To the Horror of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here

[Nye Bevan]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by cyberswede (a host of the General Discussion forum).

Around 1250 A.D., historical records show, ice packs began showing up farther south in the North Atlantic. Glaciers also began expanding on Greenland, soon to threaten Norse settlements on the island. From 1275 to 1300 A.D., glaciers began expanding more broadly, according to radiocarbon dating of plants killed by the glacier growth. The period known today as the Little Ice Age was just starting to poke through.

......

The Little Ice Age, following the historically warm temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from about AD 950 to 1250, has been attributed to natural cycles in solar activity, particularly sunspots. A period of sharply lower sunspot activity known as the Wolf Minimum began in 1280 and persisted for 70 years until 1350. That was followed by a period of even lower sunspot activity that lasted 90 years from 1460 to 1550 known as the Sporer Minimum. During the period 1645 to 1715, the low point of the Little Ice Age, the number of sunspots declined to zero for the entire time. This is known as the Maunder Minimum, named after English astronomer Walter Maunder. That was followed by the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, another period of well below normal sunspot activity.

......

At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA’s Science News report for January 8, 2013 states, “Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”

.....

Faith in Global Warming is collapsing in formerly staunch Europe following increasingly severe winters which have now started continuing into spring. Christopher Booker explained in The Sunday Telegraph on April 27, 2013, "Here in Britain, where we had our fifth freezing winter in a row, the Central England Temperature record – according to an expert analysis on the US science blog Watts Up With That – shows that in this century, average winter temperatures have dropped by 1.45C, more than twice as much as their rise between 1850 and 1999, and twice as much as the entire net rise in global temperatures recorded in the 20th century.”


http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/2/

[NYC_SKP]

1. What a relief. I was really concerned about global warming, now I can relax.

So is the article seriously claiming that the data is bogus?

Booker could have been writing about Robinson when he concluded his Sunday Telegraph commentary by writing, “Has there ever in history been such an almighty disconnect between observable reality and the delusions of a political class that is quite impervious to any rational discussion?”

But there is a fundamental problem with the temperature records from this contentious period, when climate science crashed into political science. The land based records, which have been under the control of global warming alarmists at the British Met Office and the Hadley Centre Climate Research Unit, and at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S., show much more warming during this period than the incorruptible satellite atmosphere temperature records. Those satellite records have been further confirmed by atmospheric weather balloons. But the land based records can be subject to tampering and falsification.

[hootinholler]

19. ROFL

They are making it up! But the satellite data, that's pure, but only covers like the last 40 years?

[NYC_SKP]

62. Because satellite data can't be manipulated?

What a dick!

[stevenleser]

50. "Observable Reality?" Like that the sun moves across the sky?

The reason we have a scientific method is because what seems to be "Observable Reality" isnt an accurate determination of scientific fact at all.

[Marr]

2. Isn't this why its been referred to as Global *Climate Change* for years, rather than

Global *Warming*? The Earth is a varied place. Some areas may get wetter, some dryer. Some warmer, some colder.

Britain benefits from conditions in the Atlantic which keep it warmer than you might otherwise expect at that latitude. It's something that could easily be changed by relatively minor temperature variations elsewhere. If it's getting unusually cold there, that bolsters climate change arguments-- it doesn't undermine them.

[ananda]

11. The polar ice melt has affected ocean currents and the jet stream.

These movements have made Europe colder.

The effects of humans on the climate and weather can be a bit counterintuitive locally.
That's why it's called GLOBAL warming and climate change.

[Nye Bevan]

13. "In the first decade since 2000, Alaska cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit."

That's a "large value for a decade," the Alaska Climate Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks said in "The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska."

The cooling is widespread -- holding true for 19 of the 20 National Weather Service stations sprinkled from one corner of Alaska to the other, the paper notes. It's most significant in Western Alaska, where King Salmon on the Alaska Peninsula saw temperatures drop most sharply, a significant 4.5 degrees for the decade, the report says.

The new nippiness began with a vengeance in 2005, after more than a century that saw temperatures generally veer warmer in Alaska, the report says. With lots of ice to lose, the state had heated up about twice as fast as the rest of the planet, in line with rising global greenhouse gas emissions, note the Alaska Climate Center researchers, Gerd Wendler, L. Chen and Blake Moore. After a "sudden temperature increase" in Alaska starting in 1977, the warmest decade on record occurred in the 1980s, followed by another jump in the 1990s, they note. The third warmest decade was the 1920s, by the way.

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/forget-global-warming-alaska-headed-ice-age

[Kolesar]

3. Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute,

Our Liar President - Peter Ferrara - Page full - Townhall

townhall.com/columnists/peterferrara/2012/10/27/our_liar.../full/‎
Oct 27, 2012 – Dorothy Rabinowitz, one of the best writers of our time, encapsulated the Obama Presidency perfectly in Monday's Wall Street Journal.

==
http://www.desmogblog.com/peter-ferrara

Credentials

J.D., Harvard Law School (1979).
B.A., Harvard College (1976).
Source: [1]

Background

Peter Ferrara is a senior fellow for entitlement and budget policy, a senior fellow at the Social Security Institute, and the general counsel of the American Civil Rights Union at the Heartland Institute.

Ferrara heads the Social Security Project of the Free Enterprise Fund, which supports the Bush administration's effort to privatize Social Security. [2]
===
Ferrara is a lawyer/lobbyist/propagandist purporting to be a climate expert.

[madrchsod]

51. ya there`s some real intelligent life forms....

[CJCRANE]

4. Another RW conspiracy theory!

Thanks for posting.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

5. My head hurts....

I've read about the decline in sunspot activity. We see pictures of polar ice collapsing into the ocean and retreating ice sheets. Reports of ocean temperatures rising and our tropical storms and hurricanes are increasing in strength. Does anyone really understand what is going on, I wonder?

[liberal_at_heart]

25. polar bears are going extinct and people still wonder if it is getting warmer?

[Sekhmets Daughter]

27. Exactly!

The climate is changing in ways we can't begin to comprehend it would seem. But changing it is.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

70. Your logic is not like our earth logic.

There *is*, I believe, solid evidence that the global climate is, on average, heating up slowly.

Polar bears going extinct would not constitute it, even if it were happening (which it probably isn't; the IUCN classifies them as "vulnerable", not "endangered&quot , because there are lots of other things that might send polar bears extinct.

[bemildred]

32. "Does anyone really understand what is going on, I wonder?"

No. Climate is a chaotic system, we have little ability to predict what it will do next, and little ability to control it. And that includes everybody. We are largely in the position of spectators trying to figure out what is going on.

The ozone hole, however, is more than enough to demonstrate that human activities can have large effects on climate, and the precautionary principle more than enough to suggest we be circumspect in mucking up the atmosphere.

Real worriers like me worry about methane releases, which are being reported.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

33. Yes! I too worry about the methane.

I'm so aggravated by those who see one aspect of climate change as cancelling out the entire process. Where I live in FL, we've had several days this month with lower than normal temperatures. The mornings have been uniformly cooler all month. Yet, the ocean temp is rising and we could have another year of ferocious hurricanes.

“The outlook is calling for 13 to 20 named storms, of which we expect 7 to 11 to become hurricanes and three to six to become major hurricanes. So this is a lot of activity that we are predicting for this year,” Bell said.

“And one of the factors again for this year is those wind and air pressure patterns that have been producing increased activities since 1995 are in place again this year. Another factor that we associate with more hurricanes is warmer Atlantic ocean temperatures and the Atlantic is again warmer this year,” Bell said.

[bemildred]

39. I know things are strange where I live, I don't pretend to know why.

One of the things that happens to a chaotic system when you add energy is the amplitude of variation increases, the swings get wilder, bigger storms, bigger temperature swings, etc., which is a good description of the last few million years, and the last few years: less stability, more "black swans".

One day, one of those "black swans" will upset the apple cart for good.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

45. And that is very depressing to consider. n/t

[bemildred]

49. Let me get you really depressed.

CO2 is one of the main regulators of global temperature, has been that way for some billions of years. And the sun is getting warmer over time, has been for billions of years. And the way the global temperature has been regulated is by removing CO2 from the atmosphere, reducing the greenhouse effect, to counter the rise in solar radiation, thus keeping us cool. Plants do this for us, removing CO2 from the atmosphere to keep it cool enough, and dying when it gets too cold they let it build up again. They are our temperature buffer.

Now the problem is that there is already very little CO2 in the atmosphere, so very little can be accomplished in the way of greenhouse effect reduction by removing that last little bit, so in the future we are going to have to find some new way to keep the planet cool, and that is the global warming problem we should be worrying about: what is going to replace CO2 as our future global climate buffer?

[klyon]

63. ice from the arctic region used to come down in all directions

now with changing weather patterns and slowing of the gulf steam more cold is going toward Europe and less toward Canada
I can't speak to the Alaska situation (could be more hot air coming from S. Palin) or the sunspots but the oceans are getting warmer and there is more CO2 & methane in the atmosphere since man appeared on the planet. Betting against climate changes could be a very deadly mistake but thinking that it is happening and planning for it is the safest move. We should have started already.

[Viking12]

6. do you agree with this?

or are you just posting scientifically illiterate bullshit w/o comment to troll?

[Nye Bevan]

9. I try to keep an open mind.

Yes, carbon dioxide causes global warming. But it is an interesting theory that the decline in sunspot activity is causing an offsetting cooling effect. And the significant cooling that we have observed this century suggests that this is indeed a possibility.

Given the uncertainty, however, I still favor reducing carbon emissions, and I believe a carbon tax would be appropriate. Global cooling is probably better than global warming.

[LanternWaste]

34. So do these guys...

So do these guys...


"Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria"




(and they shall know us by what we do...)

[NCTraveler]

7. The worlds climate is constantly changing.

It will continue to change, often the changes will be different in different areas. That is obvious. What matters is the human populations direct impact on the climate and what we can do to lessen our impact. Almost all species have an effect on the environment, only we have the ability to Effect the climate in a seriously negative manner through our actions. I understand why corps are willing to fight this, I don't understand why humans, as individuals, fight it. It is a global issue, and most places around the world abuse the planet that provides us with such great riches.

[mn9driver]

8. The Denialist echo chamber at work

Forbes using the Heritage Foundation using Anthony Watts to show that global warming isn't happening. It would be funny if there weren't some people who will read this crap and, not knowing the players, think there's actually science behind it.

[Nye Bevan]

10. How did the denialists get to NASA's Science News? (nt)

[ananda]

12. I suspect they got a ringer in order to get some sort of "scientific" street cred.

It doesn't matter though. No matter what people think or believe, warming
and climate change proceed apace.

[mn9driver]

28. Why do you think Science News is denialist?

I didn't mention them in my post. The article so cleverly excerpted by Forbes also has this to say:

"...In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example..."

It's funny how context changes things, isn't it?

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. Why are you bringing NASA into this?

NASA isn't mentioned in the article you link to, or in the post you reply to. What is your claim that "NASA's Science News" says about global warming that supports the OP?

On edit: I see you linked to the 2nd page of the article. But all that NASA's Science News is quoted for on the 1st page is about the sunspot cycle - nothing at all to do with any effect on global warming. It's the claims that sunspots were what mainly responsible for the warmign after 1970 or so that are bullshit, and which Forbes, the Heartland Institute, Watt, etc. are lying about.

[immoderate]

14. "Watts Up With That" is a climate denier site.

--imm

[dawg]

15. As you can see, there has been no significant global cooling since the turn of the century.

One could make a case that there has been a pause in the overall warming trend, but even that would be projecting wishful thinking onto a data set that could just represent statistical noise in an ongoing steep temperature rise.

Any time temperature measurements in specific locations such as "Alaska" or "Europe" are cited in a piece such as this, it is a clear indication that an attempt is being made to mislead.

[hootinholler]

16. Ooooo, a Forbes OP-Ed by an economist with a history of climate science denial

Once again writes that it's all in our head and the earth is actually cooling.

Makes me wonder why you would post it without comment, especially with that headline.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

17. NOAA says "But the jury is still out on how much sunspots can (or do) affect the Earth's climate"

But the jury is still out on how much sunspots can (or do) affect the Earth's climate. Times of maximum sunspot activity are associated with a very slight increase in the energy output from the sun. Ultraviolet radiation increases dramatically during high sunspot activity, which can have a large effect on the Earth's atmosphere. From the mid 1600s to early 1700s, a period of very low sunspot activity (known as the Maunder Minimum) coincided with a number of long winters and severe cold temperatures in Western Europe, called the Little Ice Age. It is not known whether the two phenomena are linked or if it was just coincidence. The reason it is hard to relate maximum and minimum solar activity (sunspots) to the Earth's climate, is due to the complexity of the Earth's climate itself. For example, how does one sort out whether a long-term weather change was caused by sunspots, or maybe a coinciding El Nino or La Nina? Increased volcanic eruptions can also affect the Earth's climate by cooling the planet. And what about the burning of fossil fuels and clear cutting rain forests? One thing is more certain, sunspot cycles have been correlated in the width of tree ring growth. More study will be conducted in the future on relating sunspot activity and our Earth's climate.
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/?n=sunspots

I'm pretty sure that whole article is bullshit.

[hatrack]

20. " . . . expert analysis on US science blog Watts Up With That . . . "

[Progressive dog]

21. Let's keep dumping that CO2 into the atmosphere

See, the world might get cooler without our help in keeping it warm. We're going to get fewer sun spots and less heat from the sun because it happened once before and you can't prove it won't happen again.
So what if we know that more CO2 traps more heat.

Then let's add the "Here in Britain" crap to give a little anecdote about how the CO2 can't keep up with the lack of sunspots.
The ice cover in the arctic is melting more and more every year, the Greenland and Antarctic glaciers are melting, but there is no warming because Britain has had colder winters.

[GliderGuider]

22. Gee, no agenda there...

"Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria"

Riiiiight. As in riiiight wing propaganda...

Careful you don't keep your mind open so far that your brains fall out.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

23. Peter Ferrara is a fucking moron who only goes on the Thomm Hartman show so he can yell and call

Hartman a liar, because he's unable to defend his idiotic ramblings.

[bike man]

24. Does this mean that sometimes it's cooler, other times warmer? Like, cyclical? With the cycle

lengths being varied?

[loyalsister]

54. That has been my understanding

Winters in MO have been colder and longer than usual sometimes and warmer than usual. Starting late. With some warm breaks in between. This spring so far has been February like temperatures most of the time.

[DetlefK]

26. The last european winter was actually too warm, followed by a too cold, rainy spring.

The whole weather is shifted by at least one month in europe.

[Democracyinkind]

29. Posting heartland propaganda should be a bannable offense.

So Forbes really went with "its colder in some places now, therefore climate change is not real" ?

They must have a really low regard for their readers. And "climate change is collapsing in europe"... really? The IPCC partner university where I work seems to disagree.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

31. I agree, but a jury let this horseshit stand 3-3. nt

[Nye Bevan]

35. As an academic, would you expel a student for saying something against the conventional wisdom?

Or would you encourage debate on the issue so that, whether the student was right or wrong, everyone learned something?

[Democracyinkind]

36. No.

But I would reject any paper that contained blatant unscientific bullshit that just so happened to be identical to industry talking points.

As an internet user, though, I am all for banning people on DU who post reactionary bullshit not to ridicule or keep up with the oppisition, but to actually promote it. If you need the Heartland Institute as a reference for your beliefs it might just be time to revise them.

[WinkyDink]

37. Depends upon the idiocy. I had a student use the term "Liberal Media" and I promptly

informed him of his error. I didn't brook Right-Wing propaganda with any "debate."

[Democracyinkind]

40. As if anyone was ever expelled for such stuff...

As if the regular academic even had the authority to expel.

The equivalent Ny is looking for here is something like rejecting an academic paper for being unscientific and containing PR excerpts from an interested industry. As if such a paper EVER would be accepted at any university that isn't just an industry shill-mill.

[Pragdem]

41. Someone that goes against an overwhelming majority of the scientific community deserves...

No college education. And should be treated as lepers in the academic community.

[hatrack]

42. If they cited evidence from a phrenology blog, or a Ptolemaic "astronomer", or Alex Jones . . . .

It's not about expulsion, btw. It's about telling bullshit from reality.

Though that student would be free as they ever were to chatter away on how it's all a conspiracy, or sunspots, or Soros, or whatever, they wouldn't be doing so during class time.

[Marr]

44. Forbes isn't a classroom-- it's a media outlet.

There's a firm scientific consensus on this issue-- has been for years. But there's also a very well-funded campaign to "encourage more debate" in the public arena, purely as a delaying tactic.

[Blue_Tires]

47. That's the problem

The longer deniers can continue the ruse that there is a legit "debate" (with some help from a half-dozen sellout scientists) as opposed to settled science, the longer they get to keep profiting from the status quo...Remember, this is the same tactic the tobacco industry got away with for decades before 'officially' admitting how bad smoking was for our health...

How does the saying go? "You'll never get a man to understand something when his paycheck is dependent on him NOT understanding it..."

This is no more a "legit debate" than the anti-evolutionists or the Obama birth certificate crowd...Maybe you can post something from those groups next, since you seem to enjoy these kinds of posts...

[WinkyDink]

30. It's called "CLIMATE CHANGE." But hey: There's some Jersey shore places you could buy.

[Pragdem]

38. As a person that suffers from excessive sweating, I would embrace some global cooling. nt

[supernova]

43. Since when did Forbes become a legit science publication?

They don't do science reporting any better than most of the other MSM, IOW not very well.

Besides, it's perfectly possible that BOTH THINGS will be true. It's not an either or situation. At. All.

We could have a cycle of decreased sunspot activity. Who knows?

We also will have climate change due to human activity putting more and more greenhouse gasses in the air.

[raouldukelives]

46. If the sunspot activity is playing a role and is decreasing, great!

That gives us a bit more of a window to get something done. I have to admit at times I felt like it was hopeless. Now, maybe pushing for more renewables and less corporate greed will pay off better in the long run than I had considered. Maybe we are catching a bit of a reprieve to get something meaningful accomplished. I hope beyond hope that is the case.

[Matariki]

48. Lost me at "Global Warming Alarmists" n/t

[leftstreet]

52. +1

[City Lights]

55. Yup. nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

53. And you shall know them by what they post.

[Egalitarian Thug]

65. Bingo! n/t

[lovuian]

56. could the conveyor belt be broken due to

BP oil spill and the artic fresh water lowering the salinity

Yes England will have wide temperatures from very hot to very cold

[tjwash]

58. Heh - a forbes op-ed piece presented as scientific evidence.

Du - a never ending source of cheap entertainment.

[Buzz Clik]

59. "Faith in Global Warming"... I think that say it all. Screw the science, let's talk about faith.

[limpyhobbler]

61. Isn't Ferrara paid by the Koch bros to write articles casting doubt on established climate science?

http://www.desmogblog.com/peter-ferrara


http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute

If this is not right wing propaganda, nothing is.

[truebrit71]

64. So it was cold in winter in europe ergo Al Gore is full of shit?

Not so much...

[Nye Bevan]

69. "The Met Office has downgraded its forecast for global warming....."

The Met Office has downgraded its forecast for global warming to suggest that by 2017 temperatures will have remained about the same for two decades.

....

“The fact that the new model predicts less warming, globally, for the coming five years does not necessarily tell us anything about long-term predictions of climate change for the coming century.”

Labour MP Graham Stringer accused the Met Office of “burying bad news” by releasing the data on Christmas Eve and said it should give up climate change forecasts as well as long-term predictions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9787662/Global-warming-at-a-standstill-new-Met-Office-figures-show.html

[klyon]

66. Has this in anyway been looked at by real scientists? No

this is coming from Forbes, that should tell you how reliable it is

[Benton D Struckcheon]

67. Some actual stats drawn from actual data

1. Correlation between annual change in temperature and annual change in CO2, since 1959 (the first year Mauna Loa was in operation measuring CO2 in the atmosphere):

Correlation coefficient: .929
r2: .863

2. Average temperature change from 1959 to 1990 and then from 1991 to the present, when the Montreal Protocol banning CFCs in refrigeration was passed. This is important because CFCs were powerful greenhouse gases:

1959 to 1990: .034%
1991 to 2012: .024%

This is consistent with CFCs no longer accumulating in the atmosphere, and slowly breaking down since 1990.
There's also been a very slight increase in the correlation between temperatures and CO2 since 1990, as you would expect since CFCs are a declining factor since that year.

Sources:

1. Annual Greenhouse Gas Index: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
2. Mauna Loa Annual Data: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
3. Global temperature anomalies: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

[Apophis]

68. I stopped taking this seriously when I got to "global warming alarmists."

[cyberswede]

71. Locking

This doesn't fit the SoP for GD. Maybe the Creative Speculation group?