Global Warming

[benjii]

You very obviously do not understand what a Chartered Engineer is. We are several levels above 'scientists'.

 

[Deppo]

 

Don't laugh, he's right. It goes, in ascending order: Amoeba, Socialist, Liberal Democrat, Big Issue Salesman, Science Teacher, Scientist, Maggie Philbin, Unchartered Engineer, Chartered Engineer, Professor Brian Cox, Doctor Octopus, Ming the Merciless, Jor-El, God.

[dubai_phil]

Don't laugh, he's right. It goes, in ascending order: Amoeba, Socialist, Liberal Democrat, Big Issue Salesman, Science Teacher, Scientist, Maggie Philbin, Unchartered Engineer, Chartered Engineer, Professor Brian Cox, Doctor Octopus, Ming the Merciless, Jor-El, God.

 

Sorry, that is complete horlicks.

 

It goes

 

Amoeba, Socialist, Liberal Democrat, Big Issue Salesman, Science Teacher, Scientist, Maggie Philbin, Unchartered Engineer, Chartered Engineer, Professor Brian Cox, Doctor Octopus, Ming the Merciless, Jor-El, God, Deppo, D_P

 

It isn't perfect, a I have to keep the Big Man upstairs on hold while I give Tiger Woods relationship counselling, but then he has zillions for the fees whereas the Big Man only has my after Pension Plan to offer

Edited 22 December, 2010 by dubai_phil

[CB Fry]

You very obviously do not understand what a Chartered Engineer is. We are several levels above 'scientists'.

 

You any good on boilers?

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?27109-Boiler-problem

[benjii]

Don't laugh, he's right. It goes, in ascending order: Amoeba, Socialist, Liberal Democrat, Big Issue Salesman, Science Teacher, Scientist, Maggie Philbin, Unchartered Engineer, Chartered Engineer, Professor Brian Cox, Doctor Octopus, Ming the Merciless, Jor-El, God.

 

[Whitey Grandad]

You any good on boilers?

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?27109-Boiler-problem

 

I rest my case.

[Whitey Grandad]

Your solar rays theory doesn't seem to impress these guys, who use data collected by NASA. The quote below seems to indicate they might know what they are talking about. All your quotes are theories of how solar rays cause clouds which could effect temperature - that is already known. You don't show any measurements or data that conclusively show that solar rays have increased, clouds have increased and thet correlates to the temperature variations.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11480916

"So we might have the ultimate paradox that in a globally warming world we'd have cold winters in Europe. But it would be an awful lot warmer in Greenland," he said.

 

Professor John Shepherd, who studies climatic change at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, added:

 

"The observations do show that solar radiation does some peculiar and interesting things, which will hopefully be revealed through future research.

 

"As with all other known solar effects since measurements began, these effects are subtle and tiny - certainly nowhere near enough to explain any of the climate changes that we observe."

Once again we see the simplistic nature of these studies which are only interested in total solar irradiation. The 'solar activity' to which I have previously referred is the high-energy particles which together with cosmic radiation have an observed effect on our climate. The research at CERN is part of a programme attempting to determine the mechanisms by which this could occur. At present, because no known mechanism has been identified it can, of course, not be included in any climate model. If you have the time it is worth sitting through at least the first part of the lecture given by Kirkby at CERN. I have posted the link above.

[Verbal]

I rest my case.

 

You fibber! I went onto that thread and you didn't offer any kind of boiler help whatsoever. Not a damn thing.

 

As for CERN, is this work being done by scientists or 'scientists'?

Edited 22 December, 2010 by Verbal

[Whitey Grandad]

You fibber! I went onto that thread and you didn't offer any kind of boiler help whatsoever. Not a damn thing.

 

As for CERN, is this work being done by scientists or 'scientists'?

 

I could design one for you, if you like, but repairing one would get my hands dirty.

As for CERN, it all depends on your viewpoint, or point of view.

 

Before I forget, a Merry Christmas to you and all you other Saints fans out there.

[trousers]

People, people. Calm down. It's only a planet FFS.

[dubai_phil]

In related news.......

 

In our local rag today (7Days), page 3 has a full page advert for.....

 

Heaters.

 

Yep, oil filled radiators, fan heaters, electric bar type heaters from a company called Midea. The heaters are now in stock at all our major Electrical retailers.

 

WE LIVE IN A FECKING DESERT AND THEY ARE SELLING FECKING HEATERS FFS

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

“This winter could be unusually mild and dry, with temperatures at least 2C higher than last year’s big freeze.” The Met Office, 28 October.

 

I love these gurus at global warming HQ.

[dune]

“This winter could be unusually mild and dry, with temperatures at least 2C higher than last year’s big freeze.” The Met Office, 28 October.

 

I love these gurus at global warming HQ.

 

They've changed their minds now:

 

The Met Office is predicting this could be the coldest December on record, with a current average temperature of minus 0.7C – five degrees below the long-term average.

[Verbal]

They've changed their minds now:

 

The Met Office is predicting this could be the coldest December on record, with a current average temperature of minus 0.7C – five degrees below the long-term average.

 

And yet 2010 is set to be one of the three warmest years on record, and the decade 2001-2010 is the warmest decade on record (World Meteorological Organization).

 

These are hard facts dune - not predictions, but measurements of what's actually happened. Hard to swallow for anyone who takes the cretin's view that atmospheric scientists are in some kind of worldwide conspiracy, right?

[Johnny Bognor]

These are hard facts dune - not predictions, but measurements of what's actually happened. Hard to swallow for anyone who takes the cretin's view that atmospheric scientists are in some kind of worldwide conspiracy, right?

 

So it is the warmest since 1860 when meteorological measurement began. Can we now look at the statistical relevance of the last 150 years when compared to the last 1,000, 10,000, 100,000 or 1,000,000 years, where no measurements were recorded?

 

It is a bit like the Sky Sports thread banging on about Man U being the top at xmas, 6 times since the PL started. Ignoring the 100+ years of pro football prior to the prem.

 

Measuring a trend in a miniscule period of time, when compared to the age of the planet, proves...... well not a lot really. For all we (and the scientists know), the planet could have been cooling significantly up until 1860 and the trend is now being reversed.

 

You can be forgiven, though, as statistics are probably not covered on a film studies degree. Having said that, I thought you were better than that. Saying "since records began" sounds grand in the scheme of things (the media are forever doing it), but the actual records are not that old in the scheme of things, so when you take that into account, it is not so impressive afterall.

Edited 27 December, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[dune]

You can be forgiven though, as statistics are not covered on a standard film studies degree.

 

[Saint Billy]

And yet 2010 is set to be one of the three warmest years on record, and the decade 2001-2010 is the warmest decade on record (World Meteorological Organization).

 

These are hard facts dune - not predictions, but measurements of what's actually happened. Hard to swallow for anyone who takes the cretin's view that atmospheric scientists are in some kind of worldwide conspiracy, right?

 

There are hard facts from both sides of the argument.

 

The Millennium bug, predicted to be a cause of worldwide mass chaos, missiles were going to be launched by mistake, modern cars would stop running because of engine clock problems, financial institutions reliant on computers would crash etc etc. Bearing in mind that this would have been a 100% man made problem, caused by man and predicted by man, nothing happened at all apart from a few minor blips.

 

So if we cannot correctly predict the future regarding things that we have created ourselves, how can we predict nature?

 

Agreed, we must stop poisoning the earth, it simply is not clever, but I am not getting on this scaremongering bandwagon.

[Verbal]

So it is the warmest since 1860 when meteorological measurement began. Can we now look at the statistical relevance of the last 150 years when compared to the last 1,000, 10,000, 100,000 or 1,000,000 years, where no measurements were recorded?

 

It is a bit like the Sky Sports thread banging on about Man U being the top at xmas, 6 times since the PL started. Ignoring the 100+ years of pro football prior to the prem.

 

Measuring a trend in a miniscule period of time, when compared to the age of the planet, proves...... well not a lot really. For all we (and the scientists know), the planet could have been cooling significantly up until 1860 and the trend is now being reversed.

 

You can be forgiven, though, as statistics are probably not covered on a film studies degree. Having said that, I thought you were better than that. Saying "since records began" sounds grand in the scheme of things (the media are forever doing it), but the actual records are not that old in the scheme of things, so when you take that into account, it is not so impressive afterall.

 

When did you do a film studies degree?

 

As someone rightly said much earlier, human population is, rather obviously, the key to understanding climate change now - particularly changes in climatic chemistry (as opposed to 'weather' for the lobally challenged dune). I've not seen ANY climate scientist claim that the earth is subject to climatic variations over time and that these have had natural causes. However, there is a broad scientific consensus that the earth's climate now is being altered by manmade interventions. As for 1,000 - a million years ago...care to guess hat the human population was then? If you do, you'll answer your own question.

 

And what exactly is the point of a thousand years' history of the Prem to Man U's being top now? I think your analogy just self-immolated.

Edited 27 December, 2010 by Verbal

[dune]

When did you do a film studies degree?

 

And what exactly is the point of a thousand years' history of the Prem to Man U's being top now? I think your analogy just self-immolated.

 

How tedious.

[Verbal]

There are hard facts from both sides of the argument.

 

The Millennium bug, predicted to be a cause of worldwide mass chaos, missiles were going to be launched by mistake, modern cars would stop running because of engine clock problems, financial institutions reliant on computers would crash etc etc. Bearing in mind that this would have been a 100% man made problem, caused by man and predicted by man, nothing happened at all apart from a few minor blips.

 

So if we cannot correctly predict the future regarding things that we have created ourselves, how can we predict nature?

 

Agreed, we must stop poisoning the earth, it simply is not clever, but I am not getting on this scaremongering bandwagon.

 

I can't see what predictions about a Millenium bug have to do with an historical record of climate patterns.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

And yet 2010 is set to be one of the three warmest years on record, and the decade 2001-2010 is the warmest decade on record (World Meteorological Organization).

 

These are hard facts dune - not predictions, but measurements of what's actually happened. Hard to swallow for anyone who takes the cretin's view that atmospheric scientists are in some kind of worldwide conspiracy, right?

 

As I understood it they were making the numbers up. There was quite a fuss made at the time. Melbourne looked cold last night.

[dune]

As I understood it they were making the numbers up. There was quite a fuss made at the time. Melbourne looked cold last night.

 

The first Christmas snow in South Carolina for century I just heard on the news. These are all signs of global warming.

[Verbal]

As I understood it they were making the numbers up. There was quite a fuss made at the time. Melbourne looked cold last night.

 

Who was making the numbers up? Source?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Dune stop looking out of your window!

 

I trust these experts who tell us we are going to have warm weather at winter and then when we do not tell us that it this weather and not climate.

[Verbal]

Dune stop looking out of your window!

 

I trust these experts who tell us we are going to have warm weather at winter and then when we do not tell us that it this weather and not climate.

 

Try reading the science instead of the Daily Mail or that idiot in the Torygraph. A subscription to New Scientist will be a good start.

[Johnny Bognor]

I've not seen ANY climate scientist claim that the earth is subject to climatic variations over time and that these have had natural causes.

 

Ice age?

 

I think that there was a film about that once.

 

And what exactly is the point of a thousand years' history of the Prem to Man U's being top now? I think your analogy just self-immolated.

 

The media bang on about man u this and man u that "since the start of the prem", forgetting the 100+ years of top flight football prior to the prem. It is just like the swiss scientists banging on about "warmest on record" which only counts for the last 150 years, conveniently forgetting the billions of years that the planet existed prior to 1860. It is a good analogy in my opinion.... so good, in fact, that you could make a film about it.

Edited 27 December, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[dune]

Dune stop looking out of your window!

 

I trust these experts who tell us we are going to have warm weather at winter and then when we do not tell us that it this weather and not climate.

 

The climate cranks must be gutted about the last cold winter (when they prayed for/forecast a mild winter), the barbeque summer (when they prayed for/forecast a scorcher), and the coldest december this century (when they prayed for/forecast a mild winter).

 

They would have been spunking in their pants if their preidctions had come true as it would have been a clear sign of global warming.

[Verbal]

Ice age?

 

I think that there was a film about that once.

 

You're the expert JB - you're the one with film studies honours.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Try reading the science instead of the Daily Mail or that idiot in the Torygraph. A subscription to New Scientist will be a good start.

 

I am not clever enough to read the New Scientist

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Who was making the numbers up? Source?

 

That report before Copenhagen. The emails from East Anglia

[Saint Billy]

I can't see what predictions about a Millenium bug have to do with an historical record of climate patterns.

 

As Johnny Bognor pointed out, there is only 150 years of historical record compared to millions of years that are unrecorded, therefore we are into a guessing game/prediction.

 

Using the Millenium bug as an example, man is not very good at prediction.

[Verbal]

As Johnny Bognor pointed out, there is only 150 years of historical record compared to millions of years that are unrecorded, therefore we are into a guessing game/prediction.

 

Using the Millenium bug as an example, man is not very good at prediction.

 

So you honestly think that climate science is merely a 'guessing game'? Really? Is that what you think science does all day? And again, because you seem still to have missed the point: the bug was a PREDICTION; the WMO figures are for the PAST.

 

Re: 150 years, see my post above!

[Verbal]

That report before Copenhagen. The emails from East Anglia

 

Then you're talking nonsense unfortunately. The CRU and the WMO are, as you might guess, completely different organisations. There is no suggestion by anyone but you apparently that the WMO has made anything up. Nor actually has the CRU. They wrote some injudicious emails to each other and have been told to respond in a more forthcoming way to FOI requests. However, an official inquiry gave their science a complete clean bill of health.

[Saint Billy]

So you honestly think that climate science is merely a 'guessing game'? Really? Is that what you think science does all day? And again, because you seem still to have missed the point: the bug was a PREDICTION; the WMO figures are for the PAST.

 

Re: 150 years, see my post above!

 

Frankly, to some extent yes.

 

I also feel that scientists are largely responsible for a lot that is good and bad in this world.

 

Plus, the fact that many of them are in the hands of politicians and large corporate companies makes me nervous regarding some of their motives.

[Verbal]

Frankly, to some extent yes.

 

I also feel that scientists are largely responsible for a lot that is good and bad in this world.

 

Plus, the fact that many of them are in the hands of politicians and large corporate companies makes me nervous regarding some of their motives.

 

And what are your scientific qualifications, and what is your evidence for dismissing science as 'in the pockets' of co-conspirators to fool the public? Honestly, I find this beyond nuts.

[badgerx16]

The Millennium bug, predicted to be a cause of worldwide mass chaos, missiles were going to be launched by mistake, modern cars would stop running because of engine clock problems, financial institutions reliant on computers would crash etc etc. Bearing in mind that this would have been a 100% man made problem, caused by man and predicted by man, nothing happened at all apart from a few minor blips.

.

For your information, the Millenium Bug was real. Computer systems the world over would have failed or generated unpredictable results, except that thousands of IT staff, myself included, worked their socks off in the 18 months running up to the turn of the century, reprogramming and rewriting code to correct the issue. The fact that there were only "minor issues" is testament to their efforts. In the case of my work place, the only system that failed was the networked backup system, which as 1999 ended, switched it's clock back to 1900 and refused to make any security copies as the databases were 99 years 'younger' than the last recorded tape copies. ( This was based on a promise made by the software supplier that the system would not suffer any issues ).

Now if we could only put a similar amount of effort into managing climate change.

 

And as for historical data, we can go back many tens, if not hundreds, of thouands of years in measuring CO2 levels in ice cores, and can extrapolate temperatures based on what we have observed, and built the models on.

[Jonnyboy]

Frankly, to some extent yes.

 

I also feel that scientists are largely responsible for a lot that is good and bad in this world.

 

Plus, the fact that many of them are in the hands of politicians and large corporate companies makes me nervous regarding some of their motives.

 

In the main these scientists will be the ones arguing against climate change.

 

Anyone see that BBC prog the other day with the Scottish geologist. Very good series.

 

He reckons than humans actually caused an ice age to not develop when we invented agriculture (or something)

[Whitey Grandad]

When did you do a film studies degree?

 

As someone rightly said much earlier, human population is, rather obviously, the key to understanding climate change now - particularly changes in climatic chemistry (as opposed to 'weather' for the lobally challenged dune). I've not seen ANY climate scientist claim that the earth is subject to climatic variations over time and that these have had natural causes. However, there is a broad scientific consensus that the earth's climate now is being altered by manmade interventions. As for 1,000 - a million years ago...care to guess hat the human population was then? If you do, you'll answer your own question.

 

And what exactly is the point of a thousand years' history of the Prem to Man U's being top now? I think your analogy just self-immolated.

 

I think they would all accept that without reservation. The earth's climate has varied wildly in the past but the important question is of course whether, and if so, by how much, we are affecting the climate of the future.

[Saintandy666]

The greenhouse effect is fact. Therefore, if we pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect will be enhanced beyond a level that is helpful to us. That is fact.

[dune]

The greenhouse effect is fact. Therefore, if we pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect will be enhanced beyond a level that is helpful to us. That is fact.

 

[Saintandy666]

Dune, are you trying to say that my statement is false? If you are, then I lose a lot of respect for you intellectually.

 

Do I need to explain to you how the Greenhouse Effect works?

[dune]

Dune, are you trying to say that my statement is false? If you are, then I lose a lot of respect for you intellectually.

 

Do I need to explain to you how the Greenhouse Effect works?

 

I'm saying that Global Warming isn't happening and that CO2 emmisions aren't a problem. You and Mikey may well have just covered all this in your GCSE's, but now you should learn the truth.

[Saintandy666]

I'm saying that Global Warming isn't happening and that CO2 emmisions aren't a problem.

 

I think you have just admitted in your post there by not mentioning it that you DO in fact agree with me that the greenhouse effect is real. That is good, because that is something that is simply undeniable.

 

How then, can you then deny having admitted that the greenhouse effect is real that CO2(a greenhouse gas) will not warm the atmosphere?

[dune]

I think you have just admitted in your post there by not mentioning it that you DO in fact agree with me that the greenhouse effect is real. That is good, because that is something that is simply undeniable.

 

How then, can you then deny having admitted that the greenhouse effect is real that CO2(a greenhouse gas) will not warm the atmosphere?

 

The planet has been cooling for the last 5 years.

Edited 27 December, 2010 by dune

[Saintandy666]

The planet has been cooling for the last 5 years.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_since_1880

 

9 out of 10 of the hottest years on record have been in the last 10 years.

 

I don't understand how you can accept the greenhouse gas effect, but then say increasing greenhouse gases will not warm the planet up. That is a fundamental fact of the greenhouse effect. Your ideas are not coherent.

[badgerx16]

The planet has been cooling for the last 5 years.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

 

[dune]

 

Dr. Easterbrook's key excerpts:

 

That global warming is over, at least for a few decades, might seem to be a relief. However, the bad news is that global cooling is even more harmful to humans than global warming and a cause for even greater concern because:

 

1. A recent study showed that twice as many people are killed by extreme cold than by extreme heat.

 

2. Global cooling will have an adverse effect on food production because of shorter growing seasons, cooler growing seasons, and bad weather during harvest seasons. This is already happening in the Midwestern U.S., China, India, and other places in the world. Hardest hit will be third world countries where millions are already near starvation levels.

 

3. Increase in per capita energy demands, especially for heating.

 

4. Decrease in the ability to cope with problems related to the population explosion. World population is projected to reach more than 9 billion by 2050, an increase of 50%. This means a substantial increase in demand for food and energy at a time when both are decreasing because of the cooling climate.

 

CONCLUSIONS:

 

Numerous, abrupt, short-lived warming and cooling episodes, much more intense than recent warming/cooling, occurred during the last Ice Age, none of which could have been caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. .

 

Climate changes in the geologic record show a regular pattern of alternate warming and cooling with a 25-30 year period for the past 500 years.

 

Strong correlation between solar changes, the PDO, glacier advance and retreat, and global climate allow us to project a consistent pattern into the future.

 

Strong correlation between solar changes, the PDO, glacier advance and retreat, and global climate allow us to project a consistent pattern into the future.

 

Projected cooling for the next several decades is based on past PDO patterns for the past century and temperature patterns for the past 500 years. Three possible scenarios are shown: (1) global cooling similar to the global cooling of 1945 to 1977, (2) global cooling similar to the cool period from 1880 to 1915, and (3) global cooling similar to the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1820.

 

Expect global cooling for the next 2-3 decades that will be far more damaging than global warming would have been.

 

Short Summary of Dr. Easterbrook's new paper:

 

THE LOOMING THREAT OF GLOBAL COOLING

 

Geological Evidence for Prolonged Cooling Ahead and its Impacts

 

Prof. Don J. Easterbrook

 

Dept. of geology -- Western Washington University -- Bellingham, WA 989225

 

The past is the key to the future--To understand present-day climate changes, we need to know how climate has behaved in the past. In order to predict where we are heading, we need to know where we've been. Thus, one of the best ways to predict what climate changes lay ahead is to look for patterns of past climate changes.

 

Numerous, abrupt, short-lived warming and cooling episodes, much more intense than recent warming/cooling, occurred during the last Ice Age and in the 10,000 years that followed, none of which could have been caused by changes in atmospheric CO2 because they happened before CO2 began to rise sharply around 1945. This paper documents the geologic evidence for these sudden climate fluctuations, which show s remarkably consistent pattern over decades, centuries, and millennia.

 

Among the surprises that emerged from oxygen isotope analyses of Greenland and Antarctic ice cores was the recognition of very sudden, short–lived climate changes. The ice core records show that such abrupt climate changes have been large, very rapid, and globally synchronous. Climate shifts, up to half the difference between Ice Age and interglacial conditions, occurred in only a few decades.

 

Ten major, intense periods of abrupt climate change occurred over the past 15,000 years and another 60 smaller, sudden climate changes have occurred in the past 5000 years. The intensity and suddenness of these climatic fluctuations is astonishing. Several times, temperatures rose and fell from 9–15° F in a century or less.

 

The dramatic melting of continental glaciers in North America, Europe, and Asia that began 15,000 years ago was interrupted by sudden cooling 12,800 years ago, dropping the world back into the Ice Age. Continental and alpine glaciers all over the world ceased their retreat and re-advanced. This cold period, the Younger Dryas, lasted for 1300 years and ended abruptly with sudden, intense warming 11,500 years ago. The climate in Greenland warmed about 9° F in about 30 years and 15° F over 40 years. During the Younger Dryas cold period, glaciers not only expanded significantly, but also fluctuated repeatedly, in some places as many as nine times.

 

Temperatures during most of the last 10,000 were somewhat higher than at present until about 3,000 years ago. For the past 700 years, the Earth has been coming out of the Little Ice Age and generally warming with alternating warm/cool periods.

 

Both Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have long been well established and documented with strong geologic evidence. Georef lists 485 papers on the Medieval Warm period and 1413 on the Little Ice Age for a total of 1,900 published papers on the two periods. Thus, when Mann et al. (1998 ) contended that neither event had happened and that climate had not changed in 1000 years (the infamous hockey stick graph), geologists didn't take them seriously and thought either (1) the trees they used for their climate reconstruction were not climate sensitive, or (2) the data had been inappropriately used. As shown in the 1,900 published papers, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age most certainly happened and the Mann et al. 'hockey stick' is nonsense, not supported by any credible evidence.

 

The oxygen isotope record for the Greenland GISP ice core over the past 500 years shows a remarkably regular alternation of warm and cool periods. The vertical blue lines at the bottom of the graph below show the time intervals between each warm/cool period. The average time interval is 27 years, the same as for time intervals between Pacific Ocean warm and cool temperatures as shown by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (see below)

 

Global warming is real, but it did not begin in 1945 at the time of greatly increased CO2 emissions. Two periods of global warming (1915–1945 and 1977–1998 ), and two periods of global cooling (1880–1915 and 1945–1977) occurred in the 20th century. Atmospheric CO2 began to rise sharply right after WWII in 1945 but was accompanied by global cooling for 30 years, rather than by warming, and the earlier warm period from 1915 to 1945 took place before CO2 began to rise significantly.

 

During each of the two warm periods of the past century, alpine glaciers retreated and during each of the two cool periods glaciers advanced. The timing of the glacier advances and retreats coincides almost exactly with global temperature changes and with Pacific Ocean surface temperatures (PDO).

 

The Pacific Ocean has two modes, a warm mode and cool mode, and regularly switches back and forth between modes in a 25-30 year repeating cycle known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). When the PDO is in its warm mode, the climate warms and when it is in its cool mode the climate cools. Glacier fluctuations are driven by climatic changes, which are driven by ocean surface temperatures (PDO).

 

During the cool PDO mode, ocean surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific are cool. This was typical of the global cooling from 1945 to 1977. During the warm PDO, ocean surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific are warm. This was typical of the global warming from 1977 to 1998. The abrupt shift of the Pacific from the cool mode to the warm mode in a single year (1977) and the beginning of the last warm cycle has been termed the "Great Pacific Climate shift." There is a direct correlation between PDO mode and global temperature

 

The ocean surface temperature in the eastern Pacific off the coast of North America was warm in 1997. In 1999, the PDO switched from its warm mode to its cool mode and has since remained cool as shown by satellite imagery. Adding the PDO record for the past decade to the PDO for the century provides an interesting pattern. The PDO 1915–1945 warm mode, the 1945-1977 cool mode, the 1977-1998 warn mode, and the switch from warm to cool mode in 1999 all match corresponding global climate changes and strongly suggest:

Edited 27 December, 2010 by dune

[dune]

1. The PDO has a regular cyclic pattern with alternating warm and cool modes every 25-30 years

 

2. The PDO has accurately matched each global climate change over the past century and may be used as a predictive tool.

 

3. Since the switch of the PDO from warm to cool in 1999, global temperatures have not exceeded the 1998 high.

 

4. Each time the PDO has changed from one mode to another, it has stayed in that mode for 25-30 years; thus, since the switch of the PDO from warm to cool in 1999 has been entrenched, it will undoubtedly stay in its cool mode for another several decades.

 

5. With the PDO in cool mode for another several decades, we can expect another several decades of cooling.

 

In 2000, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted global warming of1° F per decade and global warming of about 10° F by 2100. The red line on the graph below is their predicted temperature curve for 2000 to 2050. Note that by 2010, temperatures should be 1° F warmer than in 2000. That didn't happen so their climate models failed to predict even 10 years ahead.

 

The blue curves of projected cooling are based on the past PDO patterns for the past century and temperature patterns for the past 500 years. Three possible scenarios are shown: (1) global cooling similar to the global cooling of 1945 to 1977, (2) global cooling similar to the cool period from 1880 to 1915, and (3) global cooling similar to the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1820.

 

The possibility of temperatures dropping to the level of the Dalton Minimum is suggested by the recent passing of the sun from a solar grand maximum to a solar grand minimum similar to that of the Dalton Minimum. The unusually long sun spot cycle 23 and the solar magnetic index suggest that a solar minimum similar to the Dalton is very possible. A fourth possibility is that we may be approaching another Maunder type minimum and another Little Ice Age. Time will tell which curve is correct.

 

IMPACTS OF GLOBAL COOLING

 

That global warming is over, at least for a few decades, might seem to be a relief. However, the bad news is that global cooling is even more harmful to humans than global warming and a cause for even greater concern because:

 

1. A recent study showed that twice as many people are killed by extreme cold than by extreme heat.

 

2. Global cooling will have an adverse effect on food production because of shorter growing seasons, cooler growing seasons, and bad weather during harvest seasons. This is already happening in the Midwestern U.S., China, India, and other places in the world. Hardest hit will be third world countries where millions are already near starvation levels.

 

3. Increase in per capita energy demands, especially for heating.

 

4. Decrease in the ability to cope with problems related to the population explosion. World population is projected to reach more than 9 billion by 2050, an increase of 50%. This means a substantial increase in demand for food and energy at a time when both are decreasing because of the cooling climate.

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

Numerous, abrupt, short-lived warming and cooling episodes, much more intense than recent warming/cooling, occurred during the last Ice Age, none of which could have been caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. .

 

Climate changes in the geologic record show a regular pattern of alternate warming and cooling with a 25-30 year period for the past 500 years.

 

Strong correlation between solar changes, the PDO, glacier advance and retreat, and global climate allow us to project a consistent pattern into the future.

 

Strong correlation between solar changes, the PDO, glacier advance and retreat, and global climate allow us to project a consistent pattern into the future.

 

Projected cooling for the next several decades is based on past PDO patterns for the past century and temperature patterns for the past 500 years. Three possible scenarios are shown: (1) global cooling similar to the global cooling of 1945 to 1977, (2) global cooling similar to the cool period from 1880 to 1915, and (3) global cooling similar to the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1820.

 

Expect global cooling for the next 2-3 decades that will be far more damaging than global warming would have been.

[Saintandy666]

Data has just been posted that shows the earth has been warming in the time you say it has been cooling. Your arguments central point has now failed.

[dune]

Data has just been posted that shows the earth has been warming in the time you say it has been cooling. Your arguments central point has now failed.

 

If you look at the graphs 1997 was a spike and since then there has been no rise, but a slight fall which suggests that the cyclical climate pattern has now peaked and we are heading for another natural cooling period.