Remember me
▼ Content

Global Cooling Anyone?


Global Cooling Anyone?10-03-2015 16:44
FriendOfOrion
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
Former Space Shuttle engineer, John L. Casey says that earth is cooling & cooling fast. He says in his book "Dark Winter", that the Atmosphere and the Oceans are cooling. He says that the driver of the change is Solar Activity.

What do others on this forum think of this contradictory theory, and how can we get such opposing temperature data? (most posts seem to agree that there has been warming taking place)
10-03-2015 23:55
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
It would be Casey's responsibility to provide the data. I've seen nothing that indicates cooling aside from a very small and transient drop in TSI; and temperatures rose throughout the solar dip.

On what does he say he bases his ideas?
Edited on 11-03-2015 00:05
11-03-2015 17:34
FriendOfOrion
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
He says his temperature data is different. I have not read the book, only read a magazine that referenced it.

From my point of view, the media are quick to say that our summers are getting hotter but are slow to emphasize that winters in the northern hemisphere are much colder now.(Florida snowing!!) They are quick to point out loss of Antarctic ice but fail to say when it is replaced. The weather is more extreme but is it really much warmer?

Dr. Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC in his own words because, "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound." This is also never mentioned in any pro warming articles I have read.

Some NASA scientists also believe that CO2 cools the planet. As NASA's SABER team at Langley admits:
"This is a new frontier in the sun-Earth connection," says associate principal investigator Martin Mlynczak, "and the data we're collecting are unprecedented."

This can get really confusing!!
12-03-2015 00:15
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
FriendOfOrion wrote:
He says his temperature data is different. I have not read the book, only read a magazine that referenced it.


Then you're ahead of me. But don't you wonder, if he's got good work, why he's not being published in a peer reviewed journal? Why aren't other climate scientists discussing his ideas? I tend to stay away from blogs, self-published material and subjective web sources (eg WUWT and CA)

FriendOfOrion wrote:
From my point of view, the media are quick to say that our summers are getting hotter but are slow to emphasize that winters in the northern hemisphere are much colder now.(Florida snowing!!)


The nature of your summers lately depends on where you're located. Summers in the American northwest, Western Canada and Alaska are experiencing record highs. They are warm and the northeastern US is cold due to fluctuations in the polar vortex. Those fluctuations are caused by the Arctic warming at a greater rate than is the equator. The thing to monitor are global temperatures. They have never stopped rising. The rate at which surface temperatures are rising slowed while warming of the deep oceans accelerated. And as I stated before, the radiative imbalance at the Top of Atmosphere (ToA) has never stopped indicating that the Earth was accumulating solar energy and doing so at an increasing rate. The idea that warming stopped in 2000 is complete hogwash.

FriendOfOrion wrote:
They are quick to point out loss of Antarctic ice but fail to say when it is replaced. The weather is more extreme but is it really much warmer?


Those who report such things (might I suggest www.nsidc.org) have never stopped accurately and objectively reporting such information regardless of the direction of the process. And it is completely normal when random factors pile on and create a record [fill-in-the-blank] that the next few seasons of [fill-in-the-blank] will fail to reach that mark. The long term trend of Arctic ice extents continues to be negative and the absolute ice volume graphs may be conservatively extrapolated to an ice free summer ten years from now.

Yes, the world is warmer.

FriendOfOrion wrote:
Dr. Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC in his own words because, "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound." This is also never mentioned in any pro warming articles I have read.


Of course its mentioned. Landsea is a meteorolgist with a specialty in hurricanes. Trenberth is an atmospheric physicist with a PhD from MIT. Landsea saw Trenberth tell a press conference that global warming would be responsible for increased hurricane and typhoon intensity. That's what set him off. I wouldn't worry about him for two reasons: For every Landsea that doesn't like the way the thing's run, several hundred remain and put in some very good work. And two, because the IPCC doesn't fund or conduct any science. All they do is review the state of the science in these associated topics and prepare their assessment reports. The science supporting anthropogenic global warming (AGW), amounting to thousands of peer reviewed studies, is very broad based and quite sound.

FriendOfOrion wrote:
Some NASA scientists also believe that CO2 cools the planet. As NASA's SABER team at Langley admits:
"This is a new frontier in the sun-Earth connection," says associate principal investigator Martin Mlynczak, "and the data we're collecting are unprecedented."


If you've got a NASA scientist who believe CO2 cools the earth, I wish you'd quote or link to him actually saying such a thing. SABER went up on the TIMED mission over 13 years ago and has provided reams and reams of data (along with the rest of the instruments on that platform). To my knowledge, none of it has refuted AGW or the greenhouse effect, regarding CO2 or any other gas. If you have more information on this point I would very much like to see it.

FriendOfOrion wrote:
This can get really confusing!!


So can my wife explaining why she didn't pick up the cat from the vet's. ;-)
Edited on 12-03-2015 00:16
14-03-2015 04:04
FriendOfOrion
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
I suppose the main point I was trying get across was that the main stream media (MSM), much more than the scientific community appear o be very biased in the way they report on AGW and climate change. The data is exaggerated and the predicted temperatures via the computer modelling have not been reached. The MSM are persistent in giving the reader a sense of doom and gloom. They shy away from reporting anything that does not support their argument. I've seen many TV and radio programs and they all appear very biased (showing steam coming out of cooling towers to visualize CO2 production by industry). There is a saying that is attributed to our media and that is "Bad news is good news, and good news is No news", or, "If it bleeds, it leads." They, the MSM, are seldom interested in balanced debate.
In Australia we had a carbon tax which only hurt people financially and didn't do anything to reduce our carbon footprint. One of the problems that the average person has with CO2 being the culprit in Global Warming is the minute concentrations involved. CO2 concentrations compared to the rest of the atmosphere is likened to a wine glass of water to an Olympic swimming pool(and we are worried that an extra teaspoon will be added). I haven't heard anyone debunk the logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and associated change in average world temperature.
It is really hard to be confident in the conclusions that are given when there is so much contradiction displayed. Professor James Lovelock said, "We should be half way to cooking. A decade is long enough to reflect a trend, we don't know what the climate is doing!" He was one of the original warmists, author of the book "Revenge of Gia" and appears to be recanting his conclusions about the changing climate.
29-03-2015 00:18
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
[quote=FriendofOrion]
I suppose the main point I was trying get across was that the main stream media (MSM), much more than the scientific community appear o be very biased in the way they report on AGW and climate change. The data is exaggerated and the predicted temperatures via the computer modelling have not been reached. The MSM are persistent in giving the reader a sense of doom and gloom. They shy away from reporting anything that does not support their argument. I've seen many TV and radio programs and they all appear very biased (showing steam coming out of cooling towers to visualize CO2 production by industry). There is a saying that is attributed to our media and that is "Bad news is good news, and good news is No news", or, "If it bleeds, it leads." They, the MSM, are seldom interested in balanced debate.
[/quote]

I have a few comments in response: the mainstream media are not part of the scientific process and their activity has no bearing on a determination of the validity of a hypothesis or theory. And, as you note, the scientific community is not behaving in the same manner. Additionally, though I fully agree that for-profit media have an interest in scandal and sensationalism and they are NOT the place to go to for accurate, objective information, I think their reporting on global warming is not as exaggerated and hyperbolic as you seem to believe. And, of course, there is a non-trivial and relatively loud subset of the public media which soundly rejects AGW's validity for purely political reasons. My debating opponents here - the AGW deniers - have no difficulty finding supportive comentary in the conservative media.

[quote=FriendofOrion]
In Australia we had a carbon tax which only hurt people financially and didn't do anything to reduce our carbon footprint.
[/quote]

I have read a little about your carbon tax. I'm sorry if it proved unpopular and ineffective, but whether or not it worked has no bearing on the validity of AGW. A scheme that does reduce the production of greenhouse gases will be beneficial to all. There is no guarantee that any such schemes will be money makers or cost-free. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

[quote=FriendofOrion]
One of the problems that the average person has with CO2 being the culprit in Global Warming is the minute concentrations involved. CO2 concentrations compared to the rest of the atmosphere is likened to a wine glass of water to an Olympic swimming pool(and we are worried that an extra teaspoon will be added).
[/quote]

What you're actually saying here is that the average person has an inadequate education in basic science. They don't seem to have a problem understanding the risks of plutonium contamination or dioxin or any of a hundred carcinogens in their food. I think the people claiming that the concentrations involved couldn't possibly have the consquences science tells them it has, are either hopelessly ignorant or would oppose the idea regardless of the evidence.

[quote=FriendofOrion]
I haven't heard anyone debunk the logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and associated change in average world temperature.
[/quote]

And what do you think would be the import of that?

[quote=FriendofOrion]
It is really hard to be confident in the conclusions that are given when there is so much contradiction displayed. Professor James Lovelock said, "We should be half way to cooking. A decade is long enough to reflect a trend, we don't know what the climate is doing!" He was one of the original warmists, author of the book "Revenge of Gia" and appears to be recanting his conclusions about the changing climate.
[/quote]

To what contradictions do you refer? No one predicted the drop off in surface warming, but then, no one predicted the massive rise in deep ocean heating either. Total global heat content has continued to rise without the slightest sign of a slowdown. That is verified by the radiative imbalance at the ToA per direct satellite measurements. No data, no evidence, refutes greenhouse warming or the human responsibility for the increasing levels of GHGs in our atmosphere.
30-03-2015 18:50
FriendOfOrion
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
Reply to Abraham03: The scientific community don't appear to have as much clout as the public when it comes to coercing politicians to act on these matters. Politicians respond to votes; that is why I emphasized the deceptive nature of the MSM reporting. Many people are going around thinking that the white smoke coming out of cooling towers is CO2, when it is actually steam! Honest reporting would help everyone make sound decisions.

[quote=FriendofOrion]
I haven't heard anyone debunk the logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and associated change in average world temperature.
[/quote]

And what do you think would be the import of that?

The relationship I mentioned states that when the CO2 conc. gets up around 380ppm & up, the effect it has on temperature is minimal.(delta temp. tends to zero)
31-03-2015 03:52
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
FriendOfOrion wrote:
Reply to Abraham03: The scientific community don't appear to have as much clout as the public when it comes to coercing politicians to act on these matters.


As much clout as the public with the public? I think what you're saying boils down to the observation that the competition between scientists and the public relations arm of the fossil fuel industry seems to be being won by the latter.

FriendOfOrion wrote:
Politicians respond to votes; that is why I emphasized the deceptive nature of the MSM reporting. Many people are going around thinking that the white smoke coming out of cooling towers is CO2, when it is actually steam! Honest reporting would help everyone make sound decisions.


First, allow me to point out that in the vast majority of such installations, the heat which vaporized the working fluid being condensed in those cooling towers came from the combustion of fossil hydrocarbon fuels.

And if you'd like to discuss deceptive reporting, have you nothing to say of the industry disinformation campaign; the "teach the controversy" technique they learned from the tobacco industry and the Intelligent Design movement? Surely orders of magnitude more falsehoods have come out on the denier side of this argument than have from folks who believe AGW to be valid. It's far easier to speak truthfully when your basic premise is true than when you are willfully and premeditatedly attempting to deceive the public.

FriendofOrion replied:
The relationship I mentioned states that when the CO2 conc. gets up around 380ppm & up, the effect it has on temperature is minimal.(delta temp. tends to zero)


It does not tend to zero. The relationship is not bounded; it is not asymptotic. And keep in mind that there are decades worth of CO2 emissions which have not yet reached thermal equilibrium. We could cease every iota of CO2 emission right this instant and Earth's temperatures would continue to rise for another 50 years.
Edited on 31-03-2015 03:57




Join the debate Global Cooling Anyone?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Burning fossil fuel reduce O2 and increase CO2 and CO2 is a cooling gas so why420-06-2019 06:30
IPCC sucks. They have no answer for natural climatic cooling other than painting houses black to decrease019-04-2019 16:32
The dangerous cooling trend in mainland America. How will it impact?125-03-2019 19:38
Does increase in Arctic sea ice indicate global cooling trend?025-03-2019 17:27
We Have Been Experiencing Global Cooling215-03-2019 19:04
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact