| send this to... Digg it! | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Furl | Spurl |
Some Sites Show Cooling
(Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic guide)
This article has moved to ScienceBlogs
It has also been updated and this page is still here only to preserve the original comment thread. Please visit A Few Things Ill Considered there. You may also like to view Painting With Water, Coby Beck's original fine art photography.Labels: Sceptic Guide
posted by coby @ 6/10/2006 11:04:00 AM
Subscribe to this blog here
18 Comments:
At June 20, 2006 9:29 PM,
Peter K. Anderson said…
The issue of 'temperature variation' is seen with a regard to productions of Turbulence.
It is not seen that any 'extra energy' is surface incident at present, or such that is in any manner capable of creating unnatural warming by a 'greenhouse effect'.
It is infact the alterations to the surface by Humanity that is being realised as the cause of the alterations to kinetic induction.
In an overall manner these 'Human alterations' are rebalancing the produced interactions made by the 'new surface' to that Energy that is available.
This 'new' level of Kinetic Induction is altering Turbulence and the processes within Turbulence can produce variation in measured Temperature in a manner independent of overall kinetic induction trends.
It is the surface materials that are being altered, NOT the overall 'energy'.
Increases in Turbulence can and do result in less Kinetic Energy being residual to then be measured as 'temperature' so Turbulence can increase whilst 'temperature' decreases.
See http://hartlod.blogspot.com/ and the outline "Glaciers Reborn".
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
At October 26, 2006 5:43 PM,
Anonymous said…
During the COOLING hysteria of the 60s and 70s they said: “Global COOLING refers to the long term decrease in globally and seasonally averaged surface temperatures. It is not the case, nor is it expected, that all regions, let alone points, on the globe will show the same changes in temperature or rainfall patterns. There are in fact many points that have shown warming, and some regions have also shown modest warming. This is not a contradiction that invalidates GLOBAL COOLING theory, it is merely the result of regional variation and an example of how varied and complex the climate system is.”
We have seen it before, in the late 1800s, early 20s, early 40s and 50, mid 60s and 70s –Earth has cooled, and warmed, and cooled, and warmed again –and now is cooling once more. The sky is not falling down. Stay cool...
Eduardo Ferreyra
President of FAEC
Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology
At October 26, 2006 5:55 PM,
coby said…
Let's see...the temperature graphs above, plus rising sea levels, melting ice sheets and glaciers, warmer nights, earlier springs, cooling stratosphere etc etc...or Eduardo Ferreyra parroting the nonsense of James Inhofe.
Tough call!
At October 27, 2006 8:23 AM,
Anonymous said…
Dear Coby, I was not parroting Mr. Inhofe (in Argentina we don’t know or even care who he is) but I can see you have been parroting Jimmy Hansen and his friends.
I was referring to an analysis we’ve made at our foundation about temperatures in South America and the changing climate. Yes, climate has been changing for billions of years, though you seem to imply that climate is a stable thing now disturbed by human intervention.
On a different country, here you have a study on 1583 temperature records of the USA during the period 1900-2000, a lapse long enough to set and “see” a trend. Ghostbusting Temperatures!. The records are from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network database available to everyone on the web, and for you to check, and see how “terrible” has been the warming (or the cooling) in those 100 years in the USA.
BTW: What about the cooling trend since 1998? Record breaking frosts everywhere in the world? Yes –don’t tell me: the AGW theory is a “One-size-fits-all” (like Fruit of the Looms socks). Anything that happens or will happen in the world is caused by “global warming” –induced by mankind. A sure bet –money in the bank.
At October 27, 2006 10:04 AM,
coby said…
I was referring to an analysis we’ve made at our foundation about temperatures in South America and the changing climate. Yes, climate has been changing for billions of years, though you seem to imply that climate is a stable thing now disturbed by human intervention.
Please see these two articles:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/01/climate-is-always-changing.html
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/geological-history-does-not-support.html
What about the cooling trend since 1998? Record breaking frosts everywhere in the world? Yes –don’t tell me: the AGW theory is a “One-size-fits-all” (like Fruit of the Looms socks). Anything that happens or will happen in the world is caused by “global warming” –induced by mankind. A sure bet –money in the bank.
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is? As for 1998, ironic that in one breath take such a long view of things, and in the next you attempt to draw conclusions about trends in rolling 30yr averages (climate) based on a 6 year span (a cherry picked on at that). Please see here.
At October 27, 2006 5:44 PM,
Anonymous said…
Yes, Mr. Coby, your site is full of, well, “excuses” for any objections serious scientists make to the greenhouse theory, or better: “CCC – catastrophic climate change”. Just excuses and attempted explanations, but not real meat on the grill.
You send red herrings out and focused on the "changing climate" instead of speaking of our study on USA temperatures. for example, Alabama, shows a cooling of -1,17ºF, and 15 of 16 stations show cooling.
Or Arkansas where 12 stations out of 15 show cooling.
And so it goes: 16 USA states show cooling, and 32 show warming, for a total increase of barely: +0.169º C for a 100 year period. What about the 0,6ºC of the IPCC? Are there other huge regions of the world that have warmed much more to outbalance this 0.169ºC?
Those are observed facts, not modelled. Now we have to see what kind of money you put on what you mouth says...
You have a funny site indeed, but not as funny as Real climate.
At October 27, 2006 6:19 PM,
coby said…
And so it goes: 16 USA states show cooling, and 32 show warming, for a total increase of barely: +0.169º C for a 100 year period. What about the 0,6ºC of the IPCC? Are there other huge regions of the world that have warmed much more to outbalance this 0.169ºC?
Well, lookey here, you have answered your own question.
Thanks for the comments!
At October 27, 2006 8:51 PM,
Anonymous said…
Goodbye, Mr. Coby, I once thought you had arguments and data, not just excuses, red herrings, and confusing assumptions with refutations.
However, it was not a lost time I had here. It leaves behind the impression your site (and especially The Grist) are like the greenhouse hypothesis (it hasn't yet qualified for a theory): just a lot of warm air.
Remember: The Sky is Not Falling!
At October 28, 2006 2:22 PM,
Anonymous said…
A departing message before I go away:
One Russian colleague e-mailed me this AM about his travels to London starting today - with the following addendum:
"In the Russian variant of Scientific American (N 10) the paper
by Yuri Israel about Climate and Global Warming problem was published.
It is very important that so respectable scientist writes: "For the last 15 years Global temperature trend is slightly DESCENDING".
There are other data sets out there that do not support Global Warming - that take into account the Urban Heat Island Effect - and pay more attention to the background than to those urban areas.
Jim Goodridge and James O'Brien could provide regional information for California and the SE USA, respectively.
Mostly flat or slightly cooling over the last century."
Something that corroborates our study of USA temperatures 1900-2000 showing just a +0.169º C warming. BTW, you haven't mentioned the huge region that could counterbalance the small USA warming. A hint: it is not Siberia, nor Antarctica, nor the Arctic.
At October 28, 2006 2:39 PM,
coby said…
So how does your Russion scientist explain the warming in the satellite record, the lengthening of growing seasons, melting permafrost, rapidly accelerating glacier mass loss worldwide, rapidly shrinking arctic sea ice, both annual and perrenial, migration of animal habitats, increasing sea surface temperatures, rising sea levels and many other corroborating signs?
Please, there are no reputable scientists involed in climatology who deny that the earth is warming, not even Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen or Fred Singer think that.
What you are engaged in is not science, it is denial.
At December 16, 2006 6:28 PM,
Anonymous said…
Well, that's irritating - getting disconnected before the post is finalized!
Okay, how to rewrite it. I was saying I am merely a mature student (as opposed to in my 20s) that had to do a research paper on global warming.
Here's the reason that I found for cooling in some areas, thermohaline circulation disruption(such as the gulf stream).
"'This movement carries a tremendous amount of heat northward, and plays a vital role in maintaining the current climate," Schlesinger said. "If the thermohaline circulation shut down, the southern hemisphere would become warmer and the northern hemisphere would become colder. The heavily populated regions of eastern North America and western Europe would experience a significant shift in climate.'"
"Higher temperatures caused by global warming could add fresh water to the northern North Atlantic by increasing the precipitation and by melting nearby sea ice, mountain glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet. This influx of fresh water could reduce the surface salinity and density, leading to a shutdown of the thermohaline circulation."
"'We already have evidence dating back to 1965 that shows a drop in salinity around the North Atlantic," Schlesinger said. "The change is small, compared to what our model needs to shut down the thermohaline, but we could be standing at the brink of an abrupt and irreversible climate change.'"
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-12/uoia-gwc120705.php
"Without the influence of the Gulf Stream and its two northern branches, the North Atlantic Drift and the Canary Current, the weather in Britain could be more like that of Siberia, which shares the same latitude." http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/05/10/gulfstream/index.html
I was saying that in spite of this information, the UK has recently seen record hot spells.
Additionally, I do not profess to have all or any answers, but my conclusion is that the consequences of ingorning information in my opinion is far greater than some significant changes to avoid potential disaster.
I also added that what lead me to this site is a skeptic asking about measuremnts of global warming. I did not include that in my research paper, which could only be 5 pages. So, I am exploring those things. I found that measurements are in these forms: http://www.junkscience.com/GMT/index.htm
by land,
http://www.dosits.org/people/resrchxp/2.htm by ocean, and
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hockeystickFAQ.html by environment.
This is all I have done in a day. I'm sure there are other areas on this site; I haven't explored everything by any means. Coby is much farther along than I am.
The reports that I've read and my opinion is that extreme temperatures are occuring both in heat waves and cold spells for areas that previously haven't had records of that activity such as extreme heat killing pinon trees, which normally thrive in a desert environment, in New Mexico and an overabudance of rain in others, etc. I'm sure we've all heard the reports in one fashion or another. However, this is consistent with what I believe experts are saying to global warming trends.
Naturally, I don't mind if everyone has their own conclusions. That's just mine. I can't tell you how the weather conditions are connected to greenhouse gases or not exactly because I am merely a student. Do I think it is all connected? absolutely. What if I'm wrong - I've been inconvenienced. If these items are true and nothing is done or warnings are ignored, we'll not be able to change it later.
Do I care if it is overzealous? not particularly. I can't solve the crisis in the Middle East, I can't stop world hunger, but perhaps something I can do on some miniscule level will stop devastation to my environment. Why wouldn't I want to consider that? I do not find evidence to support global warming effecting hurricanes, and I live in South Florida. I should also state that when I speak of global warming, I'm suggesting the factor is greenhouse gases and the effects thereof. That to me does not just mean CO2 though. It means an accumulation of things such as climate changes, animal extinction threats, rising sea levels, ocean acidity, less saline density in the ocean, glacial melting, and less carbon sinks (deforestation)or reversal of sinks to sources, which according to the article below is based upon aerosols. http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/04_12/296.htm
Babs
At February 25, 2007 2:21 PM,
Anonymous said…
This whole site has "I believe in anthropogenic global warming" all over it, which anyone is entitled to believe in. What continues to be lacking is a linear scientific methodological demonstration that there's a solid basis for that belief and the alarums that accompany it. Any recent consensus of scientists is different from past consensi in that it doesn't have the backing of the Pope (although recent reports indicate even the old boy himself is coming around). Note that any ONE person with reproducible scientific methodology to support his/her hypothesis is sufficient; no consensus is necessary or even desirable. You only need one person. Methinks the global warming alarmist doth protest too much.
At February 25, 2007 2:42 PM,
coby said…
Hi Anonymous,
I think you would be well served to look up the word "consensus", it does not mean the same thing as unanimous. Even the "earth is round" theory is not unanimous. And what, pray tell, do you mean by "a linear scientific methodological demonstration"? AGW theory is quite straightforward and very well supported scientifically: CO2 is a radiatively active gas (this is known for well over a century), CO2 is rising (this is irrefutable and known for five decades, predicted over a century ago), the rise is from fossil fuel burning (common sense aside, this is beyond doubt through isotope analysis of atmospheric CO2), all other factors being equal such a rise causes warming (very solid, confirmed by present day observations, past reconstructions, basic physics and both simple and sophisticated models). How much warming is caused by a what amount of CO2 is more complicated but again there is a substantial and strong body of work supporting the IPCC conclusions.
At April 28, 2007 9:01 PM,
Anonymous said…
Hi Coby, just cannot resist...
You say about warming not being expected everywhere:
"It is not the case, nor is it expected, that all regions, let alone points, on the globe will show the same changes in temperature or rainfall patterns."
I didn't get where the "rainfall patterns" came from (other than an usual obfuscation, just in case), but the "expected part" needs some examination.
(a) you usually say that CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, true?
(b) the GW effect is due to increased greenhouse effect (GHE), which is due to elevated CO2, right?
(c) the GHE mechanism is to maintain a balance between surface heating from the Sun, and infrared emissions from the heated surface into open space, correct?
Are there any "regional" preferences that this misbalance could be inverted?
Then why do you expect one piece of land differ from another piece of land, especially if the met station would be located in underdeveloped area? They all face the same Sun for a proper amount of time, and they all are subject to cold nights, where that extra CO2 would allegedly help the land to keep its warmth. The mechanism is certainly _global_, so the local effect must be in one direction only, warming trend everywhere, epecially when averaged over 30 years.
Your "answer" to the argument is that "it is merely the result of regional variation". Then I am puzzled, what could be possibly any reason for any "merely" regional variation, climatologically averaged, if no development occurs around, no new lake was dammed nearby, no airport or living community erected, and no ocean around the corner? Like here in Texas, no new mountains, same gulf 300 miles off...
A true misconception is not to expect an expected, an uniform trend from an uniform global force, and hide behind unexplainable "regional variations" and general "climate complexity".
At May 03, 2007 9:58 PM,
coby said…
Alexi!
Hello again, happy you are back. I have been out of the country and traveling back this week so sorry for the long delay in addressing you comment.
About no expectation that all points will show the same changes in temperature (please keep in mind this is different from your incorrect atrribution to me "warming not being expected everywhere"). The confusion comes from context: are we talking about observed temp changes up til now or projections for the future?
The argument I am debunking here is that if GW were real then there would be uniform warming or at least warming everywhere.
So to your argument:
(a) you usually say that CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, true?
(b) the GW effect is due to increased greenhouse effect (GHE), which is due to elevated CO2, right?
(c) the GHE mechanism is to maintain a balance between surface heating from the Sun, and infrared emissions from the heated surface into open space, correct?
(a) yes, (b) yes, (c) well, to be pedantic, it maintains an elevated balance as the balance would be there regardless, but yes.
Are there any "regional" preferences that this misbalance could be inverted?
Not that I can think of.
Then why do you expect one piece of land differ from another piece of land
What you are forgetting is that there are other factors, even in terms of global climate forcings, but more pertinently in regional climate. We do expect uniform CO2 forcing, and to the best of my knowledge it is being observed, but other factors may overwhelm it in some areas and add to it in others.
what could be possibly any reason for any "merely" regional variation, climatologically averaged, if no development occurs around, no new lake was dammed nearby, no airport or living community erected, and no ocean around the corner? Like here in Texas, no new mountains, same gulf 300 miles off...
Consider things like changes in large pervasive wind currents and ocean currents. A familiar example would be a cessation of the gulf stream (caused by a global warming trend) that leads to a large degree of cooling in western europe. Also changes in the jet stream can allow cold artic air farther down into areas it previously did not go. That kind of thing.
The other thing to keep in mind is that thus far the degree of warming (globally averaged) is not so large as to be outside the possible range of local natural flucuations (regional).
A true misconception is not to expect an expected, an uniform trend from an uniform global force, and hide behind unexplainable "regional variations" and general "climate complexity".
What can I say? If your expectation is naive and simplistic and you preempt any suggestion that there may be more complexity involved that leaves little that I could offer to help you. The global force (well mixed CO2) is uniform, but it is not the only force around, sorry if that offends your need for simple answers.
At May 05, 2007 10:15 PM,
Anonymous said…
Coby, I think we need some consistency here. You say that "other factors" of "regional climates" may ovewhelm the effect of global warming. You mention the "sessation of gulf stream that affect Europe", or some unspecified fluctuations of jet streams. You must realize that your examples act on areas of the scale of thousands of miles. Now look at the map, say, of Texas:
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen4/tex.html
and take, as example, four stations, Boerne, Blanco, San Antonio, and New Braunfels. All these stations are within a radius of 100 miles, yet two stations show clear cooling over 80 years, and two stations show warming. Obviously, your reasoning does not apply to this case. So again, what are other possible natural factors that affect the striking differences in trends? Maybe you just need to accept another hypothesis that all the records used in compillation of so-called "Global Temperature" index are just plain noise, plus-minus at every and each location, and there might be no global trend at all?
You also say that the GH effect is too small to be detected from individual station records. But then, what evidence do you have that the whole alleged global warming is the result of changes in traces of greenhouse gases? It looks like none...
Cheers,
-Al Tekhasski
At May 08, 2007 12:50 AM,
coby said…
Hi Alexi,
I just want to tell you that if this were not a public conversation I would not bother answering you. As I know you are very knowledgable in math, it is not possible that your arguments from statistical ignorance below are sincere. However, for the lurkers and archives I will answer.
You said:
You say that "other factors" of "regional climates" may ovewhelm the effect of global warming. You mention the "sessation of gulf stream that affect Europe", or some unspecified fluctuations of jet streams. You must realize that your examples act on areas of the scale of thousands of miles.
Fair enough, I confess I had the arguments about cooling in the antarctic in mind. I don't think I am qualified to comment at the level of meteorological detail you seem to desire, sorry. I do know that it is very often the case that micro climates can be within tens of miles and yet several degrees different, but as I do not know all the factors that control such differences I would only be speculating if I tried to list possible factors that would be vulnerable to larger general trends.
Now look at the map, say, of Texas:
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen4/tex.html
and take, as example, four stations, Boerne, Blanco, San Antonio, and New Braunfels. All these stations are within a radius of 100 miles, yet two stations show clear cooling over 80 years, and two stations show warming.
I do not know if this source is accurate. But for the purposes of our discussion it is not important, we can take it as an example. I repeat I am not inclined to speculate about this level of meteorological detail but I will point out that you are forgetting my point about natural variability being much larger at smaller scales. Where natural variability is significantly larger it would be expected to exceed the GHG forcing effect from time to time, perhaps quite often.
Also I will remind you (as surely your extensive mathmatical knowledge must easily include this fact) that the uncertainty in a trend over a single station will be much much larger than that in a trend over thousands of stations. Why don't you find out what the error bars are on the single station trends you are betting your house on, I bet you they are multiples of those reported.
Obviously, your reasoning does not apply to this case. So again, what are other possible natural factors that affect the striking differences in trends? Maybe you just need to accept another hypothesis that all the records used in compillation of so-called "Global Temperature" index are just plain noise, plus-minus at every and each location, and there might be no global trend at all?
Discerning trends in noisy data is perfectly well established science and is used in all fields. Finding a few data points that buck the general trend by no means indicates it is all noise. You might as well argue that the fact that you just rolled snakes eyes proves that 7 is not the average of all rolls.
You also say that the GH effect is too small to be detected from individual station records. But then, what evidence do you have that the whole alleged global warming is the result of changes in traces of greenhouse gases? It looks like none...
As any scientist, or mathematician, knows, the more data you can gather the higher your confidence in trends and patterns. Do you take me for a fool?
At July 11, 2008 11:14 PM,
Anonymous said…
wow gold
buy wow gold
cheap wow gold
world of warcraft gold
runescape
runescape money
buy runescape money
wow gold
cheap wow gold
buy wow gold
world of warcraft gold
guild wars
guild wars gold
buy guild wars gold
maple story
maple story mesos
maplestory mesos
age of conan
age of conan gold
buy age of conan gold
aoc gold
buy aoc gold
age of conan
age of conan gold
buy age of conan gold
aoc gold
buy aoc gold
age of conan
age of conan gold
buy age of conan gold
aoc gold
buy aoc gold
wow gold
buy wow gold
cheap wow gold
world of warcraft gold
runescape
runescape money
buy runescape money
wow gold
cheap wow gold
buy wow gold
world of warcraft gold
guild wars
guild wars gold
buy guild wars gold
maple story
maple story mesos
maplestory mesos
age of conan
age of conan gold
buy age of conan gold
aoc gold
buy aoc gold
age of conan
age of conan gold
buy age of conan gold
aoc gold
buy aoc gold
age of conan
age of conan gold
buy age of conan gold
aoc gold
buy aoc gold
wow gold
buy wow gold
cheap wow gold
world of warcraft gold
runescape
runescape money
buy runescape money
wow gold
cheap wow gold
buy wow gold
world of warcraft gold
guild wars
guild wars gold
buy guild wars gold
maple story
maple story mesos
maplestory mesos
age of conan
age of conan gold
buy age of conan gold
aoc gold
buy aoc gold
age of conan
age of conan gold
buy age of conan gold
aoc gold
buy aoc gold
age of conan
age of conan gold
buy age of conan gold
aoc gold
buy aoc gold
Post a Comment
<< Home