Scientists Confirm Significant Global Cooling Coming

Originally posted by apc
We've got a phenomenon here that meteorologists always call bogus: the Tonganoxie Split. Storms coming from the West will often split north/south when approaching the city, usually around reaching the town Tonganoxie. On average just as much rain falls in the city than in the surrounding farmland, but you'll see it on radar year after year anyway. Storm fronts will approach the city and whatever part of the big red blob that's headed for downtown will break up and reform after the line passes.

Wow I am glad you stated this. I have seen this MANY times here and I thought maybe I was just nuts. Ok I know I am nuts but I mean seriously nuts. I've seen this split happen so many times that I was beginning to think it was just a defective radar system. You'd see a huge line of storms coming and the line would kind of break up close to the city and remain strong north and south. You know it has something to do with the city otherwise it would happen long before it ever reaches town. But that isn't the case. It happens right about the time the storm hits the west suburb.

Originally posted by melatonin

In the same way that we can make intuitive predictions of increased warming from the observation of increasing GHGs. But if we want to have some predictive numbers, we need to plug data into a model of the real phenomena.

How do you think they come up with their graph and data? Just intuitively draw it on the back of an envelope? We're not just talking about them saying 'oh, solar activity will reduce', we can do the same with increasing GHGs, 'oh, the greenhouse effect will increase'.

There is, and there was no "intuitive predictions" going on with David Hathaway's research about the Sun's conveyor belt having stopped to a crawl, to levels not seen in at least 2 centuries or more.

That research is based on "observational data". That is, his research was based on the observed behavior of the conveyor belt. It has nothing to do with "intuition", or Solar models.

We do know as a matter of fact that during such low Solar activity, the climate on Earth has gone into cold periods.

The last three times when something like this happened were the Dalton minimum (1790-1810), the Maunder minimum (1645-1710), and the Sporer minimum (1420-1570), and during all three the Earth experienced cold periods.

There has been other research done by NASA, on other Solar minimums in the past, and they all point to the same fact, when there are such Solar minimums, the Earth has experienced cold periods.

What is based on computer models are the predictions on how strong such Solar Cycles will be, and as anyone with any honesty in their bones will tell you, there are no "computer models which are perfect", and Global Climate Models are the worse of the lot.

Again, i really do not understand why you are trying to mislead people with false information, and claims which are not true.

Originally posted by melatonin
Climate models are also based on theory and observation.

No, Global Climate Models are based on theory and "false assumptions". The observational data on GHG, and more so on CO2, and climate do not show such correlation.

First of all, it is a known fact that CO2 levels lag temperature increase more often than not by an average of 800 years. Even during the current Climate Change period we are still undergoing, CO2 levels did not begin to increase until after at least two and a half centuries after temperatures had been constantly increasing.

Second of all, it is also a known fact that during times when CO2 levels were increasing for 3 decades, during the 1940s to the 1970s, there was a cooling effect on Earth, instead of a warming effect, and that has not been the only time when CO2 levels have increased in the past and temperatures did not increase, but instead cooled.

The observational data does not correlate with the predictions of the GCMs, in fact most often they are totally the contrary, and as shown in my previous post, the "leading climate models' predictions" do not correlate with the actual observed behaviour of cirrus clouds, which proves GCMs are flawed.

In summary, the predictions of Global Climate Models are flawed to a fault, and the observed behavior, as well as the geological record do not agree with the predictions and claims that CO2 causes the amount of warming predicted by the GCMs.

Originally posted by melatonin
It's as if you think pulling a guess out your ass is better than using maths and computers. I think Indy will agree with you though, he prefers that method. If you think we know more about solar processes than those of the earth's climate, I think you are quite mistaken.

Again, the people pulling a guess out of anyone's ass, are those who are being dishonest in trying to claim that "the observed behavior of the conveyor belt, is the same as predictions from Solar computer models", and they are not, they are two totally different things.

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
I just do not understand the contempt for man adding to global warming and what seems to be the lack of basic common sense in some cases.

Here is a fact and this IS a fact: At no time on this planet has man contributed to green house gases has it has now. (last 50 years) This is due to industry, population, our lack of knowledge towards its effects. This is understandable, industry boomed and we didnt know its effects, ok so now we do or at least know what we are creating is adding to the natural effects, So REASON stands to say, on top of normal climate change or natural greenhouse gases we are at the very least doubling these things.
................

It is not "contempt", but a conclusion reached from a deeper understanding of the AGW claim, and Climate Change.

You are reaching a false conclusion, which is what GCMs are all about. The main anthropogenic GHG which the AGW crowd claims is causing the present warming period is CO2, and the only thing which backs the claims of the AGW crowd is GCMs.

As far as i know the only lab experiment done imitating climate conditions on Earth and what a doulbing of CO2 would cause to the climate on Earth was done in 2001 at the University of Colorado. In that experiment researchers doubled the amount of CO2 from that of 2001 levels, and the results they got was that at mid latitites of the world a doubling of CO2 will only increase temperatures by 0.014C.

As Indy already explained, a doubling of CO2 does not mean that "temperatures will double".

The addition of anthropogenic CO2 does not mean "the warming effect is doubled", that is false.

Your last statement about "there being too much CO2" is also false, the Earth has had up to 12 times as much CO2 as exists right now, and there was no "runaway global warming".

During warming cycles CO2 always increases, and we have been experiencing a warming cycle for over two decades and a half, and it is still ongoing. Which means CO2 levels will continue to increase even if all of mankind's activities were stopped in their tracks right now.

Actually, i meant to say "the Earth has been going through a warming cycle for over 2 centuries and a half", instead of two decades and a half.

Originally posted by CommonSense4Eber
There is, and there was no "intuitive predictions" going on with David Hathaway's research about the Sun's conveyor belt having stopped to a crawl, to levels not seen in at least 2 centuries or more.

That research is based on "observational data". That is, his research was based on the observed behavior of the conveyor belt. It has nothing to do with "intuition", or Solar models.

Hathaway's research involves the dynamo model. It includes taking past activity, lots of statistical analysis and assumption, and ending with a prediction.

How do you think he gets the numbers for cycle 25? They are quite exact.

These guys can barely get good predictions before a particular cycle, never mind the one after, heh. Lets see if he can do better than 40% for 24, then we'll worry about 25.

We do know as a matter of fact that during such low Solar activity, the climate on Earth has gone into cold periods.

The last three times when something like this happened were the Dalton minimum (1790-1810), the Maunder minimum (1645-1710), and the Sporer minimum (1420-1570), and during all three the Earth experienced cold periods.

Hathaway's prediction is in no way comparable to any of those periods. He is talking about 60-70 on the sunspot index. That's is about the same as the first cycle of the 20th century (cycle 14, I think).

Heh, we are talking about a 0.2'C drop in global temps. Brrrrrgh, chilly. Should take us back to the frozen days of the 1990s.

There has been other research done by NASA, on other Solar minimums in the past, and they all point to the same fact, when there are such Solar minimums, the Earth has experienced cold periods.

But this prediction isn't comparable to any of those periods you raised earlier.

What is based on computer models are the predictions on how strong such Solar Cycles will be, and as anyone with any honesty in their bones will tell you, there are no "computer models which are perfect", and Global Climate Models are the worse of the lot.

No, the last bit was your words. I can agree with the rest.

Again, i really do not understand why you are trying to mislead people with false information, and claims which are not true.

Errm, yeah, if you say so. Would that include comparing the prediction to the maunder minimum? The method of prediction used by Hathaway is based on the dynamo model. He takes past data, crunches it statistically, comes up with some numbers for future behaviour. That's producing a mathematical model.

No, Global Climate Models are based on theory and "false assumptions". The observational data on GHG, and more so on CO2, and climate do not show such correlation.

In your mind, maybe.

Then you move into deniers canards. You're muad'dib, and I claim my $5.

Maybe not, you've only mentioned hockey sticks once. We need a Mann/Hockey stick perseveration before I'm sure.

First of all, it is a known fact that CO2 levels lag temperature increase more often than not by an average of 800 years.

Could actually be much less, but this has absolutely no impact on the physical properties of CO2. We would expect CO2 to be released from the sinks by increasing temps, that's simple physics. So are the IR properties of CO2.

and that has not been the only time when CO2 levels have increased in the past and temperatures did not increase, but instead cooled.

And that is not any great issue. You mention this as if GHGs are proposed to be the only factor in climate change. This is no different to saying that because temperatures have been going up, but solar activity has possibly been falling since the 1980s, solar activity can have no effect on climate.

The observational data does not correlate with the predictions of the GCMs in fact most often they are totally the contrary, and as shown in my previous post, the "leading climate models' predictions" do not correlate with the actual observed behaviour of cirrus clouds, which proves GCMs are flawed.

Oh well. Lindzen has an issue with one weakness of GCMs, clouds. Hathaway had 40% errors with his last prediction, lets ignore his work as well.

GCMs actually do a good job, less than perfect for sure. However, they have been able to provide all kinds of useful predictions. Many of which have been validated. And Hansen's 1988 model is still doing well.

as well as the geological record do not agree with the predictions and claims that CO2 causes the amount of warming predicted by the GCMs.

Yup, it does. In fact, the given prediction of around 2-4'C is actually more conservative than many observational approaches, which include using geological data.

Again, the people pulling a guess out of anyone's ass, are those who are being dishonest in trying to claim that "the observed behavior of the conveyor belt, is the same as predictions from Solar computer models", and they are not, they are two totally different things.

I never said solar computer models. I said models, solar models. Some use proper computer models, others use mathematical/statistical models.

It's not just about 'the observed behaviour of the conveyor belt'. If you think that is all Hathaway has done, you have no idea what you are talking about. The historical data has been crunched statistically and assumptions made. This long-range forecast is a mathematical model based on the dynamo model, historical meridional flow and triise-amplitude.

In a similar way, GCMs are very complex mathematical models based on physical properties, fluid dynamics etc. The only difference is that GCMs can both simulate behaviour of the past and make future predictions.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by melatonin]

What I would like to find more than how strong/weak the solar cycle will be is how it honestly effects the climate. Saying it is going to be a 50 is really meaningless. This is just like making a big deal about CO2 going from 300 to 400ppm. The numbers mean nothing if it really doesn't have a big impact. If sunspots have no real cooling or warming effect then it doesn't matter if the number is 50 or 500. We need to find a way to actually prove the impact on the climate. If that is even possible. A cycle of 50 means at little as 400ppm of CO2.

Originally posted by CommonSense4Eber
In that experiment researchers doubled the amount of CO2 from that of 2001 levels, and the results they got was that at mid latitites of the world a doubling of CO2 will only increase temperatures by 0.014C.

Haha, my prediction was correct. I used past experience and modelled the behaviour of muad'dib in my mind.

Welcome back, I guess.

I can't be bothered going through all the same stuff again. But I'm sure you can find my post with the several similar regional climate models that showed different results, large increases in temps.

And as you know, muad'dib, that particular study was for one area of the US.

Originally posted by Indy
What I would like to find more than how strong/weak the solar cycle will be is how it honestly effects the climate.

I did present some data earlier, indy.

You can get some indication from that. I think someone posted Solanki's interpretation of such a period of low amplitude solar cycles earlier. He came up with a 0.2'C figure for climate cooling as well.

So, that will just act against other forcings. Even the maunder minimum wasn't that effective. It would probably just add another 0.2'C or something.

It is speculation. Not proven. The climate goes on a regular roller coaster ride. Based on history we are at the top and ready to go down. Something causes those regular long term temperature declines. But what? Warming isn't going to continue much longer if it hasn't already ended. We are looking at a decade of flat global temperatures now. 2008 looks to be cooler than 2007. So I think we for now can put to rest the idea that man is causing warming otherwise we'd be setting new records every year.

Finding out why there are four very evenly spaced out temperature spikes in this graph is important.

www.sierraclub.ca...

Finding out why the temperatures came down afterwards is even more important. Looking at that map why would I care if we went up another degree? I don't care because we've been there a few times before. What I do care about however is why temperatures came down 10 degrees c after it hit the top. That is the real problem. But even that takes so long it won't happen in my great grand children's lives. Or even their great grand children.

Bring on that extra degree of warmth. Its good for the planet.

I first became aware of global warming while I was struggling through the coldest winter I had ever been through since moving south. Now, I hear about global cooling while I enjoy the warmest January ever in this southern land. It's spiritual, folks. There's gonna be a big change coming and we won't see it for what it is until it is upon us. Can't change it. Can't stop it. It's coming like a juggernaut. And the end result will be the better for all our souls.

A circular ring attached to a dynamo, as the ring takes an initial charge it allows the outer ring to become polerised, spining, increase the chrage by bleeding it off the battery and the dynamo output to increase the speed!

That idea is nothing new, thats the type of idea the oil and gas companies spend their time buying up!

So people dont know or ever get to hear about them!

[edit on 8-1-2008 by Brother_Amos]

If you can put a 50'000 volt charge in a stun gun, then it stands to reason you could go with a higher voltage from a standard 12v battery, converting it into a charge for the magnets to start.. hmm, 50'000v kick-start, let me try to work out what the return (output) would be... Enough to charge the battery and keep the mechanism fired until you disengage the outer-ring..hmm

I was thinking of them in a circular ring design with a single centre magnet on a titanium arm, the arms attached the the dynamo, as the outer coil cycles there charge the arm's starts to spin, powering the dynamo.

Copper wire or copper plate, I wonder what the cost would be...

The cost in alternators, capacitors, and diodes alone is scary enough!

[edit on 8-1-2008 by Brother_Amos]

Originally posted by Indy
It is speculation. Not proven.

And the Hathaway approach to solar prediction is not speculation and is proven?

Oh well, nice to base a 'little ice-age is coming' thread on speculation, excitin'.

Hat tip to flash dancer for this:

This is hardly the sunspot crash that observations from 1645 to 1715 suggest. Back then, the appearance of even a single sunspot was major astronomical news, sparking hurriedly penned communications from one observatory to another. Nevertheless, it's a sign of things to come. "Sunspot numbers will be extremely small, and when the sun crashes, it crashes hard," says Svaalgard. "The upcoming sunspot crash could cause the Earth to cool"

So what does the sun's magnetic activity have to do with the climate on Earth? To pin down the connection, Solanki and his colleagues compared records of solar activity derived from tree rings with meteorological records from 1856 to the present day. They found that the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere changed in step with sunspot numbers until 1970. This is the evidence that has done more than anything else to convince climatologists to take the link seriously. What's more, the most recent calculations by Solanki's team suggest that the sunspot crash could lead to a cooling of the Earth's atmosphere by 0.2 °C. It might not sound much, but this temperature reversal would be as big as the most optimistic estimate of the results of restricting greenhouse-gas emissions until 2050 in line with the Kyoto protocol.

linky

So that will take us back to temperatures comparable to the 1990s. The best it will do is take the edge of current warming. Would be a good thing, of course.

Finding out why there are four very evenly spaced out temperature spikes in this graph is important.

They're the interglacial periods. Ice-ages appear to be due to orbital wobbles (Milankovitch cycles), consolidated by GHGs.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by melatonin]

Just to prove I do know about electricity I double dare you to go outside to your car, open the bonnet, and put one hand on the positive and one hand on negative...

You wont get a shock... People only end up with the word's 'Chrome Vanadium 7".' burnt into their hand when they do something stupid, like put a spanner across both terminal's.

Which can make a standard 12v battery blow up by the way and being showered in hot acid is not cool.

Originally posted by melatonin
They're the interglacial periods. Ice-ages appear to be due to orbital wobbles (Milankovitch cycles), consolidated by GHGs.

Well look at that chart and look at where we are now. Based on history where do you think we are going? Also if you do what I did before and overlay the CO2 chart on the temperature chart you will see that CO2 isn't the cause in temperature change. It lags behind temperature change. People really need to drop this idea that CO2 is diving temperature change on this planet. People can use theoretical models all they want. Reality and history says otherwise.

And when global temperatures begin to fall I wonder what new way we are going to cook up to blame man for the change. We change nothing. We are along for the ride. And when nature gets tired of us riding on her like fleas she'll shake us off. Us fleas aren't going to bring this big dog down.

You asked how I/we intend to deal with it, and why.
I don't intend to do much of anything, except pay more for heating or cooling, depending on the flavor of the day. In my opinion, it seems rather interesting that we are givin a reason for the coming cooling cycle that has nothing to do with carbon or human activity, especially this far in advance.
Global warming is only caused by "bad humans" according to the "Goreites", while the opposite is caused by the natural cycles present for billions of years.
I have studied a vast amount of data, both pro and con of the coming global warming crisis, and have come to my own conclusion that most of the claims pro global warming are bunk. I find that the intentional changeing of the term "global warming" to "climate change" of exceptional interest.
This is not to say I think it acceptable the amount of pollution and decimation caused by humans, but also don't subscribe to the "2 legs bad, 4 legs good" direction of the current environmental movement.

I forsee no disasters on the scale of the several mass extinctions that have occured over the billions of years, caused btw, by asteroid strikes, super volcanoes like yellowstone, or plate tectonic movement rearanging habitable land into frosty terrain.

I do forsee a much smaller population caused by mother natures natural means. I.E., when you place a large population in a small area, nasty bugs evolve to rectify the situation.

For your viewing pleasure. These 4 videos are parts of a single lecture on climate change and CO2. I highly recommend you using 35 to 40 minutes of your time to watch these.

Part 1/4
www.youtube.com...

Part 2/4
www.youtube.com...

Part 3/4
www.youtube.com...

Part 4/4
www.youtube.com...

Enjoy.

Originally posted by Indy
Well look at that chart and look at where we are now. Based on history where do you think we are going?

The next step in the cycle is glacial cooling, but people said that in the 1970s. They now get accused of being alarmists who were wrong because it never happened in 20 years.

The problem is guessing the length of the interglacial. Estimates are for thousands of years more before the new glacial period.

Also if you do what I did before and overlay the CO2 chart on the temperature chart you will see that CO2 isn't the cause in temperature change. It lags behind temperature change. People really need to drop this idea that CO2 is diving temperature change on this planet.

Indy, this is just one big canard. CO2 acts as a positive feedback in glacial warming. It can both cause warming, and be affected by warming.

Here, try this.

1. Do you accept that water vapour is a GHG and causes warming of the planet's surface? I would hope you say, yes.

2. Do you accept that if temperature increases that the atmosphere can hold more water vapour? Again, I would hope you say, yes.

So, here, water vapour is both affected by temperature, and has an effect on temperature.

CO2 is in a similar situation. Increasing temperature reduces solubility of gases in solution - thus CO2 can be released by oceans at higher temps. CO2 is also a GHG, it's physical properties enable it to 'trap' IR radiation. This is irrefutable physics. We have known this stuff for over 100 years.

As for CO2 not being a primary driver, Robert Berner and his colleagues would say otherwise.

CO2 as a primary driver of phanerozoic climate

Us fleas aren't going to bring this big dog down.

I think the earth will outlive humanity by quite a bit either way.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Indy
For your viewing pleasure. These 4 videos are parts of a single lecture on climate change and CO2. I highly recommend you using 35 to 40 minutes of your time to watch these.

Does he use his usual misleading 'cooling since 1998' line?

I'll watch it later, should be good for laugh, I've read many of his articles, but I'd like to see if he can keep a straight face as he misleads his audience.