Our cooling world

[waldo]

I believe the whole "climate warming/change" is just a way of some people making HUGE dollars at the general public's expense and governments are too chicken sh*t to ignore them. When you look at who is promoting this climate change BS, it's people who will not be affected (or very little) and its the "little" guys who will be (and are) footing the bill. Does it stop Gore from flying all over hell's half acre? NO. Does it stop the Gore's and Suzuki's from living in palatial homes that are the size of 3 or 4 of the "average" home? No - have you seen what they live in and how many they have?

do you not read conspiracy in your own words? Governments... ALL "chicken sh*t" appeasers to... to... "promoters"? Really? Who are your promoters that are sooooooo forceful, soooooooo influential to be in position to control world nation governments in the manner you imply? And world-wide scientists, national/international scientific organizations, per country level 'national academies of science', world-wide academia, etc., etc., etc..... all in on your implied conspiracy? Focusing and railing against the likes of Gore/Suzuki simply showcases the weakness of your inane conspiracy theme!

Sorry, but I think when it comes to weather/climate - its ALWAYS changed and always will and while we "humans" can do our best not to POLLUTE our air and water, there is little else we can do to stop it. Pollution is not the same as CO2 emissions. CO2 as claimed, is NOT a pollutant. Good grief, our plants rely on it, we expel it when we breathe, but I'm guessing that the "greeners" would be happy to see a lot of us die! Population growth yuh know....

of course climate has always changed... but climate just doesn't change on it's own without an underlying physical forcing. In the relatively recent post-industrial focus, particularly emphasized in the more recent 50+ years, that climate (radiative) forcing is being caused by the well-mixed, longer lifetime GHGs (principally CO2)... as reflects upon mankind's expansion of the "greenhouse effect". By definition CO2 is a pollutant; not one in the more traditional toxic sense. And yes, of course, it's essential for plants... but the underlying carbon cycle you're speaking to is no longer in sync given the accelerated rise of burning fossil-fuel sourced CO2. This is basic science... it's not "greener science", it's not "denier science"... it's basic fundamental science.

This whole thing is about money and the greedy want more and they want us to pay.

name your "greedy"... name the names of your grand claimed/implied controlling and influential promoters... just who is heading your current implied "world government" pulling all the strings?

 

[Tonington]

As per your flimsy excuse that the ice free North by 2013 was proffered by 'inconsequential predictions made by a few scientists', well, fact is, if we add up all of the failed predictions, models and commentary, there are no scientists of consequence remaining that have any legitimacy that can support your fantasies on Climate Change

That's a load of crap. Earlier you wrote substantiated, relating to failed projections. Yes there's lots of those, however I'd love to see this assertion that there is nothing consequential left after subtracting the failed projections substantiated. Even if, and this is a big if, you could somehow substantiate that claim about failed projections and models, you still have plenty of observations that are not going away.

It's ironic you would call something fantasy, when it's an article of faith you're going on here. At least until you have evidence that this claim is true.

Even more ironic, is the beginning of this thread started with a claim that the earth would cool for the next few decades. To the discussion Bear and I had in another thread, all the article says is some experts believe this...

There's no evidence that this cooling has happened. There's no evidence that the radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere is now negative. The only flimsy argument there is is based on drawing a line from 1998. Drawing a line from one point to another, is not valid at all when there's no physical reason given, no mechanism. Therefore it's not testable. It's called spurious reasoning when you don't have a valid causal relationship. And it's definitely not scientific if it can't be tested.

 

[petros]

Back to square one with anedoctal observations.

 

[darkbeaver]

I forget all these referrers. Canbyte is taking a cue from the announced agreement tween China and USA.


Well, it's a start.

Nope, it's a promise to start.

That's a load of crap. Earlier you wrote substantiated, relating to failed projections. Yes there's lots of those, however I'd love to see this assertion that there is nothing consequential left after subtracting the failed projections substantiated. Even if, and this is a big if, you could somehow substantiate that claim about failed projections and models, you still have plenty of observations that are not going away.

It's ironic you would call something fantasy, when it's an article of faith you're going on here. At least until you have evidence that this claim is true.

Even more ironic, is the beginning of this thread started with a claim that the earth would cool for the next few decades. To the discussion Bear and I had in another thread, all the article says is some experts believe this...

There's no evidence that this cooling has happened. There's no evidence that the radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere is now negative. The only flimsy argument there is is based on drawing a line from 1998. Drawing a line from one point to another, is not valid at all when there's no physical reason given, no mechanism. Therefore it's not testable. It's called spurious reasoning when you don't have a valid causal relationship. And it's definitely not scientific if it can't be tested.

Couls you expand on this radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere? And it's potential negativity?

 

[Tonington]

Couls you expand on this radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere? And it's potential negativity?

You measure the energy that arrives from the sun. You measure the energy that escapes our atmosphere back to space. The difference is the flux, and these observations are showing you how much energy Earth is absorbing and emitting. If the expected long term trend- like that mentioned in the OP- is for cooling, then we should expect this quantity to be negative, i.e. more energy is emitted than is absorbed.

Related to this is the different temperature profiles of the atmosphere layers. The upper atmosphere is cooling, which means less radiation is escaping to space. That agrees with the top of the atmosphere radiative flux being positive. It also agrees with an enhanced greenhouse effect, that theory states should allow less energy to escape the planet, and consequently the upper atmosphere should cool.

See? No models needed, though I will point out that models predicted this before we had the satellites capable of measuring this.

 

[darkbeaver]

You measure the energy that arrives from the sun. You measure the energy that escapes our atmosphere back to space. The difference is the flux, and these observations are showing you how much energy Earth is absorbing and emitting. If the expected long term trend- like that mentioned in the OP- is for cooling, then we should expect this quantity to be negative, i.e. more energy is emitted than is absorbed.

Related to this is the different temperature profiles of the atmosphere layers. The upper atmosphere is cooling, which means less radiation is escaping to space. That agrees with the top of the atmosphere radiative flux being positive. It also agrees with an enhanced greenhouse effect, that theory states should allow less energy to escape the planet, and consequently the upper atmosphere should cool.

See? No models needed, though I will point out that models predicted this before we had the satellites capable of measuring this.

Thankyou, a nice tight little explain. Could you elaborate a little about the incoming solar and how it is presently measured?

 

[DaSleeper]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva]- Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
( in interview for "Discover" magagzine, Oct 1989)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=+1]Dr Stephen Schneider[/SIZE] is perhaps the most media-exposed Greenhouse expert, having developed a charismatic speaking style, complemented by his 1970s good looks, and penchant for extravagant claims about impending environmental disaster.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]For example, in a TV interview in 1990 to Britain's Channel 4, he remarked -

[SIZE=+1]"The rate of change is so fast that I don't hesitate to call it
potentially catastrophic for ecosystems."[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]Such a comment was quite wrong, climatically speaking, and blatantly alarmist.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]He is also a fully qualified climatologist, closely identified with climate modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, Colorado, USA. He has written numerous papers and articles on the subject and is invariably sought out by the media for the latest horror predictions about Greenhouse, due to both his willingness to cast scientific caution aside in making such predictions, and his natural articulate and charismatic appeal to the general public.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=+1]He can truly be described as a Superstar of Greenhouse.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]It would be fair to say that Schneider bears a large part of the responsibility for making Greenhouse the hysterical public issue it has become today. He even once joked that since Greenhouse had hit the public arena, he had become more of a politician than a scientist. (`Many a true word is spoken in jest')[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]That Greenhouse had moved from being an esoteric scientific issue to being a political one was certainly true, and Schneider was in the vanguard of the political push to get Greenhouse firmly implanted in the public consciousness.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=+1]But what kind of person, what kind of scientist, is Dr Stephen Schneider?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]Firstly, Schneider was not always promoting the idea of Global warming. Up to about 1978, Schneider was warning the world of an impending Global Cooling, leading to the next Ice Age ![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]Before Global Warming became the politically correct scientific fashion of the 1990s, the reverse situation existed in the 1970s, where it had become a scientific article of faith that the [SIZE=+1]Ice Age[/SIZE] was about to happen. Even the US National Academy of Sciences adopted this view.[/FONT]


Stephen Schneider - Greenhouse Supersalesman

 

[taxslave]

exactly! Notwithstanding, of course, GHCN is not the only raw data source... as you surely know, other raw data sources from other organizations confirm the integrity of GHCN data by providing similar results. But why would that dissuade these fake-skeptics around here when they can simply rely upon (former) TV weatherman "Tony Willard Watts" and his grand denier misinformation machine at WTFIUWT! They can simply lap up the pablum from a "blog scientist"... cause everyone knows, denier blog science rules!

in reply to your post we get one of those fake-skeptics here lamenting that your linked article is "too much for his layman-self"! Much easier to gravitate to denier blog references then!

if I follow the timing correctly, Walter's nonsense link reflects upon the "much-ado-about-nothing" concerns over warmest year rankings put forward by NASA & NOAA... that resulted in a mega-meltdown on WTFIUWT (and other denier blogs) and quite literally had the waters churning with blog post after blog post for weeks on end! The more targeted aim of their vitriol was at NOAA/NCDC. In line with that same transparency theme you emphasized, NOAA equally presented it's rationale for version change/correction - here: again, TRANSPARENCY!

You got one part right. You are very transparent.

 

[Tonington]

Thankyou, a nice tight little explain. Could you elaborate a little about the incoming solar and how it is presently measured?

There are two satellites that provide global coverage every 1-2 days, named Terra and Aqua. Both have a moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer called MODIS, that aquire data in 36 spectral bandwidths or wavelength groupings. The wavelengths range from 405 nanometers to 14.385 micrometers. Put another way, from 0.17 W/m^2 to 44.9 W/m^2. Basically nearly everything that gives off heat is captured.

The groupings allow the instruments to document everything from land/cloud/aerosol boundaries and properties, to ocean biogeochemistry, to atmospheric, cloud and surface temperature, ozone, and water vapour.

 

[darkbeaver]

There are two satellites that provide global coverage every 1-2 days, named Terra and Aqua. Both have a moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer called MODIS, that aquire data in 36 spectral bandwidths or wavelength groupings. The wavelengths range from 405 nanometers to 14.385 micrometers. Put another way, from 0.17 W/m^2 to 44.9 W/m^2. Basically nearly everything that gives off heat is captured.

The groupings allow the instruments to document everything from land/cloud/aerosol boundaries and properties, to ocean biogeochemistry, to atmospheric, cloud and surface temperature, ozone, and water vapour.

Thankyou.

 

[Tonington]

"The rate of change is so fast that I don't hesitate to call it potentially catastrophic for ecosystems."
Such a comment was quite wrong, climatically speaking, and blatantly alarmist.

The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is associated with a large extinction event- it wiped out about 80% of the oceans organisms. The temperature increased by 6°C over 20,000 years. We're experiencing close to 1°C per century. So right now it's warming close to two orders of magnitude faster.

Potentially catastrophic for ecosystems is correct.

 

[DaSleeper]

Nobody addresses what is in red......?
I just copied the rest of the article so it would be in context.........

 

[taxslave]

Nobody addresses what is in red......?
I just copied the rest of the article so it would be in context.........

Doesn't support their position.

 

[petros]

You measure the energy that arrives from the sun. You measure the energy that escapes our atmosphere back to space. The difference is the flux, and these observations are showing you how much energy Earth is absorbing and emitting. If the expected long term trend- like that mentioned in the OP- is for cooling, then we should expect this quantity to be negative, i.e. more energy is emitted than is absorbed.

Related to this is the different temperature profiles of the atmosphere layers. The upper atmosphere is cooling, which means less radiation is escaping to space. That agrees with the top of the atmosphere radiative flux being positive. It also agrees with an enhanced greenhouse effect, that theory states should allow less energy to escape the planet, and consequently the upper atmosphere should cool.

See? No models needed, though I will point out that models predicted this before we had the satellites capable of measuring this.

Which type of energy makes jetstreams diverge? What keeps that energy at bay?

 

[Tonington]

Which type of energy makes jetstreams diverge? What keeps that energy at bay?

Not sure why you think I should indulge your questions when you ignore mine, it's like you think you're entitled...I'll come out and play when you finish your math homework.

 

[petros]

The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is associated with a large extinction event- it wiped out about 80% of the oceans organisms. The temperature increased by 6°C over 20,000 years. We're experiencing close to 1°C per century. So right now it's warming close to two orders of magnitude faster.

Potentially catastrophic for ecosystems is correct.

25Ka - 15Ka was the Glacial Maximum it got far colder before getting warmer. Things never recovered from the cold. The high protein forage the megafauna consumed never recovered. Same went for ocean organisms.

There is a paper by a U of Copenhagen geogenetics that came out at the beginning of the year.

Not sure why you think I should indulge your questions when you ignore mine, it's like you think you're entitled...I'll come out and play when you finish your math homework.

Why don't you just say "I don't know" instead of being a condescending prick?

 

[captain morgan]

That's a load of crap. Earlier you wrote substantiated, relating to failed projections. Yes there's lots of those, however I'd love to see this assertion that there is nothing consequential left after subtracting the failed projections substantiated. Even if, and this is a big if, you could somehow substantiate that claim about failed projections and models, you still have plenty of observations that are not going away.

Close but no ceegar doesn't work when the greentard lobby is seeking to institute global policy.

Further, the assertions made on AGW/CC are/were concrete.... 'The debate is over', remember that little gem?

So, until 'the science' can actually deliver on even a small fraction of their claims (read: facts), there is no reason whatsoever that anyone, especially government, should pay any real attention

It's ironic you would call something fantasy, when it's an article of faith you're going on here. At least until you have evidence that this claim is true.

My 'faith' has 100s of millions of years in terms of the track record... How about your religion?... Care to regale us with the wonderful successes?

I thought not

Even more ironic, is the beginning of this thread started with a claim that the earth would cool for the next few decades. To the discussion Bear and I had in another thread, all the article says is some experts believe this...

This mean you're changing you position on the issue?

There's no evidence that this cooling has happened. There's no evidence that the radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere is now negative. The only flimsy argument there is is based on drawing a line from 1998. Drawing a line from one point to another, is not valid at all when there's no physical reason given, no mechanism. Therefore it's not testable. It's called spurious reasoning when you don't have a valid causal relationship. And it's definitely not scientific if it can't be tested.

Interesting comment, particularly the 'no evidence of the cooling'... The simple response is that there is no evidence to support any element that anthro sources are steering the climate... And that is at the core of the issue here, isn't it?

 

[waldo]

from an earlier post in a different thread... of course, it really belongs in this thread:

re: "the 70's Global Cooling meme":

an assortment of meta-studies have actually looked at scientific publications during that period in question in an attempt to put to rest this meme. Example: the Peterson et al paper that most authoritatively speaks to what publications existed in the '65-to-79 year' period and what position/findings they held.

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming.

A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review shows the important way scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.
​

​

 

[darkbeaver]

from an earlier post in a different thread... of course, it really belongs in this thread:

re: "the 70's Global Cooling meme":

an assortment of meta-studies have actually looked at scientific publications during that period in question in an attempt to put to rest this meme. Example: the Peterson et al paper that most authoritatively speaks to what publications existed in the '65-to-79 year' period and what position/findings they held.

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming.

A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review shows the important way scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.
​

​

Absolutely magnificent, the horizontal lines are suggestive of yearning female anticipation of copulation with the masculin multicoloured verticle erectiles, the spacing compells the warming urgency of firery consumation. Absolutley brilliant perspective. Such wallpaper has never before been seen.

 

[waldo]

But what kind of person, what kind of scientist, is Dr Stephen Schneider? Firstly, Schneider was not always promoting the idea of Global warming. Up to about 1978, Schneider was warning the world of an impending Global Cooling, leading to the next Ice Age!

Before Global Warming became the politically correct scientific fashion of the 1990s, the reverse situation existed in the 1970s, where it had become a scientific article of faith that the Ice Age was about to happen. Even the US National Academy of Sciences adopted this view.

Nobody addresses what is in red......?
I just copied the rest of the article so it would be in context.........

patience grasshopper!

but what kind of person was the author of your linked article, one "John L. Daly" who might presume to challenge real scientists and the fundamental science of the greenhouse effect? Daly, an Australian school teacher now dead for over a decade; a guy with no formal scientific expertise and no active engagement in scientific research/study... a guy who with no authority and no foundation, presumed to challenge the greenhouse effect while claiming warming was due to "sunspot activity and ocean currents".

as for Stephen Schneider, his early position... 50+ years ago... was one he took in relation to his study of atmospheric aerosols and their cooling effect (dust, volcanic ash, industrial aerosols/human-made pollutants)... this was the time of peak U.S. air pollution, before the U.S. Clean Air Act and resulting actions against industrial pollution. It was Schneider's view (based on his single 71 paper) that in the competing positions of warming CO2 and cooling aerosols, aerosols would prove more significant and overall cooling would result. As he worked to refine his research, where some of the related science was in relative infancy (again, 50+ years ago), in a matter of 3 years Schneider reversed himself claiming he had overestimated the amount of aerosols in the air... and underestimated the role of greenhouse gases.

but don't let actual science and scientific refinement get in the way of an Australian school-teacher plying his "skeptical" nonsense while presuming to deride real scientists and fabricate positions. And yes... that Daly statement about the, "U.S. National Academy of Science adopting that view", that is outright bunk!