Peer reviewed global cooling


by wolram
Tags: cooling, global, peer, reviewed
Schrodinger's Dog
Schrodinger's Dog is offline
#19
Apr4-08, 04:16 PM
Schrodinger's Dog's Avatar
P: 1,142
Quote Quote by Chi Meson View Post
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.

Quote Quote by ZapperZ View Post
So why is this in GD and not in Earth Science forum?

Zz.
Indeed, well you have the power.
Andre
Andre is offline
#20
Apr4-08, 04:49 PM
PF Gold
Andre's Avatar
P: 5,450
La Niņa (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
wolram is offline
#21
Apr4-08, 04:53 PM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,669
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...lobal-cooling/

The papers seem to be available .
Moonbear
Moonbear is offline
#22
Apr4-08, 05:18 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Moonbear's Avatar
P: 12,257
Quote Quote by wolram View Post
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
Evo is offline
#23
Apr4-08, 05:41 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,928
Quote Quote by Moonbear View Post
But, it sure is hard to comprehend what they'd trying to say given their poor writing.
The paper was translated.

The article was produced by Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian of the Nanjing Normal University in China (obviously, English is not their first language, if you couldn’t tell from the title, and some of the following quotes from their article are a bit awkward).
Moonbear
Moonbear is offline
#24
Apr4-08, 05:59 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Moonbear's Avatar
P: 12,257
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
The paper was translated.
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
Evo is offline
#25
Apr4-08, 06:27 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,928
I can post more, but here is the gist of what they are saying.

Here we stress two points: (1) the variance
explained of the trend of global temperature is
only 40.19%, while that of the trend of CO2 concentration
in the atmosphere tops to 99.52%; (2)
Accordingly, the contribution of CO2 concentration
to global temperature variation is no more
than 40.19%, or in other words, 59.81% of the
weight of global temperature variation is caused
by non-greenhouse effect.

Despite the increasing trend of atmospheric
CO2 concentration, the components IMF2, IMF3
and IMF4 of global temperature changes are all
in falling. Thus, if CO2 concentration remains
constant at present, the effect of greenhouse
warming is deficient in counterchecking the natural
cooling of global climate change in the coming
20 years. Consequently, we believe global
climate changes will be in a trend of falling in
the following 20 years.
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
f95toli is offline
#26
Apr4-08, 07:38 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
f95toli's Avatar
P: 2,197
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
Schrodinger's Dog is offline
#27
Apr5-08, 03:34 AM
Schrodinger's Dog's Avatar
P: 1,142
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
Andre is offline
#28
Apr5-08, 06:31 AM
PF Gold
Andre's Avatar
P: 5,450
Is that statement as peer reviewed as this one?

...The sun might have contributed approximately 50% of the observed global warming since 1900...
or this one? (link doesn't work for me at this moment but the ref:

Nature Geoscience Published online: 23 March 2008 | doi:10.1038/ngeo156

Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon
V. Ramanathan & G. Carmichael

Abstract

Black carbon in soot is the dominant absorber of visible solar radiation in the atmosphere. Anthropogenic sources of black carbon, although distributed globally, are most concentrated in the tropics where solar irradiance is highest. Black carbon is often transported over long distances, mixing with other aerosols along the way. ...

.... In the Himalayan region, solar heating from black carbon at high elevations may be just as important as carbon dioxide in the melting of snowpacks and glaciers. The interception of solar radiation by atmospheric brown clouds leads to dimming at the Earth's surface with important implications for the hydrological cycle, and the deposition of black carbon darkens snow and ice surfaces, which can contribute to melting, in particular of Arctic sea ice.
(It's also covered here:
http://www.innovations-report.de/htm...ht-106086.html)

or this one?

David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, and S. Fred Singer, 2007; A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions, International Journal Of Climatology 27: (2007) (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651

...We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
From the summary/conclusion:

On the whole, the evidence indicates that model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent with observations, which indicates that, since 1979, there is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then future projections of temperature change, as depicted in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high....
Quote Quote by Schrodinger's Dog View Post
No one knows if AGW is real or not for sure, the only people who do it seems are non scientists.
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

“Global warming” is not a global crisis
We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

(...)

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

(...)
That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

...cont'd
Schrodinger's Dog
Schrodinger's Dog is offline
#29
Apr5-08, 06:34 AM
Schrodinger's Dog's Avatar
P: 1,142
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
wolram is offline
#30
Apr5-08, 10:07 AM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,669
Quote Quote by Schrodinger's Dog View Post
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.
Would you spend billions arming Earth against a possible invasion of little green men on this evidence?
vanesch
vanesch is offline
#31
Apr5-08, 10:33 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 6,238
Quote Quote by wolram View Post
Would you spend billions arming Earth against a possible invasion of little green men on this evidence?
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
wolram is offline
#32
Apr5-08, 10:51 AM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,669
Quote Quote by vanesch View Post
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
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
Schrodinger's Dog is offline
#33
Apr5-08, 11:05 AM
Schrodinger's Dog's Avatar
P: 1,142
Quote Quote by wolram View Post
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.
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
wolram is offline
#34
Apr5-08, 11:12 AM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,669
No research on being invaded by little green aliens what are doing, hells teeth i will be up all night worrying.
Moonbear
Moonbear is offline
#35
Apr5-08, 11:18 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Moonbear's Avatar
P: 12,257
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
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.
That's not my take on it at all, at least in terms of it being any sort of "great news." In other words, they ARE saying we are entering a cooling period, but they aren't claiming it's going to be the same magnitude as the preceding warming period.

In a way, you can think of it like watching stocks on different time scales. If you watch intra-day prices, you'll see little fluctuations all day long, if you watch daily fluctuations, you'll again see ups and downs, but if you look at the stock over a year, you'll see the bigger picture that it's steadily climbing...the downs don't come back low enough to hold it steady, just to dip a little before resuming the climb.
wolram
wolram is offline
#36
Apr5-08, 11:29 AM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,669
The stock market and AGW is a good analogy, some one says some thing bogus in America and and world markets fall.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Creationists launch their own peer reviewed 'science' journal General Discussion 47
Reference to a peer reviewed paper Quantum Physics 0
Global warming causes great cooling Earth 4
Peer review reviewed General Discussion 5