PDA

View Full Version : Its no wonder the world's cooling on global warming



pacharan
17th June 2012, 21:55
Very good article this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2160456/Its-wonder-worlds-cooling-climate-change.html) by James Delingpole in today's SM.



We are entering a period of ‘weak’ solar cycles, and this decline in activity is expected* to continue until about 2040, by which time – according to some pessimistic predictions – global mean temperatures will have fallen by 2C.
For many of us, in other words, ‘global warming’ is something we will never experience again in our lifetime. From now on we can expect drabber, wetter summers and colder winters.
And as if that weren’t depressing enough, here are our political leaders regulating and carbon taxing our economies as if the non-existent global warming problem was still something to fear.



Yes indeed - how do they manage to get away with fleecING US with these green taxes and ruin our countryside with those hideous monstrosities?

xoggoth
17th June 2012, 22:09
The fact that solar cycles have the major impact does not preclude an additional manmade effect, the problem may come at the next solar peak.

pacharan
17th June 2012, 22:28
Wonder if the summers were as awful as this during the Maunder Minimum?

Scoobos
18th June 2012, 08:16
Very good article this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2160456/Its-wonder-worlds-cooling-climate-change.html) by James Delingpole in today's SM.



Yes indeed - how do they manage to get away with fleecING US with these green taxes and ruin our countryside with those hideous monstrosities?

Good report, but again it confuses "Global Warming" which is to do with the old CFC / land warming and 80's/90's schooling - and Climate Change, which is to do with more extreme patterns in weather.

Not jumping on the case on any particular side, but it does grind my gears when people play with this stuff.

Malcolm Buggeridge
18th June 2012, 08:22
Good report, but again it confuses "Global Warming" which is to do with the old CFC / land warming and 80's/90's schooling - and Climate Change, which is to do with more extreme patterns in weather.

Not jumping on the case on any particular side, but it does grind my gears when people play with this stuff.

I thought climate change was global warming rebranded? All used to be called the greenhouse effect in my day.

Doggy Styles
18th June 2012, 08:24
I thought climate change was global warming rebranded? All used to be called the greenhouse effect in my day.It used to be called the new ice age in my day.

BoredBloke
18th June 2012, 08:51
Very good article this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2160456/Its-wonder-worlds-cooling-climate-change.html) by James Delingpole in today's SM.



Yes indeed - how do they manage to get away with fleecING US with these green taxes and ruin our countryside with those hideous monstrosities?

There are a load on the hills near us. I actually like them. Each to their own I suppose!

Scoobos
18th June 2012, 09:36
I thought climate change was global warming rebranded? All used to be called the greenhouse effect in my day.

Nah it's not. Greenhouse effect was rebranded global warming and was all due to CFC and the loss of the ozone layer above Australia - climate change is the popular/unpopular CO2 effect.

Just making that statement sounds silly - but I suppose Obfuscation / confusion works ey?

pjclarke
18th June 2012, 20:55
Very good article this by James Delingpole in today's SM.

Well yes, I guess it is 'very good' by the standard of Delingtool and the Mail. Which means that every single statement in it is wrong, and he knows it ....


....there has been no ‘global warming’ since 1998,

Moron. The GW signal is a gradual rise (http://www.aussmc.org/documents/waiting-for-global-cooling.pdf), superimposed on top of which we still have natural variation, with influences such as the ENSO cycle (El Nino, La Nina), the solar cycle, not to mention weather. Delingtool cherry-picks 1998 because it featured the most powerful El Nino of the last century, pushing temperatures 2 standard deviations above the trend line. Since then the ENSO has been predominantly cool and we have had a solar cycle minimum. This is a bit like picking an unusually hot day in March, an unusually cold day in June, drawing a straight line between them and claiming that summer has vanished...


Professor Phil Jones – of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit – conceded in 2010 that there had been no ‘statistically significant warming’ between 1995 and 2009.

In the simplest, human terms, therefore, no one younger than 14 years old has experienced global warming.

Ignoramus. This is not the same as 'insignificant warming'. Statistical significance is usually interpreted as 95% confidence. That is, there has to be less than a one in 20 chance that the calculated trend is a fluke rather than an actual increase. This requires a minimum number of data points, which was not achieved in the period Jones was asked about. It is another cherry-pick because the warming trend did achieve significance shortly afterwards and pretty much continues the trend pre-1995...

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/trend

Jones
: "The key statement here is 'not statistically significant'. It wasn't for these years at the 95% level, but it would have been at the 90% level. If you add the value of 0.52 in for 2010 and look at 1995 to 2010 then the warming is statistically significant at the 95% level."


Arctic sea ice is recovering ...

Just unbelievable. For temperatures Delingfool relied on the 1998 outlier, for ice he uses 2007 when the arctic ice coverage collapsed, due to increased temperatures and unusual wind patterns blowing the ice south. Here's Bargepole's 'recovery' ...

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b014e8c0a73e4970d-800wi

Since then there has been a slight rebound, although last year was within a gnats of 2007. Had Delingpole glanced at the chart for this year, he might have used the word 'crisis' rather than 'recovery'.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

And so it goes on. Delingpole's 'converted green', Fritz Varenholt (http://www.skepticalscience.com/fritz-vahrenholt-duped-on-climate-change.html) far from being 'Germany’s answer to Jonathon Porritt or George Monbiot is a in fact an employee of energy utility RWE and formerly Shell Oil, he has a PhD in chemistry but no special expertise in climate science. And he's written a book (http://www.zeit.de/2012/07/Klimawandel-Fakten). Whoop-de-do.

No big surprises here, Delingpole (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/01/25/207397/delingpole-meltdown-on-bbc-climate-scienc/) admits to never opening a scientific journal, being rather 'an interpreter of interpretations'. A fitting climate science correspondent for the Mail on Sunday you might well think.

Diver
18th June 2012, 21:17
There are a load on the hills near us. I actually like them. Each to their own I suppose!

general purpose

They are also giant fans cooling the air down and propellers pushing the UK further away from Europe.


:smokin

pacharan
18th June 2012, 21:38
....

What took you so long PJ?

I do concede xoggoths point about there still could be a warming effect from greenhouse gases even though decreased sunspot activity has led to a global cooling.

pacharan
18th June 2012, 21:41
Nah it's not. Greenhouse effect was rebranded global warming and was all due to CFC and the loss of the ozone layer above Australia - climate change is the popular/unpopular CO2 effect.

Just making that statement sounds silly - but I suppose Obfuscation / confusion works ey?

I thought the whole CFC thing caused ozone depletion which led to a higher level of harmful solar radiation hitting the earth's surface. Didn't think there was an issue with warming there.

pjclarke
18th June 2012, 22:07
I do concede xoggoths point about there still could be a warming effect from greenhouse gases even though decreased sunspot activity has led to a global cooling.

Actually, the relative forcing from solar activity vs greenhouse gases is quite well-known. Turns out, that even if the sun were to get 'stuck' in a Maunder minimum type phase (which hasn't happened), assuming emissions continue unabated, the increasing GHGs would negate the solar effect in just 5 years...


This cyclic solar variability yields a climate forcing change of about 0.3 W/m2 between solar maxima and solar minima. (Although solar irradiance of an area perpendicular to the solar beam is about 1366 W/m2, the absorption of solar energy averaged over day and night and the Earth's surface is about 240 W/m2.) Several analyses have extracted empirical global temperature variations of amplitude about 0.1°C associated with the 10-11 year solar cycle, a magnitude consistent with climate model simulations, but this signal is difficult to disentangle from other causes of global temperature change, including unforced chaotic fluctuations.

The solar minimum forcing is thus about 0.15 W/m2 relative to the mean solar forcing. For comparison, the human-made GHG climate forcing is now increasing at a rate of about 0.3 W/m2 per decade (Hansen & Sato 2004). If the sun were to remain "stuck" in its present minimum for several decades, as has been suggested (e.g., Independent story) in analogy to the solar Maunder Minimum of the seventeenth century, that negative forcing would be balanced by a 5-year increase of GHGs. Thus, in the current era of rapidly increasing GHGs, such solar variations cannot have a substantial impact on long-term global warming trends. Furthermore, recent sighting of the first sunspot of reversed polarity (reported Jan. 4 by, e.g., SpaceWeather.com and NOAA) signifies that the ~ 4-year period of increasing solar irradiance is about to get underway.

NASA, Summary of 2007 (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/).

More recently Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) attempted to remove all short-term variation due to ENSO, solar, volcanic influences etc..

http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/6/4/044022/Full/erl408263f5_online.jpg

Source: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/

BlasterBates
19th June 2012, 06:34
An interesting comment from Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt

Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9338939/Global-warming-second-thoughts-of-an-environmentalist.html)

Scoobos
19th June 2012, 07:53
I thought the whole CFC thing caused ozone depletion which led to a higher level of harmful solar radiation hitting the earth's surface. Didn't think there was an issue with warming there.

Yeah, it was the fact that these rays bounce around once inside , once they are in through the hole; that coined the term "Greenhouse effect"