the same nonsense many times before in relation to nature also.

But as I pointed out....its not air temperatures....its the Insolation levels reaching the Earth's surface. The Meto and the authors of OPEL have got it wrong IMO for the reasons I have stated. The Meto are attaching too much improtance to their own average temperature data quite possibly because its the one variable that they have spent most of their time on. Therefore eveything they seem to produce is always explained relative to temperatures. The Meto needs to take a long hard look at its own fixation with one variable and understand why it is that they link everything to that one variable. IMO its this one factor which is restricting the development of the science.

Global warming is not necessarilly what it has been promoted as. It is more likely to be because air temperature data is the one most recorded variable and most manipulated of collated data streams. Therefore its all they can grapple with to use in promoting explanations about changes.

Why else has Climate Change been promoted as an issue solely related to average temperatures?

Edited June 23, 2011 by Village

[jethro]

Hi Jethro,

The OPEL report which the Meto are promoting clearly concludes that it is air temperatures which make people change their lifestyles. I have heard the same nonsense many times before in relation to nature also.

But as I pointed out....its not air temperatures....its the Insolation levels reaching the Earth's surface. The Meto and the authors of OPEL have got it wrong IMO for the reasons I have stated. The Meto are attaching too much improtance to their own average temperature data quite possibly because its the one variable that they have spent most of their time on. Therefore eveything they seem to produce is always explained relative to temperatures. The Meto needs to take a long hard look at its own fixation with one variable and understand why it is that they link everything to that one variable. IMO its this one factor which is restricting the development of the science.

Global warming is not necessarilly what it has been promoted as. It is more likely to be because air temperature data is the one most recorded variable and most manipulated of collated data streams. Therefore its all they can grapple with to use in promoting explanations about changes.

Why else has Climate Change been promoted as an issue solely related to average temperatures?

I'm sorry but I disagree.

The difference between saying air temperatures influence people's behaviour/clothing as opposed to saying insolation levels, is nothing more than a semantic argument. You may as well be saying it isn't sunshine which influences people, it's the level of cloud cover. The end result is a difference in temperature. If it's cold I wear a coat, if it's hot I don't - that's a fairly universal response to changing temperatures so the METO are quite correct.

The various global temperature data sets are just one means used to measure the influence upon climate of AGW, they are by no means the only measure. Do the METO office focus upon them? As it's their job, I'd say yes and rightly so. It would be a little silly of them to focus upon the work of other institutions, monitoring different variables of climate, they leave that to the other specialists who are doing their job too.

Climate Change hasn't been promoted as an issue solely related to average temperatures; the many foreseen possible problems range from loss of Arctic ice, rising sea levels, droughts, loss of fertile lands and many, many more issues. The global temperature data sets are simply one measure to monitor the situation, there are countless others.

Here is a link which has numerous other links (listed on the left hand side of the page) which will give you access to most of the various bodies involved with this work. The list includes blogs, well known scientists and official bodies - it's a one stop climate info site, as you will see, temperature is just one part of the story.

http://climatedebatedaily.com/

[Village]

Jethro,

You are also making the same fundamental mistake IMO. You are maintaing that again its air temperatures and nothing else.

Let me again explain my reasoning because maybe it is that its been lost over the past few posts.

An average person wears a coat because they feel cold and they take it off because they feel warm right? Thats agreed ...thats not my point. The OPEL report maintain that air temps are the reason and so does the METO......I dont agree.

Air temperatures are measured in the shade. They have forgotten that basic fact IMO.

The real reason IMO that someone decides to loose clothing is not shade temperatures.....its apparent temperatures. Lets take the point in question from the report. They say that the average person moves to summer clothes when the air temperatures rise above 13.5C. This argument can be totally destroyed when one takes into account insolation levels. I believe that very few people would ever put on summer clothes when only 13.5C is reached. I believe that its the levels of insolation which takes the apparent temperatures way higher. For instance....it could be 13.5C and no sunshine and therefore apparent temperatures are say 16C at the surface and only 5% of people change to summer clothes. Or it could be 13.5C and under a hot June sun where surface temperatures are 40C!!! which means that more than 50% of the population wear summer clothes.

Therefore it has nothing to do with shade temperatures, its all about apparent temperatures and the intensity of insolation is the key factor. The acid test to prove I am right is to note that even on a sunny day in November with air temps of 13.5C there will be very few people wearing summer clothes....because the insolation factor is greatly reduced. Another acid test is to look at nature....the whole of nature relates to insolation variability and not temperatures. The average shade temperatures is simply a side show.

When professionals continually make this mistake one has to question why! Thats why I maintain that there is a fixation with the temperaures variable. Why else is it that they make this mistake?

[Radiating Dendrite]

Jethro,

You are also making the same fundamental mistake IMO. You are maintaing that again its air temperatures and nothing else.

Let me again explain my reasoning because maybe it is that its been lost over the past few posts.

An average person wears a coat because they feel cold and they take it off because they feel warm right? Thats agreed ...thats not my point. The OPEL report maintain that air temps are the reason and so does the METO......I dont agree.

Air temperatures are measured in the shade. They have forgotten that basic fact IMO.

The real reason IMO that someone decides to loose clothing is not shade temperatures.....its apparent temperatures. Lets take the point in question from the report. They say that the average person moves to summer clothes when the air temperatures rise above 13.5C. This argument can be totally destroyed when one takes into account insolation levels. I believe that very few people would ever put on summer clothes when only 13.5C is reached. I believe that its the levels of insolation which takes the apparent temperatures way higher. For instance....it could be 13.5C and no sunshine and therefore apparent temperatures are say 16C at the surface and only 5% of people change to summer clothes. Or it could be 13.5C and under a hot June sun where surface temperatures are 40C!!! which means that more than 50% of the population wear summer clothes.

Therefore it has nothing to do with shade temperatures, its all about apparent temperatures and the intensity of insolation is the key factor. The acid test to prove I am right is to note that even on a sunny day in November with air temps of 13.5C there will be very few people wearing summer clothes....because the insolation factor is greatly reduced. Another acid test is to look at nature....the whole of nature relates to insolation variability and not temperatures. The average shade temperatures is simply a side show.

When professionals continually make this mistake one has to question why! Thats why I maintain that there is a fixation with the temperaures variable. Why else is it that they make this mistake?

Additionally, is there not other variables that need to be taken into account, such as humidity, wind chill etc.

What makes someone put on a certain set of clothes can not be strictly categorised, everybody is different.

[Village]

Yes of course, and also where one is going to be located, ie shade or sunshine, in a breeze or protected and the level of physical activity etc, etc.

However, if one is to explain this solely in terms of temperature as this report attempts then one would most certainly not use shaded air temperatures. One would be better off using the insolation index because it represents the greatest corrolation when all factors are taken into account.

[knocker]

Air temperatures are measured in the shade. They have forgotten that basic fact IMO.

I find that very difficult to believe.

[jethro]

Village - you're labouring a point over semantics, it's fine if that's what floats your boat but personally, life's too short.

There have been numerous tenuous arguments on here on which folk have tried to either prove/disprove the theory of AGW, with the greatest of respect, your assertions so far about the METO and why this shows AGW is a myth, IMO rank up there with some of the finest straw man arguments.

[Methuselah]

Jethro,

You are also making the same fundamental mistake IMO. You are maintaing that again its air temperatures and nothing else.

Let me again explain my reasoning because maybe it is that its been lost over the past few posts.

An average person wears a coat because they feel cold and they take it off because they feel warm right? Thats agreed ...thats not my point. The OPEL report maintain that air temps are the reason and so does the METO......I dont agree.

Air temperatures are measured in the shade. They have forgotten that basic fact IMO.

The real reason IMO that someone decides to loose clothing is not shade temperatures.....its apparent temperatures. Lets take the point in question from the report. They say that the average person moves to summer clothes when the air temperatures rise above 13.5C. This argument can be totally destroyed when one takes into account insolation levels. I believe that very few people would ever put on summer clothes when only 13.5C is reached. I believe that its the levels of insolation which takes the apparent temperatures way higher. For instance....it could be 13.5C and no sunshine and therefore apparent temperatures are say 16C at the surface and only 5% of people change to summer clothes. Or it could be 13.5C and under a hot June sun where surface temperatures are 40C!!! which means that more than 50% of the population wear summer clothes.

Therefore it has nothing to do with shade temperatures, its all about apparent temperatures and the intensity of insolation is the key factor. The acid test to prove I am right is to note that even on a sunny day in November with air temps of 13.5C there will be very few people wearing summer clothes....because the insolation factor is greatly reduced. Another acid test is to look at nature....the whole of nature relates to insolation variability and not temperatures. The average shade temperatures is simply a side show.

When professionals continually make this mistake one has to question why! Thats why I maintain that there is a fixation with the temperaures variable. Why else is it that they make this mistake?

Yes mate. I really do think that all the world's leading meteorologcal authorities need consult you???

Ask an Amateur??

[Methuselah]

An interesting debate?

http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=24488

[jethro]

An interesting debate?

http://www.badscienc...php?f=3&t=24488

Someone's got to foot the bills; as long as the papers are peer reviewed, I don't see a problem with it - with the climate change debate being the way it is, a dodgy paper would be publicly torn apart regardless of who provided the funding.

At least the funding here is for research and not for the personal gain of Willie Soon, unlike James Hansen who stands accused of milking the system for all it's worth: http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/james-hansen-accused-of-using-celeb-status-among-environmental-groups-to-enrich-himself/

[Methuselah]

Well of course he 'stands accused'.

There are, IMO, too many 'accusations' flying from side to side in the climate debate...Their originators' hopes I guess, as was clear with the UEA fiasco, are that if you throw enough mud for long enough eventually one little piece will stick, and stay stuck for long enough for anectdotal damage to occur?

[jethro]

Well of course he 'stands accused'.

There are, IMO, too many 'accusations' flying from side to side in the climate debate...Their originators' hopes I guess, as was clear with the UEA fiasco, are that if you throw enough mud for long enough eventually one little piece will stick, and stay stuck for long enough for anectdotal damage to occur?

Agreed, for every Willie Soon funding story, there's a Hansen on the take story. Which is why I personally don't give a hoot where the money comes from, so long as the research is sound and peer reviewed.

[Methuselah]

Agreed, for every Willie Soon funding story, there's a Hansen on the take story. Which is why I personally don't give a hoot where the money comes from, so long as the research is sound and peer reviewed.

Makes sense!

[barrel1234]

This post is a bit ''out there'' but IF ice sheets did start to expand and risk turning us into another mini ice age amplified by albedo, could humans in some way eliminate the albedo by for instance by scattering black sand from cargo planes etc onto the ice during months with significant sunlight?????????

There have been some posts on this forum about how very slightly dirty snow can have a massive effect on albedo levels.

[Gray-Wolf]

This post is a bit ''out there'' but IF ice sheets did start to expand and risk turning us into another mini ice age amplified by albedo, could humans in some way eliminate the albedo by for instance by scattering black sand from cargo planes etc onto the ice during months with significant sunlight?????????

There have been some posts on this forum about how very slightly dirty snow can have a massive effect on albedo levels.

I've seen it mooted (in some of the 'conspiracy' sites) that this is just what the Russians did over the 50's and 60's across their side of the Arctic Ocean to melt out the ice pack and open up a northern route to a U.S. invasion? The fact the Siberian side of the Basin, from Bering to Fram, did melt out first is neither here nor there..........

[barrel1234]

I've seen it mooted (in some of the 'conspiracy' sites) that this is just what the Russians did over the 50's and 60's across their side of the Arctic Ocean to melt out the ice pack and open up a northern route to a U.S. invasion? The fact the Siberian side of the Basin, from Bering to Fram, did melt out first is neither here nor there..........

Thanks GW, Interesting stuff, nothing would completely surprise me -who knows what governments can get up to behing the scenes

[waz20000]

Hello just thought i would start a new topic about the possible or already cooling of the planet.

I have been researching for several years from different people on the matter of global warming (Climate Change) or Global Cooling.

I now believe we are expressing a cooling period like i have seen and felt and researched from other parts of the world

I have picked up information from people like Ice age now and Joe laminate floori i would like your thoughts on this matter

Thank you

[cheeky_monkey]

I now believe we are expressing a cooling period like i have seen and felt and researched from other parts of the world

Are we how???..wasnt 2010 the warmest year ever recorded globally?

[waz20000]

i per sum you are a global warming person then ?

[Cheese Rice]

i per sum you are a global warming person then ?

Or he deals with facts? Fact of the matter is globally the earth is still warming, doesnt mean the UK does though!

[Aaron]

As Cheese said, globally the earth is warming, but what relevance does this have to us when our summers and winters are getting cooler.. very little.

Edited July 26, 2011 by aaron

[jethro]

Hello just thought i would start a new topic about the possible or already cooling of the planet.

I have been researching for several years from different people on the matter of global warming (Climate Change) or Global Cooling.

I now believe we are expressing a cooling period like i have seen and felt and researched from other parts of the world

I have picked up information from people like Ice age now and Joe laminate floori i would like your thoughts on this matter

Thank you

Neither of those sources are particularly reliable.

However, ice ages don't develop universally across the globe so looking at the global temperatures reveals very little. Regional changes, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere would be the first place to look for evidence. Is the NH cooling? Are glaciers advancing? Is the Arctic ice increasing?

[Methuselah]

As Cheese said, globally the earth is warming, but what relevance does this have to us when our summers and winters are getting cooler.. very little.

I think that your statement would read better, if put the other way round? is it not the UK that is (globally) irrelevant?

Hello just thought i would start a new topic about the possible or already cooling of the planet.

I have been researching for several years from different people on the matter of global warming (Climate Change) or Global Cooling.

I now believe we are expressing a cooling period like i have seen and felt and researched from other parts of the world

I have picked up information from people like Ice age now and Joe laminate floori i would like your thoughts on this matter

Thank you

Welcome to N-W, waz...But, beware, sometimes the AGW (or not) debate gets a tad overheated. Pardon the pun!