Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why, And How, We Are Cooling Down
#41
April seemeed a little cooler than normal this year and my lilacs were about a week late for full bloom. (usually the weekend before mothers day, they are only about 1/2-3/4 full right now)

So I say it's a little cooler this year

So say we all.
Reply
#42
track_snake Wrote:
scpg02 Wrote:
track_snake Wrote:I agree that this data is somewhat unexpected

Only if you were a warmer a few months ago. To those of us on the skeptical side it is no surprise at all! We actually expected it and warned of it.

Is now a good time to say I TOLD YOU SO? Or should I wait for the May figures to come in?
--------------------------------
Dear,

As you already know I am and always was neutral in relation to AGW as well as many other issues...

The May figures will show mixed feelings. Part of US as well as eastern and western Canada and southern Greenland and the most of Europe is right now warmer than normal while Nunavut province in Canada as well as mountain states in US (Montana, Colorado, Wyoming and Dakotas) and Russia's Arctic coast are colder than normal.

/track_snake

Come on T_S, I remember you from another forum, and your attitude has not been what you state. I don't have to go back and dreg up some of your old posts, do I? 8)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#43
Of course this is ONLY the United States, but................... Wink1

Quote:The average temperature in April 2008 was 51.0 F. This was -1.0 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 29th coolest April in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

2.39 inches of precipitation fell in April. This was -0.04 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 54th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.01 inches per decade.

That's right, one degree cooler than the average for the entire last century. Does this make you want to wonder about what is happening to our sun?

Where ARE those sunspots? Can we even buy one? What do you think T_S?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#44
John L Wrote:Of course this is ONLY the United States, but................... Wink1

Quote:The average temperature in April 2008 was 51.0 F. This was -1.0 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 29th coolest April in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

2.39 inches of precipitation fell in April. This was -0.04 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 54th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.01 inches per decade.

That's right, one degree cooler than the average for the entire last century. Does this make you want to wonder about what is happening to our sun?

Where ARE those sunspots? Can we even buy one? What do you think T_S?
-------------------------
Yes. But unfortunately Europe was warm as usual. And Southern Greenland. And large parts of Asia. So the fact that US was slightly cooler than normal does not say much.

/track_snake
Reply
#45
track_snake Wrote:Yes. But unfortunately Europe was warm as usual. And Southern Greenland. And large parts of Asia. So the fact that US was slightly cooler than normal does not say much.

/track_snake


Where does it say that, by the way?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#46
The April data are available now. The global, NH and SH Jan-April means are respectively +0.02, +0.18 and -0.14 Celsius. The April increase in CO2 concentration comapared to April 2007 was 0.82 ppmv.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
Reply
#47
Oh, boy, even the magazine Nature (who describe themselves as the world's most prestigeous scientific journal) can't continue lock-step support of Algore's "consensus view" on global warming. This is a major event, because there's a crack in the dam, and a trickle of opposing view has just leaked out.

I guess even the solar-warming deniers are getting nervous about their strident position that only man-made greenhouse gas concentration affects global climate, and want an viable escape route to save their reputations if necessary.

-S-


http://www.reuters.com/article/environme...4220080509

Quote:Global cooling theories put scientists on guard
Fri May 9, 2008 1:44pm EDT
By Gerard Wynn

LONDON (Reuters) - A new study suggesting a possible lull in manmade global warming has raised fears of a reduced urgency to battle climate change.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of hundreds of scientists, last year said global warming was "unequivocal" and that manmade greenhouse gas emissions were "very likely" part of the problem.

And while the study published in the journal Nature last week did not dispute manmade global warming, it did predict a cooling from recent average temperatures through 2015, as a result of a natural and temporary shift in ocean currents.

The IPCC predicted global temperature increases this century of 1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius.

So the Nature paper has sparked worries that briefly cooler temperatures may take the heat out of action to fight the threat of more droughts and floods, while a debate about the article's findings has also underlined uncertainty about such forecasting.

Most scientists oppose the minority that has used the present lull in warming to cast doubt on the size of threat from manmade global temperature rises.

"Let's say there wasn't much of a warming for the next 10 years, how will the public and politicians play this out?" said Bob Watson, former IPCC head and current chief scientific adviser to Britain's environment ministry.

He said it was important to explain that fluctuations were an expected part of a general, manmade warming trend.

"We need a group of scientists very carefully to evaluate that paper, do they agree, to what degree is there uncertainty, and then explain to the public and politicians what it means," he said.

Climate scientists agree that natural climate shifts, as the world's oceans suck up or spew out heat, could temporarily mask mankind's stoking of warming though year-on-year increases in greenhouse gas emissions.

In Bali in December, governments launched two-year climate talks to try to clinch a tougher successor to the existing Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

But worries about the impact on competitiveness by slowing carbon emissions -- by curbing the use of fossil fuels -- are already fraying those efforts. Russia said last week it would not dampen its economic growth.

DOUBT

The reaction to the Nature paper has underlined uncertainty about climate forecasting, as well as the fact that a minority of global warming doubters has not gone away.

Britain's Met Office Hadley Centre is sticking to its forecasts made last year that half of the five years after 2009 would "quite likely" be the hottest on record, partly due to manmade warming.

Meanwhile six climate scientists offered on Thursday to bet 5,000 euros ($7,730) that the Nature article's forecast of cooling or no warming globally from 2000-2015 was wrong.

"We think not -- and we are prepared to bet serious money on this," say the scientists, led by Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of physics of the oceans at Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, in a comment posted at realclimate.org/

The original Nature article's lead author, Leibniz Institute's Noel Keenlyside, acknowledged on Friday that recent data showed much more warming that he had forecast through 2007, but stood by a "stabilization" of temperatures from 2005-2015.

He blamed shifts in ocean currents and temperatures, thought also to be the cause of the plateau in temperatures since 1998.

Gary Yohe, climate scientist at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, said that opponents of tougher action on global warming in the United States had seized on the Nature report as a sign that climate change was slowing down.

Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist", said a slowdown in warming might help governments focus on smarter, long-term solutions rather than being panicked into action.
Reply
#48
Quote:"We need a group of scientists very carefully to evaluate that paper, do they agree, to what degree is there uncertainty, and then explain to the public and politicians what it means," he said.

Sorry, can't do that - Al Gore has pronounced the debate over, and the IPCC agrees.

Quote:Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist", said a slowdown in warming might help governments focus on smarter, long-term solutions rather than being panicked into action.

Sorry, can't do that either - 'cause Al Gore said.

:lol:
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#49
Is it possible that all this shows is that the earth is somewhat self "regulating"?
Reply
#50
We need to provide the AGW alarmists with a new fidget. I believe that is called sublimation, as in substituting tennis for sex. Once they are fidgeting about a new catastrophe during the lull in GW, the coast will be clear. But it will be hard to come up with something so compelling and grand as "changing the life of everyone since the world is heating up". Nonetheless, they will have to settle for something less, since the CO2 will not be heating the world as promised. Expect a sudden shift, once a new fidget is found.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#51
oldr_n_wsr Wrote:Is it possible that all this shows is that the earth is somewhat self "regulating"?

Have you ever had the chance to read A Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic (Man-Made) Global Warming, from the Coyote Blog? It's great, and he even talks about the "self-regulating" attributes of the planet and also CO2. It's a great read.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#52
oldr_n_wsr Wrote:Is it possible that all this shows is that the earth is somewhat self "regulating"?

I'm not sure I'd call it 'self'-regulating as it is so greatly influenced by the external influence of the Sun. My major beef with the AGW folks is that they refuse to consider the earth and it's atmosphere as as elements in a larger system. Their universe begins and end with IR radiation above 2um interacting with a single atmospheric gas. They refuse to consider factors like variations in solar output and the fact that convection (not radiation) is the dominant heat transfer mechanism when it comes to our weather. They pitch what by all rights should be the dominant high bars in favor of a teeny one that man may or may not have some limited influence over. With regards to "regulation", the oceans have an enormous influence over weather and temperature, but the fact that they are cooling makes little or no dent with the AGWers ... the best that they've been able to admit is that they're still right ... but "natural influences" might slightly delay their self-anointed predetermined outcome. Stay tuned! But remember the rules, when the temperature goes up it's a trend ... when it goes down it's an 'anomaly'. Wink1 Actually there's an exception there ... global temperature has been going down for hundreds of millions of years ... the the rule only works in a specially defined all important statistical window of say thirty years ... with the possible exception of most of this decade.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#53
Quote:Most scientists oppose the minority that has used the present lull in warming to cast doubt on the size of threat from manmade global temperature rises.

I hate this kind of bs.
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
Reply
#54
John L Wrote:
track_snake Wrote:Yes. But unfortunately Europe was warm as usual. And Southern Greenland. And large parts of Asia. So the fact that US was slightly cooler than normal does not say much.

/track_snake


Where does it say that, by the way?
---------------------------
Well...

In my private database...

You can also follow actual temperatures on http://www.wunderground.com.

/track_snake
Reply
#55
John L Wrote:
oldr_n_wsr Wrote:Is it possible that all this shows is that the earth is somewhat self "regulating"?

Have you ever had the chance to read A Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic (Man-Made) Global Warming, from the Coyote Blog? It's great, and he even talks about the "self-regulating" attributes of the planet and also CO2. It's a great read.

I know it wasn't addressed to me John L. but I have a technical issue with point 1 of the 60 second argument.
Quote:CO2 does indeed absorb reflected sunlight returning to space from earth, having a warming effect.

The AGW wanker's theory pretty much ignores incident and reflected sunlight. AGW greenhouse theory mainly involves CO2 (the "true believers" tend to ignore absorption from water as well) absorption of IR radiated from the earth surface at wavelengths well above 2um.

Here is a great model for looking at this. The sun is a 6000K radiator. The earth is a 300K radiator. To compare the effect of the two, crank the color temperature (radio slider control) up to 6000K and look at solar spectrum then lower the temperature to 300K and look at the earth's spectrum ... you will have to zoom the Y scale way, way, way down to see it.

Those that still see tiny minuscule variations in the capture of the 300K radiated energy as the 'dominant' factor in the earth's temperature are probably living in a very narrow little universe. Wink1
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#56
scpg02 Wrote:The April data are available now. The global, NH and SH Jan-April means are respectively +0.02, +0.18 and -0.14 Celsius. The April increase in CO2 concentration comapared to April 2007 was 0.82 ppmv.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
-----------------------
Yes.

But if you compare with 1960-1990 averages it was still 0.4 degrees warmer globally...

I would like to see at least one month that is below 1960-1990 averages before I believe in a global cooling...

/track_snake
Reply
#57
track_snake Wrote:
scpg02 Wrote:The April data are available now. The global, NH and SH Jan-April means are respectively +0.02, +0.18 and -0.14 Celsius. The April increase in CO2 concentration comapared to April 2007 was 0.82 ppmv.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
-----------------------
Yes.

But if you compare with 1960-1990 averages it was still 0.4 degrees warmer globally...

I would like to see at least one month that is below 1960-1990 averages before I believe in a global cooling...

/track_snake

The only thing that helps your argument, is the 1960-1979 cooling period, which was the only cooling period since the Little Ice Age. Give it time T_S, and it will get there, I REALLY fear. Then you will have nothing to back up your 'so called' neutrality. Wink1

Incidentially, three new sunspots have suddenly appeared on the sun. As you can see right here, they are nothing to write home to mother about. And too they may just totally subside, as others have done in the last few months. This lack of activity has not been seen for a long time. Still skeptical about the sun being the REAL Cause of heating/cooling?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#58
Don't forget this recent post in CS.

Quote:Repeating some key facts:

Since ~1940 there has been a 900% INCREASE in humanmade CO2 emissions
and NO net global warming, as measured by our most reliable
instrumentation. The average Lower Troposphere (LT) global
temperature anomaly for January-April 2008 (inclusive) is +0.02
degrees C. There has been no net warming since ~1980. We also know
that global surface temperature ST declined slightly from ~1940 to
~1980.

We further know that CO2 lags temperature at all time scales.

This evidence leads to the following conclusionS: Increased
atmospheric CO2 is NOT a significant driver of global warming, and
catastrophic global warming does not exist.
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
Reply
#59
John L Wrote:
track_snake Wrote:
scpg02 Wrote:The April data are available now. The global, NH and SH Jan-April means are respectively +0.02, +0.18 and -0.14 Celsius. The April increase in CO2 concentration comapared to April 2007 was 0.82 ppmv.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
-----------------------
Yes.

But if you compare with 1960-1990 averages it was still 0.4 degrees warmer globally...

I would like to see at least one month that is below 1960-1990 averages before I believe in a global cooling...

/track_snake

The only thing that helps your argument, is the 1960-1979 cooling period, which was the only cooling period since the Little Ice Age. Give it time T_S, and it will get there, I REALLY fear. Then you will have nothing to back up your 'so called' neutrality. Wink1

Incidentially, three new sunspots have suddenly appeared on the sun. As you can see right here, they are nothing to write home to mother about. And too they may just totally subside, as others have done in the last few months. This lack of activity has not been seen for a long time. Still skeptical about the sun being the REAL Cause of heating/cooling?
-----------------------------
As the neutral observer I am, I of course agree that the Sun is important. But that doesn't say greenhouse gases are unimportant...

1960-1990 is the averaging period we have to compare with. After 2020 the WMO will change to 1990-2020 and then we can get quite other conclusions...

/track_snake
Reply
#60
track_snake Wrote:1960-1990 is the averaging period we have to compare with. After 2020 the WMO will change to 1990-2020 and then we can get quite other conclusions...

I'm curious - why can't we use the 1970-2000 averaging period?

Why not the 1980-2010 period after 2010?

For that matter, why not go back 100 years, or 1000, or more to look for trends?

Just wondering.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)