Global Cooling?

[Greatcloud]

The coming minimum is not disputed by anyone who watches the sun. It is right on time; after a big warming like the MWP we have a dorment phase, the LIA. We have just had a big warming period and now the sun is going dorment again.​

CO2 has not correlated with temp. since the 90's. The ice core samples in Antartica show that after a big warming, CO2 goes up. CO2 follows warming it does not lead.​

All the warming and cooling from the past can be shown by proxy data to be solar caused. The case for CO2 as cause is very weak.​

It has taken an event like this drop in temp., the largest in recorded history,to show how powerful the sun is.​

​

Escape From The Sun

Above data is HadCRUT3​

The current warming is evidently a natural process of the sun and utterly independent of greenhouse gases.​

</IMG>

 

[imind]

imind, you are nit picking this is hard science...

what you've offered an article and a blog. nothing more. show me something peer reviewed.

itsjustme offered something, though very old and thoroughly refuted, but at least it was peer reviewed.

i'll respond again when a peer reviewed paper is offered.

 

[Greatcloud]

imind all I was showing you were two scientists who believe temps will drop,and we are heading for a minimum. These are two respected scientists; you are just using standard talking points shooting everything down.​

So,no I won't look up any peer reviewed papers, just to show you two respected scientists who believe like me. I also am not going to dance for you anymore,you don't own this thread. If you want to discuss/talk to me about global cooling, fine, otherwise quit drooling on my posts. I welcome some discussion,not your arrogant bashing of everyone ideas and cartoons (that was funny) why didn't you leave it alone. Your a nit picker of details that don't matter. You don't address the main point,you run away from any discussion. Are you just an insecure control freak ? You can talk to me,if you want, but I don't know if you are capable.​

 

[IisJustMe]

imind all I was showing you were two scientists who believe temps will drop,and we are heading for a minimum. These are two respected scientists; you are just using standard talking points shooting everything down.

So,no I won't look up any peer reviewed papers, just to show you two respected scientists who believe like me. I also am not going to dance for you anymore,you don't own this thread. If you want to discuss/talk to me about global cooling, fine, otherwise quit drooling on my posts. I welcome some discussion,not your arrogant bashing of everyone ideas and cartoons (that was funny) why didn't you leave it alone. ​

He has nothing but his sociopoltical indoctrination with which to argue. It blinds him to facts, empirical observation, and every other valid method of scientific research. He'd rather believe fanatics than reasonable research.

 

[imind]

He has nothing but his sociopoltical indoctrination with which to argue. It blinds him to facts, empirical observation, and every other valid method of scientific research. He'd rather believe fanatics than reasonable research.

oh. my. god.

dude, that paper you linked to has GLARING ERRORS, AND WHEN THE AUTHORS TRIED TO FIX THE ERRORS, THEY PRODUCED A PAPER THAT THEN HAD GLARING, SIMPLE MATHEMATICAL ERRORS, AND THEN WHEN THEY TRIED TO FIX THAT THE DATA NO LONGER FIT WITH THEIR PREVIOUS CONCLUSIONS.

In the 1991 article, the impressive agreement
of the solar curve with terrestrial temperatures
during the global warming of the recent decennia
had been a major factor in the article&#8217;s strong
impact. But this agreement was actually an
artifact: it had simply been obtained by adding, to a heavily smoothed (&#8220;filtered&#8221 curve, four
additional points covering the period of global
warming,which were only partially filtered or
not filtered at all...

So instead
of restricting the curve to the proper data that
were available at the time,a curve was presented
that consisted of different types of data where
the agreement with global warming was due
to the non-filtered data alone.Today, in the year 2004,more data have become available,
and the four points can be plotted more
correctly (see Figure 1c,which shows properly
filtered solar cycle lengths).Now the sensational
agreement with the recent global warming,which
drew worldwide attention,has totally disappeared.
Nevertheless,the authors and other researchers
keep presenting the old misleading graph.

The authors, too,have published an update
of Figure 1a [Lassen and Friis-Christensen,2000]
using precisely the same data as are used in Figure
1c.However,because of some trivial arithmetic
errors,they arrive at a different curve (Figure 1b),
a curve that still exhibits some of the originally
claimed agreement with the recent global
warming.They draw special attention to this
agreement,but actually the upward bend of
their solar curve is only a consequence of
their arithmetic errors

i don't know how to more clear. the fact that you would defend this paper makes your above quote most ironic.

 

[horuhe00]

The reason to request peer reviewed papers is simple. Scientists are men like you and me. They are not gods.

Is every scientist who thinks something up correct? No! Most of the times, what they think up is incorrect either in its totality or parcialy. THAT is why peers review the findings. To test the theories and data to see if they can find errors in it. If they find errors in it, then it needs more work or it's completely wrong. If peers don't find errors, then it starts to gain relevance.

 

[imind]

itsjustme, without fail the arguement with about global warming is the same. whenever evidence contrary to what you have posted it presented, you result to ad hom attacks claiming the evidence in contrary to yours is a product of political bias, yada yada. without fail. you never address the counter evidence.

 

[IisJustMe]

itsjustme, without fail the arguement with about global warming is the same. whenever evidence contrary to what you have posted it presented, you result to ad hom attacks claiming the evidence in contrary to yours is a product of political bias, yada yada. without fail. you never address the counter evidence.

The "counter evidence" is addressed in the papers which do not agree with the lie of "consensus" on AGW, such papers being real and in existence despite your abject denial, which does not represent valid argument, but incessant noise raised against a battery of evidence against your viewpoint. I don't care whether you accept the opposing viewpoint or not. People who insist on clinging to half-truths (which are actually whole lies) as "fact" are being intellectually dishonest. Bear the burden of that or not, it is inconsequential to me.

 

[Greatcloud]

You want peer reviewed papers,here.

http://climatepolice.com/Solar_Cycles.pdf

http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/new_sven0606.pdf

http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/new_sven0606.pdf

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-09-15/trends.htm

Don't miss this one http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
​

 

[imind]

The "counter evidence" is addressed in the papers which do not agree with the lie of "consensus" on AGW, such papers being real and in existence despite your abject denial, which does not represent valid argument, but incessant noise raised against a battery of evidence against your viewpoint. I don't care whether you accept the opposing viewpoint or not. People who insist on clinging to half-truths (which are actually whole lies) as "fact" are being intellectually dishonest. Bear the burden of that or not, it is inconsequential to me.

once again not addressing the counter-evidence.

greatcloud, i will address your links in another post...

 

[IisJustMe]

Argue with this guy, people:

Global warming skeptics continue to punch away

WASHINGTON &#8212; It should be glorious to be Bill Gray, professor emeritus. He's the guy who predicts the number of hurricanes that will form during the coming tropical-storm season. He works in the atmospheric-science department of Colorado State University. He's mentored dozens of scientists.

But he's also outraged.

Much of his government funding has dried up. He has had to put his own money, more than $100,000, into keeping his research going. If none of his colleagues comes to his funeral, he says, that'll be evidence that he had the courage to say what they were afraid to admit.

Which is this: Global warming is a hoax.

I love how the Washington Post reporter manages to ridicule the expert in this article. Like "everyone knows better than this guy" -- this guy who happens to be an atmospheric scientist and has been for 50 years! What arrogance! And that goes for the people who don't listen to Gray and others like him as well, who pretend people like Gray don't exist, or that their science is the one that is faulty, and not theirs, as Gray states to the reporter:

Gray believes in observations. Direct measurements. Numerical models can't be trusted. Equation pushers with fancy computers aren't the equals of scientists who fly into hurricanes.

"Few people know what I know. I've been in the tropics, I've flown in airplanes into storms. I've done studies of convection, cloud clusters and how the moist process works. I don't think anybody in the world understands how the atmosphere functions better than me."
.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Check this out.
I didn't watch this program, but a similar one I found online and downloaded (produced by BBC)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

 

[FilM]

Argue with this guy, people:

Global warming skeptics continue to punch away

WASHINGTON &#8212; It should be glorious to be Bill Gray, professor emeritus. He's the guy who predicts the number of hurricanes that will form during the coming tropical-storm season. He works in the atmospheric-science department of Colorado State University. He's mentored dozens of scientists.

But he's also outraged.

Much of his government funding has dried up. He has had to put his own money, more than $100,000, into keeping his research going. If none of his colleagues comes to his funeral, he says, that'll be evidence that he had the courage to say what they were afraid to admit.

Which is this: Global warming is a hoax.

I love how the Washington Post reporter manages to ridicule the expert in this article. Like "everyone knows better than this guy" -- this guy who happens to be an atmospheric scientist and has been for 50 years! What arrogance! And that goes for the people who don't listen to Gray and others like him as well, who pretend people like Gray don't exist, or that their science is the one that is faulty, and not theirs, as Gray states to the reporter:

Gray believes in observations. Direct measurements. Numerical models can't be trusted. Equation pushers with fancy computers aren't the equals of scientists who fly into hurricanes.

"Few people know what I know. I've been in the tropics, I've flown in airplanes into storms. I've done studies of convection, cloud clusters and how the moist process works. I don't think anybody in the world understands how the atmosphere functions better than me."
.

How about:

William M. Gray is known as a pioneer in the science of forcasting hurricanes. He is currently professor emeritus (meaning he's basically retired but still retains his title) at Colorado State University. Although he is an accomplished meteorologist, he has zero peer review papers on climatology.
Dr. Andrew Dessler from Texas A&M wrote an article on his blog titled "Aged skeptics" in which he makes the following comment in reference to Dr. Gray: "If their knowledge is 10-years old, then their statements might be quite incorrect.". Here is another quote from his article: [FONT=&quot]

[/FONT] " He gave his standard stump speech in which he claims that the water vapor feedback is negative. I followed up on this with him and it became quite clear to me that he is unfamiliar with all of the peer-reviewed literature on this subject that has been published in the last five years. This makes sense. Reading the literature is a difficult and full-time job, and emeritus faculty simply don't need to do that." ......
"But the story goes on. After arguing with him for a few minutes, it became clear that Bill Gray has no scientific theory of his own *why* the water vapor feedback is negative, and no data to support his non-theory. He has no manuscript describing his non-theory and no plans to attempt to publish it. After I pointed out all of the evidence supporting a positive feedback, he looked confused and finally said, "OK, maybe the feedback isn't negative, maybe it's neutral. I'll give you that." I quickly concluded that he has no idea what he's talking about. I wish everyone that considers him credible could have witnessed this exchange."

Source:http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Gray.html

Stop cherry picking the skeptics, you'll always find one who believes climate change is not happening or that smoking is good for you.

I have not yet found one credible skeptic (by that I mean scientists who have published alternative hypotheses in peer reviewed journals). Even the most famous one, Richard Lindzen from MIT finally admitted that humans are the cause of human change.

 

[IisJustMe]

Stop cherry picking the skeptics, you'll always find one who believes climate change is not happening or that smoking is good for you.

Your "side" asked for critics that are credible, who show there is a lack of consensus. Even if they were less qualified than the computer modelers who press for Kyoto and other ill-advisd measures (and they are most assuredly not less qualified, they would prove there is no consensus. Aside from that, Dr. Gray is more than credible, and just because you chose not to believe him makes him no less right. In fact, Dr. Gray does have more than just a theory, but proven observation of water vapor reduction in the upper atmosphere over the last few years. When Dr. Dessler said "he has no theory" he is being deliberately misleading. It is not a theory, it is fact.

In a hearings before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Dr. Gray said:

"Most geophysical systems react to forced imbalances by developing responses which oppose and weaken the initial forced imbalance; hence, a negative feedback response. Recently proposed human-induced global warming scenarios go counter to the foregoing in hypothesizing a positive feedback effect. They assume that a stronger hydrologic cycle (due to increased anthropogenic greenhouse gases) will cause additional upper-level atmospheric water vapor. This increased vapor results in a reduction of OLR loss to space and causes additional warming (Fig. 1). This positive water vapor feedback assumption allows the small initial warming due to human-induced greenhouse gases to be unrealistically multiplied 8-10 times. This is where much of the global modeling is in error. As anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase it does not follow that upper-level water vapor will increase. If it does not, little global warming will result. Observation of middle tropospheric water vapor over the last few decades shows that water vapor has in fact been undergoing a small decrease. The assumed positive water vapor feedback as programmed into the GCM models is not occurring. Energy budget studies indicate that if atmospheric water vapor and the rate of condensation were held fixed, a doubling of carbon dioxide would cause only a small (~ 0.2 - 0.3 degree C) global warming. This can be contrasted to the 2-5 [degree] C warming projected in the models." [emphasis added]

The entire pre-question statement from Sept. 28, 2005 is here

I have not yet found one credible skeptic (by that I mean scientists who have published alternative hypotheses in peer reviewed journals)

Of course you haven't. That's because you are like Dr. Dessler -- deliberately burying your head in the sand and pretending the alternative data and empirical evidence trumps the faulty computer models upon which the global warming hoax is based. And what you've "found" is irrelevant to me, unless you happen to be a climatologist with 50 years experience, like Dr. Gray.

 

[FilM]

No, I have tried to find credible skeptics, believe me there is nothing more I hope for on this issue than that climate change is not happening, or that our carbon emissions are not to blame. I have even asked the skeptics to point me in the direction of peer-reviewed research that provides an alternative explanation for what is happening to our weather, and they have not been able to provide me with more than blogs and op-eds.

If you can find me peer-reviewed research, let me know.

And the fact that you're considering this "my side" shows the adverserial stance you're taking on this issue. The only side I take is that of credible research (which thankfully so are all our presidential nominees, none more so than John McCain).

 

[IisJustMe]

If you can find me peer-reviewed research, let me know

Here's one I just found. It's nine months old. Don't know how we all missed it, but it looks difficult to refute.

Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate (Stephen E. Schwartz, Brookhaven National Laboratory) June 2007

For those with a lack of ability to decipher scientific notation, the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works summarized the findings.

New Peer-Reviewed Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Also, I find it interesting that you did not comment on the Senate Committee's tesitmony from Dr. William (Bill) Gray. As it refutes Dr. Dessler, who claimed Dr. Gray "had no theory" I just wondered why was that?

 

[FilM]

Thanks for the link, you'll note that all it's saying is that the earth may be a third as sensitive to carbon emissions as previously thought, which still means carbon emissions do cause climate change. and here is an alternative hypothesis to Schwartz, findings: http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/comment_on_schwartz.pdf

A followup to his research:

Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz is afraid of the world his grandchildren will inherit.
"I'm very concerned about the world my grandchildren will live in," said Mr. Schwartz, who is currently studying climate change. "There could be an increase of four to eight degrees in the next century, and that's huge. The last time there was a five-degree Celsius decrease was the last ice age. An increase of eight degrees Fahrenheit would bring change unprecedented in the last half-million years."


In his study, he explains that the Earth could be only about one-third as sensitive to a doubling of carbon dioxide as predicted by the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Mr. Schwartz estimated a rise in the Earth's global mean surface temperature of 1.1 degrees Celsius versus the IPCC's estimate of 2 to 4.5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of carbon dioxide.
Regardless of the difference in temperature, Mr. Schwartz said this increase is not to be taken lightly, nor does it imply climate change is a false claim to be sniffed at.
If his estimate is correct, "it means that the climate is less sensitive to carbon dioxide than currently thought, which gives some breathing room," said Mr. Schwartz, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry and has been at the Brookhaven Lab for about three decades. "But a lower sensitivity does not solve the long-term problem that would result from continued buildup of carbon dioxide."


Link: http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NorthShoreSun.html

So Schwartz's study far from refutes carbon emissions drive climate change. I still wait to see a peer-reviewed study that supports an alternative theory.



Maybe you should reconsider using Morano to interpret science and go back to the original source... after all before trying to raise doubt on climate change he was working for the tobacco industry in the same capacity.


And regarding Gray's senate hearing, even the former skeptic Lindzen questions Gray's knowledge "His knowledge of theory is frustratingly poor." Source.
Apparently a paper that he released following this senate hearing was so full of theoretical errors that a meteorological conference withdrew his invitation to attend.

 

[IisJustMe]

Thanks for the link, you'll note that all it's saying is that the earth may be a third as sensitive to carbon emissions as previously thought, which still means carbon emissions do cause climate change. and here is an alternative hypothesis to Schwartz, findings:

Obviously you chose to ignore the bottom line. The greatest possible temperature change the study shows can be expected is 1.1 degrees Celsius, and the study states that 0.7 of this has already occurred. Nice "spin" effort, bujt it doesn't wash. Schwartz also states clearly that AGW is minimal, if it exists at all.

What of the "consensus" now? What of the supposed "nonexistence of peer-reviewed skeptics"? Willing to admit that there is no consensus, and that peer-reviewed oppostion to AGW exists? Stupid question, I'm sure, but I can hope.

 

[imind]

Obviously you chose to ignore the bottom line. The greatest possible temperature change the study shows can be expected is 1.1 degrees Celsius, and the study states that 0.7 of this has already occurred. Nice "spin" effort, bujt it doesn't wash. Schwartz also states clearly that AGW is minimal, if it exists at all.

emphasis mine. no, he doesn't. in his own words...

The century-long lifetime of atmospheric CO2 and the anticipated future decline in atmospheric aerosols mean that greenhouse gases will inevitably emerge as the dominant forcing of climate change, and in the absence of a draconian reduction in emissions, this forcing will be large. Such dominance can be seen, for example, in estimates from the third IPCC report of projected total forcing in 2100 for various emissions scenarios2 as shown at the bottom of Fig. 1. Depending on which future emissions scenario prevails, the projected forcing is 4 to 9 W m-2. Th is is comparable to forcings estimated for major climatic shifts, such as that for the end of the last ice age. Developing eff ective strategies, both to limit emissions of CO2 and to adapt to the inevitable changes in global climate will depend on climate sensitivity. The magnitude of forcing anticipated in 2100 thus highlights the urgency of reducing uncertainty in Earth’s climate sensitivity.

Quantifying climate change — too rosy a picture?

schwartz is definately with the consensus, the only disagreement being how much an effect it will have. schwartz above seems to want to suggest the forcing caused by AGW will be greater than anticipated.

 

[IisJustMe]

schwartz is definately with the consensus, the only disagreement being how much an effect it will have. schwartz above seems to want to suggest the forcing caused by AGW will be greater than anticipated.

That is part of his introduction to the research I cited, and he is not stating his own opinion, he is stating for the purpose of his research the reasoning behind his undertaking the research.

Try reading the abstract of his research publication.

"ABSTRACT. The equilibrium sensitivity of Earth's climate is determined as the quotient of the relaxation
time constant of the system and the pertinent global heat capacity. The heat capacity of the global ocean,
obtained from regression of ocean heat content vs. global mean surface temperature, GMST, is 14 ± 6 W
yr m-2 K-1, equivalent to 110 m of ocean water; other sinks raise the effective planetary heat capacity to 17
± 7 W yr m-2 K-1 (all uncertainties are 1-sigma estimates). The time constant pertinent to changes in
GMST is determined from autocorrelation of that quantity over 1880-2004 to be 5 ± 1 yr. The resultant
equilibrium climate sensitivity, 0.30 ± 0.14 K/(W m-2), corresponds to an equilibrium temperature increase
for doubled CO2 of 1.1 ± 0.5 K. The short time constant implies that GMST is in near equilibrium with
applied forcings and hence that net climate forcing over the twentieth century can be obtained from the
observed temperature increase over this period, 0.57 ± 0.08 K, as 1.9 ± 0.9 W m-2. For this forcing
considered the sum of radiative forcing by incremental greenhouse gases, 2.2 ± 0.3 W m-2, and other
forcings, other forcing agents, mainly incremental tropospheric aerosols, are inferred to have exerted only a
slight forcing over the twentieth century of -0.3 ± 1.0 W m-2."

There is also the first paragraph of his introduction.

"Changes in Earth's radiation budget due to human influences are of major current concern [IPCC, 2007].
Of principal concern is the change in climate due to increased concentrations of carbon dioxide because of
the long lifetime of excess CO2 in the atmosphere-ocean system and the intrinsic connection of excess
CO2 to energy production through fossil fuel use. While there are many indicia of climate change that may
result from increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2, the principal index of change is the increase in
global mean temperature, especially as this change is the driver of, or is closely correlated with, changes in
other key components of the climate system such as atmospheric water vapor content, the nature and extent
of clouds, land and sea ice cover, and sea level." (again, emphasis added]

The translation is that greenhouse gases -- not just so-called "anthropogenic" but all greenhouse gases -- have had minimal effect on the global temperature rise of just under 1 degree Celcius over the last century. Further, his research shows that it is far more important what the solar and ocean effects are on global temperature increase. You think the US Senate Committee would have put out a press release announcing this research as a blow to the false view of dire anthropogenic global warming if it were not? Why has the mainstream media not made a major effort to publicize this research? Because it is as dishonest as the "pushers" of AGW, the majority of whom know their science is faulty but continue their agenda because they don't want anyone to know their real goal is to bring down the free market economies of the US, Canada and Europe.

Edit: I removed an offensive paragraph here. My impatience with those who insist on believing faulty science sometimes drives me to post things I wish I had not said.