Solar Minimum 2009, Global Cooling and the Record Breaking Winter

[Cassandra Syndrome]

Surely the laws of probability would dictate that as the median and mean temperatures rise than so to the rise in extreme range? We should be having record breaking temperatures. Why hasn't Death Valley recorded a record in the past 30 years for example if the globe has been warming?

Also is there a possibility that these temperature recording can be skewed by urbanisation and how heat conducts in these circumstances? For example Manchester Airport temperature readings have effected by the expansion of that airport.

I want to avoid the Carbon Dioxide issue in this thread, because it is too political. (please don't edit that line alone for a reply). The effect of Carbon Taxes and Cap and Trade as a means of cutting Carbon is having an negative effect on the real economy. Emission Trading Scheme is another form of Derivative. Yes I want renewable, cheap energy. But the transition to this is the issue that should be the highest priority. The transition to renewable energy in itself involves Carbon. The Capital items and the means of producing these items involves us using Carbon.

As Ibis pointed out to me before small amounts of poisonous gas in the atmosphere can have a poisonous effect on the ecosystem, so on this point I take Carbon Dioxide seriously. If we continue exploding population of ourselves and livestock between burning fossil fuels and excessive respiration there could hit a critical mass of CO2 that could set off an extinction level event. It could be 50 years, 200 years 1000 years who knows.

Its the politics of climate change that is hard to swallow. It is clear to see that the Sun is the primary driver behind climate change. We can't ignore this fact. Its like telling teenagers all drugs kill you. They smoke a bit of cannibis someday, oh thats ok, the next thing they think well if cannibis didn't kill me, sure Heroin must be ok as well. So if people are being deceived about CO2 being involved in climate change and they work this out, they could think well there is nothing wrong with CO2 full stop.

Rather than going mental about cutting emissions in the next 20 years, the whole focus should be on converting to renewable energy. Practically everything around us is made of oil or oil has been involved in the making of it. If we are going to go down the road of complete energy from renewable energy we are going to have to use a lot of Carbon to get there.

We have time though. At 381ppm, the level is not near critical mass.

The short term hysteria of man made climate change looks extremely outlandish now. The correlation with solar activity is too physical evident. The sun has dimmed and we are having cold winters, very little heatwaves and a dramatic decrease in the Atlantic hurricane season.

[SAT]

Er yes. You see, if every day in a year were 1 degree hotter than the corresponding day the previous year, then the year will be, you know, 1 degree hotter on average. If it's 1.1 degree hotter for 100 days, and 5 degrees colder for 20, those balance out - you don't need a heatwave to correspond to the cold spell. If it's 1.1 degrees warmer in the Southern Hemisphere, and 1 degree cooler in the North, then it's 0.1 degree warmer globally. So you need to look at the whole surface of the Earth, over the whole year, to get a global average temperature.

Do you really not get this? You can do it pretty easily in Excel.

Perhaps you need to go and read up on the nature of heat. You should pay particular attention to the distinguishing characteristics of temperature and heat content.

You will find temperatures from land based stations and surface ocean readings (even if they weren't being fiddled) tell us nothing about the overall heat content of the Earth's climate system. Rising land and surface ocean temperatures could just as likely be due to cooling ocean's losing heat to the atmosphere as to the oceans warming (and thus the Earth's overall heat content rising).

The Argo sea buoy data shows since it's deployment in 2002 that the former is the more likely scenario with the deeper oceans losing substantial amounts of heat energy.

[Malbekh]

I hope this thread is being peer reviewed.....

I used to be on the fence with global warming with my feet dangling in the AGW swimming pool. Based on some posters on this site and the recent slew of damaging corrections with the IPCC I have my feet dangling in the anti-AGW pool.

The current cold snap however, has nothing to do with either camp and all to do with the location of the jet stream over the last couple of months, meaning that some areas were colder and some areas were warmer than normal.

What concerns me is that the last three summers have been absolutely terrible, and I can't recall ever experiencing that three years in a row. If it happens again this year, in conjunction with the abnormalities we have had with temperature and rainfall, the only conclusion is that we must be in some state of flux that may result in permanent change.

I seem to recall that the tipping point to ice age conditions in Ireland were over a very short period of time, like 10 years, according to samples taken from some lake in the west. I'm not saying that we are talking about a new ice age here, I'm just saying that we are having a persistent series of unusual weather patterns, and their sustained nature indicates to me that something is afoot.

[goosebump]

What concerns me is that the last three summers have been absolutely terrible, and I can't recall ever experiencing that three years in a row. If it happens again this year, in conjunction with the abnormalities we have had with temperature and rainfall, the only conclusion is that we must be in some state of flux that may result in permanent change.

Actually, arriving at your conclusions based on 3 Irish summers isn't very scientific.

This stuff is:

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

[ibis]

Surely the laws of probability would dictate that as the median and mean temperatures rise than so to the rise in extreme range? We should be having record breaking temperatures. Why hasn't Death Valley recorded a record in the past 30 years for example if the globe has been warming?

What like these? Seriously though, record-breaking temperatures needn't follow the rising temperature curve - we're talking about a rise of 1 degree since 1880.

Also is there a possibility that these temperature recording can be skewed by urbanisation and how heat conducts in these circumstances? For example Manchester Airport temperature readings have effected by the expansion of that airport.

That has been studied repeatedly:

the analysis of temperature rise associated with global warming (by NASA or the NOAA or the Hadley Centre in the UK, and so on) takes the urban heat effect into account, by either (i) ignoring all urban temperature data sets, or (ii) correcting urban data sets by comparison with surrounding rural data.

I want to avoid the Carbon Dioxide issue in this thread, because it is too political. (please don't edit that line alone for a reply). The effect of Carbon Taxes and Cap and Trade as a means of cutting Carbon is having an negative effect on the real economy. Emission Trading Scheme is another form of Derivative. Yes I want renewable, cheap energy. But the transition to this is the issue that should be the highest priority. The transition to renewable energy in itself involves Carbon. The Capital items and the means of producing these items involves us using Carbon.

As Ibis pointed out to me before small amounts of poisonous gas in the atmosphere can have a poisonous effect on the ecosystem, so on this point I take Carbon Dioxide seriously. If we continue exploding population of ourselves and livestock between burning fossil fuels and excessive respiration there could hit a critical mass of CO2 that could set off an extinction level event. It could be 50 years, 200 years 1000 years who knows.

Its the politics of climate change that is hard to swallow. It is clear to see that the Sun is the primary driver behind climate change. We can't ignore this fact. Its like telling teenagers all drugs kill you. They smoke a bit of cannibis someday, oh thats ok, the next thing they think well if cannibis didn't kill me, sure Heroin must be ok as well. So if people are being deceived about CO2 being involved in climate change and they work this out, they could think well there is nothing wrong with CO2 full stop.

Rather than going mental about cutting emissions in the next 20 years, the whole focus should be on converting to renewable energy. Practically everything around us is made of oil or oil has been involved in the making of it. If we are going to go down the road of complete energy from renewable energy we are going to have to use a lot of Carbon to get there.

We have time though. At 381ppm, the level is not near critical mass.

I was trying to point out to you that small amounts of gases in the atmosphere are not negligible by virtue merely of their low concentrations. The effect of CO2 in warming at low concentrations is straightforward, measured, and cannot be set aside simply because you can't see it happening.

The short term hysteria of man made climate change looks extremely outlandish now. The correlation with solar activity is too physical evident. The sun has dimmed and we are having cold winters, very little heatwaves and a dramatic decrease in the Atlantic hurricane season.

The facts don't correlate with that hypothesis at all, something which you seem unable to take on board. No cooling is happening:



January 2010 hasn't been cold on a global scale - it's been warm:

[ibis]

Here's the supposed correlation between temperature and solar activity that CS, as well as several other local skeptics, are currently hanging their hats on:



Up to 1975, there's a reasonable correlation. Since 1975, there isn't. To claim that solar activity is what currently drives temperature changes involves completely ignoring this fact.

[Malbekh]

Actually, arriving at your conclusions based on 3 Irish summers isn't very scientific.

This stuff is:

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

Sorry goosebump, but the bottom line is people can show me all the graphs, diagrams, scientists and plethora of 'facts' that they like. In the meantime, it's been bloody freezing for two months and the weather for the last three summers was shocking.

I know it's only weather. But only weather is what concerns me, not endless debates on which way round the graphs should be.....

[ibis]

Sorry goosebump, but the bottom line is people can show me all the graphs, diagrams, scientists and plethora of 'facts' that they like. In the meantime, it's been bloody freezing for two months and the weather for the last three summers was shocking.

I know it's only weather. But only weather is what concerns me, not endless debates on which way round the graphs should be.....

I'd imagine you're not unusual in that - the cold spell in Europe and the US probably had as much impact on public perception of "global warming" as any of the climate opposition PR.

However, goosebump is quite right. If you base your view of climate change on what is fundamentally anecdotal evidence, you're going to be swinging back and forth like...well, like a weathercock.

[ibis]

So what anecdotal evidence was predicted to show AGW? an increase in hurricanes? right.

In addition to anecdotal evidence which shows cooling there is also the scientific evidence which explains why. 1. The solar minimum, 2. An increase in global cloud cover.

'Cloud ship' scheme to deflect the sun's rays is favourite to cut global warming - Telegraph

Sigh. Anecdotal evidence doesn't "show" global cooling - it says "ooh, it was cold round my way". Anecdotal evidence as to how cold it is is completely irrelevant if you have a thermometer record. The thermometer records show no cooling.

Also, perhaps you should read the article you linked to, because it isn't an article saying there has been an increase in cloud cover.

[Cassandra Syndrome]

January 2010 hasn't been cold on a global scale - it's been warm:

I couldn't locate data for the red parts on the 80 degrees North of the above map. But here is an article about the weather on the North Pole in January,

Arctic temperatures above 80°N are the lowest in six years Watts Up With That?