Global Cooling Is Here!

Jesus H Roosevelt Christ - this again ? No convincing evidence of what, exactly - that a 50% boost in CO2 concentration might trap heat in quantities sufficient to alter the major climate patterns of the planet ? That's something you need counter evidence to dismiss.

and this crap:

WTF ? Do you guys actually think the Arctic reserves are going to cover for the peaking of the Saudi fields ? Or even make up for the depletion of the Texas fields ? They probably wouldn't even cover the fraudulent overestimation of reserves by a couple of major oil companies, still not corrected for in the public discourse AFAIK.

You think the big oil companies are leaning on their pet armies in the Middle East for their health ?

I didn't interpret it that way. I took it exactly as you posted it - a claim that the consensus hurricane predictions of the global warming alarmists had been contradicted by events.

That claim was bullshit, and I showed why in two different ways - 1) there was no consensus claim, and 2) specific model predictions were proved uncannily accurate by events.

And that claim was irrelevant to any serious discussion about the effects of CO2 accumulation - it was a type of deflection whose origin and motives have become flagrantly obvious over the past two or three years in such discussions.

Why do you spam this forum with yet another repetition of familiar garbage arguments derived from politically motivated PR campaigns ? Are you not aware of the sources of the claims and assertions you make here ?

Meanwhile, a small sample of what's showing up in the actual research every week:

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0803/full/climate.2008.13.html short term sea level rise possibly underestimated by IPCC

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0803/fig_tab/climate.2008.14_F2.html schematic of consensus in the researcher community on various sub-issues

from this: http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0803/full/climate.2008.14.html

For those who think that solar effects are being ignored, or at least (no ense in assuming thought) for those who keep claiming here that solar flux has been somehow overlooked by the consensus of researchers in the field, an example of the tons of research on that -

Cave records of the climate effects of long term insolation patterns: http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0803/full/4511061a.html

a picture: http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0803/fig_tab/4511061a_F1.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is no research that's political toying with flawed models based on a complete lack of reality. Vaclav Claus explains where this strong aggressiveness comes from:

(turn volume down first)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23358915-7583,00.html

Also:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23346358-21147,00.html

The former post is an excellent illustration how we are heading to a new political totatitarian disaster.

There is plenty of evidence that doubling CO2 will not exceed one degree temperature raise, despite all the wishfull thinking. Check:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=220771

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah yes very mature

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A 50% increase might trap heat and you want me to show counter evidence?

What guys? Do you even know where that quote came from?

Cannot the same questions be asked of you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When somebody is taking on Al Gore by namecalling, you know any "science" in their argument is going to be pretty much a waste of time.

Note that in Andre's post in general, alleged political failings are used to argue against physical theory and scientific findings.

But in answer to the quoted comment: whether the greenhouse effect of CO2 will "runaway" or not is just an argument over adjustments and total effects. Most of the predictions and possibilities - such as the IPCC predictions - do not involve runaway. Runaway is what gets you Venus, and the end of human life on Earth. Arguments against runaway - even those based on the notion that a consensus of the world's climate scientists, in building dozens of models and reanalysing several different (earth, mars, venus, jupiter, etc) planetary situations with the space age adapted equations and new computerized methods, all failed to correct the same mistake made in 1922 in a hand calculation - are almost irrelevant.

Even the extreme alarmist predictions do not necessarily involve runaway. All the ice melting and the sea rising 20 feet does not need "runaway", for example.

So whatever the mistakes were in the equations, they don't apply to the IPCC report, the majority of the issues involved in CO2 effects, or the matters under discussion most of the time.

And the motives of people who spread these meaningless and distracting claims around, with headlines like "Greenhouse Equations Mistaken !!!", are really suspect the third or fourth time they repeat stuff so transparently invalid and sensationalized.

Try reading the actual quote carefully. It's OK to move your lips, if that helps.

No. You're full of shit here, and I'm not.

 

Which is clearly demonstrating to have no idea what is going, only that there appears to be something to fight for. And fight we shall, regardless of the disastrous results. [/rant]

Okay back to the science.

Let's try again and go to chap6 of WG1: of the last IPCC report:

In a nutshell: general climate sensitivity of doubling CO2 is about one degree celsius. To arrive at higher values, some "amplification" is required in the form of positive feedback, which is not the same as runaway. These assumptions are the key in the IPCC papers.

These assumptions have been tested and proven false as I have shown, the current atmosphere does not exhibit positive feedback in any dataset, even the seasonal sea ice fluctiation does not show positive feedback. Without positive feedback the scientific global warming case crumbles, there is nothing to boost the CO2 forcing to 'dangerous' warming, what remains is a dishonest fallacy war again reason.

 

Originally Posted by iceaura
So far, the climate is right on schedule with some of the more extreme possibilities,and nothing has happened in contradiction with the theories or standard models.

reponse:
You mean the projected hurricane forecasts that DIDNT HAPPEN? You mean the falling temperatures in the antarctic? You mean the increasing arctic ice? The leveling of temperatures for the last 10 years? You mean the 'normal' cold in winter we're experiencing this winter?

Iceaura response to above questions:
Not one of those is an honest and reasonable presentation of anything coming out of the climate reasearch of the past twenty years. They are all and each politically biased drivel.

response:
I didnt say hurricanes didnt happen, though I can see how you could interpret it that way. What was meant was their 'predictions' of a severe hurricane season fizzled out and it fell under 'normal' (if I remember correctly the LOW end of normal). Revised twice downward as their predictions didnt pan out.

iceaura response:
And as I pointed out, "they" made no such consensual predictions. "They" engaged in a heated scientific debate, which was misrepresented by some irresponsible political operatives for petty political gain, damaging both the science and the politics involved in the matter.

iceaura again on the attack and subjectively ignoring clarification:
I didn't interpret it that way. I took it exactly as you posted it - a claim that the consensus hurricane predictions of the global warming alarmists had been contradicted by events.

That claim was bullshit, and I showed why in two different ways - 1) there was no consensus claim, and 2) specific model predictions were proved uncannily accurate by events.
Why do you spam this forum with yet another repetition of familiar garbage arguments derived from politically motivated PR campaigns ? Are you not aware of the sources of the claims and assertions you make here ?

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/hurricane/2005-09-21-more-hurricanes_x.htm
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060601_hurricane_forecasts.html
http://www.livescience.com/environment/061201_ap_hurricane_flop.html
http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2007/nov2007/nov2007.pdf

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

Direct quotes from IPCC releases (2007)

likely increase in tropical cyclone intensity; less confidence in global decrease of tropical cyclone numbers

Intense tropical cyclone activity increases - Likely

Predicted Iceaura response:

The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling!

 

You keep pointing to specific instances of "predictions" that didn't happen, and to examples of falling, rather than rising temperatures (not global temperatures, but localised ones), as if that destroys the credibility of climate science.

The climate is chaotic, and difficult to predict accurately, there are vast cycles of air and water, warm and cold masses of them encountering each other, on the surface of a sphere that isn't "bald", there's a bit of "hair" on it - large bodies of water and land.
The models are still "general", because there isn't the resolution yet, or the processing capacity yet.

But you're not throwing anything substantial at your assumed target.
Where did you get "...the increasing arctic ice? The leveling of temperatures for the last 10 years?" from...??

 

As the subject of hurricanes seems closest to your heart, I direct your attention to the letter from Chris Landsea, that you linked http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

Note that Chris was one of those IPCC scientists you are asserting produced, in years past, consensus predictions of lots of hurricanes for last year and global warming increasing the severity of hurricane season in the Atlantic. Note that he claims that others in the IPCC, not just him, also disagree with the attempts of some members to produce such a prediction - in other words, there was no consensus prediction. There was a lot of controversy. Chris resigned - his opinion was that the research showed no such thing, and he objected to any other opinions getting press time as if supported by research.

Now you ask: what about the predictions of hurricanes that didn't happen ? Well, events supported the opinions of those IPCC scientists who thought that the CO2 accumulation effects would not govern the severity of the hurricane season. So?

Chris Landsea, btw, has no probolem at all recognizing the effects of heat trapping by CO2 accumulation in the climate he is studying - jsut because it doesn't necessarily cause monster hurricane seasons (and it still might - Chris could be wrong) does not mean that Chris doesn't see the ocean warming, etc., and agree that anthro CO2 is the likely cause. Check his Wiki entry, or his several academic papers.

No data supports that prediction. Instead, you should predict that I will continue to respond as I have so far: your arguments are familiar, from political sources and politically motivated, make no sense on the scientific end, and are full of shit.

You have not shown that. Not even close.

When you edit someone's post heavily, and then present it as a quote, it's expected that you will leave marks or indications showing at least where the changes were made.

 

Beside your post being just bad science, here is an analogy for you from finance:

Just because we had one of the biggest (400+ Dow points) rallies in history the other day that doesn't mean we are not in a bearmarket.

The point is, even if the one year cooling is true (which isn't), that doesn't mean that the long term trend is still global warming...

 

begin Landsea quotes:
“The global warming impacts are so tiny today that they can't be measured although they might be measured in 100 years. Compared to the natural swings of hurricane activity and compared to the huge population increase and infrastructure build-up along the coast, any global warming effects are likely to be so tiny that they're lost in the noise.”
“It's cyclical. If there are changes from human-induced global warming, they're so small we can't detect them yet.”

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.

In response to this paper Increased tropical Atlantic wind shear in model projections of global warming, Geophys. Res. Lett. Vecchi G. A., B. J. Soden (2007):
ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/pub/landsea/VecchiSoden-GRL07.pdf

What they found - surprisingly - is that in the Atlantic that the wind shear should increase significantly over a large portion of where hurricanes occur - making it more difficult for hurricanes to form and grow. This was identified in all of the 18 global climate models they examined. (Perhaps it's not that surprising given that Knutson/Tuleya 2004 showed some of the same signal for the more reliable models back then. Now the signal is in ALL of the CGCMs.) Even the MPI changes in the Atlantic appear mixed, due to the smaller SST increases there (with more uniform upper trop temp changes) compared with the rest of the global tropics/subtropics.

One implication to me is that this further provides evidence that the busy period we've seen in the Atlantic hurricanes since 1995 is due to natural cycles, rather than manmade causes. We've seen a big reduction in wind shear in the last thirteen hurricane seasons, which is OPPOSITE to the signal that Vecchi and Soden have linked to manmade global warming changes.

Finally, with regards to Michael Mann's quoted comments: I would agree with him that modeling of the future is very uncertain and that it is quite possible that all 18 of these coupled climate models have it wrong. However, if one wants to make attribution now of what the cause of the increased hurricane activity we've seen in the Atlantic since 1995, the Vecchi and Soden study is pretty clear: it can't be global warming because both the dynamics AND thermodynamics don't support it, if these models are to be believed.

/end of Landsea quotes

And I found no quotes from Landsea that indicate he agrees with the manmade CO2 warming connection as you imply. Nothing. But that would be the responsible reaction from him, being as he is an expert in hurricanes, not CO2. He does know a bit about modeling being as it is used to try to predict hurricane seasons.

As far as Landsea agreeing that global warming happens, well so do I! Climate changes occur. I am not disputing that at all. But everything we are seeing falls well within the natural variations of nature. What bothers you is the people who WONT fall into line with the current OMG its ALL MANKINDS fault and CO2 is the blame groupies.

 

The first hit I got on Google:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Landsea

No it doesn't. The last couple of hundred years have been unusual, outliers at least - a degree C temp increase in a century, a CO2 concentration boost approaching 50% in the form of a monotonically increasing combustion output, polar ice cover melting and worldwide glacial retreat during an astronomically governed cooling phase; when have such things happened before ?

 

Yes, I read it. I even followed the link to the full context of the quote and NO WHERE IS CO2 MENTIONED! You seem to be transposing your beliefs into other persons statements to come to support a conclusion you have all ready made, regardless of the fact 'greenhouse' warming is caused by factors other than CO2!

As I said, Landsea does not mention co2 at all. You mis-represent Landsea's position (which is No COMMENT). The reality is he has made no claim regarding co2 and mankinds effect on temp. The responsible position for his expertise, something sorely lacking with the IPCC.

Easily, if the people being interviewed wanted to say CO2 they would have said CO2, but they dont.

No more unusual than the MWP, LIA, and other fluctuations in climate that meet (or even exceed) our current trend. However, the above quote is reflects the same issue that is going on with temp readings and smoothing and the resulting hockey sticks conclusions you can achieve.

I find the skeptic points very valid regarding temps, readings, and associating this with increased co2 as the IPCC does. Bad data in, bad calculations result.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-24/
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/a-typical-day-in-the-stevenson-screen-paint-test/
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/measureing-the.html
http://www.surfacestations.org/

Cry all you want about who they work for or what their agendas are, if they are right in their claims, they are right in the claims.

 

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
:shrug:

 

Except that they were less than half as rapid in transition, and apparently lesser in magnitude.
I haven't been able to find a record of a past climate change known to have involved more half of the recent one degree C global atmospheric temp rise in a century. Nor have I been able to find a record of a similar increase in CO2. Can you find one ?

No, just "greenhouse warming". Are you claiming that Chris is in the "cow farts dominate" school, with CO2 a minor player ?
Mr Landsea makes no claims of his own, outside his field - to his credit. He does provisionally agree with some consensus interpretations of the results of responsible scientists in their fields, whose published results he is qualified to evaluate - such as the people who find a net heat trapping effect from the recent aberrant accumulation of fossil fuel source CO2 in the atmosphere. He has "no doubt" of that.

And if they are wrong in their claims, they are wrong in their claims. In those links, there are no relevant claims - so it doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong. Why did you post them ?

We note that the first launching of space weather satellites to do this kind of monitoring brought back systematically miscalibrated data - these tech thingies are tricky. But let's assume they got the buoy array working right the very first time.

My guess is that if the theorists are right, and clouds, or something like them currently poorly understood, turn out to be a major factor;

and if the theorists' probabilities break to the "more clouds reflect more light, countering the CO2 heat trapping effects" side as they have always noted is quite likely;

and if the theorists are right in that the resulting climatic effects of the CO2 buildup, including many human disasters, are all over the place depending on local circumstances;

that the lack of an extreme global temperature hike will be taken by the denialists as evidence that their various crackpotteries, not the theorists' arguements and research conclusions, were right all along.

 

Ran across this today. The predicted US weather for this past winter. What was predicted (2-5 months before it occured):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071010131931.htm

What really happened:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080314175834.htm

Heres an archieve of predictions and (limited) what happened:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/archives/long_lead/llarc.ind.php

This one could be fun for someone interested in following along:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/90day/

Snippet from Feb 2008 tropical bulletin:
Atmospheric and oceanic indices during February 2008 indicated a further strengthening of La Niña. This strengthening is highlighted by a decrease in the Niño 4 sea surface temperature (SST) index to -1.6 and a drop in the Niño 3.4 index to -1.9, the lowest value since January 2000. Overall, equatorial sea surface temperatures (SST) were more than 2.0°C below average across parts of the central and east-central equatorial Pacific.

The sitemap from the above noaa links has tons of information.

 

Does it matter if global warming is real or not if we can't mine enough coal and oil to supply our cheap demand anyways?

 

Again, you're advancing theories that cover every eventuality, so that whatever happens, you claim you're right. At the same time, you claim your detractors are wrong, no matter what happens!

If, as you suggest, water vapor increases the amount of light reflected and cancels out the effect of rising CO2, how were the global warming "deniers" not correct?

It's great, from a theoretical standpoint, to create a theory that covers anything that happens. But such a theory can't be used as the basis for multi-trillion dollar policy decisions.

Let's admit that we're not sure how the hell the climate works or exactly what effect increasing CO2 will have. Reasonable measures should be taken to decrease emisions, we can all agree with that. But the increasing cost of oil will guarantee that, anyway.

 

No, there are plenty of things that, if they happened, would contradict the predicted possible effects of the CO2 boost.

None of them have shown any signs of happening, so far.

No suggestion of mine, that.

That's easy to admit. And let's go on to recognise that the odds do not favor a continuation of the status quo, by which we mean further "natural" variation such as the climate record would indicate as normal. We are going to get something new, in all probability, yes?

 

Here's the problem I have with climate theory. We're trying to model a process that fluctuates naturally over timescales of thousands, maybe millions of years based on about 60 years of solid records. Beyond that we have some not-so-accurate data, approximations and extrapolations. It's a hugely complex system that we're just beginning to get a grip on and I don't think we're in any position to be making statements as to how climate should be. We don't even know all the factors involved, much less how they interact.

So lets cut back on fossil fuels, not because of Global Warming, but because it's the right thing to do. It's economically right and it's ecologically right. Unfortunately that's going to mean defying the oil conglomerates, and that's not something most politicians (particularly in the US) are going to do willingly.

 

Exactly. I just don't think our present understanding is anywhere near good enough to justify making policy decisions such as Kyoto which might cost billions, even trillions of dollars.

I agree we should do what we can to decrease our dependency on oil, especially foriegn oil. But, as I said, the rising price of oil will make that a natural thing to do regardless of any international protocol.