Global Cooling

[ygmir]

I like carrots, but, stuff always gets stuck in my teeth.

[dr.placebo]

A couple of pieces of climate news.

1. On the subject of the temperature record and poorly sited stations, a new review of the data indicates that the "poor" quality stations actually introduce a slight cool bias into the temps. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... al-warming
and the original paper:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushc ... al2010.pdf

2. As to whether we are about to plunge into a new ice age, the current theory on what forces big ice ages is slow natural variations in the earth's orbit, which changes the amount of solar heating of the surface. If this theory largely true then we are not on the brink of such a change. Here's some food for thought:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/upcomin ... itely.html

[can't sit still]

I read some of the info

"medium-low level of scientific understanding. The RF due to the

cloud albedo effect (also referred to as first indirect or Twomey

effect), in the context of liquid water clouds, is estimated

to be –0.7 [–1.1, +0.4] W m–2, with a low level of scientific understanding"
Their data varies from a possible positive to a possible negative.
They claim 1.66 W/M ex2
They did great work but, they make so many claims of not understanding, how can they claim that the data is accurate?
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4 ... t_Ch02.pdf

Some of the projections are crap too. They claim that if we introduce a bunch more CO2, we can postpone the next ice age by 500,000 years. Pretty goddamn presumptuous. They also claim that switching into an ice age is a 10,000 years process. More bullshit.
All their fine work may be accurate, but with their minimal understanding, they can't make any claims for all their modeling,,,, observations, yes. Modeling, no.
I have serious doubt about the figure of 1.66 watts per square meter.
Since the sun is responsible for 1200 to 1400 watts per sq. meter [different claims], I see no reason to concede anthropogenic. Solar variations could easily account for the one tenth of a percent claimed to be anthropogenic.

You notice that the "global warming" thread died off long ago. This one is rolling along nicely.

On the question of the poorly sited stations, the paper was "peer reviewed" Sure, it was reviewed by NOAA. They are also responsible for eliminating most of the stations in the far north. Were these stations included in the baseline or were they not included? If the northern stations were included in the baseline and excluded in later reports, NOAA data is not reliable either,,, or their "peer reviewing"

We'll get to the bottom of this sooner or later,,, even if it takes 20,000 years.

This is a quote from the Guardian article;
"Of course, the question of how long our interglacial lasts without human intervention is moot. We are intervening"
One more literary ignoramus. A "moot" was a meeting/convocation about immensely important subjects,,, usually water rights. When they abandoned a moot, they went back to killing. The ignorami seem to think that "moot" means unimportant. It means ,,, endlessly discussable. Sloppy work.

[Dad]

So here we are with incredible thought and process of the climatic changes of earth. Science, questioning such, and looking beyond. Of course climate is changing. If one looks at plate tectonics, and agrees with all theories of such, one can only believe that the arctic was once a warm bog. Question being when and where was that plate at the time. Has it moved so far north as to pass the time science says it was warm? What truly is climatic change? Is it a man made effect? Surely not if you look back and get past creationism. I am sure technology has an important role in climate change, yet question the true amount of data collected. If we only collect data, (true data that is recent(as we record it), and interpreted data of old as we only understand it) are we to take it as the truth and fact as it is only what we know? I often wonder of what is beyond just a bunch of data. In particular, the short period of true climate data. Maybe a couple hundred years of thermometers and wind data at best. Yet we measure the effects of so much on our recent achievements in technology. It seems that research and technology is ever growing and constantly contradicting such from the past, and in such, makes the future and predictions ever changing. So with this thought, todays predictions and forcasts are just a past thought, as tomorrows thoughts, insight, science, etc., etc., will make all who believe today's thoughts as fact, just a fool.

Food for tought.

[Token]

A couple of pieces of climate news.

1. On the subject of the temperature record and poorly sited stations, a new review of the data indicates that the "poor" quality stations actually introduce a slight cool bias into the temps. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... al-warming
and the original paper:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushc ... al2010.pdf

There is a lovely riposte to this article:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/r ... aggerated/

It seems those at the extreme sides of the issue are fighting a good fight.

[Laughing Forest]

A most awesome link Token.

[epic_elite]

ee:
I posited the idea of "making money" from this.
And, I still think, most of the "hype" (not real science, investigation, etc.) is related to making money.........
I had not even considered what you posted. Very good info. I'd bet, there are a lot of "spin off" profits and leverages, related to some of this issue, and, related legislation.........

but, that's the cynic in me.........

it's a very gray area...

it could be that the drug companies are the ones that pruposed to congress to ban CFC's in nebulizers. it does benefit them in every way.

but opportunizm/capitalism isn't the same as the people fueling the machine that makes us all afraid of threats like global warming.

the people who are making money off of the concept are too far away to have thier finger prints found on the trigger.


however. these companies pay millions of dollars in taxes to the government. creating a ban on CFCs, for example, would be in the best interest of the drug companies. in the governments perspective: if 1 customer creates 5% of your revenue, and that revenue is messured in the millions... why not do business in a way that pleases your customer?

these things are run by a complex machine, and that machine has many cogs. the people who are driving the machine aren't necessarily the ones making money off of it.

[Token]

2. As to whether we are about to plunge into a new ice age, the current theory on what forces big ice ages is slow natural variations in the earth's orbit, which changes the amount of solar heating of the surface. If this theory largely true then we are not on the brink of such a change. Here's some food for thought:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/upcomin ... itely.html

I love John Cook, the owner of SkepticalScience. He has a talent in pulling unrelated data from different sources completely out of context, stating them as absolute truths and then building a string of theories with massive flaws in logic.

Here is some junk from the linked article:

Just a few centuries ago, the planet experienced a mild ice age, quaintly dubbed the Little Ice Age. Part of the Little Ice Age coincided with a period of low solar activity termed the Maunder Minimum (named after astronomer Edward Maunder). It's believed that a combination of lower solar output and high volcanic activity were a major contributor (Free 1999, Crowley 2001), with changes in ocean circulation also having an effect on European temperatures (Mann 2002).

Here is his graph:



Despite some serious problems with the graph itself, like the first data point being seriously low and the Maunder Minimum being constant in a sea of noisy data, lets say it is good enough. Lets see what John says next:

Could we be heading into another Maunder Minimum? Solar activity is currently showing a long term cooling trend. 2009 saw solar output at its lowest level in over a century. However, predicting future solar activity is problematic. The transition from a period of 'grand maxima' (the situation in the latter 20th century) to a 'grand minima' (eg - Maunder Minimum conditions) is a chaotic process and difficult to predict (Usoskin 2007).

OK, mentions the chaos but does not talk about the flatness in the minimum. No problem, minor point anyway.

Now comes the funny math:

Let's say for the sake of argument that the sun does enter another Maunder Minimum over the next century. What effect would this have on Earth's climate? The difference in solar radiative forcing between Maunder Minimum levels and current solar activity is estimated between 0.17 W/m2 (Wang 2005) to 0.23 W/m2 (Krivova 2007). In contrast, the radiative forcing of CO2 since pre-industrial times is 1.66 W/m2 (IPCC AR4), far outstripping solar influence. Add to this the extra CO2 emitted in upcoming decades and other greenhouse gases such as methane. The warming from man-made greenhouse gases far outstrips any potential cooling even if the sun was to return to Maunder Minimum levels.

OK, so I have highlighted the magic numbers in blue.

If you look at the graph and read the values for 1650 - 1700, the TSI is ~ 1364.75 W/m^2.

If you now look at 1950 - 2000, The TSI would probably average out to ~ 1366.00 W/m^2, maybee a few fractions less but its hard to put a ruler on the screen.

Looks to me like the difference between medieval times and late 20th century is ~ 1.25 W/m^2, based on the graph.

So, when JC does his funny math, he disregards his graph and pulls some numbers from other linked research theories and uses 0.17 - 0.23 W/m^2.

I call that an Order of Magnitude fudge factor.

If anything, the data he presents should lead to a conclusion that CO2 is not a strong forcing vector. when natural cycles lead to the medieval cooling period, it was a 0.75 W/m^2 loss plus some localized short term phenomena.

If JC is correct, and you take his graph data of 1366 W/m^2 and add his claimed CO2 forcing of 1.66W/m^2, we should already be in hell.

Given that the energy from the sun can be directly measured, but the forcing of CO2 and sensitivity of climate are only a semi-educated guess, which one is more likely to contain the error?

[Token]

I'm asking again.. Who is watching the known constants?.. And are they changing?.. Is this making the climette change?

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

There are 12 satellites doing the measuring.

[can't sit still]

Laughing Forest, yes, in case you're wondering, everybody noticed your disgusting Vid/signiture. I started this thread to be a serious discussion, not a canvas for revolting vulgarity.

[Token]

More news on the wire last week:

Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor represents an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... ce.1182488

I don't have access to the full report and don't feel like spending $15 for it.

Here are some links that talk about it:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories201 ... vapor.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/scien ... vapor.html
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ ... d-warming/

This is big news. Finally a senior IPCC scientist discovers a negative feedback! Who knew?

♦

Another good article comes from Dr. Roy Spencer that suggests oceanic influences are not sufficiently represented in current IPCC models.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/evi ... tructions/

Roy Spencer runs the microwave scanners on the Aqua satellite:

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

[can't sit still]

Token, I posted that the number one greenhouse gas was water vapor. Someone vehemently disagreed. That probably represents the general level of information for most people.
The PDF that I linked and quoted had a category for "long lasting jet contrails". I guess that the authors didn't want to use the word "chemtrails"

[Ugly Dougly]

Every year on February 2 Punxsutawney Phil emerges from his Pennsylvania burrow to give the world a prophetic reading of the seasons. The legend, since 1887, states that if the groundhog sees his shadow, there will be six more weeks of winter. If not, spring will come early.

This Tuesday, Phil predicted six more weeks of wintertime weather.

[unjonharley]

Every year on February 2 Punxsutawney Phil emerges from his Pennsylvania burrow to give the world a prophetic reading of the seasons. The legend, since 1887, states that if the groundhog sees his shadow, there will be six more weeks of winter. If not, spring will come early.

This Tuesday, Phil predicted six more weeks of wintertime weather.

Animal right want him replaced by a robot.. Says it's crual to wake him up once a year.. Go ahead with the robot.. I'll make pair of warm slippers out of his furry butt..

[Trishntek]

Since Global Warming, Global Cooling and Climate Change being caused by man is hypothetical at worst and theory at best, and since there are varying degrees of agreement and disagreement concerning the evidence, the science and relative data, all this seems very similar to other societal debates. When does life begin? Is marijuana a dangerous drug?

Debates such as these boil down to beliefs. As such, they become religious by definition. Therefore, it should be proclaimed that Climate Change caused by man is a religion. It is a State sponsored religion and should heretofore be declared unconstitutional. And any laws, regulations and punishments based on this religion are immediately rescinded.

[ygmir]

you vely kreva, fo roun eye devil...........

[theCryptofishist]

Trishntek
This is not some sort of angels dancing on the heads of pins controversy. It's a "How are our grandchildren going to be living" controversy. So, nice dodge, I suppose, but not if truth actually matters.

[dr.placebo]

Debates such as these boil down to beliefs. As such, they become religious by definition. Therefore, it should be proclaimed that Climate Change caused by man is a religion. It is a State sponsored religion and should heretofore be declared unconstitutional. And any laws, regulations and punishments based on this religion are immediately rescinded.

While the definition of "religion" may be open to interpretation (and some abuse), the issue of climate change is not essentially religious, although certain religions may play a part in the belief systems of those in the debate. It should be settled by data, not by proclamation or fiat or fatwa.

[Isotopia]

Since Global Warming, Global Cooling and Climate Change being caused by man is hypothetical at worst and theory at best, and since there are varying degrees of agreement and disagreement concerning the evidence, the science and relative data, all this seems very similar to other societal debates...

Debates such as these boil down to beliefs. As such, they become religious by definition. Therefore, it should be proclaimed that Climate Change caused by man is a religion. It is a State sponsored religion and should heretofore be declared unconstitutional.

I'm pretty sure it was Einstein who once said something to the effect that "If we're ashamed of shoddy houses and shabby furniture then let us be even more ashamed of shoddy ideas and shabby beliefs."

Do you ever feel ashamed of harboring such blindingly stupid ideas as your above statement indicates?

[can't sit still]

Well, here's another scientist who has studied ice ages and claims that we are fast approaching a new one. "Fast" in geologic terms. This is one of those subjects where one tries to accumulate as much data as possible. I, personally, don't feel any need to pass judgment. I just try to collect as much data as possible.
http://www.croatiantimes.com/news/Gener ... five_years

Then, we have to deal with allegedly bogus data. Next, people recant;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nised.html
It's difficult enough to judge accurate data. It's impossible to weigh [alleged] bogus data.

[dr.placebo]

Two things to note about the Phil Jones recantation:

1. The article asserts that the missing data is crucial to the "hockey stick" graph. Other climatologists have been able to reproduce the basic result with other data sets. It's the redundancy in the data and the groups studying the climate that makes for a robust result.

2. Galileo also recanted under pressure.

About the Croatian scientist, he was quoted as saying:

"What I mean is that global warming is natural. Some 130,000 years ago the earth's temperature was the same as now, the level of CO2 was almost the same and the level of the sea was four metres higher."

Roughly true for temperature, although we may be 1-2 C short of the peak 130K years ago. Not at all true for CO2, since we are currently at levels not seen for 15 M years. Current day CO2 is 387 ppm, and 130K years ago the CO2 level is estimated at 290 ppm. Being this wrong on something this basic makes me skeptical about the remainder of his reported assertions.

[can't sit still]

"but it moves" !!

[ygmir]

I beg the question:

if the temp 130K years ago was higher, but, co2 was lower.....why?

[dr.placebo]

According to the most widely accepted theory about recent Ice Ages, the warming and cooling are both driven by changes in the earth's orbit and inclination. These orbital changes are reasonably well understood and predictable, similar to those of the precession of a gyroscope. There are a lot of loose ends to this theory, but no better explanation has been advanced. In any case, there is an observed cycle in both temperature and CO2 levels (recorded by biological and chemical proxies), with the CO2 level lagging the temperature by roughly 1000 years.

The atmospheric CO2 is enhanced by warming, and the CO2 causes additional warming due to the greenhouse effect. So we get positive feedback from CO2 and water vapor. We get negative feedback because the earth radiates more as it heats up. As it cools, we get more CO2 dissolved in the oceans (positive feedback), and we get less radiation from the earth's surface (negative feedback). And there are additional positive and negative feedback cycles. At the endpoints of the cycles we stop warming and cooling when the feedbacks balance.

What is different about this time is that the CO2 fraction in the atmosphere is being enhanced by human sources. We are about 100 ppm above the CO2 last peak of 130 K years ago. So the warming feedback that would naturally be driven by enhanced CO2 from the oceans is instead being driven by an enhanced greenhouse effect. This time the temperature lags the CO2 level, because the CO2 is being introduced faster than the temperature can increase. But this lag also means that the temperature will almost certainly keep rising for a while after we stabilize the CO2 level.

[Isotopia]

A very good explanation doctor.

There are those that would vehemently argue against your explanation(s).

The denialists.

A superb example of how these people are twisting the science to fit their agenda can be found in the BBC4 special that aired a year or so ago. Martin Durkin produced a program entitled The Great Global Warming Swindle which was broadcast on the BBC in England and the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Company.) Complete with graphs, interviews and a stable full of 'experts' Durkin manages to cast a huge doubt in the minds of his viewers as he attempts to debunk almost all claims that global, climactic change is occurring.

Fortunately Durkin's methods, message and 'science' are absolutely shredded by ace Australian journalist Tony Jones.

[youtube][/youtube]

The 9 part program is great for getting an impartial insight into how scientific information can be twisted and manipulated when important pieces of the puzzle are either misrepresented or left out altogether.

The icing on the cake is watching how this reporter Jones has done his homework above and beyond the call of duty. He's definitely a credit to his craft. I only wish we had more sensible, sharp and inquisitive reporters providing unbiased insight into the other stories of the day.

BTW, the last part of the program has a panel of xperts from many fields weighing in on the issue. You'll probably drop an hour of your life if you watch this all the way through but it's an hour well spent I think.

[ygmir]

I see that the sun's activity is returning, I've gotten a couple of aurora updates and notices lately...........
I wonder if that's related to the wild weather back east?

it's all so interesting.............

[thisisthatwhichis]

Ok, I took your advice, ISO, and blew off an hour of my life watching the debate (thanks, for the link).

But, I still came back to the same couple of basic underlying points that I always seem to walk away with.............

1) There is a "potential" risk of socio-economic changes mainly targeting the world powers..... this could include anything from minor inconveniences to population displacement and/or resource/land grab wars. I'm not really sure I see advantages to either side of the argument, unless I've missed all the technological miracle cures (not to say it can't be done, I just don't see it happening any time soon)........... And, as we witness daily, the socio-economic changes also happen in a CO2 producing world.......

2) Shit!!... there's a lot of money to be made here..... Regardless of the outcome of the debate.............

[unjonharley]

I see that the sun's activity is returning, I've gotten a couple of aurora updates and notices lately...........
I wonder if that's related to the wild weather back east?

it's all so interesting.............

All the north wests winter weather come in way south this year.. There is a warm spot out by Ha. This happens every couple years.. Ca and Tx. get there ass kicked the rest gos east.. Good year for me here in Or.. Fuck the rest of ya..

[ygmir]

Ok, I took your advice, ISO, and blew off an hour of my life watching the debate (thanks, for the link).

But, I still came back to the same couple of basic underlying points that I always seem to walk away with.............

1) There is a "potential" risk of socio-economic changes mainly targeting the world powers..... this could include anything from minor inconveniences to population displacement and/or resource/land grab wars. I'm not really sure I see advantages to either side of the argument, unless I've missed all the technological miracle cures (not to say it can't be done, I just don't see it happening any time soon)........... And, as we witness daily, the socio-economic changes also happen in a CO2 producing world.......

2) Shit!!... there's a lot of money to be made here..... Regardless of the outcome of the debate.............

see, TITWI,,,,,,,,I'm going with #2 (both connotations).......I think it's what's driving the whole hysteria..........at the top.......

the "worker bees" just listen and react.

[Isotopia]

1) There is a "potential" risk of socio-economic changes mainly targeting the world powers..... this could include anything from minor inconveniences to population displacement and/or resource/land grab wars. I'm not really sure I see advantages to either side of the argument, unless I've missed all the technological miracle cures (not to say it can't be done, I just don't see it happening any time soon)

There what's known as scenarios. Assessments based on probabilities and include a LOT of variables that get thrown into the equation.

Most decent ones such as the recent Pentagon report on climate change or shifting climate variability - often witll set up three general scenarios. The first is the one that suggests little to no change in in whatever situation you're looking at. The second is often the most plausible and takes into account statistically likely situations often informed not only by the science but by other disciplines such as hitorical precedence, geography, economics, etc. The third is the wort case scenarion and, unfortunately, is the one that the media tends to glom onto because it makes for the 'juiciest' read.