Global warming?

[xoxoxoBruce]

[classicman]

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.

This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics.

Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.

He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.

Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.

'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.

‘The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.’

As Europe, Asia and North America froze last week, conventional wisdom insisted that this was merely a ‘blip’ of no long-term significance.

Though record lows were experienced as far south as Cuba, where the daily maximum on beaches normally used for winter bathing was just 4.5C, the BBC assured viewers that the big chill was merely short-term ‘weather’ that had nothing to do with ‘climate’, which was still warming.

The work of Prof Latif and the other scientists refutes that view.

Link

Here we go again. This sounds eerily like what they were saying back in the '70's.

[SamIam]

Loved your source. The thing should be printed on yellow paper.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

Link

Here we go again. This sounds eerily like what they were saying back in the '70's.

Back in the '70s when a few scientists got headlines claiming an ice age, when the consensus was for warming?

It does sound eerily similar.

[jinx]

Any comments on what the guy in Bruce's video has to say?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Back in the '70s when a few scientists got headlines claiming an ice age, when the consensus was for warming?

At the same time, a growing number were quietly noting the trends of global warming. Only trends then since we did not have the facts and numbers we have today.

But then many also hyped a myth about Saddam conspiring to attack the US when it was obvious that Saddam was working to restore his American ally status. Whose declarations got hyped? Those who lied about Saddam's intentions? Who got no respect because hype always trumps logic? Those who noted Saddam's interests were only in restoring his American ally status - they got ignored. No hype in the reality.

There is no doubt about mankind's creation of global warming. The numbers are overwhelming.

Also foolish is this need for lower carbon emmisions and 'green' energy. Classic curing the symptoms. The problem is this: put ten gallons of gasoline in the car. How many do any productive work? Over eight of every ten burned gallons does no productive work. Is completely wasted energy.

Those hyping the need for lower carbon emmission, et al are easily decieved by the Chevy Volt. It's not a solution. A product that actually increases energy consumption. Hyping a solution of symptoms rather than addressing the actual problem.

[tw]

They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.

Reality from research so disputed that. That same research was the smoking gun that changed the minds of the last remaining experts on the various environmental systems.

That highly respected expert that advocated and defended the Atlantic Oscillatory Cycle completely abandoned his 'holdout' belief once that ‘smoking gun’data arrived a few years ago. He was one of the few holdouts.

Fundamental is data from deep oceans. The trend is now obvious. Oceans have been absorbing heat in tremendous amounts for decades. Eventually, this warmed water will rise back to the surface (large currents that take many decades to cycle). So the question is not global cooling verses global warming. The question is how much faster will global warming occur once these deep ocean currents become warmer and return to the surface.

No responsible scientist believe that political agenda. That nonsense is why White House lawyers had to rewrite science papers. And why most of those 'global warming deniers' are educated by extremist political organization - not science. Curious – the deniers are also many who foolishly believed Saddam had WMDs when those numbers also suggested otherwise.

Reality - the numbers - global warming is a serious man made problem. We just do not know how serious the problem is. But denying it using Rush Limbaugh techniques is what, for example, we can even read in this thread.

[Happy Monkey]

I'm not sure when I'll manage to watch an hour and a half video, but page one of a Google search isn't promising.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I'm not sure when I'll manage to watch an hour and a half video, but page one of a Google search isn't promising.

Ha, I lol'd until I realized you're serious.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Reality - the numbers - global warming is a serious man made problem. We just do not know how serious the problem is.

Originally Posted by Prof Tsonis

When he published his work in the highly respected journal Geophysical Research Letters, he was deluged with ‘hate emails’.
He added: ‘People were accusing me of wanting to destroy the climate, yet all I’m interested in is the truth.’
He said he also received hate mail from climate change skeptics, accusing him of not going far enough to attack the theory of man-made warming.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

When he published his work ..., he was deluged with ‘hate emails’.

Hate mail is when White House lawyers rewrite science because it disagrees with a political agenda. He got the usual criticism afforded any public statements not relevant to the point of his paper.

"his research team discovered a new mechanism in climate that can account for all the major temperature shifts in the 20th century." It does not account for the previous 600,000 years where his mechanism did not happen.

This sudden climate change was not the point of his paper. Tsonis' paper is about a new simulation technique that maybe only applies to weather changed anthropogenically. Credibility is in the mathematics of his simulation - not in the simulation's result.

Tsonis paper discusses chaos theory. His public declaration that global warming has ended is not supported by facts in his paper. An unproven simulation method made a cooling prediction. His non-linear math explains 20 years of extreme warming followed by a point of inflection. Does not explain why this massive temperature increase has never happened in 600,000 years. And does not prove any sudden cooling. Only suggests cooling can happen if his new simulation is correct.

Originally Posted by Tsonis

No. In fact it appears that the (average) global temperature has at least leveled off if not decreasing.

Which ignores normal cooling that occurs during a La Nina and a traditional dimming of the sun's intensity. Both event occurring simultaneously only kept temperatures steady for the last few years when normally that would cause temperature decreases. Both routine cooling events traditionally end in the next few years.

Global cooling is not why his paper got published. Only its new mathematics earned its publication. Only details – its non-linear mathematical theory - made his paper worthy of publication. Despite its mathematics, his simulation could not explain or predict a sudden and massive climate change from 600,000 years of normal temperature variations.

Originally Posted by Tsonis

If the overall warming is due to anthropogenic sources (and not some unknown very low-frequency feature of our climate system), then a break will indicate that at this point the natural variability signal is stronger than the anthropogenic signal.

His public statements are not supported by facts in his paper. Political extremists simply overlooked that.

Well, if Tsonis is correct, then global temperatures will significantly decrease when La Nina ends and when the sun’s intensity begins its normal increase. Meanwhile a very low- frequency feature of our climate system for the past 600,000 years says we should have never seen such massive temperature increases. Prof Tsonis’ research says nothing about the sudden and unprecedented temperature increases unseen on earth in the past 600,000 years. Another fact that gets ignore by a political agenda.

Tsonis’ paper is about non-linear mathematics in weather simulations – not about a conclusion from an unproven simulation. Funny how a political agenda never bothered to notice the difference.

Originally Posted by tw

....Global cooling is not why his paper got published. Only its new mathematics earned its publication. Only details – its non-linear mathematical theory - made his paper worthy of publication. Despite its mathematics, his simulation could not explain or predict a sudden and massive climate change from 600,000 years of normal temperature variations.....

...Tsonis’ paper is about non-linear mathematics in weather simulations – not about a conclusion from an unproven simulation...

I think that sums it up.

I certainly dont see how it makes the current overwhelming consensus among climate scientists about anthropogenic contributions to climate change any less credible (much like the recent "climategate" nonsense).

There wil never be agreement so we're back to making a choice.

Do we act on the basis of the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists?

Do we ignore the consensus in favor of a "new" simulation that is more limited in scope?

Do we keep saying more research is needed and do nothing?

Count me in the corner that says put the politics and extremists aside...send Gore (and the environmental doomsayers) and Inhofe (and the industry naysayers) to their respective corners with a "time out" and a STFU.

And lets begin making a serious effort to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions (billions of tons that we spew into the atmosphere every year) in an environmentally and economically sustainable manner....with the benefit of reducing energy dependency and stimulating more innovative solutions.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

I certainly dont see how it makes the current overwhelming consensus among climate scientists ~snip~

The overwhelming consensus in the '70's was the exact opposite - Where would we be now if we had listened then? Keep in mind that they wanted us to pour MORE Co2 out.

Count me in the corner that says put the politics and extremists aside...send Gore (and the environmental doomsayers) and Inhofe (and the industry naysayers) to their respective corners with a "time out" and a STFU.

I agree - just skip the "time out". And remember many of these people, especially Al Gore, are getting incredibly rich off of this.

Lets make a serious effort to reduce energy dependency on a bunch of shit ass countries that couldn't give a rats ass about us except for the money we provide them and also for stimulating more innovative solutions.

Originally Posted by classicman

The overwhelming consensus in the '70's was the exact opposite - Where would we be now if we had listened then? Keep in mind that they wanted us to pour MORE Co2 out.

Scientists in the 70s wanted to pore MORE CO2 out? Can you cite that, please.

In the 70s, the US was also the leader in the environmental movement with the strongest regulations in the world that led to cleaning up the air, land and water.....despite the claim by industrial polluters that the environment has always "fixed" itself naturally in the past and would continue to do so w/o regulations..and who further claimed that environmental regulations would lead to economic disaster.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

The overwhelming consensus in the '70's was the exact opposite -

No it wasn't[pdf]. There were some headlines to that effect, but most papers were predicting warming even then.