Global Cooling, Not Warming
Many warnings about global warming are alarmist and are intended to scare Cayman’s people into believing the harsh predictions of the IPCC (Inter Government Panel on Climate Change).
Their most worrisome prediction is that the sea level will rise and drown the Cayman Islands.
In actual fact, the earth entered into a global cooling phase about 10 years ago, and this cooling phase is accelerating. In the last 10 years, satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature have been falling.
Last January, record cold hit Florida, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maine, Arizona, and Texas, Idaho, Nebraska, Oregon, and Washington. During March, record cold again hit North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida, and then six more states in April. In fact, new record lows have been set every month in the US, including this October. On October 29 and 30 this year, no less than 23 States reported record cold temperatures.
In the Southern hemisphere, Sydney Australia experienced its coldest August on record. Brazil and South Africa were surprised by snow, which they had never seen before. The US, Canada and Europe have had a cool summer.
The effect of global cooling on humanity will be entirely different and much more severe than any global warming. For starters, food crops will fail, food prices will rise, millions will starve, the sea level will fall, canals will dry up, Cayman will gain real estate, and will attract many more visitors trying to escape the cold..
No scientists dispute the fact that the earth’s climate is always changing. What they do dispute is the direction and causes.
Over the last 600,000 years there have been four ice ages, each lasting about 100,000 years, with warm periods in between, averaging about 10,000 years. And we are at the end of the latest warm period.
No matter what the IPCC says, these are geological facts. Were humans causing those ice ages and intervening warm periods? If not, then the simple question is who, or what?
When the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago, the earth warmed up to a peak temperature around 5000 years ago when the Sumerians founded their society, and it has NEVER been that high since.
There have been valleys and peaks since then, but every peak has been lower than the previous peak. One of the recent peaks occurred in the 12th century, when there were flourishing vineyards all over Britain and the Vikings discovered and settled in Greenland.
However, they were frozen out in the 1400’s when our temperatures descended into the mini ice age. The Thames froze over every winter, and people could walk over the Baltic Sea ice from Sweden to Poland.
In recent years, the pronouncements of the IPCC (Inter Government Panel on Climate Change have been discredited. Their famous “hockey stick” graph showing temperatures over the last few hundred years has been shown to be a fiction.
Since this “hockey stick” graph is the foundation of the whole global warming “science”, then that “science” has also been discredited.
Dr. David Archibald, an eminent climatologist, and others, have pulled the rug out from under the IPCC, by showing that the relationship between CO2 and global temperature is weak and almost non-existent,
He even suggests that we need three times the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere than we have now, to optimize the growth of food crops.
A fundamental problem with the IPCC’s “science” is that it ignores the geological data that was collected over thousands of years up until the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and the beginning of their fraudulent “hockey stick” temperature graph.
Now please tell me how anyone can accept the IPCC’s science, which cannot, and does not even attempt to explain, what has happened in the earth’s history. If they cannot do that, then how on earth can they purport to predict the future?
In fact, they cannot, and until they can the best possible course is to ignore the IPCC completely.
However, the IPCC continues to push their fraudulent predictions and scare tactics even more stridently than before. Never mind that on December 21, 2007. a “U.S. Senate report documents hundreds of prominent scientists – experts in dozens of fields of study worldwide – who say global warming and cooling is a cycle of nature and cannot legitimately be connected to man’s activities.” The UN (United Nations) bureaucracy wants to grow its size, acquire more power, and. extract income from trading so-called carbon credits
Billions of taxpayer money from all over the world is at stake, so this is something that all of us should take very seriously.
Category: Viewpoint
I do find it absolutely astonishing that this degree of cynicism with reference to the science supporting the facts of global warming is in the public domain on a very low lying island such as Grand Cayman. There is now absolutely NO scientific debate from credible sources, by which I mean those not funded by the petro-chemical or carbon-based industries, that Global Warming is an inescapable fact. But please, don’t take my word for it.
Anyone following this thread should adopt best practice rigour in investigating any published source stating a counter view to this reality. Dig hard and if youcan not find out who funded their research (and it should be a matter of public record) please simply ignore it. This applies equally to anyone claiming to be an ‘expert’ claiming otherwise in an ‘independent’ manner. A "Dr" ? Really, from where? Please let us have the evidence of your peer-reviewed published papers and the awarding institution. If they share that with you, continue to dig. Call the institution, ask them if they know the individual, do they really hold the accreditation? Is it in this field? And so on.
Unfortunately, there is much evidence of systemic, organised counter-briefing in media outlets from global-warming deniers… funded by … guess who…. the petro-chemical industry and other carbon polluters. Lobbyists have a pretty poor press right now for very good reasons. Albeit that this is (hopefully) not the case in Cayman and in this thread and that the individuals referenced are simply misguided (no doubt influenced by the above), I would also not place to much credibility in the views espoused by anyone in a low-lying island in a hurricane zone who worked in say….. tourism, or real estate. They might just have their own narrow self interest(s) to protect.
You won’t se me post again, as I was "just passing", but in closing I’d simply suggest that you do your own research. Be vigourous. Investigate. Take nothing at face value. Ask yourself the questions: why are the major western governments now in agreement on the fundamentals of this issue (and pretty much nothing else) and why are they spending significant sums, both directly and indirectly, in addressing this specific challenge?
Regards,
C
By the way DRCOLLOICOTT…..
<blockquote>
EC officials say both the Ukrainians and Europeans have substantial levels of gas storage in case of disruption but admit that, if this winter is as cold as that of 2005 – the coldest for 60 years – the reliability of supplies will be in serious question.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/dec/22/ukraine-russia-gazprom
</blockquote>
Guest what – 2005 was Globally the hottest year on record.
So AGW deniers pack your bags and open your eyes to reality.
Things are hotting up GLOBALLY and were in for a lot of nasty weather.
Global Temperature Record
It gets warmer, and then cooler. Solar output is the primary factor and sunspots, soar wind and so on are indicators.
Fantastic profits are made by scaring the populace that we cause the the problem, and can fix it by doing this or that. An unfortunate truth is the cycle has reversed for the moment; getting cooler right now. But how to explain this? Blow smoke, claim it’s only temporary, or change the mantra from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".
The press as well has a vested interest in perpetuating this hoax. Scary headlines sell newspapers. Natural cycles of the sun are boring and, being beyond human control, would not hold the public interest.
I’ve been thinking of selling carbon credits. Like baseball cards. Do they still put prizes in Cracker Jack boxes!
Want to buy some of my carbon credits?
Gerry the only problem is its not just the IPCC who are predicting the warming due to human CO2 – its pretty much the whole scientific community….
Scientific opinion on climate change – Wikipedia, the free …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
which you seem to keep ignoring for some reason.
You dont need models to show what the data is telling us. Personally by just looking at the graphs and trends I came to the conclusion that there is a warming trend big time.
Global Temperature Record
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/warming_goes_on.html
By digging a bit deeper in to the data is shows a deffinate link between human emissions and warming. Never mind the IPCC.
This individual has done a bit of analysis on the publicly available data and has come to the same conclusion. Being mathematical he has provide very useful graphs.
http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/
If you go over them I am sure that you would have to have 2nd thought about your theory.
Please provide links to the large amount of eminent climatologists you refer as I am not aware of them and would like to verify this myself.
For as long as the "Electric Universe" model of the universe, as applied to the Solar System, is ignored – and it has been purposefully ignored by the granters of enormous funds to the researchers for the last five decades or so – the Global Warming /Cooling controversy will be inconclusive.
Part of the feature of this very convincing model throws away the completely unverified model of the Sun as a nuclear furnace, emitting heat radiation constantly. The radiation from the Sun (on this model, which I believe to be convincing) comes from outside itself, not from within. The Sun acts as an anode in a galactic electrical circuit, in which the current flow through the thin intergalactic plasma causes heat discharge from the anode in a rather similar way to that of a fluorescent light bulb.
Global warming or cooling is on this model very dependent on the amount of energy the Sun is picking up at any given time from the inter-galactic and galactic circuits, which in turn moderates the extent of the heat energy discharge from its surface. It may never be possible on this model to predict whether the earth is going to warm up or cool down.
I agreen this is a chaotic system, but BUT, there are patterns with in it and there is physics and this is now telling us that we have influeced the climatic nature of the beast and all hell is to pay for it.
Global Warming is a fact and all the data shows this…
Global Temperature Record
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
The current cooling is well in line with the variability of the climate system. Have a look at the graph above from the UK met, Who by the way explicitly state that the current GW is real dangerous getting worse and is caused mainly by humans….
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/warming_goes_on.html
Gerry we don’t have to be certain we have to be confident that we need to do something. Its all about probabilities and risk. As I said in the earlier post <b> a small risk of catastrophe is one that need to be address even though it may be small. </b> Trouble is this is growing at an alarming rate.
The amount of CO2 is small by volume, but as a scientist gerry you should know that this does not mean it is insignificant. An are irresponsible to say the least at using this to disguise the problem. The sensitivity of CO2 is know and is straightforward physics….
http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/08/just-in-case-there-are-any-doubts-about.html
We can expect an increase of 3 – 4 degrees due to human introduced CO2 in to the atmosphere.
A Burns lots of people are now aware of the problem most of the scientific bodies recognize that AGW is real and needs to be addressed so stop denying this. It is irresponsible. The majority of science does….
Scientific opinion on climate change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
American Meteorological Society climate change
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html
Mr. Paulm, I have to disagree that the global warming predictions promulgated by the IPCC are based on any science, and that is because their mathematical models are not.
I do not disagree that we have experienced both global warming and a rise in CO2 since the mini ice age.
However the climate was warming up naturally as it recovered from the very cold temperatures during that period. The corresponding CO2 increase was from the Industrial Revolution, that occurred around the same time. Surely a coincidence.
So the controversy is over how much of the warm up was due to natural causes versus how much was caused by CO2, if any.
Below is a graph showing the medieval warm period, peaking out around 1200 AD when the Vikings discovered Greenland and grew crops there.
Fig 1.) of temperature change since 900 AD.
Fig.1 – Global temperature since 900 AD
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
The IPCC has not made any effort to explain how the medieval warm period was much warmer than it is now. This fact is enough to show that their models are not based on any science.
Just ask the question. Who was putting out the CO2 then. Moreover, the maximum around 3000 BC was much warmer than the medieval warm period.
In your references, the various temperature graphs all start around 1600 AD, conveniently during a natural warming period. Have you wondered exactly why this is?
How the IPCC deals with water vapour is another major problem. Their models simply do not treat it properly, even though it is by far the largest and strongest of all greenhouse gases (95% vs 3% for CO2.
The supply of water vapour is not only unlimited, but it has very strong positive and negative feedbacks that completely overwhelm the effect of CO2.
When in the form of water vapour, it is a strong greenhouse gas, which is a positive feedback. When it is in the form of clouds, it reflects the sun’s radiance, so is a strong negative feedback. When it condenses out and rains, it is a huge negative feedback.
This is precisely why climate models based on atmospheric physics leave little or no room for any contribution from CO2.
At the same time, it precisely shows that the IPCC climate models are not based on atmospheric physics. Rather a jumble of hocus pokus which is manually tuned to calculate results which are close to where we are now.
Does this approach have validity whatsoever for predicting the future? Can it track what we know happened in the past?
No.
So it is no mystery why 1000’s of eminent climatologists are questioning the IPCC’s results, even throwing out their models completely.
Does this show that global warming is a fact?
I don’t think so.
Gerry Miller
In the simplest possible model, the earth is a globe surrounded by an atmosphere of gases, heated by solar radiation and cooled by heat escaping back to space.
The heat escapes by two main mechanisms, convection by winds and infra-red (IR) radiation from the earth?s warm surface. The temperature of our surrounding space is around negative 80 degC.
The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere act like a blanket around the earth by slowing the radiated heat loss.
The main ones are water vapor at 96 % and CO2 at 3.4 %, of which water vapor is the strongest (most insulating). They have no effect on convective losses. 97 % of the CO2 is from natural sources and 3 % is man made. So the total contribution from mankind to the greenhouse gases is 0.11 %
Please see the following reference:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Our climate operates as a self-regulating system that is stabilized by the physics of water vapor. Solar radiation evaporates water into the atmosphere. When the relative humidity reaches 100 %, the water vapor condenses, clouds form, and the water vapor is rained out. This is what regulates the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, and therefore the amount of the predominant greenhouse gaa.
Climate temperature can only be changed by variation in solar radiation, and there are no ?tipping points? that can destabilize it.
What role does CO2 really play in this process? The answer is very little to none.
The following link shows the historical relationship between temperature and CO2.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
Doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is calculated to warm the climate by only 0.4 degC.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm
To summarize the above, our climate is self-regulating, CO2 has little or no effect, there are no ?tipping points?, and the amount of solar radiation determines our climate?s temperature.
Now, let?s look at the predictions of the IPCC (Inter Government Panel on Climate Change).
They predict that a rise in CO2 will act as ?tipping point? which will destabilize our climate to by amplifying the effect of water vapor. Perhaps this is because relative humidity is a constant in their mathematical models, which is absurd.
If relative humidity cannot vary, then the large negative feedback due to rainfall cannot exist either.
Their mathematical models are incompatible with historical climate changes when there were no humans around to fiddle with the CO2. This historical data shows 4 ice ages in the last 500,000 years.
After our last ice age ended 10,000 years ago, our climate warmed up continuously until it reached a peak about 3000 BC and it has not been that warm since. Their mathematical models cannot explain that either.
If you look at the IPCC?s graphs and data, you will notice that they all begin around1600 AD, completely ignoring all that happened previously.
Yet the IPCC and our media are constantly trying to scare us with dire predictions of what will happen to us if we do not control CO2. If they succeed, all of us will be required to pay for the vast bureaucracy needed to administer the control.
We should at least demand to see a mathematical model that can account for our historical temperature changes. Any model that cannot account for the past is useless to predict the future.
Many eminent climatologists now believe that solar output variations drive our climate, and there is mounting support for this. Right now, we are in a solar cycle minimum and have been stuck there for a few years. Please see the following links.
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
The cooler weather and record cold experienced over the last few years could well be signaling a multy-year cooling trend, perhaps even down to another ice age, No one knows. This cooling is world wide and in both hemispheres.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2008.htm
If we are going to do anything about climate change, then we should be certain we are doing the correct thing, and not wasting our money on a non-problem.
Excellent article.
Global cooling is a not only a fact but it is a fact that the IPCC computer models failed to forecast. Every scientist knows that weather models have zero forecasting ability. They are simply curve fitting exercises to past data.
The IPCC is headed by an ex railway engineer with no training in climatology. Despite this, thousands of politicians and miliions of mindless masses follow blindly.
Global Cooling is a fraud!
Since the publication in 2006 of the paper, Recent cooling of the upper ocean, climate scientists have been scratching their heads, trying to figure out why the upper layer of the ocean had cooled from 2004-2006. Since the oceans absorb more than 80% of the heat from global warming, we should expect to see the oceans heating up if the globe is warming. Climate skeptics pointed to the result as evidence that the planet was not warming after all, although surface and satellite measurements showed that the year 2005 was the warmest or second warmest year on record forthe surface of the globe.
Now, the explanation for this apparent cooling of the oceans has been resolved–key measurements made by submersible robot buoys and that indicated the ocean was cooling were found to be in error. The new, corrected data show that no cooling of the oceans occurred in 2004-2006, in agreement with what the climate models were predicting. People often malign the accuracy of climate models, but sometimes they are more trustworthy than the data!
Article here an excellent NASA article
nice try warmers
what about the cold spell going on now (12-22-2008) is that an error
when you have an agenda and you pick a effect of some thing to be your cause of something
the true cause will screw up your agenda every time
models always assumed solar cycles were neutral
they also assumed earth cycles were neutreal
missed on both of them and most likely many more cycles because their effect on climate is
more than any co2 effect (if much of any). they had to leave those out of models or the co2
warming would show no real effect on climate change
did not fit the agenda
Why? Simple.
None of their models can account for it. For example, the climate during the
medieval maximum, 1200 ad, was MUCH WARMER than it is right now.
The Medival Warm Period occurred in Europe with little evidence of it being Global, a common misconception. When scientists talk about Global Climate change they are not refering to SMB being hotter, or maybe 1 continent, but the average temperature of the "Globe", the name gives it away.
or posting from other websites like you like to do:
There have been many periods in Earth history that were warmer than today – if not the MWP, then maybe the last interglacial (125,000 years ago) or the Pliocene (three million years ago). Whether those variations were caused by solar forcing, the Earth’s orbital wobbles or continental configurations, none of those causes apply today. Evidence for a Mediaeval Warm Period outside Europe is patchy at best, and is often not contemporary with the warmth in Europe. As the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) puts it: "The idea of a global or hemispheric Mediaeval Warm Period that was warmer than today has turned out to be incorrect". Additionally, although the Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than in the following few decades, it is now warmer still.
Gerry have you had a look at those graphs in my post. If you have and are a scientist I find it hard to believe you can not see the link to AGW.
No one denies that Climate Change has not been happening previously. The earth heats up and cools down for many reasons. The difference now is we have introduced additional CO2 in to the equation, CO2 that would not have found its way back even through the interglacial cycles.
This additional CO2 is affecting the climate – it acts as a green house gas and causes the surface temp to go up. There is not really much depate about this physiscs. What now appears to be happening is the temp rise is causing the release of more green house gasses and other tipping mechanisms and we are getting a feedback system where the temp will rapidly rise.
From my links we can see some results of this… . more bigger storms / hurricanes. And much sooner than we were expecting, sea level rise.
There is nothing new about climate change, which has been occurring over
billions of years. It is a completely natural phenomenon.
The CRUCIAL question for humans is, which way is it changing? If we get
this wrong, then there is no question that we will not only lose money, but
we will endanger ourselves as well.
Many climatologists are now predicting GLOBAL COOLING, not WARMING.
Let’s look at the historical relation between temperature and CO2. The basis
of global warming is that rising CO2 concentration CAUSES rising temperatures.
Please study the graph in the following link, which shows how CO2 and temperature
varied during the last 400,000 years and three ice ages. This graph shows that,
beyond question, temperature moves FIRST and CO2 follows.
This is true during both warming and cooling.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
If these historical climate shifts WERE NOT caused by CO2, then what caused them?
Many emminent climatologists now believe that they were caused by variation in
the amount of the sun’s radience striking the earth.
Dr. David Archibald presented an outstanding analysis of this in a paper
he submitted to the IPCC in March 2008. Here is the link. Please study what he has to say
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
I have been forced to conclude, as a retired scientist, that the IPCC’s motive for scaring the world’s people about global warming, IS NOT BASED ON SCIENCE. One obvious indication of
this is that all their presentations IGNORE the millions of years of historical data, up to
around 1600 ad.
Why? Simple.
None of their models can account for it. For example, the climate during the
medieval maximum, 1200 ad, was MUCH WARMER than it is right now.
Gerry Miller
.
Barack Obama is a bright cookie, the next president of the US and he believes in global warming!
Not only does the IPCC but the below list tell us that we have to take AGW seriously…
National and international science academies and professional societies scientific opinion on climate change
Scientific opinion on climate change – Wikipedia, the free …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
As you can see there is a lot of brain power saying that in all likely hood we will be in store for catstrophic climate change.
Have a look at this site – look at he graphs. The link betwen GW and CO2 is undeniable. Have some one with a mathematical background check the analysis for you. All the data is publicly available.
temp change rate vs CO2 imbalance
http://bp0.blogger.com/__6PO0G1BcJM/SH425_eRB3I/AAAAAAAAADc/PjaO3wcb14g/s1600-h/tseries-imbalance-temperature-change-rate.JPG
Here’s How You Can Estimate CO2 Climate Sensitivity From Historic Data
http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-07-24T08%3A52%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=7
Heres some thing of interest to Cayman as well …. the effect of GW on Hurricanes. The graph says it all. Again, get some one with a maths background to confirm these figures if you like.
Graph of NH SSTs and Named Storms Questioned
http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/
Its all about risk management, a small risk that you encouter catastrophy is one not to be taken lightly. Cayman has to take the risk that lies ahead with climate change seriouly.
There is a chance that things may turn around, but this is now very small. All the probabilities are pointing to catastrophic climate chage and on a faster time scale that we had envisiaged.
Why do they keep saying the arctic ice is melting at a record rate? Apparently, there has ‘never’ been so little as during this past summer. Jenny Vanbergen