Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Russian scientist predicts global cooling

not global? they effected eruope, both near the oceans and in the middle. they affected japan, and they affected africa and the orient. that sounds pretty global to me.

I already said that they dont know how it does what it does, just that there is a strong corrilation with the earths temperature and the solar activity. If no one knows how it does that, how can you say that the effect is not there. Until its understood, you cant simply say it does not exist because it cant be explained.

explain this. look at the charts that da supplied concerning the connection between rise and fall of co2 in the air and the rise and fall of the temperature. explain why the increases in co2 came after the increase in temperature. GWA's dont have any explinations for this, but they dont want it to be discussed. yet when anyone points out the connection between solar flare activity and temperature, and there is always a demand for an explaination of how it could happen.

and once again the answer is to adjust the readings.

considering that 2 of the 3 known cycles are on the way down, how would you say that its not substantiated. If you had bother to check out a couple of the links i gave already, you would know that the last interglacial period was longer and it resulted in all the ice of the artic and greenland melting. The temperature was considerably higher during that interglacial period. so how is this one so different.

the earth has not had any problem with that during other interglacial periods. Other periods have had higher co2 than we have now. yet the levels still drop rapidly.

still looking for the point youre refering to, but i found this.

if they are not able to adapt, how did they adapt during fast changes in the past when co2 went up just as rapidly.

another concern of theres is

the problem is not the co2, its mismanagment of forest. places where the forest were allowed to burn without attempts to stop them, have had no change in their burn patterns. places like the us where we stop fires, thus prevent nature from getting rid of the undergrowth are having an increase, not because of the co2, but because of the fact that the forest are filled with underbrush that burns hotter, longer and spread faster. THE LEAST they could do is blame the correct cause.

Sorry but after having read that link i cant find where they have taken into consideration the solar flare. did i miss it? please show me where it was.

its easy to get your model to agree with the changes when you are constantly changeing the older data to match.

i gave a link a few days ago where the scientist studing the ice cores pointed out that the model that did not take into consideration all the changes were not even close. taking out the man made co2 changes the temperature would not have been that much different. any model that used only the changes man has made is not even in the ball park. (my phrasing, not his)

dehammer wrote:
"they did claim they adjusted it for it, but how do they know they adjusted it enough? simple, when they had adjusted it just right, it matched their model."

You are incorrect. That is not how it is done.

Here are a couple links about the 88 year solar cycle (GLEISSBERG PERIOD):
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002JA009390.shtml
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x176761610l512x3/#search=%22%2288%20year%20cycle%22%20solar%22

The http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html page has a report on Long-term Variations in Solar Activity and their Apparent Effect on the Earth's Climate.

The more I look at the GRID chart found on the http://thiver.wordpress.com/2006/03/04/simple-proof-that-global-warming-is-a-fact/ page as well as many other sites, the more interesting things I notice. Look at 130,000 to 120,000 The temperature dropped while the CO2 concentration remained high. Look at the past 10,000 years that shows CO2 rising even though the temperature has been stable. Around 70,000 years ago, the CO2 spiked while the temperature continued to decrease. The http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/ page has more recently obtained data from the Vostok ice cores that go back 650,000 years now. It too has a chart (just before the comments section) that is similar to the Grid chart. It shows that 420,000 years ago, the CO2 level rose before the temperature then stayed high after the temperature dropped. This tells me that the greenhouse effect is minimal if at all existant on a global scale.

John M Reynolds

unless im seeing things on that chart, i believe there is a problem with their accertion. if you look at the time the temperature started to rise, and point that the co2 started to rise, it appears to me that the temperature started to rise first, then the co2 followed.

another point, they say the thing that is so bad is the fact that the co2 levels are rising so fast that it will kill off all the sea plant life. yet if you look about 14000 years ago, there was a 12.5 percent increase in co2 so fast that the line goes straight up. that means it occured in a century or so. yet coral, planton and other sea plants had not problem adjusting to the higher acidity.

another point. if you read what they said, they said they did the study to prove their predictions. you can always prove your predictions if you look hard enough.

I hope ther will be otherwise ther will never be another polar bear!

In case anyone missed it, here is another link about Antactica and data that is not explainable with the current climate models. The http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060711004957data_trunc_sys.shtml page starts with this:

"An improved method of measuring Antarctic snowfall has revealed that previous records showing an increase in precipitation are not accurate, even over a half-century. In the August 10 edition of Science magazine, researchers explain that their analysis of ice cores and snow pits revealed that precipitation levels in the Antarctic have in fact remained steady. The upshot of the study is that models assessing climate-change may need to be revised, as they can no longer be deemed accurate."

click the link for more

John M Reynolds

G'day dehammer,

I know you will do this for me so I'll ask you. I do not see the reference or the link to the original premise of this thread so if you could email me the link or post it here I would appreciate it greatly.

You missed a solar cycle by the way. There is one a bit longer than 200 years. Exactly how long it is I don't think has been established but it has a very steep peak and a slower drop off. It coincided with the normal 11 year cycle well enough to cause a major change in 1980, thus stuffing up all my research of the previous decade. So I remember it really well!

I'm now in big trouble. I have been advised that my services are under review (and I haven't even formally been given any funding yet) because of "unreasonable emphasis" on allegedly fraudulent manipulation of data. For those few people that have any interest in my rantings, I have a passion for scientific methodology actually being scientific and so for the last few months have been engaged in a study on studies. It seems it was fine that I found problems in a small study but not fine that I found it in a very, very large study. The raw data was certified as being free of known variables such as urban effect yet I found that the researchers had contacted some of the stations I contacted and were told very clearly that the stations had been seriously affected by some factor or other.

To me that is lying - fraud and I said so. Worse, I refused to sign an agreement that I would not express my opinions if asked specifically. I already have an agreement that I will not publicise, except via agreed research papers, my findings so I thought it was a stupid request. Who is going to ask me about something they don't know I'm doing? I'm not a scientist that is on anyone's radar. I'm just someone that is good at ferreting out raw data and looking at research or whatever and seeing where there are logic holes, if any.

If you read this site, of course, I have nothing to fear. Some oil company or the US government will happily step in and support the research because any scepticism on global warming is obviously all funded by these or similar groups.

Well actually no. Because I don't disagree with global warming at all. It is clearly a fact. I think it is probably a good thing and would really debate whether it is man made. Oh, and I have this problem about the extent of it, about what can be proven as opposed to extrapolated or modelled or "adjusted for known factors that affect the raw data". So I don't really think the anti-global warming lobby would like me much either, and besides I'm not important.

I was asked to write an opinion piece for a local newspaper and went to the trouble of doing so, only to be told they didn't like what I had written. I'd just finished watching Mr Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth" and was so overawed by his child's car accident and his sister's death by lung cancer that I just knew that everything he said was unvarnished truth, not deserving of any critisicm at all. OK, so now I'm being really sarcastic but I did like the presentation. Mr Gore is a brilliant presenter. No wonder he won the presidential elections (but strangely not the position).

I rather acerbically asked the editor isn't that why they call them opinion pieces? I do not play well with others obviously and have now been banished from the sandbox.

The article is going to waste. I'll put it in a thread maybe titled "A Really Inconvenient Truth - Do Four Polar Bears Really Prove Global Warming". Anyone interested?


Richard

G'day Mr Reynolds,

I can answer one of your questions. The 70,000 year ago spike in CO2. Big eruption of volcano. Lots of stuff chucked out of said volcano. This does have a significant effect on CO2.

I like your thinking by the way. If you look at ALL the ice core studies one thing you will find is that the CO2 levels do not precede the changes in CO2 (at least the estimates made from the study of the ice cores - which I have now seen some arguments questioning the accuracy of the whole process). In every case of a warming period, the CO2 levels follow the temperature increase. So it is very clear that you get more CO2 when it gets hotter. Hey, plants like the heat. They grow faster. But the alleged correlation that "proves" CO2 causes warming just isn't there. Never was. Doesn't matter how pretty the charts are, they don't alter that reality.

You seem to have a good grasp of CO2 so you probably know this. Have a look at the CO2 levels at the start of this Ice Age. Many times greater than now yet it was much higher when the Ice Age started. Huh? Much higher CO2 yet world got colder. Not a good pointer to CO2 being a terrific greenhouse gas.

If you go back a few more million years you find a few other times when CO2 levels are many many times greater than now yet at the time a cooling trend started (and I will concede that sometimes this was because of continental drift or the earth's wobbly orbit placing it further from the sun but not at the start of this Ice Age I won't).


Regards


Richard

Richard

Try this Link

I'm in the middle here. If CO2 changes coincide with changes in world temperature, as implied above, then they must be linked. Our present increase in CO2 are man's doing, in having burned so much now.
I have always used the words "climate change", not "global warming".

I beleive in dealig with it, not griping about it.

I know the authors, especially the one with the most pragmatic experience, of a book called: Adapting buildings and cities for climate change, by S Roaf, D Crichton And F Nicol. Published by the Arcitectural Press

Richard.

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the effort. We saw a big volcano erupt in 1992 which ended up cooling at least Greenland for years. It took 6 years for the effects to wear off. In other words, it took Greenland 6 years to warm back up. Volcanoes have a cooling effect.

The spike to which I was referring, the one that happened 70,000 years ago still lasted much longer than 6 years. Six years would appear as a vertical line if at all. I will check the data on Monday -- I downloaded at work -- to check, but the spike seemed to have lasted at least a hundred years. So even if your volcano eruption warmed the earth then why did the tempurature not go up during that spike? The GRID chart shows the temperature rising quickly with the quickly rising CO2 in other places. Why not during that spike?

Here is another question. According to satallite data, the temperature has been rising slightly over the past 20 years. Twenty years. Greenhouse gases have been increasing greatly for the past 50 or so years. If temperature and CO2 are so strongly correlated, then why has the temperature not kept up?

You were also talking about data from 3 million years ago. Where is that data? Is it from studying the ocean floor? Do you have a link?

John M Reynolds

G'day John,

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. I know I'm sick right now but has it affected my brain that much?

Volcanoes do indeed have a cooling affect. A really big one if you are talking a VEI7. Did I say somewhere that volcanoes caused a warming effect?

74,000 years ago a volcano erupted. It was a very big one. It was in Indonesia. It's cooling effects probably lasted centuries. Don't know. Wasn't there and am not a vulcanologist but records indicate they can cause cooling for many years. It depends on how they erupt and how high the small particles are thrown into the air.

I do recall a study about volcanoes that indicated they cause atmospheric changes to CO2. Must have been what I was commenting on.

I read all this somewhere, actually in several places. I read an awful lot of studies but up until very recently haven't even bookmarked websites let alone created a database of studies. I have started this now by the way because I simply cannot keep track of where data comes from and what study said what and whether I had access to the full study, the extract, the raw data or even if I know where the data came from.

I cannot even find my copy of the DNA study that showed that glaciation of 70,000 odd years ago killed around six million people. Pretty much the entire population on earth at the time (that figure is disputed, as I understand it) died. Two DNA studies, one I had a copy of and another all I had was an extract indicated that 2,000 to 10,000 people were all that was left.

Cold kills most of human population. Warm allows it to thrive. Hmmm. Which would most people prefer?

As to prior periods of high CO2, look at pretty much any of the paleo-climatology texts or general research. They are not hard to find. Of course, you then have to wonder how good the data is but even millions of years back, there are remnants that can provide trend information or relative levels.

Sorry I couldn't answer your questions better than this.


Richrad

John (missed a question you asked),

Satellite Data - What Does It Show?

Summary

• Satellite and SAT (Surface Air Temperature) Records do not match
• Satellite Data does match US temperatures somewhat
• John Christy is responsible for satellite data records. He disputes much of the "corrections" being suggested.
• Satellite Data is graphed dissimilarly on different sites.
• The satellite data does not conform to Global Warming models
• Even corrected for the so called drift, the data still shows a cooling trend minus 2005
• With 2005 the satellite data shows a warming trend but a small one.
• We finally have extremely accurate data and it does not match Global Warming statistics or models. So it must be wrong!

Main Argument
Satellite data starts in 1979. That is 26 years. Balloon data to give world averages also starts around the same time although Balloon records go back to when I was born, 1957.

There seems to be this view that global warming models state that warming should cause a cooling higher up but I do not like this manipulation of data to fit the facts one little bit. For starters, those that use this excuse obviously have not read just how the satellite data is obtained and the results put together by John Christy, Uni of Alabama (good on him). It is a snapshot 17,000 times a day of near earth temperatures (zero to 4 miles). It is not a snapshot of the higher altitudes as often implied.

The argument that the satellite data has a "drift" to it over time is disputed by John Christy, who compiles the data. The differences being talked about a truly tiny and well within the margin of error allowed for in the data produced by Mr Christy.

Look up satellite data of global temperature trends in Google. Find graphs on the subject. You will find that the graphs differ quite dramatically yet they shouldn't. The data is the same. That is a worry for starters. In the National Climate Data Center graph the shape of the two data sets seems to be similar in pattern much of the time. Using the data from Mr Christy, quite a different pattern emerges.

What is interesting is that NASA's calculations of SAT for the US does match fairly closely with the satellite data and the US data goes against the rest of the data NASA produces and shows no real warming trend in the last century, overall. Take out 2005 from the satellite data because one year does not a trend make and even with the corrections claimed to be needed, you still get a cooling trend from 1979. With 2005 you get a warming trend but way below any model of global warming.

To quote John Christy:

"If you want to say model trends are bolstered, you must remember model trends are all over the map. Which trend is bolstered? Perhaps you want to say those model trends less than 0.2 C per decade are bolstered."
and
"The new warming trend is still well below ideas of dramatic or catastrophic warming."


Regards


Richard

dehammer, I've read that the warming you see inbetween ice ages is caused by changes in Earth's orbit. The insolation increases leading to temperature increases which in turn leads to more greenhouse gasses leading to even higher temperatures.


Richard, I've read that you can get significant CO_2 output from flood basalt eruptions see e.g. here . Such eruptions are thousand times larger than typical supervolcano eruptions such as Yellowstone or Toba.

It is postulated that the Siberian eruption caused a mass extinction, see here.

G'day Count,

Summary:

• Good points.
• Orbit a big factor but there are others.
• Biggest factor is the distribution of continents. I would NOT have liked to have been around when they were all clumped together. Think today is hot. Wander into the interior of Pangea.
• Detail of what happened after the huge eruption in the Permian (250 million years ago) is just fiction. No evidence at all to support climate variations within a time frame of less than about a million years. Only a postulation this was the cause of the mass extinction. They happen with amazing frequency in paleo terms.

Comment to the Count:
Whose argument are you trying to support? These points are terrific, valid, and ... seem to support many of the points being raised by dehammer or myself.


Reasons for Ice Ages
It is more complicated than the "wobble" in the earth's orbit but it is a big factor, without a doubt. Why is mercury hot? Because it is closer to the sun than we are. The earth's orbit does the same thing but over very long periods. Then you have oscillations due to the influence of other things. The other big factor in whether the world is in an Ice Age or not: Plate tectonics. It depends on where most of the land mass is. Evenly distributed and you don't seem to get an Ice Age. Distribute it in one hemisphere and you do.

I knew there was some article that I read that suggested that CO2 increased dramatically with large volcanic activity. It was not the link you provided but it had a similar idea.


Permian Mass Extinction
The only argument I would have is in relation to the "fiction" of what happened after this eruption. They have no idea whether it took 5,000 years for the extinctions. Fossil records are not that precise. Dating is not accurate to within plus or minus 100,000 years in these ages. But they at least say "It seems" and you used the best word "postulated". It is a guess - a postulation - but what happened to the climate especially that there was a cooling, warming and then a gentle rise in water temperatures is not even a postulation. That is just a story that the authors liked.


Regards


Richard

I had intrepreted the above as you supporting the theory of volcanoes contributing to the greenhouse effect instead of having a cooling effect.

Do you have any critique for stories like the one on the http://www.livescience.com/environment/050811_global_warming.html page? Or do you have any links to satellite data that shows cooling? What I had read was that as the surface warms, the troposphere (or was it stratosphere) will cool. Which do the balloons and satellites detect?

John M Reynolds

G'day John,

Summary:

• No proof that global warming causes cooling in upper levels of atmosphere while the lower levels are warming.
• The principal authors of the satellite data do not agree this is occuring or that the satellite needs any adjustment from the raw data.
• Satellite measurements are from zero to 4 miles, not upper portions at all.
• Balloon data does not show warming near the earth and cooling higher up. It just shows, well, no trend at all.
• Balloon data and satellite data agree with each other, therefore no real trend in satellite data either

Main Points:
Boy am I sick of the new excuse for why satellite measurements do not support global warming models or theory. Those that keep on saying this obviously do not understand the science at all (this is not aimed at you). Do a google search on "climate change satellite Christy" or "University of Hunstville Christy temperature satellite". You will get a large amount of sites that show satellite data and how that site interprets it. Go to the NASA site (www.giss.nasa.gov) and look at their graphs and data.

Satellites take a snapshot from an altitude of very close to zero to 4 miles up. That is not the upper areas at all. Balloons take data from zero to very high up. They do include the upper areas and you know what? The balloon data does not show the near ground measurements warming and the upper areas cooling.

Mr Christy and Mr Spencer, the two scientists responsible for producing the satellite data have said several times that there is a margin of error in the data. There is an argument that there is an error inherent in the data because of a shift with time in what they are recording. They do not necessarily agree but say that those that have these opinions are entitled to them and the difference is still within their margin of error.

I never said the satellite data shows cooling overall, only if you take out 1998 or 2005 or you use the data only from 1979 to 1997. But it certainly does not show much of a trend at all whether you include the individual very hot years or not.

As to the article, it was interesting but it did not mention at all that Spencer and Christy have not been idle and their techniques have improved. Even so they dispute the arguments made. The argument about drift by the way introduces an error in the order of a couple of hundreds of a degree. Whether you correct for it or not does not alter the data very much at all. It is a very big deal made out of a very small adjustment to the data. Same with weather balloons except the argument tells only a little of the story.

This is not a paper, just a summary quoting one scientist who concludes his argument that the scrutiny needed to be imposed on anyone arguing against global warming or, as in this case, just presenting data of what is being recorded, has to be so perfect that there is not even the tiniest room for doubt. Pity that degree of critique was not applied to Mr Mann et al before he was peer reviewed and published, what could very easily have been seen as a blatant manipulation of data.


Richard

The Sun's Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. "It's off the bottom of the charts," he says. "This has important repercussions for future solar activity."

The Great Conveyor Belt is a massive circulating current of fire (hot plasma) within the Sun. It has two branches, north and south, each taking about 40 years to perform one complete circuit. Researchers believe the turning of the belt controls the sunspot cycle, and that's why the slowdown is important.

"Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second?walking pace," says Hathaway. "That's how it has been since the late 19th century." In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. "We've never seen speeds so low."

According to theory and observation, the speed of the belt foretells the intensity of sunspot activity ~20 years in the future. A slow belt means lower solar activity; a fast belt means stronger activity. The reasons for this are explained in the Science@NASA story Solar Storm Warning.

"The slowdown we see now means that Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries," says Hathaway.

So cycle 24 is strong and it means warm, perhaps very warm weather for a while. But cycle 25 will be one of the weakest. And if slowdown will be norm the weather in late 2010's and at least 2020's will be cooler. Perhaps cooling trend will be stronger than in 1940-1975.

Fearmongering Greens have about less than a decade time to continue their public circus. Hard times to David Suzuki, Michael Mann and James Hansen. Oh dear!

Balloons take data from 1.5 km to 9 km. Balloons haven't shown much warming since 1980. Satellites have shown some 0.4 C global warming since 1979 (surface temperatures).

I think those Nasa NOA surface temperatures are quite good. No doubt there has been warming trend since 1975. But note that warming was actually faster from 1918 to 1940. That's why i'm wondering why is this such a big issue at all.

Lets just assume the naysayers are correct.

Lets just assume that the arctic ice cover, the antarctic ice sheet, and almost all the glaciers on the planet are melting because nothing has changed.

If you can buy into that concept I have some land I'd like to sell you.