Global cooling!

[Pidgey]

Those graphs kinda' take some getting used to. They show deviations from computed averages for the specific geographic areas. For instance, if an area like Siberia would normally have an average temperature of -21C for the month of January during the period of 1951 to 1980 and the actual temperature average for the year of the map was -10C, then the color used would be a brownish color as the deviation from the mean would be +10C.

For simplicity, the areas that are red-shifted are areas where the temperature is above the average temperature for the cited period and there's a color code beneath each map to show the corresponding temperature variation. Cold areas are bluish to purple.

The overall temperature loss has occurred over the calendar year 2007 but it really began to accelerate in the last quarter. In fact, it does have a lot of scientists very nervous and a lot of them are beginning to take a very serious look at the sunspot cycle now. Jury's still out and will be for at least the next year.

Pidgey

 

[PLC1]

Those graphs kinda' take some getting used to. They show deviations from computed averages for the specific geographic areas. For instance, if an area like Siberia would normally have an average temperature of -21C for the month of January during the period of 1951 to 1980 and the actual temperature average for the year of the map was -10C, then the color used would be a brownish color as the deviation from the mean would be +10C.

For simplicity, the areas that are red-shifted are areas where the temperature is above the average temperature for the cited period and there's a color code beneath each map to show the corresponding temperature variation. Cold areas are bluish to purple.

The overall temperature loss has occurred over the calendar year 2007 but it really began to accelerate in the last quarter. In fact, it does have a lot of scientists very nervous and a lot of them are beginning to take a very serious look at the sunspot cycle now. Jury's still out and will be for at least the next year.

Pidgey

You got me wondering, so I did a little research on the subject. I found this:

ScienceDaily (Jan. 8, 2008) — 2008 is set to be cooler globally than recent years say Met Office and University of East Anglia climate scientists, but is still forecast to be one of the top-ten warmest years.

It seems that you're right, the temperatures are down in '08 so far, as compared to the past few years. It will be interesting to see just how this plays out. Let's take another look at the end of the year and see just how '08 stacks up with past years. Could global warming be tapering off? If so, then it is good news. Climate change is likely to be a negative overall, even if Gore and his warnings of disaster turn out to be wrong.

 

[Pidgey]

There are multiple levels of scientific publication. I find that a lot of the more popular such stuff is rarely of any real use and prefer stuff like this a lot more:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/penn_apjl-649-l45-48_2006.pdf

The conclusion from that one is that the sun's magnetic fields are weakening, simply put. When that happens, we tend to go cold. Even those scientists are watching with bated breath. They want cycle 24 to get fully underway so that they can do more research and, so far, the sun's not really obliging much.

Pidgey

 

[PLC1]

There are multiple levels of scientific publication. I find that a lot of the more popular such stuff is rarely of any real use and prefer stuff like this a lot more:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/penn_apjl-649-l45-48_2006.pdf

The conclusion from that one is that the sun's magnetic fields are weakening, simply put. When that happens, we tend to go cold. Even those scientists are watching with bated breath. They want cycle 24 to get fully underway so that they can do more research and, so far, the sun's not really obliging much.

Pidgey

Yes, you have found a scientific paper from 2006 describing in detail how sunspot activity has increased. How does that relate to a cooling trend in 2008?

 

[Pidgey]

Err... no, it doesn't say sunspot activity is increasing, rather it says that the magnetic fields within sunspots as demonstrated by spectral analysis appear to be weakening during solar cycle 23. Sunspots are a proxy for the strength of the magnetic field generated by the sun. Historically, when that field strength has decreased, earth got colder every time. For now, we're working on theories as to why and how much. During the Maunder Minimum (Google that), it was especially bad. We've only been keeping basic sunspot data for the last few hundred years and very detailed sunspot data for the last few decades.

Pidgey

 

[Pidgey]

Here's a pretty good primer regarding one side of the solar debate amongst real solar scientists:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

Pidgey

 

[PLC1]

Err... no, it doesn't say sunspot activity is increasing, rather it says that the magnetic fields within sunspots as demonstrated by spectral analysis appear to be weakening during solar cycle 23. Sunspots are a proxy for the strength of the magnetic field generated by the sun. Historically, when that field strength has decreased, earth got colder every time. For now, we're working on theories as to why and how much. During the Maunder Minimum (Google that), it was especially bad. We've only been keeping basic sunspot data for the last few hundred years and very detailed sunspot data for the last few decades.

Pidgey

Then, the Earth should have gotten colder during 2006, correct?

 

[Pidgey]

It's not so easy to detect given the vast thermal inertia of the mass in question. All the data indicates that there's a lag of a few years.

Pidgey

 

[PLC1]

It's not so easy to detect given the vast thermal inertia of the mass in question. All the data indicates that there's a lag of a few years.

Pidgey

If that lag is what is causing global warming to level out during the first part of 2008, then we should know pretty soon. Either the Earth will resume the warming trend, and the naysayers will have egg on their faces, or it will not resume the warming trend, the Earth will return to historic normals of the past decades, and the global warming scientists will have egg on their faces.

Either way, the best course of action is to continue to study the situation and make the best predictions we can. If the scientific community is right, and anthropogenic climate change is happening, it is not likely that we can reverse it anyway. We'd best be prepared for whatever happens:

Global disaster ala Gore?
Egg on the faces of climatologists?
Global climate change that is a mixed bag of benefit and detriment?

Personally, I'm betting on the third possibility, just playing the odds. It would be a good idea to know, at least in broad terms, just what changes are likely to take place.

 

[Pidgey]

Interestingly, it isn't the climatologists that are pushing the global cooling theory, at least not yet or not publicly. It's the solar scientists who are leading the way on it so far and a lot of them seem to be Scandinavian. I have to wonder if that's because they would stand to lose the most with global cooling.

Pidgey

 

[Pidgey]

There's a lot of chatter amongst solar scientists that Hathaway is going to have to revise his estimate again. Let's take a look back into the beginning of Cycle 23:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/04/980415080726.htm

And forward a little bit to the point in Cycle 23 where predictions were beginning to be made regarding about when the minimum should occur and when Cycle 24 should start:

http://www.universetoday.com/2004/10/18/no-sunspots-at-all/

This is a webpage from 2006 where some interesting notes were made:

http://www.physorg.com/news66581392.html

And then in late 2007:

http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/tag/hathaway/

Since then, there still hasn't been anything remarkable. There was a sunspot (981; yes, they even number them) around Jan 4-6; another small one (982) towards the end of January and another one right now (983).

Pidgey

 

[ilikeboobs]

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm (for example).

OK, so the temps continue to drop.
It's been pretty much proven that CO2 does not cause temps to increase.
Many still believe that CO2 increases temp.

Here's my question for those global warming alarmists out there: if we're headed for an ice age (as many scientists are now predicting), wouldn't we WANT more CO2 to heat the planet up? If yes, then we can stop all the "green" bullsh*t, the carbon footprint garbage and the push for lightbulbs that are (ironically) more environmentally harmful.

 

[PLC1]

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm (for example).

OK, so the temps continue to drop.
It's been pretty much proven that CO2 does not cause temps to increase.
Many still believe that CO2 increases temp.

Here's my question for those global warming alarmists out there: if we're headed for an ice age (as many scientists are now predicting), wouldn't we WANT more CO2 to heat the planet up? If yes, then we can stop all the "green" bullsh*t, the carbon footprint garbage and the push for lightbulbs that are (ironically) more environmentally harmful.

So far, we've seen scientific articles about sunspots and the effect of solar cycles on climate. We've seen blogs about the lower temperatures in January of '08. We haven't seen any scientific research to suggest that the lower temps seen in one month portend a global cooling. No one has proven that CO2 does not cause the temps to increase. We haven't heard from "many scientists" predicting a new ice age.

What we've seen is a whole pile of bricks built with one straw.

If global climate change has, indeed, reversed itself in just one month, that should be the news of the day, the news of the week, of the year in fact.

Let's wait and see what February and March bring us. We won't have long to wait. If this global cooling is real, we'll know pretty soon.

And if it is, a whole lot of egg will be on a whole lot of faces.

 

[Pidgey]

Tis' true--only time will really tell. When you get into the business of trying to predict the future, it's fairly often for a reason. You might be trying to save the world and you might be just trying to make a buck (yen, ruble, Euro, whatever). Ah, well...

In this particular instance, I can't help but wonder if there might be another hidden agenda: Peak Oil. You can Google "Hubbert Peak Theory" for the Wikipedia entry and look it up. Peak Oil as it relates here is all about the economic mathematics that describe the market behavior of a diminishing resource. I'm in oil & gas and I can see from my vantage point that the grim side of that essay (on Peak Oil) is truly almost upon us.

If you're looking for Doomsday, that is a far more immediate danger than Global Warming and its reality will have a far greater impact upon lessening the CO2 increase rate equation than the laws that are being proposed.

Pidgey

 

[Pidgey]

So far, we've seen scientific articles about sunspots and the effect of solar cycles on climate. We've seen blogs about the lower temperatures in January of '08. We haven't seen any scientific research to suggest that the lower temps seen in one month portend a global cooling. No one has proven that CO2 does not cause the temps to increase. We haven't heard from "many scientists" predicting a new ice age.

I finally clicked on that link that a HouseOfPolitics member (whom I believe avidly affirms his [her, it, whatever] appreciation of mammary glands) provided and read that article. And THEN, saw the landslide of blogs beneath...

And I thought we were bad!

Holy, moly (sp?) and what vitriol (from both sides)! Kinda' reminds me of the Abortion... "debate" on here.

Pidgey