Peer reviewed global cooling

Chi Meson

La Ninja?

Or "La Niña"?

Schrodinger's Dog

I'm to lazy to find the ~ thing, so I use the j to indicate a y. I know how to spell it. Fear not.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...5&postcount=15

Besides I like the idea of her being a ninja, she's stealthy and not a lot of people know about her, nor notice her.

Indeed, well you have the power.

Andre

La Niña (I found the ~thingy) is not about Antarctic sources, it's about upwelling colder water at the Columbian coast in the Pacific.

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/anom_anim.html

Comparing the numbers with earlier events, it's not that big either,.. yet.

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/ana...soyears. shtml
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus...r/MEI/mei.html

wolram

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...lobal-cooling/

The papers seem to be available .

Moonbear

That source sure seems skeptical of the paper. So, this is really all about that single paper?

Looking at their figure showing the multiple models, there still seems to be an overall upward trend in temperature. One could have a 20 year periodicity of warming and cooling yet still have an overall shifting of the average upward if the nadirs never reach the same levels and the rate of cooling on the downswings is slower than the rate of warming on the upswings. So, maybe there is something to what they're predicting that is separate from the overall global warming trend. But, it sure is hard to comprehend what they'd trying to say given their poor writing.

Evo

The paper was translated.

Moonbear

No, the journal is an English-language journal. There is usually an expectation that those who do not write English well get assistance from someone in the field who can to ensure it is clearly written.

Anyway, I have finally been convinced it's a peer-reviewed journal article that's being discussed (the rest of what's in the blog is NOT), so took some time to read and re-read to see if I could understand what they're trying to say.

The best I can understand it, since this isn't my field, is that they are taking global climate data and northern hemisphere climate data and looking for patterns within the larger pattern. So, there is the overall trend of warming in the past 120 years that they present, but within that 120 years, they're finding other smaller patterns of oscillations on a 60 year, 20 year, and 6-8 year time scale. They compare these smaller patterns within the larger pattern to CO2 patterns. While the overall trend over the entire 120 years corresponds, these smaller oscillations seem independent of the CO2 patterns, indicating additional factors contributing to climate change on shorter time scales (not too much of a surprise that there would be more than one contributing factor). They only briefly speculate what some factors might be, but that wasn't the focus of the study, so have no answers on that. What they basically seem to have done is just identify the time scale of these smaller "intrinsic" oscillations so that future studies can look for potential contributing factors based on oscillations on a similar time scale. In each of their figures, the top panel is the raw data I think (this is poorly explained), and then each panel below it shows the patterns of oscillations on the various time scales that are extracted from the larger pattern of the raw data.

Evo

I can post more, but here is the gist of what they are saying.

My take away from the article is that they have discovered that cooling trends in China preceed cooling in the Northern Hemisphere and globally. That the cooling cycle in China has already started. That their study shows that CO2 levels aren't significant enough to counter the cooling period we are entering. If they are correct, that is great news. But only time will tell. I do believe that this study has not been taken into consideration by AGW proponents in their predictions.

f95toli

It seems part of the problem is due to the fact that most meterologists aren't very good at metrology.
However, there is now an on-going process where metrologists (of various specialities) are starting to work with meterologists (and other branches of science relevant to GW) on everything from data analysis to instrument calibration (there was a actually a workshop on this a few weeks ago where I work).
Hopefully this will mean that measurements errors are less likely to occur in the future and also that- at least some - procedures are standardized making it easier to compare data from various sources.

Schrodinger's Dog

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus...0804051322.htm

The OP's article article to me is a classic example of people who don't have any idea what they are talking about create a model that seemingly contradicts global warming, but which has been incorporated into models years before by people working in the area. I think the problem is the media latches onto anything that supports its case without necessarily worrying about context. It's cherry picking and it goes on on both sides of the debate, lest we forget the dreadful an inconvenient truth. All this shows is that laymen and even scientists aren't immune from losing objectivity either. No one knows if AGW is real or not for sure, the only people who do it seems are non scientists.

Andre

Is that statement as peer reviewed as this one?

or this one? (link doesn't work for me at this moment but the ref:

(It's also covered here:
http://www.innovations-report.de/htm...ht-106086.html)

or this one?

From the summary/conclusion:

Perhaps it's slightly more subtle. I don't believe that there is anybody seriously doubting greenhouse effect, it's only about the extent.

For instance on a recent scientific climate conference, this "Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change" was issued

Schrodinger's Dog

To be frank I don't see what any of that has to do with the blog in the OP. But again I'm not claiming AGW is real or unreal, I don't have the scientific knowledge to be that arrogant, and I wouldn't even if I did. I'm certainly not claiming that there aren't peer reviewed papers on either side of the debate. Just that that blog is severely lacking in rigour.

As I've said before I work along the lines of: until it is shown definitively to be real or unreal, I will carry on as if it is real, because it is a pragmatic strategy.

wolram

Would you spend billions arming Earth against a possible invasion of little green men on this evidence?

vanesch

No, but can't we look upon this in the following way:
a serious effort to reduce CO2 emissions in the coming decades would help us find out whether or not the CO2 level in the atmosphere is human-generated and what climate impact it finally has.

In other words, the effort to reduce (after a serious rise) the CO2 emissions would be part of an experimental protocol, to see if the eventual correlation between human emissions and an eventual temperature change is actually a causal link.

In other words, the billions spend, are billions spend on an experiment. Any money spend on experiments is well-spend, I'd say, as a (lunatic) scientist

wolram

I would buy into the experiment idea if it could up with some facts that could be printed on the back of a postage stamp.

Schrodinger's Dog

The actual experiment in the long term actually saves everyone money. That should in theory please big businesses, but unfortunately governments aren't in office for more than 8 years.

I gotta say I don't think your little green men analogy is valid, there is a wide body of scientific research on global warming. There isn't on being invaded by aliens. Thus I think it's a faulty preposition.

wolram

No research on being invaded by little green aliens what are doing, hells teeth i will be up all night worrying.