Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Peer reviewed global cooling

  1. Apr 4, 2008 #1

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 4, 2008
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 4, 2008 #2
    It'd probably be better if they actually linked these so called several peer reviewed papers. I could claim I was the second coming according to 11 peer reviewed papers too. :tongue:
     
  4. Apr 4, 2008 #3

    Art

    User Avatar

    The main problem with the AGW hypothesis is there isn't any global warming man-made or otherwise,

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

    No matter how much the AGW alarmists try to obfuscate it, the fact remains despite mankind pumping out ever more CO2 for the past decade there has been no increase in global temperatures during this period. I wonder how long it will be before they do a 'U' turn and revert back to the AGC fear mongering of the 70's? :rolleyes:

    In anticipation of a continuing lack of corroberating evidence the alarmists do seem to be covering both warming and cooling these days with all references now being to man-made climate change.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 4, 2008
  5. Apr 4, 2008 #4

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    From Lubos' blog:
    But according to NASA:
    NASA says 2007 was warmer than every year of the 21st century other than 2005. So clearly there's data that disagrees fundamentally with that quoted in the blog post. Note: NASA points out a data processing error of the order of 0.003K which was later found and fixed.

    Going back to Lubos' blog, and clicking on the link, you find an entry which has a link to a erratum that says:
    If you add 0.1K to the 2007 data, then the supposed cooling trend, morphs into a warming trend of about +0.5K/cent. Now the blog does quote another group which I think still measures a cooling trend over the last decade. Need to look more carefully to determine which data exactly is being used where.

    It's possible that one or more or all of these measurements (including NASA's) are fundamentally flawed, but I don't see a clear case made for a cooling trend in the blog, if you correct for the error in the analysis.

    The peer-reviewed article being talked about is apparently in a Ukrainian journal, and we'll need to wait until a pre-print or translation is available somewhere. It doesn't say if the article is on ArXiv.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2008
  6. Apr 4, 2008 #5

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Did you post that link to support your assertion of to refute it? Heck, even the skeptics that write the blog linked above agree on the warming trend of about +0.5K/cent for the 20th century.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2008
  7. Apr 4, 2008 #6
    It's really a bit of a mess:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080124121218.htm
    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=895&tstamp=200801

    The UK Hadley centre talked tentative about rank 7 last year, before the rather cold december was logged.

    Considering the satellite data, it's http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2 [Broken].

    Averaging the years with the monthly data the ranking becomes as of 1979:

    1; 1998 with +0.51 degrees
    2; 2005 with +0.34 degrees
    3; 2002 with +0.31 degrees
    4; 2007 with +0.28 degrees
    5; 2003 with +0.28 degrees

    The first two months of 2008 would rank 20 of 29

    See the uploaded graph showing the monthly data and a 12 month running average.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  8. Apr 4, 2008 #7

    Art

    User Avatar

    :confused: I never argued average global temperatures don't change. In fact the opposite. There is ample undisputed evidence that global temperatures are in a constant state of change going back to year dot and the recent warming trend which peaked 10 years ago which followed a prior cooling trend are all part of the same natural variation.

    However man-made emissions of CO2 don't appear to have much if anything to do with it else why has there been no increase in global temperatures for the past 10 years? For AGW to be true then isn't a rise in temperatures a fundamental requirement? :rolleyes:
     
  9. Apr 4, 2008 #8

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    According to NOAA

    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html
     
  10. Apr 4, 2008 #9

    Art

    User Avatar

    The BBC link I quoted also cites AGW experts as saying in a roundabout way they don't expect any warming for possibly a further 5 years which means we will have had a 15 year continuous period of no warming. It seems in the absence of global warming the argument whether man-made emissions are contributing to global warming becomes a somewhat mute point.

    If AGW proponents were as worried as they claim to be about the dire consequences they prophecy will result from global warming you would think they would be delighted by this and yet for some strange reason they're not. I wonder why that is??
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 4, 2008
  11. Apr 4, 2008 #10
    Have you guys seen the article in the March Physics Today, making a case for solar cycle-earth temperature correlation?

    It also makes a tongue-in-cheek reference to there being a "scientific consensus" regarding global warming.
     
  12. Apr 4, 2008 #11
    Yeah but Evo as I said on the other thread this year is expected to be cool because of La Ninja, I don't think one year means anything, not when the predominant weather cycle means global cooling.

    I would actually be bizarre if North America wasn't very cool or the rest of the world cooler overall. This winter here has been pretty mild, one of the mildest on record, and that's because La ninja was predicted to cause a warm winter for us.
     
  13. Apr 4, 2008 #12

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    There are links provided all through the piece, such as this one http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12g2617j5021/fulltext.pdf
     
  14. Apr 4, 2008 #13
    I already know there should be a drop in the next 20 years, this means nothing, global warming experts think there should be a drop during the quiet period of the sun cycle. I read about that about two years ago. I think there's too much conflicting guff around atm.

    Scientists aren't looking at things they can account for but discrepancies that can't be accounted by other things. I think that's what confuses people.
     
  15. Apr 4, 2008 #14

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    What about 2001?

    What about the cooling oceans that they just discovered that was a complete surprise? They said the oceans were getting warmer, but after actually testing, found they're getting colder.
     
  16. Apr 4, 2008 #15
    What about 2001? And was that this year, because if so La Ninja is a cold water current, that's what causes cooler atmospheric temperatures. Good for algal blooms and whales, bad for people.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2008
  17. Apr 4, 2008 #16

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think that's the only one I saw in there...everything else seems to be dubious sites and more blog entries. One article does not a convincing argument make, especially when it contains gems like this:
    I have to wonder just how much peer review it really got for sentences like that to appear in the final version.
     
  18. Apr 4, 2008 #17

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    So why is this in GD and not in Earth Science forum?

    Zz.
     
  19. Apr 4, 2008 #18

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    http://ten.web.infoseek.co.jp/japan/guide/n2.jpg"

    Or "http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/lanina.html""?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 23, 2017
  20. Apr 4, 2008 #19
    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.

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1659135&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. :smile:

    Indeed, well you have the power. :smile:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 23, 2017
  21. Apr 4, 2008 #20
    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 [Broken]

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

    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_ monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears. shtml [Broken]
    http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/mei.html
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  22. Apr 4, 2008 #21

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  23. Apr 4, 2008 #22

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  24. Apr 4, 2008 #23

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The paper was translated.

     
  25. Apr 4, 2008 #24

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  26. Apr 4, 2008 #25

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2008
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook