Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

Feb 3, 2013 Full story: Free Republic 73

Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming.

Full Story
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#21 Feb 4, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
I actually understood that. Thanks.
Let me test that:
He could say it increases AVERAGE temperatures, right?
LOL. Right and worse per "thermal dynamics."

:-)
PHD

Overton, TX

#22 Feb 4, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar. He said that BEFORE his study, not AFTER it.
Proof.
Interview:
FLATOW: So tell us about your change of mind and heart about this issue.
MULLER: Well, if you had asked me a year ago, I might have said I didn't know whether there was global warming at all. But we had begun a major study, scientific reinvestigation. We were addressing what I consider to be legitimate criticisms of many of the skeptics.
But about nine months ago, we reached a conclusion that global warming was indeed taking place, that all of the effects that the skeptics raised could be addressed, and to my surprise, actually, the global warming was approximately what people had previously said.
It came as a bigger surprise over the last three to six months when our young scientist Robert Rohde was able to adopt really excellent statistical methods and push the record back to 1753. With such a long record, we could then separate out the signatures of solar variability, of volcanic eruptions, of El Nino and so on. And actually, to my surprise, the clear signature that really matched the rise in the data was human carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It just matched so much better than anything else. I was just stunned.
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/03/158085161/chang...
Mr. Muller said he really didn't know. You keep omitting that part of his report. There you have it the wallop10 getting walloped again and again. No you started another scientific science fiction study liar.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#23 Feb 5, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't increase temperatures, either.
It's just internal variability.
Yes and no. The high temps of 1998 were blamed on the super El Nino. And weren't you telling me 2012 or 2011 was a 'cool' la nina year? But true, it doesn't make or create heat, it just moves it around.

Now if it's a super el nino, it's moving a lot of heat around, and if it's a la nina? The sun makes the heat energy, the oceans absorb the heat energy, the major oceans oscillations, like the PDO or AMO, move the heat through the oceans and other ocean oscillations, like the ENSO or the Gulf Stream move the heat within specified areas.

It's all internal variablity. Climate is many pieces of a puzzle working independently and in conjunction with each other all at the same time. That's why it changes so much.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24 Feb 5, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes and no. The high temps of 1998 were blamed on the super El Nino. And weren't you telling me 2012 or 2011 was a 'cool' la nina year? But true, it doesn't make or create heat, it just moves it around.
Now if it's a super el nino, it's moving a lot of heat around, and if it's a la nina? The sun makes the heat energy, the oceans absorb the heat energy, the major oceans oscillations, like the PDO or AMO, move the heat through the oceans and other ocean oscillations, like the ENSO or the Gulf Stream move the heat within specified areas.
It's all internal variablity. Climate is many pieces of a puzzle working independently and in conjunction with each other all at the same time. That's why it changes so much.
Complex enough for you to suggest alternative causation, stir up confusion and deny responsibility.

But you have no science education, no science training and no science experience.

The people who do say we can understand the complexity enough to say the sun is not responsible, we are.
PHD

Overton, TX

#25 Feb 6, 2013
More scientific science fiction causation from the fairy lame.
PHD

Overton, TX

#26 Feb 6, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Mr. Muller said he really didn't know. You keep omitting that part of his report. There you have it the wallop10 getting walloped again and again. No you started another scientific science fiction study liar.
But about nine months ago, we reached a conclusion that global warming was indeed taking place, that all of the effects that the skeptics raised (could be addressed), and to my surprise, actually, the global warming was approximately what people had previously said.


Could be, should be,wanna be, maybe. opinion, prediction and forecast. More scientific science fiction that will change next week. They really don't know. See walloped again and again.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#27 Feb 6, 2013
phud fetid feces face fiend wrote:
Could be, should be,wanna be, maybe.....
MAYBE,'phud fetid feces face fiend' SHOULD BE scientific.
But 'phud fetid feces face fiend' discovered he COULDN'T BE scientific AND DIDN'T WANNA BE scientific.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#28 Feb 6, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
The graph skeptical science posted shows a direct match between the PDO phases and temps.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HRi56_9Lv_c/ULEcIkU...
Now take a look at this one.
http://climatereview.net/ChewTheFat/wp-conten...
You can see the relationship of solar activity, pdo activity and temps. Notice when the pdo went negative during the mid century solar activity was high. Temps didn't really decrease much but flattened for the approx 30 years. Then notice when the pdo switched back to positive the sun was still in high activity and the temps increased. This chart shows cycle 24 at a value predicted by NASA. Cycle 24 did not achieve that level.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison...
If what we saw during the 20th century is a predictor of future events, then lower solar activity, a negative pdo, should result in lower temps or a hiatus in increasing temps which is what we have seen.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/f...
Assuming for the moment that some deniers are right, & we're entering a cooling phase (we're not), or that warming has slowed (maybe - hard to tell yet), that's not good news. It's not bad news, either. It's TERRIBLE news.

If we assume that "cooling" is due to some sort of solar or PDO cycle, those very cycles will come around again, at which time we'll warm faster than ever.

Of course, the more likely explanation is that reflective aerosols in Chinese pollution MAY be slowing warming down. We saw cooling, or at least no warming, from ~1945-1975. When environmental laws were passed, we cleaned up our pollution & drove down reflective aerosols; warming resumed.

China's leaders, while not nearly as responsive as those in democratic societies, still have to listen a BIT to their people. They also have to breathe the air in Beijing.

China WILL pass pollution laws & clean up. Warming will be even faster after they do.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#29 Feb 6, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Assuming for the moment that some deniers are right, & we're entering a cooling phase (we're not), or that warming has slowed (maybe - hard to tell yet), that's not good news. It's not bad news, either. It's TERRIBLE news.
If we assume that "cooling" is due to some sort of solar or PDO cycle, those very cycles will come around again, at which time we'll warm faster than ever.
Of course, the more likely explanation is that reflective aerosols in Chinese pollution MAY be slowing warming down. We saw cooling, or at least no warming, from ~1945-1975. When environmental laws were passed, we cleaned up our pollution & drove down reflective aerosols; warming resumed.
China's leaders, while not nearly as responsive as those in democratic societies, still have to listen a BIT to their people. They also have to breathe the air in Beijing.
China WILL pass pollution laws & clean up. Warming will be even faster after they do.
Yes the cycles will recycle. The PDO will switch from it's current negative phase. The sun will not stay in a minima forever. We are fortunate that we will be able to observe both the high activity and the low activity cycles within a very short period of time, about 100 years, 1947 to 2060.

30 years from now we will know a whole lot more than we do now. The more you know, the better decisions you make.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#30 Feb 6, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes the cycles will recycle. The PDO will switch from it's current negative phase. The sun will not stay in a minima forever. We are fortunate that we will be able to observe both the high activity and the low activity cycles within a very short period of time, about 100 years, 1947 to 2060.
30 years from now we will know a whole lot more than we do now. The more you know, the better decisions you make.
30 years is way, way, way, way, WAY too long to wait to take action. We know now that what we're doing is very, very dangerous, & if we do nothing differently for 30 years, we'll REALLY be rolling the dice.

The problem is all the latencies & delays built in. If we suddenly came to our senses & stopped emitting excess CO2 now, stabilizing its level at ~400 PPM, warming would continue for decades, perhaps centuries.

We may have already built in many meters of sea level rise. During the Eemian,~124 Kya, temps were 1-2º C higher than our pre-industrial levels, but sea level was 5-6 meters higher. During the Pliocene,~3 Mya, temps were 2-3º higher but sea level was ~25 meters higher.

We've already warmed by 0.8º C, most of it since 1975. We've pretty much "built in" Eemian sea levels now. We'd like to think it would take 2 or 3 centuries for sea level to rise, but we really don't know that; it could be much sooner.

We are causing CO2 to rise 10,000 times faster than it does under natural forcings.

30 more years of inaction & we'd be MUCH more likely to end up with Pliocene sea levels.

1 meter of sea level rise would be a disaster, 5 meters horrendous, 25 meters almost unthinkable. Yet that's where we're headed if we listen to you oil-addled deniers.

Oh yeah - don't forget that ice sheets melt very quickly, even under natural forcings, but take thousands of years to re-form.

And then there's the methane locked in Arctic permafrost & on the Siberian continental shelf. It's 72 times stronger as a GHG than CO2 is for the 1st 20 years, & it's leaking at increasing rates. If a significant amount of it is released, it'll start a positive feedback out of our control, & there'll be no way to stop the complete melting of ice on the earth, with sea level ~75 meters higher.

Prudence alone would dictate action NOW, if for no other reason than an insurance policies against things that WILL happen in the future - we just don't know when.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#31 Feb 7, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
30 years is way, way, way, way, WAY too long to wait to take action. We know now that what we're doing is very, very dangerous, & if we do nothing differently for 30 years, we'll REALLY be rolling the dice.
We may have already built in many meters of sea level rise. During the Eemian,~124 Kya, temps were 1-2º C higher than our pre-industrial levels, but sea level was 5-6 meters higher. During the Pliocene,~3 Mya, temps were 2-3º higher but sea level was ~25 meters higher.
We've already warmed by 0.8º C, most of it since 1975. We've pretty much "built in" Eemian sea levels now. We'd like to think it would take 2 or 3 centuries for sea level to rise, but we really don't know that; it could be much sooner.
We are causing CO2 to rise 10,000 times faster than it does under natural forcings.
Prudence alone would dictate action NOW, if for no other reason than an insurance policies against things that WILL happen in the future - we just don't know when.
I don't agree that waiting for real knowledge of how our climate works is 'rolling the dice'. Doing something even if it's wrong, is wrong.

I don't think we know what we are doing and what the impact will be. If we did, then the predictions of future climate that have been made should have been realized, they weren't.

We have seen our rate of temperature increase decrease dramatically since 1995. Our scientists can't tell us why that has happened. According to their theories and equations it should not have happened. The fact that it has, says that we don't know what we should know before taking mitigating action.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/f...

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/f...

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/f...

Yes the eemian had higher temps and higher sea levels and supposedly lower CO2. The eccentric orbit phase during the eemian was more eccentric than our current orbit warming the earth more than our current position would warrant.
http://energyandourfuture.org/uploads/12/vost...

We have warmed about .8*C. Most of that warming happened during two phases in the 20th century, 1905 to 1947 and 1977 to 2007. The rate of warming was almost identical.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/f...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#32 Feb 7, 2013
Fake facts is irrational because he gets paid, or he hopes thus, to lie about our climate and its changing due to the man-made global warming with ever increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

His arguments are nutty.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#33 Feb 7, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't agree that waiting for real knowledge of how our climate works is 'rolling the dice'. Doing something even if it's wrong, is wrong.
I don't think we know what we are doing and what the impact will be. If we did, then the predictions of future climate that have been made should have been realized, they weren't.
We have seen our rate of temperature increase decrease dramatically since 1995. Our scientists can't tell us why that has happened. According to their theories and equations it should not have happened. The fact that it has, says that we don't know what we should know before taking mitigating action...
Nonsense & more nonsense. You think warming is slowly down since 1995? Try telling that to the latest data from Dr Roy Spencer, the noted AGW/CC skeptic. Jan 2013 was the 2nd warmest January ever, topped only by 2010.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/upload...

Remember, 1997-98 had the very strong El Niño. It is obvious that temps are rising relentlessly.

We know perfectly well that emissions of carbon, & other human actions, are the cause. We can, & must, begin to reduce them now. The longer we wait, the more expensive these changes will be.

The reason to take action now is that it'll take time to adjust - we're asking people to make major changes. If we don't make them, though, we'll be killing our children. Not good.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34 Feb 7, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
Assuming for the moment that your cherry-picking astroturf sites might be right (they aren't), & temps have stabilized, that's not good news; it's not bad news, either. It's TERRIBLE news.

Deniers like to make up nonsense about how the ENSO, or solar cycles, or some other natural forcing factors are causing cooling now. The thing is, ALL of those things will cycle back, at which time temps would rise faster than ever.

OTOH, IF there were any slowdown in warming now (there isn't), the most likely cause by far would be increasing reflective aerosols from pollution in China. Their government doesn't have to respond to their citizens like a democratic government would have to, but they have to respond a BIT. Officials also have to breathe the air in Beijing, & we all know how awful it's been.

The bottom line is that China WILL pass anti-pollution laws soon, & when they clean up reflective aerosols, warming will be faster than ever.

The time for action is now, not 30 years from now. Sorry, deniers.
PHD

Overton, TX

#36 Feb 8, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
MAYBE,'phud fetid feces face fiend' SHOULD BE scientific.
But 'phud fetid feces face fiend' discovered he COULDN'T BE scientific AND DIDN'T WANNA BE scientific.
And you think topix doesn’t know what you publish? Attacks on me won't delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#37 Feb 8, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Assuming for the moment that your cherry-picking astroturf sites might be right (they aren't), & temps have stabilized, that's not good news; it's not bad news, either. It's TERRIBLE news.
Deniers like to make up nonsense about how the ENSO, or solar cycles, or some other natural forcing factors are causing cooling now. The thing is, ALL of those things will cycle back, at which time temps would rise faster than ever.
OTOH, IF there were any slowdown in warming now (there isn't), the most likely cause by far would be increasing reflective aerosols from pollution in China. Their government doesn't have to respond to their citizens like a democratic government would have to, but they have to respond a BIT. Officials also have to breathe the air in Beijing, & we all know how awful it's been.
The bottom line is that China WILL pass anti-pollution laws soon, & when they clean up reflective aerosols, warming will be faster than ever.
The time for action is now, not 30 years from now. Sorry, deniers.
I disagree. The graphs I posted show the pattern of weather/climate for the 20th century as calculated by the Met Office. The graphs indicate facts. The graphs show that the warming happened in two main phases, the first in the first half of the 20th century the second since 1977.

I do think solar energy will be reduced in the comming years. It is already much lower than the last three cycles. The chart was updated Feb 1, 2013.

http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison...

Yes everything will cycle back, that's how our climate works. But when it does cycle back to warming, it will start that warming from a lower temp than we are experiencing today.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38 Feb 8, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. The graphs I posted show the pattern of weather/climate for the 20th century as calculated by the Met Office. The graphs indicate facts. The graphs show that the warming happened in two main phases, the first in the first half of the 20th century the second since 1977.
I do think solar energy will be reduced in the comming years. It is already much lower than the last three cycles. The chart was updated Feb 1, 2013.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison...
Yes everything will cycle back, that's how our climate works. But when it does cycle back to warming, it will start that warming from a lower temp than we are experiencing today.
Keep on clicking your heels together, Dorothy!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#39 Feb 8, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>

Yes everything will cycle back, that's how our climate works. But when it does cycle back to warming, it will start that warming from a lower temp than we are experiencing today.
So this should be easy. You are predicting cooling NOW, based on putative declining insolation. If you are right, we'll see cooling this year & the next.

As you know, even the AGW/CC skeptic Roy Spencer has reported that last month was the 2nd warmest January eve. Temps are clearly rising relentlessly.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/upload...

In any case, we certainly don't need to wait 30 years. We'll know shortly, probably in a year or two.

I believe we have PLENTY of data to show you're wrong now, but we'll know soon. Remember that even with relentlessly rising temps, there will be short periods where it APPEARS that temps are falling. It's called "going down the up escalator":

http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-th...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#40 Feb 8, 2013
Erratum:
I obviously meant "...2nd warmest January EVER..." in the 2nd paragraph.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#41 Feb 8, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
So this should be easy. You are predicting cooling NOW, based on putative declining insolation. If you are right, we'll see cooling this year & the next.
As you know, even the AGW/CC skeptic Roy Spencer has reported that last month was the 2nd warmest January eve. Temps are clearly rising relentlessly.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/upload...
In any case, we certainly don't need to wait 30 years. We'll know shortly, probably in a year or two.
I believe we have PLENTY of data to show you're wrong now, but we'll know soon. Remember that even with relentlessly rising temps, there will be short periods where it APPEARS that temps are falling. It's called "going down the up escalator":
http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-th...
1792 was a very warm year during the LIA, as warm as our current period. It's weather. China and Russia had some very cold weather in January.

There is a lag time between solar energy and weather. Estimates vary, but 10 years is commonly cited. Our solar energy went into a minimum in 2002. Cycle 24 started after a long cycle 23. The longer the solar cycle the cooler the activity of that current cycle and the longer the following cycle will be.

NASA is now predicting a 14 year cycle 24. According to most data sets, it appears that cycle 24 has hit it's max. If that's true, then we will experience 10.5 years of reduced solar activity before cycle 25 starts. Because of the length of cycle 24, cycle 25 is expected to produce even lower levels of activity.

Combine the low solar activity with negative oceans oscillations and you get the recipe for lower temperatures. The less heat energy the oceans capture, the less heat there is available to distribute.

Less heat to distribute means less heat for CO2 to trap.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 25 min Los Angeles 51,536
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 32 min DonPanic 33,988
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 1 hr Quantummist 4,344
Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change 2 hr Acolyte 15
Nuclear energy causes global warming (Jul '10) 3 hr Earthling-1 111
Nothing Warm About the Arctic 3 hr Earthling-1 30
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 4 hr Earthling-1 3,681
More from around the web