New Iceage? Much Evidence? - Global Cooling

[Gray-Wolf]

............................................enough to say I'm becoming ever more inscrutable with age.............

[Essan]

I seem to remember NASA confirming the PDO switch a couple of years ago. The current La Nina isn't moderate, it's the strongest one since (I believe) 1955; so no "milding out" as you have claimed/expected/anticipated.

So, coupled with low solar activity, we might reasonably expect 2011 to be one of the coolest years in recent times?

Unless other factors have upped the baseline.

[jethro]

So, coupled with low solar activity, we might reasonably expect 2011 to be one of the coolest years in recent times?

Unless other factors have upped the baseline.

That depends upon whether or not climate can be summed up as 1+1=2. If Solar activity and the ENSO cycle were the only two influences upon climate, then it would be reasonable to extrapolate that data and come up with an answer and even then, it would depend upon knowing exactly how they work, how they interact and why, and everything else remaining exactly the same.

Seems to me each and every climate driver is seized upon and used as evidence to support whichever stance is being taken. The impacts of these drivers is expected to be near instantaneous and easily recognised and distinguishable from every other climate driver. If it were that simple, we wouldn't have hundreds of scientists all over the world beavering away trying to decipher the data.

Take the Solar influence as an example - quiet Sun leads to cooling....except that very recently a study has shown that a quiet Sun actually leads to warming. We're heading for an intensely active cycle 24.....except that the Sun refused to listen to the predictions and they've since been constantly downgraded to the point of being less than half the predicted intensity. TSI doesn't account for the warming in recent decades....except TSI is only one factor in the Sun's influence upon climate, shifting weather patterns, increased Cosmic Rays being but two other known impacts.

The list goes on and on.

Climate is measured over long time periods for very good reasons. I'm sure folk will continue to highlight tiny time periods and individual drivers to prove their point but for me, it's all just bluster.

[keithlucky]

That depends upon whether or not climate can be summed up as 1+1=2. If Solar activity and the ENSO cycle were the only two influences upon climate, then it would be reasonable to extrapolate that data and come up with an answer and even then, it would depend upon knowing exactly how they work, how they interact and why, and everything else remaining exactly the same.

Seems to me each and every climate driver is seized upon and used as evidence to support whichever stance is being taken. The impacts of these drivers is expected to be near instantaneous and easily recognised and distinguishable from every other climate driver. If it were that simple, we wouldn't have hundreds of scientists all over the world beavering away trying to decipher the data.

Take the Solar influence as an example - quiet Sun leads to cooling....except that very recently a study has shown that a quiet Sun actually leads to warming. We're heading for an intensely active cycle 24.....except that the Sun refused to listen to the predictions and they've since been constantly downgraded to the point of being less than half the predicted intensity. TSI doesn't account for the warming in recent decades....except TSI is only one factor in the Sun's influence upon climate, shifting weather patterns, increased Cosmic Rays being but two other known impacts.

The list goes on and on.

Climate is measured over long time periods for very good reasons. I'm sure folk will continue to highlight tiny time periods and individual drivers to prove their point but for me, it's all just bluster.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101015090959.htm

Seems we're still moving in the right direction though J'

[keithlucky]

Very interesting to see if the next few winters get progressively colder as the the solar brigade keep telling us its going to ,it will also support their theory that gm is a goverment generated tax.

[Gray-Wolf]

Very interesting to see if the next few winters get progressively colder as the the solar brigade keep telling us its going to ,it will also support their theory that gm is a government generated tax.

Hi Keith!

you can add the PDO and ENSO crew to the Solar Guys!

They will need some pretty convincing explanations should we see continued warming/accelerating warming through their 'cool down' period!

I have had experience of some of the guys over on the 'Arctic' Thread and this spring was a classic example of folk setting themselves up for a fall (as I feel they are doing with global temps). Strangely none came forward with explanations as to how/why their projections (of recovery/continued recovery) didn't come to pass. Strangely they are back again doing the same with the autumn re-freeze........

[MR EXTREMES]

Hi Keith!

you can add the PDO and ENSO crew to the Solar Guys!

They will need some pretty convincing explanations should we see continued warming/accelerating warming through their 'cool down' period!

I have had experience of some of the guys over on the 'Arctic' Thread and this spring was a classic example of folk setting themselves up for a fall (as I feel they are doing with global temps). Strangely none came forward with explanations as to how/why their projections (of recovery/continued recovery) didn't come to pass. Strangely they are back again doing the same with the autumn re-freeze........

infact they did and spring is a NORMAL TIME of year when the arctic starts to lose ice perfectly normal,

anyway in regards to solar forcing and other natural cycles of coarse it has an effect how much we shall see.

but graywolf maybe your setting yourself up for a fall aswell because its clear to see that things are not as they were pre 2007.

and you seem to bang that drum hard without giving our climate a chance because a cooldown was never going to happen in a year,

lets wait and see because i cant wait to blow my trumpet because i hate forcefull people.

Hi Keith!

you can add the PDO and ENSO crew to the Solar Guys!

They will need some pretty convincing explanations should we see continued warming/accelerating warming through their 'cool down' period!

I have had experience of some of the guys over on the 'Arctic' Thread and this spring was a classic example of folk setting themselves up for a fall (as I feel they are doing with global temps). Strangely none came forward with explanations as to how/why their projections (of recovery/continued recovery) didn't come to pass. Strangely they are back again doing the same with the autumn re-freeze........

even if the sun died it would still take time for our earth to cool or should i say freeze because all the warmth trapped in our oceans this i feel is key to way the arctic has been hard to recover but this could possibly change,

i have no reason to not listen to those who dont agree with your evidence because there is always two sides to everything.

[barrel1234]

infact they did and spring is a NORMAL TIME of year when the arctic starts to lose ice perfectly normal,

anyway in regards to solar forcing and other natural cycles of coarse it has an effect how much we shall see.

but graywolf maybe your setting yourself up for a fall aswell because its clear to see that things are not as they were pre 2007.

and you seem to bang that drum hard without giving our climate a chance because a cooldown was never going to happen in a year,

lets wait and see because i cant wait to blow my trumpet because i hate forcefull people.

even if the sun died it would still take time for our earth to cool or should i say freeze because all the warmth trapped in our oceans this i feel is key to way the arctic has been hard to recover but this could possibly change,

i have no reason to not listen to those who dont agree with your evidence because there is always two sides to everything.

I think that that's a very thought provoking post, and is one that I am on the side of, changes due to factors such as ocean cooling and solar activity can take time to affect global temperatures and also ice formation, I don't think that the arctic is going to recover overnight but I do think that the recovery is on its way and possibly could build momentum, some cold winters in the next 20 years could cause some people to regret feeling sorry for the below average state the arctic is currently having. For me the balance of evidence is pointing at cooling, I am trying to take into account as many factors as possible and order them in significance and effect, I think that its possible for the arctic to be so much more resilient in its return than some people think and could build up some decent momentum in growth in the next few years.

This is precisely why Im finding this year to be so exciting because with whats going on with -ve PDO and the la nina forecast to last for a couple of years right now could well be the start where the right people are going to be proved right and the wrong people will be proved wrong. Obviously not in a 1 year period, but it should be the start of some people having to re-think their stance on what side of the fence they are on.

Edited October 17, 2010 by barrel1234

[knocker]

even if the sun died it would still take time for our earth to cool or should i say freeze because all the warmth trapped in our oceans this i feel is key to way the arctic has been hard to recover but this could possibly change,

i have no reason to not listen to those who dont agree with your evidence because there is always two sides to everything.

If the sun died you would have no photosynthesis. Ergo no life. In any case if the sun died, in the process it would envelope the earth.

[jethro]

http://www.scienceda...01015090959.htm

Seems we're still moving in the right direction though J'

I take it you mean a step in the right direction in so far as more research is being done to fill the gaps in our knowledge?

I agree on that one.

Very interesting to see if the next few winters get progressively colder as the the solar brigade keep telling us its going to ,it will also support their theory that gm is a goverment generated tax.

That would depend upon everything else remaining totally static and the Sun being the only influence, not to mention the influence being one directional - latest research suggests not.

As for the theory that AGW is a government generated tax, that's a small minority view on this board, not a widely held one. It's possible to question the theory on scientific grounds without the need or desire to go down the conspiracy route; although that is often used as a get out clause to tarnish anyone who doesn't whole heartedly support the AGW theory.

Hi Keith!

you can add the PDO and ENSO crew to the Solar Guys!

They will need some pretty convincing explanations should we see continued warming/accelerating warming through their 'cool down' period!

I have had experience of some of the guys over on the 'Arctic' Thread and this spring was a classic example of folk setting themselves up for a fall (as I feel they are doing with global temps). Strangely none came forward with explanations as to how/why their projections (of recovery/continued recovery) didn't come to pass. Strangely they are back again doing the same with the autumn re-freeze........

Come on GW, that's a two way street if ever I saw one - milding out of La Nina's....... And haven't we had at least two, if not three summers in succession which have recorded higher figures than 2007, a slow but steady, year on year increase? Miraculous really, given the dramatic loss in 2007 and the state of the remaining young ice.

If the sun died you would have no photosynthesis. Ergo no life. In any case if the sun died, in the process it would envelope the earth.

I think he was referring to no output from the Sun,in the form of sunspots.

[keithlucky]

Expansion contraction of the ice fields have always taken place , and we can try to poison our air ,but why if co2 is man made causing gw how is co2 only a tiny percentage of the air we breath and hasent increased much over the last 20 years? Weather and world temps are cycles.

Lomonosovfonna Ice Core, Svalbard, Norway

Grinsted et al. (2006), from data obtained from a 121-meter-long ice core extracted from the highest ice

field in Svalbard (Lomonosovfonna: 78°51'53"N, 17°25'30"E), developed "a model of chemical

fractionation in ice based on differing elution rates for pairs of ions ... as a proxy for summer melt

(1130-1990)," which was "validated against twentieth-century instrumental records and longer

historical climate proxies." This work revealed, in their words, that "the Medieval Warm Period in

Svalbard summer conditions [was] as warm (or warmer) as present-day," because "the degree of

summer melt was significantly larger during the period 1130-1300 than in the 1990s."

Edited October 17, 2010 by keithlucky

[knocker]

Expansion contraction of the ice fields have always taken place , and we can try to poison our air , but why if co2 is man made causing gw how is co2 only a tiny percentage of the air we breath and hasent increased much over the last 20 years? Weather and world temps are cycles.

Despite its relatively small overall concentration in the atmosphere, CO₂ is an important component of Earth's atmosphere because it absorbs and emits infrared radiation. The present level is higher than at any time during the last 800 thousand years

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5314592.stm

If you want another example of man interfering with disastrous consequences (working both ways) take ozone.

Ozone is very rare in our atmosphere, averaging about three molecules of ozone for every 10 million air molecules. In spite of this small amount, ozone plays a vital role in the atmosphere. Stratospheric ozone plays a beneficial role by absorbing most of the biologically damaging ultraviolet sunlight , allowing only a small amount to reach the Earth's surface. The absorption of ultraviolet radiation by ozone creates a source of heat, which actually forms the stratosphere itself . Ozone thus plays a key role in the temperature structure of the Earth's atmosphere. Without the filtering action of the ozone layer, more of the Sun's UV-B radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would reach the Earth's surface. And we nearly managed to destroy it!

And then of course there is the other angle. At the Earth's surface, ozone comes into direct contact with life-forms and displays its destructive side . Because ozone reacts strongly with other molecules, high levels of ozone are toxic to living systems. Several studies have documented the harmful effects of ozone on crop production, forest growth, and human health. The substantial negative effects of surface-level tropospheric ozone from this direct toxicity contrast with the benefits of the additional filtering of UV-B radiation that it provides. Being perverse we actually manage to increase levels of tropospheric ozone.

Size isn't everything!

[keithlucky]

Despite its relatively small overall concentration in the atmosphere, CO₂ is an important component of Earth's atmosphere because it absorbs and emits infrared radiation. The present level is higher than at any time during the last 800 thousand years

http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/5314592.stm

If you want another example of man interfering with disastrous consequences (working both ways) take ozone.

Ozone is very rare in our atmosphere, averaging about three molecules of ozone for every 10 million air molecules. In spite of this small amount, ozone plays a vital role in the atmosphere. Stratospheric ozone plays a beneficial role by absorbing most of the biologically damaging ultraviolet sunlight , allowing only a small amount to reach the Earth's surface. The absorption of ultraviolet radiation by ozone creates a source of heat, which actually forms the stratosphere itself . Ozone thus plays a key role in the temperature structure of the Earth's atmosphere. Without the filtering action of the ozone layer, more of the Sun's UV-B radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would reach the Earth's surface. And we nearly managed to destroy it!

And then of course there is the other angle. At the Earth's surface, ozone comes into direct contact with life-forms and displays its destructive side . Because ozone reacts strongly with other molecules, high levels of ozone are toxic to living systems. Several studies have documented the harmful effects of ozone on crop production, forest growth, and human health. The substantial negative effects of surface-level tropospheric ozone from this direct toxicity contrast with the benefits of the additional filtering of UV-B radiation that it provides. Being perverse we actually manage to increase levels of tropospheric ozone.

Size isn't everything!

According to latest evidence the ozone layer will be fully repaired soon ,during charles dickens times they had severe cold winters ,we could well be in a cooling down cycle only time will tell.

[Weather-history]

I remember seeing, I think it was the Royal Institution's Christmas lectures some years back, that we are still technically in an ice age.

[knocker]

According to latest evidence the ozone layer will be fully repaired soon ,during charles dickens times they had severe cold winters ,we could well be in a cooling down cycle only time will tell.

The depletion of stratospheric ozone may well be halted, although if your 'natural cycle' continues and the stratosphere carries on cooling causing an increase in Polar Stratospheric Clouds, this may well slow down considerable, but this wasn't reallly my point. That being that a molecule of such minute concentrations can be so vitally important. Plus it's difficult to see how natural cylcles are the cause of the increase in tropospheric ozone unless you count millions of cars as being 'natural'. Just for the record I don't think anyone is denying the existence of natural cycles, just that a society obsessed by consumerism can adversely affect them.

Edited October 18, 2010 by weather ship

[noggin]

If you want another example of man interfering with disastrous consequences (working both ways) take ozone.

For how long have we (mankind) known of the existence of the ozone layer and what evidence do we have that it is mankind who has affected it?

I ask a genuine question here, as I don't know if we have records going back far enough to be able to confirm that "it" is all our fault, rather than a natural depletion and rejuvenation cycle driven by, say, the Sun?

[knocker]

For how long have we (mankind) known of the existence of the ozone layer and what evidence do we have that it is mankind who has affected it?

I ask a genuine question here, as I don't know if we have records going back far enough to be able to confirm that "it" is all our fault, rather than a natural depletion and rejuvenation cycle driven by, say, the Sun?

Okay some background.

Interest in atmospheric ozone began with O. M. B. Dobson, a British meteorologist. Studies of meteor trails led to the discovery of a region in the stratosphere at a height of about 50 km which owed its high temperature to absorption of ultraviolet radiation by ozone. Dobson invented a spectrophotometric method of measuring its total amount in the air column and in the 1930s set up a chain of ozone measuring stations. Systematic measurements using the Dobson instruments at Argentine Islands (Faraday) and Halley Bay (Halley), were begun in 1957. Measurements were also made at other lGY Antarctic stations including Little America. The interest was that ozone, being produced photochemically at heights of between 20 and 50 km, mostly at low latitudes or, in the summer only, at high latitudes, could be used as a tracer of atmospheric circulation at high levels. It was found that a major increase in total ozone occurs in the course of breakdown of the Antarctic winter stratospheric vortex. Long-term trends, however, seemed to be small, less than those at lower latitudes.

Meanwhile concern had been growing about effects of human activities on the ozone layer which might result in penetration of damaging amounts of ultraviolet radiation to ground level.

The science behind the causes of the depletion I’ll leave to Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia....Ozone_depletion

Wondering about whether it has happened before is irrelevant. IMHO that is.

Edited October 18, 2010 by weather ship

[noggin]

Okay some background.

Wondering about whether it has happened before is irrelevant. IMHO that is.

Ta for the first bit.

Re the second bit...........relevant or not, I am interested in things! It's amazing how bits of information come in useful, eventually. For instance (I am digressing a little, like Ronnie Corbett), donkey's years ago, when "use by" dates started to be put on food, I discovered that sugar is the only packaged food item which does not have a "use by" nor "best before" date on it. That information was stored in my brain for decades. Then fairly recently I was attending a food hygiene course and the instructor asked the question "what is the only food item that does not have a "use by" nor "best before" date on it?" Lo and behold, I amazed him by saying "sugar"! He was astounded that anyone knew, but I had it stored away with other, apparently useless, information in my brain. :lol:

I just love collecting information! :blush:

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Hi Keith!

you can add the PDO and ENSO crew to the Solar Guys!

They will need some pretty convincing explanations should we see continued warming/accelerating warming through their 'cool down' period!

I have had experience of some of the guys over on the 'Arctic' Thread and this spring was a classic example of folk setting themselves up for a fall (as I feel they are doing with global temps). Strangely none came forward with explanations as to how/why their projections (of recovery/continued recovery) didn't come to pass. Strangely they are back again doing the same with the autumn re-freeze........

GW

Can you tell us all about your novel Nina theory, you know the one that is getting serious? I mean you kept going on about ENSO and PDO 'milding' out, a wrong call?. So who is falling by the way????

BFTP

Edited October 18, 2010 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Roger J Smith]

I think the long and short of this subject is a relatively flat line in recent years on global temperature trends, and a caution that talk about increased variability is difficult if not impossible to verify from the actual facts.

To some extent, the climate seems blander now than at most times in the past. Certainly the past three or four years have been somewhat less than exciting in terms of UK and Ireland weather. There have been a lot of months within a degree of long-term normals. If not for the rather interesting winters in recent years, there would be very little to remember about these past few years, and I can't see anyone on the 2030 version of Netweather regaling younger members with tales of the summer of 2010. In fact, I've already forgotten most of it (of course I wasn't there so perhaps that is why, but perhaps not).

[Methuselah]

So then, all said and done, there's still no evidence for global cooling?

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html?nid=62209

I think this may help BFTP?

[Iceberg]

I agree Roger about the blandness of recent seasons in the UK (with the obvious exception of the last couple of winters which have been very nice and snowy for me).

I do disagree about the relative flatline in recent years, the 10 year average is up strongly in the last few years to a record high currently, equally the 30 year is still climbing strongly, as is pretty much every other method of measuring trends in global temperatures.

I agree the last 10-15 years globally have on the whole been incredibly warm, but I am not sure sure that's exactly what your saying : )

[knocker]

So then, all said and done, there's still no evidence for global cooling?

Was there ever?