Why we will experience a global cooling before man made global warming really kicks in

I made this thread in response to Sun Makes History: First Spotless Month in a Century.

Personally I feel it manages to construe the evidence given by the article to disprove man made global warming. Several people have argued that this disproves man made global warming but this is not the case. Man made global warming is definitely occurring whether we like it or not, the trend that is occurring is most apparent in the famous hockey stick graph.



This evidence for this being observed has more recently been strengthened by a greater analysis of all available reliable records and is reported in the National Academy of Sciences (BBC News.) Furthermore Wytworm made a very good post within Sun Makes History showing how we have understood how we have affected the climate in regards to the ozone and CFC's which reflects how long it will take to fully understand global warming a far more complex system.

From the evidence available I personally see this as proof that global warming is a man made phenomenon, you may not but for the rest of my post it is assumed that this is the case.

The affect of global warming on the environment can be seen in many of the worlds climate systems, the hottest years on record have occurred since 1980. The severity and rate El Nino has increased across the last two decades plaguing Australia with droughts and South America with torrential rain causing flooding, landslides and mudslides.

We are at a point now in the thermohaline cycle where the oceans will cool the Earth, either nullifying global warming or slowing the rate of warming in the next decade. This combined with reduced sunspot activity will create a mini period of cooling, many climate change deniers will leap on this lull claiming it as evidence that global warming is not occurring but this lull will not last, it is even likelier that at the end of the period of mild cooling that the rate of global warming will increase due to an increase in green house gases across that decade.

Personally I do not comfortably feel there is enough evidence yet to predict the severity or length of global warming and the affect it will have in the long run. In the short term it may be a blessing, there may be a global catastrophe that shrouds the atmosphere with dust causing significant cooling across the Earth and global warming may act as counterbalance to it preventing cooling that would decimate crops and knock back our civilization by thousands of years. It could just as easily destroy our civilization in the long term by increasing the rate of catastrophic events such as flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes and droughts.

Whether or not global warming is a blessing or a curse is yet to be seen but we should not deny that we are the ones responsible for it whichever way it goes and that if it comes to it are the only ones able to stop it continuing.

[edit on 2-9-2008 by -Klaus-] in response to The Redneck

[edit on 2-9-2008 by -Klaus-]

Thanks for the post. I was wondering how the global warming crowd were going to explain the bad winters to come. First I heard how mankind was responsible for global cooling, then I heard the same crowd screaming humans are responsible for global warming. I have too long a memory to believe this especially when Al Gore spends $4000 a month on electric and makes billions off Global Warming. Follow the money,see who is profiting. The money trail does not lie.

As a scientist I found the word "Consensus" means the data does not fit management's plans. I have been fired more than once because my EXPERIMENTAL FACTS proved the "consensus" was wrong. Most scientists wimp out, and go along with what managment decrees since they will get fired and blackballed if they do not. I speak from experience and the unemployment line.

I have looked at the sunspot/temp/CO2 graph the warmers use and I have looked at the raw data. My statistcs training screams data manipulation!!! I suggest you buy the book "How to lie with Statistics" before you believe everything you see.

Thanks Crimvelvet sounds like a good book and I need a good read before I go back to uni, I'm currently studying chemistry and hopefully next year I get to take a whole module on the use of statistics within science which I hear is a bit of an eye opener.

As a chemist the fact that most molecules interact with the infrared spectrum is readily apparent and global warming via green house gases is a very good theory that does explain what is observed but having a little experience in meterological sciences I know how hard it is just to predict the weather next week let alone next century.

I think you have to take some of the prediction evidence with a pinch of salt but the record from the past still stands and during this century we have seen a rapid increase in the warming of the Earth and I personally think global warming has some importance amongst the period of general warming. Like I said at the end of my first post whether this is for the best or the worst it is still to be seen but it isn't something that should be sweeped under the rug.

I personally see this as proof that global warming is a man made phenomenon, you may not but for the rest of my thread it is assumed that this is the case.

Hmmm, so the rules of the thread are that no one can disagree? OK, have fun.

Should be a veritable orgy of GW advocates.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Sorry should have been post not thread, it was to make the second half of the post easier to read assuming the first half of the post was true.

You're more than welcome to argue that I am wrong to infer from the evidence that global warming is man made or that global warming is not occuring at all. But please give me the evidence that you have seen that has made you make the decision, I provided plenty of links and sources in my original post to show you why I came to the conclusion I did, why did you come to you're conclusion?

This is neither an anti global warming or pro global warming thread it is just my thoughts on what I think will happen in the next decade from the evidence I have seen.

Global warming is indeed something to do with light absorbtion, especially the infrared reflecting back out. It may be possible that sun spots being at a low, there is a ten year cycle and other longer cycles. I have read that we are due an ice age in 500-1000 years so we'll be pumping carbon out then for sure, cheapest way to conserve our fission energy, and it gives heat.
What does worry me is that if the science is 'proved' wrong for a few years is that we will go back ten years in time, and we really don't have that to waste.

That's exactly the problem redled, if scientists are right now and short term global cooling does create a period of apparent unchange governments my use that as evidence to continue the way they have and once the cooling ends it would lead to a much faster warming than before.

It is possible to reduce green house gas emissions without negative effects on the economy, look at Europe they are reducing emission levels to 30% lower than than 1990 levels without affecting economic growth. Furthermore by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels now we will reduce the impact of the change from an oil based economy to a renewable based one.

reply to post by -Klaus-


Agreed, we need renewable sources to get off oil, and because of the impact on food prices, biofuel is not one such renewable for non aviation use, and even there needs careful monitoring. Clearly planes can't plug in or use hydrogen. But in Britain we're building fission nuclear reactors (with far more investment than in renewABLE) and coal plants instead!!!!

Exactly I don't know whats up with our countries energy policy I think they should build a baseline of 25% nuclear and aim to have 50% renewable by 2015 the other 25% gas and coal. France have a very good and strong energy policy currently and is something we should look to emulate.

Oil is also used to make plastics so if we do burn it all up we're making our lives increasingly harder and it is the oil industry that allows us to farm so intensively, most oil crops are feed using industrial fertilisers, these fertilisers are made using energy hungry reactions powered by electricity which comes from oil.

reply to post by -Klaus-
Ah, OK Klaus, my apologies then. I misunderstood your intentions.And I will take partial balme for that misunderstanding, as the GW hysteria threads are popping back up in large numbers. On one, I even likened this to a sort of 'springtime'.

Now, as to the evidence you presented:



This is an interesting article. There are several chemical reactions in our atmosphere that occur due to external (solar/cosmic) radiation. This could indeed have an effect on cloud formation. Yet, I am not convinced that the sun's radiation somehow shields us from cosmic radiation. The earth's own magnetic field actually shields us from solar radiation. That is the reason for the Northern/Southern Auroras; the magnetic poles form a sort of tunnel through which some of that radiation reaches the upper atmosphere.

The sun's radiation may be much greater a concern than cosmic radiation (which is typically also produced by various stars in various stages of life), but I doubt it could be seen as a shielding.

The timing of the sunspot activity is a complex system. The major theory at this time (and one I find to be plausible) is that the sunspots are magnetic eruptions of flux from within the plasma of the sun. These eruptions seem to coincide with planetary alignment. Any solar/planetary relationship revolves not around the exact center of the sun, but around the center of gravity of the sun/planet system. This introduces a slight physical wobble in the motion of the solar body, one which is proportional to the size and distance of the planet and inversely proportional to the size of the sun. This slight wobble imparts an eccentric motion to the plasma that comprises the body of the sun and disrupts the magnetic lines of flux within it.

In other words, the sunspot activity is primarily driven by the positions of neighboring bodies. As we reach a galactic alignment in 2012, no doubt this will add an element of unknown intensity to this solar cycle. It is completely possible that we are even now close enough to this galactic alignment to create some effects. We do not know what these effects will be, as we have never had a galactic alignment in human recorded history. It could lessen or worsen the sunspot activity.

As to the cooling effect, that sounds completely plausible given our understanding of historic sunspot relationship with temperature.

As for www.ipcc.ch... , I am concerned over the accuracy of the report due to one major problem: the obvious aim to affect governmental policy. This bent is evidenced by several links entitled 'summary for policymakers'. Scientists study science; legislatures make policy. When a scientist starts making, or even placing recommendations to make, policy instead of legislators, we have a conflict of interest. Indeed, those scientists I know would not even do such a thing. This simply smacks of legalistic maneuvering within the scientific research by legislators themselves.

I did click on one of those links, this one: www.ipcc.ch... . The report shows two graphs, one for global temperatures and one for Northern Hemisphere temperatures. The global graph shows an actual decrease in the amount of warming since 1998, flat lining, if you will, at the end of the graph. This despite a continual increase during this time of CO2 levels. The 'hockey stick' scenario is only in the Northern Hemisphere graph, indicating (to my eye) a condition localized to the Northern Hemisphere as a cause. Atmospheric composition is a global effect, not a hemispherical one. even if the contributing gases were all released in the Northern Hemisphere, they would disperse into the global atmosphere in a relatively short time.

I would need more information on the thermo-saline current data. the link you gave is a background, not an indication of recent research.

In summary, while there is no doubt we have experienced a slight (0.6 °C per 100 years) temperature increase, i do not see a relationship to CO2 levels, or to any atmospheric composition for that matter. I also do not see a reason to become concerned about a major spike in the coming years from Global Warming. Perhaps if more information becomes available in the coming years, I may change my mind, but until I see more 'proof' than what I have seen so far, I do not agree with man-made CO2-based Global Warming.

TheRedneck

reply to post by -Klaus-


The difference between pre-ice age warming and man made warming is time. Ice ages don't start by waking up to find 10 feet of snow on the ground. It is a S L O W process. So slow in fact, that we should not be able to observe it within our lifetimes.

At the very very best we have increased the speed of natural global warming.

And people who argue that they are getting snow today are not fit to even argue this topic because the overall effects of global warming are just chaotic. It doesn't mean that we live in a frost free zone. ON the contrary, because local systems are messed with, people could get snow when they are not supposed too. Local phenomenon is different then global.

If the desert were to get 3 feet of snow, that is a big problem and a sign of something is wrong.

As for Al Gore, he can pay what he wants for his electric bill, he still has his carbon footprint almost to zero. Which is what matters. All his power is from green sources and they run their businesses from their home. If everyone calculated the carbon footprint to include work and commute, you may be shocked at what it is. I know my work is not even remotely energy efficient.


As for the galactic alignment, is that really true? I have tried to do research to find the validity of it and didn't come up with anything.

Ecology is complicated at the best of times. I am sure there are things going on we don't even realize yet.

I need a good read before I go back to uni, I'm currently studying chemistry and hopefully next year I get to take a whole module on the use of statistics within science which I hear is a bit of an eye opener.

It definately is an eye opener. I never believe the stuff I see in the news anymore unless I can see the data and the experimental design. I would suggest taking extra course work in stat. so you understand and can use Design of Experiments. It is a super powerful tool and saves scientists lots of time. Once you get beyond one or two variables D of E is your only hope.

I worked as a chemist in factories for years and D of E saved me a LOT of work and allowed me to unravel problems others could not. Remember ALWAYS plot the data.

Sorry for the derail. Good luck in your studies and always look at all data with a critical eye. (I have caught cheating lab techs using statistics on several occasions)

Thanks for the thought out reply The Redneck, firstly in response to the thermohaline cycle I can give you this link. I'm not sure if you can read it all because you require a subscription but it shows recent research into thermohaline activity, they aim to map ocean currents across the world and many depths and look at flow rates, temperature and salinity. The article discusses how the oceans, as the biggest store of thermal energy, affect the atmospheric climate of the earth and why this works in the length of decades rather than years.

I really liked the theory on the how the planets alter the sunspot cycles and it is something I've not heard of before but it seems quite sound, regarding the sun protecting us from cosmic radiation you may want to read the little they have on the subject in wikipedia, the main mechanism would be through the interaction with the suns magnetic field and radiation at the heliopause.

The mini ice age of the Victorian era is directly linked to sunspot activity but most long term climate change is related to the Milankovitch cycles. We are currently in period of warming but should be approaching an ice age soon (that is geologically speaking), unfortunately we have no accurate records for what the climate has been like previously and so this makes climate science relatively cutting edge.

It is yet to be seen what paradigms climate science has yet to go through but looking at other fields we have hardly seen the tip in the iceberg at how the scientific climate theories will change. I still personally feel global warming is caused by green house gases and will be here to stay but give it a few years and I may be biting my own tongue, science changes so fast.

reply to post by nixie_nox

As for Al Gore, he can pay what he wants for his electric bill, he still has his carbon footprint almost to zero. Which is what matters. All his power is from green sources and they run their businesses from their home. If everyone calculated the carbon footprint to include work and commute, you may be shocked at what it is. I know my work is not even remotely energy efficient.

Al Gore did indeed upgrade his mansion to green energy. He did so in December 2007. His much-touted 'documentary' came out in May of 2006. So that means it took a year and a half to get his carbon footprint down, even after his movie premiered. How long do you think he spent making the thing? Why did he not even start improving his own carbon footprint until there was an uproar about it?

So it took one of the wealthiest people in the US a year and a half plus ion order to reduce their carbon footprint in their home. Now exactly how does Mr. Gore expect the average wage-earner to do anything close to that?

As for his carbon footprint including work activities being so small, exactly what sort of green energy is he powering that private jet with? Last I heard, jets ran on jet fuel, which comes from *gasp* oil!

Source for information: www.msnbc.msn.com...

TheRedneck

reply to post by -Klaus-
Ah, so they have finally decided to map all of the currents. All I can say is, I have been wishing someone would do this. The mitigating effect of the oceans on global climate anomalies is well-established, but yet poorly understood in detail.

As for the magnetic/gravitational sunspot theory, it is pretty widely distributed on the net. www.allanstime.com... is a good place to start if you want to read more about it. I first discovered the theory when researching the 2012 predictions in the Mayan calendar; the reference to the galactic alignment had links to a site on it.

I am glad to hear you are keeping an open mind on the debate over man-made global warming. Science does indeed have a way of changing position, which is why I oppose this agenda so much. While the science may change in the future, the tax base and political/economic consequences certainly will not.

TheRedneck

reply to post by crimvelvet


When it comes to seeing is believing it has never been so true when it comes to plotting data, there are so many times I've left labs with results and looked at the numbers and gone uh?! When I get home and finally plot them in excel you always get that ah-ha! It's far easier to visually interpret results that way and see the trends jump out at you.

reply to post by nixie_nox


no, it wasn't slow and gradual, that's just dogma, so people wouldn't get upset when they realise that their 'omnipotence' has its limits.

Greenland ice core analysis shows drastic climate change near end of last ice age

as for global cooling/warming and scaremongering.

if you're unable to predict anything and constantly change (sorry, amend) your message so that you can never be wrong, you start operating like a sect of believers who can't get off the kool-aid train.

like it or not, the purpose of AGW is to fleece people and impoverish them, anything else is rubbish. biofuel, air tax, political control, trading a nonexisting commodity (certificates) it all has the hallmarks of a scam. science has suffered because it has been corrupted for political gain of a few.


although indications against AGW and more importantly, 'fighting' climate change are numerous and straightforward, there's no use in preaching them, because people who want to believe just won't listen.

A Call for Evidence Disproving Anthropogenic Global Warming

i include that link just for completeness' sake, lurkers might read through the thread. rest assured, though that these obvious questions will be asked by everyone once the system fails due to 'social engineering' ie. manipulation for the 'greater good', which of course means things like AGW.

the image of science has been ruined forever, probably a lesser evil than unconditional belief in Utopia, which, for all intents and purposes is a place full of mass graves and barren land under a dictatorship.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by nixie_nox

As for Al Gore, he can pay what he wants for his electric bill, he still has his carbon footprint almost to zero. Which is what matters. All his power is from green sources and they run their businesses from their home. If everyone calculated the carbon footprint to include work and commute, you may be shocked at what it is. I know my work is not even remotely energy efficient.

Al Gore did indeed upgrade his mansion to green energy. He did so in December 2007. His much-touted 'documentary' came out in May of 2006. So that means it took a year and a half to get his carbon footprint down, even after his movie premiered. How long do you think he spent making the thing? Why did he not even start improving his own carbon footprint until there was an uproar about it?

So it took one of the wealthiest people in the US a year and a half plus ion order to reduce their carbon footprint in their home. Now exactly how does Mr. Gore expect the average wage-earner to do anything close to that?

As for his carbon footprint including work activities being so small, exactly what sort of green energy is he powering that private jet with? Last I heard, jets ran on jet fuel, which comes from *gasp* oil!

Source for information: www.msnbc.msn.com...

TheRedneck

i like it.
just like p.diddy blamming oil co's for his plane being grounded.

your posts are very informative. you seem to know alot on the subject and i always learn alittle...thanks

i cant compete with your scientific views on this thread though i will say that we've had an unusually long, cold winter here in Melbourne and i'm blamming global walming/cooling that i look very white and pastey

reply to post by Long Lance


Thanks for the informative post Long Lance, I've never read an article that supports sudden temperature change happening before now and I read several scientific journals, I think there is a bad culture within science of sweeping people who aren't on the band wagon out of the way. A good example is funding within theoretical physics, as hype around string theory grew in the 1990's many departments began to limit theoretical physics funding only to those working on string theory. Many good scientists lost out to this new funding bias and hence this stifled research into other unified theories. Fortunately this has started to turn around especially with the turning on of the LHC putting focus back to physics for the next few years.

One of the most notorious examples of scientists being manipulated are within the big tobacco companies, they poured funding into scientists who would refute claims of smoking causing illness specifically cancer there are many interesting books on the matter, this is one of the best examples of how some scientists will lie to the public for financial reward.

The posts many of you have made have really opened my mind to what is really behind the increase in funding related to proving the existence of global warming and carbon credits are quite an interesting place to start, the people who control these are the ones who will make the most financial gain.

Thank you for helping me deny ignorance

[edit on 3-9-2008 by -Klaus-]

Originally posted by -Klaus-

Man made global warming is definitely occurring whether we like it or not, the trend that is occurring is most apparent in the famous hockey stick graph.

Why does it say departure from averages from 1961 to 1990? i understand all about the gathering of evidence from tree rings and such but why base the hockeystick histogram on a 29 year period?

...thermohaline cycle....... where the oceans will cool the Earth, either nullifying global warming or slowing the rate of warming in the next decade. This combined with reduced sunspot activity will create a mini period of cooling, many climate change deniers will leap on this lull claiming it as evidence that global warming is not occurring .....

It's even more complicated than that. Throw in global dimming and maybe we get increased cooling and a slowing of the release of CO2 into the air from subarctic tundra decomposition.

Personally I do not comfortably feel there is enough evidence yet to predict the severity or length of global warming and the affect it will have in the long run.

That is where I stand at this point. Man affects the climate but we will need to study it in ever increasing detail in order to more accurately account for the multitude of feedbacks pushing us towards and away from global warming. That big 19 mile wide section of ice shelf that collapsed today up in Canada was 4,500 years old. So that is going to be hard to replace......

Thank you for an informative and measured post.