Global Cooling

[Mondy]

More and more evidence is emerging on Global Cooling.

Out of interest, will Global Cooling soon become the new "in fashion-phrase" to replace the now unnecessary Global Warming term?

How long until the BBC have a section devoted to Global Cooling / Climate Change? The BBC being staunch supporters of all things agw.

More importantly, I'd be interested, and I'm sure many more would, if people out there have had their Global Warming outlook changed to Global Cooling, and what made them change, reason etc.

Edit: Just found this. Unsure if it's been torn to shreds by the agw movement.

Edited September 14, 2008 by Delta X-Ray

[Nick L]

Although I would love to see cooling instead of warming, I simply cannot see the evidence. Temperatures do seem to have levelled off over the past 10 years. But a decade does not make a concrete trend IMO.

[noggin]

Tonight, BBC2, 9o'clock......the second part of The History of Climate Change deals with things from an AGW "sceptics'" point of view.

I thought last week's programme was very interesting and was surprised that no-one here seems to have mentioned it.

Hey ho.

I believe we are now in a cooling phase for a few decades. That's how it goes.....warming up.....cooling down. 'Twas ever thus.

Actually, back to last week's programme, the scientist/presenter did say that the Winters of the 50s and 60s were cold, which ties in with my childhood memories and also confirms my belief that it is all natural cycles

Yes, I probably sound like a stuck record to some, but I prefer to think of it as being unshakeable in my belief, until something comes along to provide irrefutable proof that I am wrong. I have not yet seen any such proof.

Although I would love to see cooling instead of warming, I simply cannot see the evidence. Temperatures do seem to have levelled off over the past 10 years. But a decade does not make a concrete trend IMO.

How long would it take to make a trend? Do you not think it is warming and cooling cycles then?

[Nick L]

Tonight, BBC2, 9o'clock......the second part of The History of Climate Change deals with things from an AGW "sceptics'" point of view.

I thought last week's programme was very interesting and was surprised that no-one here seems to have mentioned it.

Hey ho.

I believe we are now in a cooling phase for a few decades. That's how it goes.....warming up.....cooling down. 'Twas ever thus.

Actually, back to last week's programme, the scientist/presenter did say that the Winters of the 50s and 60s were cold, which ties in with my childhood memories and also confirms my belief that it is all natural cycles

Yes, I probably sound like a stuck record to some, but I prefer to think of it as being unshakeable in my belief, until something comes along to provide irrefutable proof that I am wrong. I have not yet seen any such proof.

How long would it take to make a trend? Do you not think it is warming and cooling cycles then?

I also thought that programme was top notch, and I am thoroughly looking forward to tonight's episode. Well I would give it another decade or so, and if there is still very little or no warming, then the global warming theory must be reviewed.

[Mondy]

LINK

[pottyprof]

How long would it take to make a trend? Do you not think it is warming and cooling cycles then?

TBH I think we need to see a few more years of cooling before it becomes convincing enough to be called a natural cycle.. Even then you'll still hear the shouts that this cooling period is what AGW predicts before warming again.. Unless its a sudden downturn in temps on a major scale, I think we are going to be waiting for about 20 years before the AGW camp start to accept anything other than AGW. They predict about 10 years or so of slight cooling before warming continues again.

[weather eater]

I also thought that programme was top notch, and I am thoroughly looking forward to tonight's episode. Well I would give it another decade or so, and if there is still very little or no warming, then the global warming theory must be reviewed.

It was indeed very good, as for the warming lets put it this way if you warm some water and keep it at roughly the same temperature is it cooling or simmering, a crude analogy but not far off the mark, you cannot describe little or no warming as cooling.

[noggin]

I also thought that programme was top notch, and I am thoroughly looking forward to tonight's episode. Well I would give it another decade or so, and if there is still very little or no warming, then the global warming theory must be reviewed.

Yes, to be absolutely sure, we need to be able to look back, don't we? It is the passage of time which enables us to see what is what. This is why I am adamant about cycles......I have seen how it goes during my lifetime and there have been cycles. I am also sure that there must be cycles within cycles too!

Must go and watch the telly now.......

[Mondy]

It was indeed very good, as for the warming lets put it this way if you warm some water and keep it at roughly the same temperature is it cooling or simmering, a crude analogy but not far off the mark, you cannot describe little or no warming as cooling.

You also cannot describe global temperatures falling as Global Warming, so what gives? The planet is cooling, so Global Warming is irrelevant in the very context it's used in!

[laserguy]

You also cannot describe global temperatures falling as Global Warming, so what gives? The planet is cooling, so Global Warming is irrelevant in the very context it's used in!

It's not called global warming anymore.it's CO2 induced climate change! No worries,taxing this and restricting that will sort it. Noggin,you bet me 50p I'd watch the prog. I didn't - where's my 50p?

[weather eater]

You also cannot describe global temperatures falling as Global Warming, so what gives? The planet is cooling, so Global Warming is irrelevant in the very context it's used in!

I don’t have an angle one way or another but as yet I've seen no evidence of cooling just a leveling out besides, as I have pointed out many times temperature fluctuations are standard fair for the planets climate but to prove the Earths climate is cooling would require several years of hard evidence of lowering temperatures not just a few years of leveling out that’s not an indication one way or another. A lot has been talked about in terms of agendas by various interested party’s it seems to me that those who have most to gain are those that want paint a picture of every thing being hunky dory in re the world’s climate, that’s where the money is.

[Iceberg]

If the same level of cooling during the past decade(even if we were to assume this premis) were to continue for another 100 years then we might finally be back to Normal 61-90 averages. I think I would believe it then.

(Just to put it in perspective.)

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

If the same level of cooling during the past decade(even if we were to assume this premis) were to continue for another 100 years then we might finally be back to Normal 61-90 averages. I think I would believe it then.

(Just to put it in perspective.)

Well this years temps globally have taken us to or below the average 70-99 temp period so lets see how it continues....it isn't going to take 100 years....by next year we will be experiencing lower temps 'generally'.

BFTP

Edited September 15, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Interestingly, and I only caught a glimpse of the programme, that 30-35 years a go we were considering Global Cooling.

Throw another idea in to the mix if I may?

CO2 perhaps does not increase global temperatures, but perhaps induces climate change instead (so changing the philosophy that Climate Change is brought about by CO2 levels, and not global warming)?

[Iceberg]

Well this years temps globally have taken us to or below the average 70-99 temp period so lets see how it continues....it isn't going to take 100 years....by next year we will be experiencing lower temps 'generally'.

BFTP

But is this thread about the trend over the last 12 months, in which case it's absurd and your point is valid.

Or about the trend over the last 10 years. ?

[noggin]

Noggin,you bet me 50p I'd watch the prog. I didn't - where's my 50p?

Sorry, laserguy.....I'm a bit short at the moment, credit crunch and all that.

I wish I hadn't bothered watching it last night. I really believed that he was going to give some good "anti" arguments, but he didn't. I switched over eventually when he seemed to be saying that the LIA and the MWP didn't happen.

Next week he is going to tell us what will happen in the future.

These so-called experts don't have a clue half the time.....like the current financial crisis....."experts" were saying last year that it will all be over soon, even last week some expert/twit said the stockmarkets had bottomed out. Even I could see that they hadn't.....and what's happened this morning?

Grumble, grumble, grumble.

B)

[Iceberg]

To be fair he did day that they might have happened, he admitted that Mann's graph was too simplistic and didn't take into account the peaks and troughs of climate.

However he clearly stated and showed that using almost any reconstruction available the peaks where nowhere near the peak seen today.

Also interesting that If Mann's reconstruction is incorrect, what does that say about GWO's 100% correlation with it.?.

[Essan]

You also cannot describe global temperatures falling as Global Warming, so what gives?

Yes you can Or, at least, we can have falling temperatures and still have AGW.

The planet is cooling, so Global Warming is irrelevant in the very context it's used in!

Is it cooling? And if so, is it cooling as much as it would do were there no humans on the planet? B)

Next week he is going to tell us what will happen in the future.

No, he's going to tell us what some people think may happen, and explain how and why they think it may happen.

I do know he's rather sceptical of some of the predictions though.

[osmposm]

These so-called experts don't have a clue half the time.....like the current financial crisis....."experts" were saying last year that it will all be over soon, even last week some expert/twit said the stockmarkets had bottomed out. Even I could see that they hadn't.....and what's happened this morning?

Absolutely true, Noggin, about financial experts....though instead of listening to the small number who were saying that there was no problem, business as usual in 12 months, you might've been better advised to have listened to the vast majority of real experts in the field, many of whom have been warning of impending disaster for several years; and most of whom, since the credit crunch got stuck in, have been suggesting that there is more and severer pain to come. The place to find them is in the more serious financial press, or if you don't have time like me, there is a very good weekly "best-of" anthology-style mag available.

Now that story sounds familiar, what does it remind me of, I wonder.......?

PS I should add that because I so wanted to believe it was true, I was - with lunatic over-optimism - already buying shares in the spring of this year. As we well know, there are fools to be found even among the sensible.

Edited September 15, 2008 by osmposm

[0000]

Yes, to be absolutely sure, we need to be able to look back, don't we? It is the passage of time which enables us to see what is what. This is why I am adamant about cycles......I have seen how it goes during my lifetime and there have been cycles. I am also sure that there must be cycles within cycles too!

Must go and watch the telly now.......

Yup cycles that take eons,decades and even a matter of short years but the fact is the Earth's been warmer and cooler in the past and will continue to do what it may,I feel it's rather arrogant of the human race to assume we can control or rather influence the climate in any significant way.

[osmposm]

Yup cycles that take eons,decades and even a matter of short years but the fact is the Earth's been warmer and cooler in the past and will continue to do what it may,I feel it's rather arrogant of the human race to assume we can control or rather influence the climate in any significant way.

Personally, I think it is more arrogant to assume that whatever we do to the place during our short tenure will not have any effect within our own time frame - and it's our time frame and our experience we are talking about, nobody doubts that the planet will sort itself out quite happily if you take a 50 million year view. If one eruption of one volcano can change the climate significantly for a period of years, is it so hard to believe that we can do so too?

Edited September 15, 2008 by osmposm

[0000]

Personally, I think it is more arrogant to assume that whatever we do to the place during our short tenure will not have any effect within our own time frame - and it's our time frame and our experience we are talking about, nobody doubts that the planet will sort itself out quite happily if you take a 50 million year view. If one eruption of one volcano can change the climate significantly for a period of years, is it so hard to believe that we can do so too?

I refer more to extent of influence as apposed to actual influence........merely trying to point out I feel we are like ants argueing over who owns the elephant we're sitting on.

Do we really make any difference?

[eddie]

I refer more to extent of influence as apposed to actual influence........merely trying to point out I feel we are like ants argueing over who owns the elephant we're sitting on.

Do we really make any difference?

If the ants make the elephant itch and it decides to take a bath then everything is still fine from the point of view of the elephant. The ants might have a different view.

[0000]

If the ants make the elephant itch and it decides to take a bath then everything is still fine from the point of view of the elephant. The ants might have a different view.

I'm asking not stating though

[eddie]

If one eruption of one volcano can change the climate significantly for a period of years, is it so hard to believe that we can do so too?

Exactly, if 20 million tons of SO2 released by a volcano (e.g. Mt. Pinatubo) can cool the planet by then how can releasing 27 billion tons of CO2 every year not have any effect?