Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Cooling Down


Guest Daniel

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Leeds/Bradford border, 185 metres above sea level, around 600 feet
  • Location: Leeds/Bradford border, 185 metres above sea level, around 600 feet

The NOAA are forecasting a extremely hot summer however i have forgotten the link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mike W

No surprise alot of summers post mass SO2 reduction have been very hot. Infact post 1997 only the summer of 1998 was average to below, using the 61-90 average.

Edited by Mike W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I don't think temperatures are going down.

The problem is that you take your country as a measure of global weather changes. If the UK is cooling, it doesn't mean that the whole world is cooling too.

I live in the UAE, and each year it gets warmer. It was much different in early 1990s. Average High Temperatures increased by more than 3 or 4C for the month of March. Not only that, precipitation decreased substantially over the last 10 years. We hardly get 10% of the rain we used to get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Shrewsbury,Shropshire
  • Location: Shrewsbury,Shropshire
I don't think temperatures are going down.

The problem is that you take your country as a measure of global weather changes. If the UK is cooling, it doesn't mean that the whole world is cooling too.

I live in the UAE, and each year it gets warmer. It was much different in early 1990s. Average High Temperatures increased by more than 3 or 4C for the month of March. Not only that, precipitation decreased substantially over the last 10 years. We hardly get 10% of the rain we used to get.

Exactly!! Which is why when i hear the Global Warmers say we can't be cooling in the UK as the world is getting hotter they have missed the point! The whole world is not getting hotter-some areas will warm,others will cool.Wait & see.............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Liphook
  • Location: Liphook

Yeah its the global trend that needs to be watched more then anything, This Feb was the 6th warmest ever globally.

As for our little patch of land, there does seem to be a real cooldown occuring and the synoptics do seem to have changed away from the late 90's/early 00's pattern of strong zonality and now gone to blocking.

Last winter saw the blocking in the wrong place to realy get much cold in and hance the very mild January we got but thjis winter has seen progress a stage further with everything getting pushed northwards meaning we are getting more and more easterlies as the HP belt mean actually gets so far north it starts to inject colder air back south.

I'm fairly sure thats how the planet regulates itslef normally. As temps increase everything gets pushed further and further north (as we have been seeing in the 90's and 00's with the jet stream) until the sub-tropical belt is so far north that it starts to re-feed colder air around their circulation and a new southerly tracking jet stream forms and the cycle starts all over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
No surprise alot of summers post mass SO2 reduction have been very hot. Infact post 1997 only the summer of 1998 was average to below, using the 61-90 average.

Mike it shows what locality does...1998 was warmest year on record globally

BFTP

Magpie

No not the majority of scientists...only the ones given media air time. :unsure:

Very selective...

re one we produce 3% of planets CO2

re two only in very lowest levels...CO2 is heavy gas...and of course traps some of the heat

re three CO2 has been rising constantly for 18000 years it may be picking up pace but it has been gradually picking up pace pre industrialisation...more heat more CO2 more heat more CO2 natural cycle...whether this is...but it always has been that way. Remeber highest levels CO2 they reckon for million years...so we've been here before?!

re four yes correct

last paragraph, no humans are not CAUSING the increase it has been going on for 18000 years...industrial revolution 1800s :) So very flawed or tunnelled argument as we may be adding 3% but we are NOT causing

BFTP :D

Edited by BLAST FROM THE PAST
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Very selective...

re one we produce 3% of planets CO2

Oh dear, you're not still trying that 3% line are you? Talk about selective :unsure: . Look, it's 3% (or so) of the CO2 in the CO2 cycle it's NOT 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere - it's a 30%+ increase of CO2 in the atmopshere. Now, I may be wrong but it seems to me the only CO2 that will have an effect on the climate is that CO2 in the atmopshere, not that in the circulation - no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
Oh dear, you're not still trying that 3% line are you? Talk about selective :D . Look, it's 3% (or so) of the CO2 in the CO2 cycle it's NOT 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere - it's a 30%+ increase of CO2 in the atmopshere. Now, I may be wrong but it seems to me the only CO2 that will have an effect on the climate is that CO2 in the atmopshere, not that in the circulation - no?

I think that's right enough...Have a look at some mathematical input-output models, BFTP??? There is a flaw in your reasoning, I think. And it is leading 'up the garden path'... :)

PS: I am not trying to TTP! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey

Devonian

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

That is 3% is it not? :D

Pete

No I know you're not. But where I got my figure from was from the above. So where does Devonian get 30% from??? CO2 levels have not been static, they have been increasing naturally for 18000 years...naturally. Without our imput we would still be in higher scale of CO2 levels and rising...would we not? I can only see 30% if one is saying that 18-20 Billion tons is the extra CO2 above equilibrium and our 6billion is 30%?

BFTP

Edited by BLAST FROM THE PAST
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
they have been increasing naturally for 18000 years...naturally. Without our imput we would still be in higher scale of CO2 levels and rising...would we not? I can only see 30% if one is saying that 18-20 Billion tons is the extra CO2 above equilibrium and our 6billion is 30%?

BFTP

Would you think that the final innundations after the end of the last glaciation could play a part in the CO2 increases? (just out of interest) or was there another 'source' for the CO2 increase?

I can imagine that a lot of vegetation (from the benthonic regions to 300 feet above sea level) was killed and decayed during the end phases of this glaciation thus releasing it's carbon back into the ecosystem. I can also see that the carbon that would have been taken up by these 'plants/trtees/grasses/seaweeds etc.' would also now start presenting as a 'gain' Are there any 'blips' in the CO2 graph that might map out these inundations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
Would you think that the final innundations after the end of the last glaciation could play a part in the CO2 increases? (just out of interest) or was there another 'source' for the CO2 increase?

I can imagine that a lot of vegetation (from the benthonic regions to 300 feet above sea level) was killed and decayed during the end phases of this glaciation thus releasing it's carbon back into the ecosystem. I can also see that the carbon that would have been taken up by these 'plants/trtees/grasses/seaweeds etc.' would also now start presenting as a 'gain' Are there any 'blips' in the CO2 graph that might map out these inundations?

GW

Good point and research underway!

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Devonian

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

That is 3% is it not? :D

Pete

No I know you're not. But where I got my figure from was from the above. So where does Devonian get 30% from??? CO2 levels have not been static, they have been increasing naturally for 18000 years...naturally. Without our imput we would still be in higher scale of CO2 levels and rising...would we not? I can only see 30% if one is saying that 18-20 Billion tons is the extra CO2 above equilibrium and our 6billion is 30%?

BFTP

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere HAS RISEN by 30% + there is no argument about this.

Yes emissions, natural emissions, are vast but SO ARE SINKS. They used TO BALANCE (so Co2 concs stayed pretty much the same over scales of less decades/centuries) now we are ADDING more. Our 6 billion tonnes is enough to raise conc by 30% +. I just can't see they problem you have in accepting this :doh: - it makes perfect sense.

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/13.htm . Why doesn't this explain it? A man made imbalance in the normally balanced cycle. What's the problem?

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey

Devonian

No problem I thought that was the case you were arguing. My point is there is no equilibrium CO2 level, it is always fluctuating. Your case and warmists case implies our CO2 is totally at fault. So what if we were below the equilibrium and our 6 billion tonnes still didn't bring it above this magic figure? It would be classed as being within the natural CO2 cycle. CO2 is rising and rising irrespective of our input into the atmosphere...my case is we are heading that way anyway whether we like it or not, If we stopped CO2 output dead right now CO2 levels would still rise and probably keep on going until the next ice age. :doh:

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Devonian

No problem I thought that was the case you were arguing. My point is there is no equilibrium CO2 level, it is always fluctuating. Your case and warmists case implies our CO2 is totally at fault. So what if we were below the equilibrium and our 6 billion tonnes still didn't bring it above this magic figure? It would be classed as being within the natural CO2 cycle. CO2 is rising and rising irrespective of our input into the atmosphere...my case is we are heading that way anyway whether we like it or not, If we stopped CO2 output dead right now CO2 levels would still rise and probably keep on going until the next ice age. :doh:

BFTP

There is, as far as I know, no evidence CO2 concs would reach the kind of levels at present (let alone where continued anthropogenic emissions mean we are headed) without our help. Why do I say that? Becuase CO2 concs are at the levels they are now due to our activities...

Where do you come up with this 'there is no equilibrium CO2 level' idea? There is, again, no evidence CO2 would reach the conc it has without our 'help'. 6 billion tonnes/year EXTRA is a massive amount - far outstripping what volcanioes produce for example.

We really need to take in what the graphic showed.

Without the human perturbation present CO2 conc would be about 280ppm, there is little evidence that it has changed much (a few tens of ppm's either way) from that figure since the last ice age - http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/p.../20000yrfig.htm . It's a flight of fancy to suggest CO2 could be where it is now, so suddenly by whatever time measure you take, naturally.

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey

There is, as far as I know, no evidence CO2 concs would reach the kind of levels at present (let alone where continued anthropogenic emissions mean we are headed) without our help. Why do I say that? Becuase CO2 concs are at the levels they are now due to our activities...

Where do you come up with this 'there is no equilibrium CO2 level' idea? There is, again, no evidence CO2 would reach the conc it has without our 'help'. 6 billion tonnes/year EXTRA is a massive amount - far outstripping what volcanioes produce for example.

Devonian

"We don't see any sign of a decrease; in fact, we're seeing the opposite, the rate of increase is accelerating," Dr Pieter Tans told the BBC.

The precise level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is of global concern because climate scientists fear certain thresholds may be "tipping points" that trigger sudden changes.

"Today we're over 380 ppm," he said. "That's higher than we've been for over a million years, possibly 30 million years. Mankind is changing the climate."

Well it seems we have been this high before naturally. So scientists seem to have that 'evidence' that we can reach these levels naturally :lol:

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Is anyone really denying, that CO2 conc. cannot reach 380 ppm without man's 'assistance'?

Indeed,it's part of the Snowball Earth hypothesis that, once the globe became icebound, CO2 built-up to many times what it is now, I think??

But, deny as we might, we still need to account for what we ARE doing NOW! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
Is anyone really denying, that CO2 conc. cannot reach 380 ppm without man's 'assistance'?

Indeed,it's part of the Snowball Earth hypothesis that, once the globe became icebound, CO2 built-up to many times what it is now, I think??

But, deny as we might, we still need to account for what we ARE doing NOW! :lol:

Pete

Yes Devonian was, no CO2 built up then an ice age kicked in...thats the cycle theory ;)

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: 4 miles north of Durham City
  • Location: 4 miles north of Durham City
Is anyone really denying, that CO2 conc. cannot reach 380 ppm without man's 'assistance'?

Indeed,it's part of the Snowball Earth hypothesis that, once the globe became icebound, CO2 built-up to many times what it is now, I think??

But, deny as we might, we still need to account for what we ARE doing NOW! :lol:

Yes, because exacerbating a natural rise\oscillation is NOT a good idea!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
Devonian

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

That is 3% is it not? ;)

Pete

No I know you're not. But where I got my figure from was from the above. So where does Devonian get 30% from??? CO2 levels have not been static, they have been increasing naturally for 18000 years...naturally. Without our imput we would still be in higher scale of CO2 levels and rising...would we not? I can only see 30% if one is saying that 18-20 Billion tons is the extra CO2 above equilibrium and our 6billion is 30%?

BFTP

But what happened eons ago without our 'added extras', is not really the point. We know that we are adding carbon to the atmosphere at such a rate, that it's surprising that the excess baggage is still only 30%... :lol:

What I still don't get, is the lengths to which some will go in order to dismiss the very idea that 'our' CO2 is causing us problems...If anyone can invent a cause-effect mechanism by which global warming is making us add CO2 to the air (And not the other way round!), then I'm all ears... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
But what happened eons ago without our 'added extras', is not really the point. We know that we are adding carbon to the atmosphere at such a rate, that it's surprising that the excess baggage is still only 30%... :)

What I still don't get, is the lengths to which some will go in order to dismiss the very idea that 'our' CO2 is causing us problems...If anyone can invent a cause-effect mechanism by which global warming is making us add CO2 to the air (And not the other way round!), then I'm all ears... :)

Pete

I don't think that our CO2 is causing us a problem...I think the problem is there. This is the crux of the discussion and what happened eons ago is THE POINT, CO2 is CO2 is CO2, the planet has been here before and has always as far as one can tell gone into an iceage when these sort of CO2 levels are reached. CO2 was on a sharp increase every time prior to one kicking in, why should it turn out different now? I do not deny a problem, I just don't buy we are heading towards uncontrollable continued warming...I think the opposite will happen as history has shown :)

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
Pete

I don't think that our CO2 is causing us a problem...I think the problem is there. This is the crux of the discussion and what happened eons ago is THE POINT, CO2 is CO2 is CO2, the planet has been here before and has always as far as one can tell gone into an iceage when these sort of CO2 levels are reached. CO2 was on a sharp increase every time prior to one kicking in, why should it turn out different now? I do not deny a problem, I just don't buy we are heading towards uncontrollable continued warming...I think the opposite will happen as history has shown :)

BFTP

Have we almost got to the point where we are not really arguing anymore, BFTP? :):)

Part of your point is also part of my point: CO2 is indeed 'CO2 is CO2'...But my other closely realated point, is that in all previous incidences of CO2-induced(?) warming, the planet has never had a 'conscious' teleologically-directed agent perverting the 'natural' order of things? :)

PS: I don't think that we need fear a runaway 'Venusian' outcome here either, mate...Warmer for a time - then another glacial? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
...THE POINT, CO2 is CO2 is CO2, the planet has been here before and has always as far as one can tell gone into an iceage when these sort of CO2 levels are reached. CO2 was on a sharp increase every time prior to one kicking in, why should it turn out different now?...

BFTP

The difference is that now the source of the CO2 is clear - now IS different, there wasn't an fossil fuel led industrial revolution before the last ice age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey

Have we almost got to the point where we are not really arguing anymore, BFTP? :):)

Pete

We never were anyway were we? :) Correct it seems we have diverged and re your last point...I'll go along with that.

Devonian, true this is first time re industrialisation but essentially its the same thing CO2 increase and its STILL CO2. Something and for some reason the increase stops and glaciation starts and locks it all up. Why should it be different this time? I've seen or heard nothing to convince me otherwise.....yet

BFTP

Edited by BLAST FROM THE PAST
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
We must all be careful not to choose the facts to suit the theory and I feel that using "statistics" rather than observations is tending towards doing this.

The whole point of statistics (and I am using the term in the strict scientific sense of the discipline here) is that they correct for erroneous interpretation of point data. Some of the posts above infer that any trend is absolute and unyielding i.e. if each month, each year, each decade, is not warmer than the last then the trend is broken. There are cycles within cycles, and multiple drives, and background noise, and one-off interruptions: real trends only become clear over decades. From where we are right now another summer 2003 is far more likely than a winter 1963 is I'm afraid.

Pete

I don't think that our CO2 is causing us a problem...I think the problem is there. This is the crux of the discussion and what happened eons ago is THE POINT, CO2 is CO2 is CO2, the planet has been here before and has always as far as one can tell gone into an iceage when these sort of CO2 levels are reached. CO2 was on a sharp increase every time prior to one kicking in, why should it turn out different now? I do not deny a problem, I just don't buy we are heading towards uncontrollable continued warming...I think the opposite will happen as history has shown B)

BFTP

BFTP,

PT's points are absolutely right. I do agree with your simple reading of the facts, but as I posted elsewere today, it would be possible to explain that phenomenon on the basis of natural forcing which simultaneously introduces damping effects of an even greater magnitude. For example at the KT boundary, the incoming asteroid / meteor vapourised so much carbonate in the rock that CO2 levels skyrocketed: at the same time, however, so did aerosols so the inbound darkening effect for exceeded the CO2 warming effect (this would be logical because CO2 works on reradiated energy, not inbound energy). Almost any other instance of the high CO2 levels can similarly be accounted for by vulcanism or other forcing. The current increase is different: for all the mad ramblings of Daniel and his citing from Ice-Age-sometimeinthenextmillenium there is no natural forcing that I can see. If we can spot a field gun in the desert in Iraq then I'm pretty sure we'd know about underwater volcanoes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
Posted
  • Location: Guess!
  • Location: Guess!

I'm always amazed by how one slightly cooler than average winter in the UK, a tiny, tiny area of the world, can suggest to anyone that a cooling trend has, or is about to be established. last year was (just) the warmest ever recorded (since Victoria still had 20-odd years left to reign). How about January in the USA being the warmest since records began? Globally, both Feb and March 2006 were in the top 10 warmest. Almost every month that goes by, especially with ocean temps shows this. (search the NOAA site for the stats - it is fascinating! http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/monitoring.html

There are no indications whatsoever that the Gulf Stream is weakening. The Southampton Uni study found that one of the N/S currents, that had been only infrequently measured before, was 30% weaker than the last measure, 5 years ago. It did not find any reduction in S/N currents, especially the Gulf Stream. Indeed last summer showed arctic ice as being at its lowest measured extent - due to warmer sea temps, as well as warmer land temps. Have you seen the amount of Ice in the Brents sea and the Greenland sea right now, compared to 30 year means? have a look on Cryosphere today, then tell me that a global cooling phase has been established!

An interruption to the North Atlantic Circulation is no more than pure speculation, I'm afraid.

The reality is that the world has been warming for the last 50 years, the UK has shown the same trend since the early 1980s, but the UK matters hardly a jot when Global Warming is discussed!

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...