Global Cooling Is Here!

Yes. If you question global warming you're equated with holocaust deniers. Yet, they want to impose draconian regulations in the name of global warming. Whatever happened to extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have been paying attention.

http://home.att.net/~station_climo/YR1828.htm

1975:

This storm was billed as Minnesota’s “Storm of the Century”. For three days snow, rain, sleet, and freezing rain fell and winds gusted up to 80 mph. Eight inches of snow fell in Duluth along with periods of rain, freezing rain, and sleet. 23.5 inches of snow fell at International Falls. Drifts were up to 20 feet. The snow and wind were accompanied by falling temperatures. Duluth’s high temperatures fell from 33 degrees on the 11th to -3 on the 12th.

Notice the january rain in Duluth Minnesota?

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dlh/science/event_archive/arrowhead/arrowhead_winter.php

The last 30 years is a blip on the radar. The hottest year still remains a dust bowl year, the current 'heat' is not even warmer than the medieval warming and if you spend time searching past heat we have not even come close to holocene warming periods.

Heating and cooling are natural components of the earths climate. Plenty of papers out their to cross reference the limited vision of the IPCC, whos agenda is clearly stated. They do no research. They do no peer review and their singular goal is to tie warming to mans activities, not to understand climate change. That is not science.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You claim to find meaning in a one storm report from 1975, and then tell me the general pattern of the past thirty years is a blip on the radar.

If you had been paying attention, you might have noticed that up until the mid 1990s it rained in January on the western MN prairie - say in Morrison County - not never, but about one year in seven.

It has rained in January on that prairie the past 12 consecutive years, or 13 if I missed one ( started counting at eight, but I forget when sometimes).

That is not the point, either. The point is that this pattern - not any one year, but the trend and average - agrees with the predictions of some climate models and not others: namely the models of climate that included heat-trapping effects from the CO2 buildup. They predicted warmer winter nights and higher absolute water vapor content in the winter air of the Minnesota prairie, two factors that lead to greater likelihood of rain.

If you believe some research implications and not others, and you're sure, maybe. It's possible, certainly. That kind of selective committed belief does not strike me as sound scientific judgment.

But regardless of past natural warmings, the present one has no identified cause other than the CO2 buildup.

Saying past warmings were "natural" does not explain this one. And on top oif that, you have to explain why the CO2 is not having the effects predicted for it - here you have a large CO2 buildup, a bunch of predictions from its likely effects that match your data pretty well (in the case of the Brazilian hurricane, phenomenally well), and you dismiss all of this because in the past the climate was warmer than it is now ?

That depends on how you do it. When you do it by citing long-debunked claims and irrelevant research, when you do it by exaggerating and inflating and loudly spreading around one mistake after another, when you do it by invalid argument and misrepresentation of valid ones, and when you appear to have a political agenda of your own, then you do become confused with those of Troofer mentality and Holocaust denying agenda.

If you do it by dealing with the actual arguments in its favor, and bringing new interpretations or new kinds of information to the table, you will be treated with the respect that guy who advanced the gamma ray cloud effect possibility received. And when it was checked out, and found to be apparently (barring further info) inadequate and a poor fit, it was quietly set aside to await that further info, and the CO2 buildup retained, without anyone calling the man names (or vice versa AFAIK).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No I dont find meaning in the one report, nor do I find meaning in the report from the early 1800s. Variations in weather happen. I am not shocked. I am not alarmed at the 1 degree rise in a century or a 1/2 degree in 20-30 years. These things happen. As do mega droughts in africa, n. america, s.america, australia, china, etc, as do hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones, blah blah blah. We have no idea what happened in Minnesota while the vikings were merrily planting crops and raising sheep/goats in iceland. May have rained 100 january's in a row then. May have been a mega drought.

See above.

Only for believers in the IPCC.

It is not my responsibility to figure out why co2 isnt behaving as the IPCC, climate modelers etc. expected, I dont ascribe to the hoopla surrounding co2, I knew there was global evidence for the MWP and LIA inspite of the IPCC efforts to ignore those details as they paraded around hockeysticks.

An Ice Free Antarctic, multiple meltings
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070506095410.htm
Damn Magma, screwing with glaciers:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22246005/
Holy Crap, 600 miles of heat!
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...932A35754C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Remember when life was simpler and el Nino was the news?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Niño
50 volcanos we didnt know about??
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/03fire/logs/mar02/mar02.html
2+ years this ones been going. Energizer bunny of submarine volcanos?
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2635.htm
Last two minutes is where he talks a bit about the warming going on.
http://www.opb.org/programs/ofg/videos/view/67-Antarctic

I honestly dont know how a reasonable person can read thru the IPCC info/conclusions and not become skeptical of their assessment. Good thing they went out on a limb and cast their predictions 50-100 years into the future. They will be dead by then and not have to explain themselves.

 

"Could very well indicate a trend"? Do you listen to yourself?

 

So you just posted them for random entertaniment ?

No, they don't. Such changes are very unusual - unprecedented, as far as anyone knows - and they have causes. The past ones, if any like this ever have occurred before (the fastest global change I can find any record of is less than half the rate of this latest one) also had causes - discoverable causes that we could use to make predictions, if they were operating now.

We have quite a bit of information about the climate - even the weather - of that area and era - example: http://lrc.geo.umn.edu/LRCbrochure-2006.pdf Check it out some time.

For anyone with a grasp of ordinary reasoning. Would you be satisfied with the explanation "it's natural" about any other major and complex phenomenon ?

So far, the climate is right on schedule with some of the more extreme possibilities,and nothing has happened in contradiction with the theories or standard models. And the CO2 accumulation shows signs of accellerating. Where do your responsibilities lie, in these matters ?

And I don't know why you think any of the links you posted support your assertions here. I tend to conclude that you don't understand the IPCC's arguments or evidence.

Not one of them, for example, explains recent warming trends or even their common theme of glacial melting (the Greenland hot spot is localized, the Antarctic ice sheet time scale was five million years and said nothing about mechanism, etc etc ) or deals with what happened to the CO2 effect if it didin't go into the recent measured warming. Those are the two major themes of the IPCC report, and so far nothing you've posted addresses them.

 

Unprecedented is an IPCC buzz word. Plenty of documents out there indicating this term is mis-applied. We have the medieval warming (which some docs say was even warmer than now), a warming during roman times that is less known to the general public, indications of climate change that impacted the egyption civilization, recent documents about prolonged drought impacting the s.american civilizations and something I just found the other day reflecting dramatic temp changes in the arctic more recently:

# Between 1917 and 1928 the increase during the summer season is of +0.9°C per 10 years, and in winter, of +8.3°C, in February, of +11.0°C (p. 87).
# There was a colder period from 1912 to 1917 (p. 90), which, had this not occurred, would have resulted in a 1.1°C increase at the Green Harbour Station (p. 91).

http://www.arctic-warming.com/how-was-the-warming-discussed-in-the-1930s.php

Now I dont agree with the conclusions drawn at this particular website. But there it is, dramatic warming. Same terms such as 'unprecidented' bandied about also. Just because people were not there to measure it, doesnt mean it hasnt happened before (such as the antarctic meltings spoken of in a previous link) in a very dramatic fashion.

That link posts nothing related to the temps, the results, etc. If you have 'quite a bit of information' about minnesota climate during the medieval warming (which was what I was speaking of) post it. I've looked for temp histories of MN during the medieval warming and havent found any.

I am content to ascribe the current blip in the weather radar as 'natural phenomena. And I agree it [climate] is major and complex. This is why I am not surprised when the weatherman is wrong the next day. Yet you expect me to rally around a group (whos objective is clearly stated as NARROWED to what people cause) and regard their conclusions as an absolute and unquestionable mantra that should guide my nations decision making? I dont believe they have enough objectivity to declare what is and isnt man-made when they rally around hockeysticks that are so blatantly suspect and going as far as to declare the medieval warming was a local occurrance. It wasnt. Evidence for it has been found all over the northern hemisphere and in the lesser explored southern hemisphere including s. america, antarctica, and islands in the south pacific.

You mean the projected hurricane forecasts that DIDNT HAPPEN? You mean the falling temperatures in the antarctic? You mean the increasing arctic ice? The leveling of temperatures for the last 10 years? You mean the 'normal' cold in winter we're experiencing this winter?

50 times in 10 million years...past times when our planet was 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it is today -- Estimates of up to 1,000,000 underwater volcanoes rather than the 4,000 the IPCC believed. 600 miles of heat ducts (in one band) thought to be inactive until recently. How exactly does this fit into the IPCC conclusions? It doesnt.

Of course you disregard other ideas. You have latched onto a mantra that makes you feel good about yourself as you distance yourself from those who sing a different tune. Us and them.

You should spend some time reading other things going on out there regarding the glaciers melting. Some botanists have made remarkable discoveries about meadow life that existed under the glaciers of greenland not that long ago. They have melted before regardless of the co2 content of the air. How do you explain that? Warming occurs without co2!

 

Do you know how many extinctions occured? What kinds of large-scale local climatic changes there were, due to ocean currents stalling, or changing course? How many large coastal cities were inundated, when the poles melted?

P.S. Oh right, there weren't any humans around back then. So it only matters, like, this time.

 

Your claim was that "we" - meaning the climate researchers - know nothing about the climate in Minnesota during the Medieval Warming. The link was to a very large archive of information about the climate of that time. It is not the only such counter example to your assertion, which was ridiculous. Do you contend that the climate researchers currently warning us about the apparent effects of our recent CO2 boost have somehow overlooked this information ?

But that is not the main point. The main point is that your assertion was not only ridiculous but irrelevant. The climate record of the past is very interesting, for information about what can or has happened etc, but the issue before us is the current climate changes - and the current climate is subject to whatever the influences are of a huge and continuing boost in the CO2 concentration of the lower atmosphere.

If you want to argue that the summers in North America, at least, have been warmer in the recent past than they are now, that's easy: badger bones have been found in permafrost up around Hudson Bay, and the current northernmost populations of several tree species are not capable of reproduction by seed due to the current inadequate lengh of frost free seasons. It was warmer, in the summers at least, when badgers dug holes and spruce trees set seed on the Canadian tundra.

You seem to think that means we have no serious worries about the current warming, despite its appparent cause in the still increasing CO2 concentrations.

Others, being of a more scientific and responsible nature, are not content with ignorance about major phenomena that have implications for planetary human civilization.

Not one of those is an honest and reasonable presentation of anything coming out of the climate reasearch of the past twenty years. They are all and each politically biased drivel.

To take one of the obvious, and first: There was a large, complicated, and semi-public controversy among climate researchers about the likely effects of CO2 heat trapping on hurricanes in the Atlantic. Some said more, some said less, some said bigger, some said weaker, it battled back and forth. Every single proposal assumed - took for granted - that the heat trapping of the CO2 was a factor that needed consideration. Not one faction or argument started off with the assumption that the effects of the current CO2 boost could be ignored.

The last I heard, there was a growing consensus around the idea that the frequency would fluctuate as before in response to Ninas and Oscillations, but there would be maybe a couple more total over a decade or so, the percentage of very strong ones (and the maximum strengh achieved) would be a bit higher, and some strong ones would dissipate faster than they would have in years past. That was a while ago, and I haven't been keeping up. It was a scientific discussion among people with arguments, theories, data, and imagination. None of these people has been content to declare hurricanes "natural phenomena" and therefore explained.

Meanwhile, you claim predictions of hurricanes that didn't happen ? One of the most startling predictions of the more radical models was the future emergence of a totally new and unprecedented - there's that buzz word again - kind of hurricane, in the South Atlantic off the coast of Brazil. By unprecedented is meant not recorded before by Western historians or observers, in hundreds of years of observation. That prediction depended completely on the insertion of strong CO2 boost heat trapping effects into standard weather models. As a lark the researchers had their model generate this hypothetical storm, and play it out to see how theory predicted such an oddity might behave, if it ever came to pass.

A few months later, a hurricane formed in the South Atlantic off the coast of Brazil. It formed and behaved almost exactly - you could overlap the tracks on a map - as the model had predicted.

But that kind of thing is not the major problem with that list. The major problem is that even without such contradiction the list doesn't matter - nothing there counters the evidence and theory behind the probability that the CO2 boost traps heat, and that trapped heat has had and will continue to have serious effects on the climate. This list of yours - it's fish in a barrel, but they won't stay dead when shot. Nothing in that list is relevant, even the little that isn't misleading or false. Why are you talking about such things ? They don't matter.

Like this:

So what? The question is what the current boosting of CO2 will do, not what has happened without it.

 

We is people in general and was not meant to be specifically pointed at any group of people.

The link was to a brochure with no data on the climate of MN during the medieval warming. I asked you to post a link so I could look at this data you claim exists. You (again) produced no link. I must assume you have no link.

There is no possible way to predict the future when you do not understand the past.

Hudson bay. How many miles in a year does a badger population move? Its taken 30+ years for the population of Gray fox to move from southern Minnesota to somewhat north of the twin cities area (like 50 miles). Seems to me that particular warming must have been in effect for at a minimum centuries for badgers to move that far north. I wonder how fast trees move that far north?

we? whos we? I have no serious worry regarding the current warming.

I posted links. None of them were to politically motivated sources. 600 miles of previously unknown venting occuring in recently de-iced areas of the arctic. Your from an area with ice covered waters. You know what happens to ice when water is flowing under it. It melts. Thats why frozen rivers (or lakes with springs or flowage) are so very unpredictable for safe crossing. 600 miles is twice the distance from duluth to the canadian border. Venting heat moves water.

I didnt say hurricanes didnt happen, though I can see how you could interpret it that way. What was meant was their 'predictions' of a severe hurricane season fizzled out and it fell under 'normal' (if I remember correctly the LOW end of normal). Revised twice downward as their predictions didnt pan out.

It is relevant to climate change. And anything that is relevant to climate change impacts...well... climate. And if its not co2 related is reduces the OMG 1.6 (+/- 1.2) w/m2 assigned to mankind and greenhouse gassing of the planet.

Its not relevant to you because it falls outside the parameters of the IPCC goal of implicating co2 and man as the cause of all current climate change. But to do this they MUST ignore climate changes that occurred in the past that would be impossible to link to the current favorite golden calf, co2.

 

Then you agree that the climate researchers whose findings, models, and theories you are claiming to find unsubstantiated and dubious do in fact have the kinds of info you claim "we" don't have ?

The link was to the website of one of the large and growing archives of the exact kind of information I thought you claimed no one had. It's what I could come up with in the five seconds such a claim deserved for response. If you were instead simply claiming that you had not discovered the existence of such info, then we have no argument - I agree with that.

And as I pointed out, "they" made no such consensual predictions. "They" engaged in a heated scientific debate, which was misrepresented by some irresponsible political operatives for petty political gain, damaging both the science and the politics involved in the matter.

And you are shilling for these corporate PR operations, damaging the political debate by misrepresetning the role of the science involved.

All the sides involved, the ones warning about more and more severe hurricanes and the ones arguing the exact opposite and the many with middle ground positiions of various kinds, were treating large extra CO2 heat trapping effects as a major factor and confirmed reality. That is the relevant fact of that debate.

The factor you must deal with is not the breaking of a serious debate one way or the other based on new data, but the successful model prediction of an unprecedented and otherwise completely unexpected, very unlikely event, with startling accuracy. Have any of the scientists whose modelling does not include significant CO2 heat trapping effects - if there are any, which I doubt - made any successful predictions of anything at all like that ?

Not a single published researcher in the climate field, not a single political debater with any claimed scientific support, has even hinted at the possibility that human CO2 boosting is the cause of all climate change now, was in the past, or will be in the future. No one thinks that, no one says that.

Not one researcher in the field, let alone the IPCC consensus of likelihood, has ignored any climate changes in the past or present.

Why do you make such ridiculous claims ?

 

So Milkweed's working for big oil now? Anyone with a different opinion must be on the payroll of the evil corporations!

Yet Al Gore predicts a twenty foot rise in sea level if we don't cut back on CO2. Doesn't that kind of imply that all other factors are irrelevant?

 

Never said that, nor do I think it's likely. It is a possibility, of course - you do know that, right ?

No, he doesn't. No, it wouldn't.

And he isn't a researcher in the field. And he isn't claiming that all climate change recent and future is caused by human factors, which was the matter at issue.

Again, why do you guys make these ridiculous claims ? Have you no actual arguments ?

 

While Al Gore isn't a researcher, he is the most prominent spokesman/agitator for global warming and he did win a nobel prize and an oscar for his movie on the subject. A movie so full of factual errors, it was sanctioned by the British government. Among those errors, was the twenty foot (6 meter) rise in sea levels.

By the way, the guy who pushed the lawsuit in the UK which prevents schools from showing the movie without pointing out all the errors is trying to raise money in the US to do the same thing.

 

Bullshit. No such sanctions, no such errors.

And no relevance to the current discussion.

Why do you make such ridiculous claims ? Have you no arguments about the effects of CO2 accumulation other than dishonest assertions about media figures and politicians, misrepresentations of British court proceedings, similar shit ?

 

Here in Oregon, some of my perennial flowering plants never died back over the winter, and never stopped flowering. I have planted broccolini in the fall, and had it flower in the spring.

 

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"
Another dissenting voice

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why cant you discuss an issue without launching a personal attack?

 

You must be new here

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!