Peer reviewed global cooling

  • Thread starter wolram
  • Start date
wolram
Gold Member
4,236
554
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

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

Global warming 'dips this year'

By Roger Harrabin
BBC News environment analyst

Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
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:
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
From Lubos' blog:
Bonus: 2007 was the coldest year of the 21st century so far
But according to NASA:
2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year

Jan. 16, 2008

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.
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:
January 16, 2008

We discovered an error in our processing of AMSU data from NOAA-15 for TLT. A new version,version 3.1 is now available and should be used for all applications. This new versionis in much better agreement with other sources of tropospheric temperature. We apologize for any inconvenience.

What was the error?

Last January, I made a small change in the way TLT is calculated that reduced the absolute Temperatures by 0.1K. But I only used the new method for 2007 (the error).
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:
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
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
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:
4,453
57
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 agency also determined the global surface temperature last year was the fifth warmest on record.
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.
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:
Art
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.
: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:
 
Evo
Mentor
22,876
2,367
According to NOAA

NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe
March 13, 2008

The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during climatological winter (December 2007-February 2008) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In terms of winter precipitation, Pacific storms, bringing heavy precipitation to large parts of the West, produced high snowpack that will provide welcome runoff this spring.

It was the 54th coolest winter since national records began in 1895.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html
 
Art
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:
seycyrus
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.
 
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.
 
Evo
Mentor
22,876
2,367
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.
 
Evo
Mentor
22,876
2,367
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.
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.
 
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.
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:
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
There are links provided all through the piece, such as this one http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12g2617j5021/fulltext.pdf
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:
Thereby, to answer this
question, it is primary to ravel whether the climatic
period (quasi-period) variation on different
timescales or the natural variation trend is affected
by the variety of CO2 concentration in
the atmosphere, or which climatic quasi period
is most affected by the increase of CO2 concentration
in the atmosphere.
I have to wonder just how much peer review it really got for sentences like that to appear in the final version.
 
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
35,217
4,038
So why is this in GD and not in Earth Science forum?

Zz.
 
Chi Meson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,766
10
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.
http://ten.web.infoseek.co.jp/japan/guide/n2.jpg"

Or "http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/lanina.html""?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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:

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

Zz.
Indeed, well you have the power. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
4,453
57
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:
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
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
Mentor
22,876
2,367
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
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
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
Mentor
22,876
2,367
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.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads for: Peer reviewed global cooling

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
17K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
8K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
4K
Top