Global Cooling

[Trishntek]

Mr.Maurice Strong is also on another interesting Board of Directors that, of course, presents no conflict of interest.

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=67

[can't sit still]

This is a very interesting article about global cooling;
"Abdussamatov's paper is featured on page 140 of a 2009 report issued by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, documenting more than 700 scientists who disagree that global warming is an anthropogenic, or man-made, phenomenon. "
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=155225

[dr.placebo]

Dr Spencer, formerly senior scientist for climate studies at NASA says the same thing. There is no connection between CO2 and heating.

According to Wikipedia (use the (scientist) link), Roy Spencer also believes in intelligent design rather than evolution. If Wikipedia is accurate, and there is some reason to think so, than at least he's consistently contrarian. This position, though, does not incline me to trust his judgment on the climate (or anything else).

[dr.placebo]

From the cited article on Abdussamatov:

Moreover, Abdussamatov's analysis of sun activity data has led him to conclude that the Earth is entering a prolonged cooling phase, because sunspot activity is currently in a phase regarded as a "minimum."

Yet the recent solar sunspot minimum has not diminished temperatures globally. Nor do other studies agree with his thesis. In other words, his myth is busted.

[can't sit still]

The cited papers claim that there is a 10 year lag in the relationship. I wouldn't expect to see an immediate result. Then, there is the question of the other 700 scientists.
They can do all the empirical proofs that they want. I still don't see any observed proof that there is a CO2---- trapped heat link. I posted the "greenhouse " experiment. Should we throw out observation and just follow modeling. Like Tesla, I believe that there is far too much modeling and far too little experiment.
Even the data is suspect if it's true that the IPCC culled the data from the more northern observation platforms. That, of course is only the recent data. Some of the proxies for earlier data are questionable.
I'm not grasping at straws, I'm asking why there is so much contradictory data. On my first post, I pointed out that reportedly all 4 sat systems reported cooling. The rock-salt greenhouse experiment proved, at the time, that CO2 did not cause heating. Nobody has come back and explained why the northern latitude stations were culled.
It is not at all "elegant"

[Isotopia]

Doc,

I applaud you for consistently speaking objectively to the 'idiots corner' of this online park.

Not that I expect them to hear above the din of their Fox News informants.

[Trishntek]

Dr Spencer, formerly senior scientist for climate studies at NASA says the same thing. There is no connection between CO2 and heating.

According to Wikipedia (use the (scientist) link), Roy Spencer also believes in intelligent design rather than evolution. If Wikipedia is accurate, and there is some reason to think so, than at least he's consistently contrarian. This position, though, does not incline me to trust his judgment on the climate (or anything else).

I'm sure this will not surprise you, but Evolutionary Theory requires more faith than intelligent design IMHO. And, no there is no end to that debate so let's not go there,,,,, shit, I guess I just did,,,,, sighhhhh.

Well no, on second thought, You breached the subject first DrP.

[Trishntek]

Doc,

I applaud you for consistently speaking objectively to the 'idiots corner' of this online park.

Not that I expect them to hear above the din of their Fox News informants.

Anything said that is not true, please correct with proof.

[can't sit still]

Trish, the good doctors posts are well informed and well presented. It's just one of the mysteries of the world that he does indeed seem to resonate with the "idiot's corner" He works with a structured precess that is well beyond them. Don't ask the impossible.

[can't sit still]

Well, here's more "cooling" rumor and BS to be discredited;
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/ ... s-warming/
One has to admit that consensus has NOT been reached.

[dr.placebo]

Nothing overrides accurate experimental evidence obtained in an open and reproducible manner. No modeling, no theories, no arguments.

One difficulty is determining when there is experimental error. That's why there is such an emphasis on reproducibility by independent observers.

The Abdussamatov thesis may claim that there is a 10 year lag, but the article I cited ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm ) claims that 35 years of data show solar radiation and temperature moving in opposite directions. That article cites a whole flock of other articles, so it's really more like a survey. So I still say he's busted. Solar radiation of course drives warming, but the CO2 effect appears to be more than compensating for any minor decline.

[can't sit still]

Global warming is coming to the ballot box;
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... ?track=rss

[dr.placebo]

The proposition is not really about climate change. It is intended to give some oil companies a few more years of enhanced profits. The allegation that the CA law costs jobs is debatable, since the other side (including a lot of CA industries) claim the opposite.

I'm mostly in favor of the law and against the proposition, although even if the law was perfect and CA executed a green strategy perfectly it would have little global effect. The problem is systemic, so any solution must be systemic.

[theCryptofishist]

I might have to dredge up the new study that says that 97% of scientists believe that human caused climate change is for real, and that the dissenters tend to have fewer credentials.
And boy, do they try and get all sorts of things by us with the job loss card. Maybe we'd be better off if we started examining the "let's keep inflation down by having a permament pool of unemployed" meme sometimes...

[dr.placebo]

Strictly speaking the recent study claimed that over 97% of publishing climate scientists supported the dominant climate change model.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-man ... ptics.html

The "job loss" claim is speculative, at best, since green energy industries are likely to take up any slack from fossil fuel industries.

[theCryptofishist]

Yeah, I know. Those jobs are going to be lost sooner or later (if at all), and my thinking is that better to choose our time and deal with it, than lose ground and have wider economic pain.
Of course, being americans and human beings we have difficulty working for even five years in the future.

[Trishntek]

Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid said, “Spain’s experience reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created.â€

[Trishntek]

Strictly speaking the recent study claimed that over 97% of publishing climate scientists supported the dominant climate change model.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-man ... ptics.html

The "job loss" claim is speculative, at best, since green energy industries are likely to take up any slack from fossil fuel industries.

So,,,,, who does the peer review of those published scientists? I would be curious to know if there is any bias indicated among those who review the articles for publication. Not making accusations,,,,, just a wonderment.

[dr.placebo]

The conclusions by Dr. Calzada (see this Source Watch entry) are in some dispute (see this Media Watch entry. I've not had the time to go into his arguments myself, but it is very clear that the incentive structures used by Spain and the US are quite different, so I am skeptical of his argument just on that basis.

Peer review is the first line of defense against bogus claims. It relies on having knowledgable people examining papers submitted for publication performing a sanity check on the content. It is necessarily a bit incestuous since the selection of experts is generally taken from those who publish. But the other side of this family relationship among scientists is that they (we) tend to be quite competitive and eager to make their (our) mark by refuting studies. One also gains credit for refuting refutations and for reproducing important results.

Peer review is far from a perfect system. It sometimes shuts down access to worthy papers, and it sometimes fails to filter out trash. In my experience it tends to let in more trash than strictly necessary, but that's the price of avoiding the suppression of worthy results.

In back of all of this is the data. One has to be able to explain how the data were obtained, and the data gain credibility only when reproducible. Experts can (and frequently do) disagree over the interpretation of the data. However, as more data comes from multiple independent sources it requires increasingly strong evidence to prove the data incorrect.

[can't sit still]

Well written Dr Placebo. Speaking of data, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me if the northern latitude data was used in the baseline and then "culled" for the later results. The Russians and Canadians claim that hundreds of stations were used in baseline measurements and only a couple used in later years.

[dr.placebo]

It would be useful to have a cite. I can't pin down the Russian claim.

There was a fairly recent flap over the Canadian data described in www.canada.com (a Canadian media company), and exhaustively described in Yale Climate Media Form, which has a lot of useful information on the adjusted temperature record. This cites various studies comparing the adjusted data against the raw data, and the ground readings against the satellite readings. In short, the records are quite consistent, and support the dominant climate change model.

[can't sit still]

I can't find the original papers. There is still doubt in my mind that CO2 is linked to warming.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23270
This paper mentions the Northern stations;
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2465231

[can't sit still]

Great paper;
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=11559

[dr.placebo]

Not everyone thinks that it the Svensmark paper was so great:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic- ... arming.htm

The correlation that he claims breaks down over the last 20 years.

On another note, it looks like more of the Climategate claims are being forced to retreat:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/01/m ... enn-state/

[geekster]

I believe there has been recent evidence showing very close correlation between cloud cover and recent temperature changes regardless of cause. The global albedo to temperature change data are in close correlation.

Now what CAUSES the change in albedo is still up for debate but I strongly disagree that the past 20 years has shown any divergence from Svensmark's hypothesis in that we have seen one of the strongest solar wind periods of the past hundred years until this solar cycle.

We how see the opposite since about 2005 but at the same time we also see a change in both the PDO and the NAO to negative. So we have a negative PDO cycle, a negative NAO and increased cloud cover at the same time we are in a significant solar low.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/index.html

We are currently seeing in this developing La Nina event the fastest drop in global sea surface temperatures that have been recorded to date. At the same time we see increasing global cloud cover, increasing global albedo, the highest Southern hemisphere sea ice extent ever recorded in the satellite era, record cold in South Africa and Australia, etc.

Now correlation does not prove cause but the solar wind speed and temperature graphs DO track with each other much more closely than CO2 does with anything. In face, there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature other than the fact that CO2 tends to reflect temperature changes after the fact.

The abyssal oceans are likely still recovering in temperature from the LIA. It will probably take another couple of hundred years for that recovery to complete. The LIA was the coldest period of the Holocene since the Younger Dryas. As the temperatures of the abyssal waters increases, it releases huge amounts of CO2 that had been absorbed from both the atmosphere and from ocean vulcanism.

I will post the link to the albedo/temperature paper once peer review is complete.

Go ahead and howl this summer but you might be changing your tune this winter. I believe we are going to see winters for the next 15 years or so like we haven't seen in decades. The current drop in sea surface temperatures is nothing short of amazing. There has never been anything like it in recorded history.

[can't sit still]

Just as an aside; We see reliable evidence that chemtrails are continuing. Are there any indicators or records on albedo that would show the effects of this intervention?

The Holocene has gone on for an unusually long time. What IF the abyssal temperatures don't rise. Are there any projections for this scenario?

[dr.placebo]

It would be interesting to see the albedo/temperature paper. What I've seen so far indicates a lack of consensus on albedo trends (see this link for a discussion of the science). Also, linked to the albedo effect is global dimming, which is a decrease in solar radiation reaching the ground, predominantly linked to pollution. We appear to be in a slow decrease of global dimming.

It might be good to have a La Niña event, and it appears likely that one is developing. We have been getting record global temperatures despite the recent solar minimum. Since the solar activity is increasing, it should contribute to additional warming, so having something to offset it would help. On the other hand, a La Niña event could help increase Atlantic hurricanes during a projected very active season, so this could be bad, too.

In face, there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature other than the fact that CO2 tends to reflect temperature changes after the fact.

The majority opinion (and data) does not support the above opinion. Paleoclimate studies show a lag, but since the late 1800's there is a lead in CO2 relative to temperature. See this link for more discussion.

As for Antarctic sea ice, it has been increasing, but it does not indicate a cooling effect. The southern oceans have been warming and the land ice has been decreasing. See this link for a discussion.

[Trishntek]

Not a native here by no means, but rain in SoCal in July???? What happened to those six-month-long summers without a cloud in the sky?

[dr.placebo]

The weather patterns are rather unusual in a lot of places recently. While not proof in isolation, extreme weather is an expected outcome of dumping heat into the system.

[can't sit still]

VERY interesting paper;
"When carbon dioxide gets into the thermosphere, it acts as a coolant, shedding heat via infrared radiation. It is widely-known that CO2 levels have been increasing in Earth's atmosphere. Extra CO2 in the thermosphere could have magnified the cooling action of solar minimum. "
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... rmosphere/