Scientist: Forget Global Warming, Prepare for New Ice Age

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian Observes:
That’s about all it takes. A rather small variation in average temperature extends the melting period for a few days each year. And over the years, that accumulates. And the glaciers recede. And ice shelves weaken.

Speaking of variations in average temperatures, when are you going to calculate the average for the last five years (with the associated error bar)?

End of the term, probably. Don’t worry, the data is secure.

You need to do that soon as it appears that the data keeps changing.

The last “change” was so tiny, you couldn’t see the difference in the data points on your screen. It’s less significant than they told you.

Interestingly it seems that temperature in the future changes the estimates of what the temperature was in the past.

Nope. But methodology does.

I don’t know how large these changes are but, since we’re talking about a change over a mere five years, even small changes will be significant to our bet.

Given the rather large change over the last five years, and the fact that the rate is accelerating, suggests that it won’t be close. I think the one-year mileposts will be interesting.

Barbarian observes:
The surprising thing is, the Greenland ice sheet is retreating twice as fast as predicted for such a rise in temperature.

The surprising thing is that yet another prediction has been shown to be unreliable.

There is a trend here, in that the warming has been consistently underestimated in older models. That’s not much comfort for deniers, though.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Interested folks should do some internet and library research on the shortcomings of the “Hockey Stick” graph, which has been presented here as proving man-made global warming.

IPCC has already dropped all references to the Hockey Stick graph.

Wiki has a lot of limitations, but here is one place to start:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Also go here:

sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/GW-vdLingen.htm

And here:

nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html

And here:

ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-03-24/ipcc.htm

And here:

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1320342/posts

And here:

isil.org/resources/fnn/2007june/global-warming-hoax.html

 

[Al_Masetti]

This essay doesn’t have a link that I could find, so I’m posting it in its entirety. Sorry about that.

---

---

1. The final end -and burial - of the Hockeystick

A. The Medieval Warm Period was global and at least as warm as the 20th century

Medieval Warm Period (Solar Influence - Other) – Summary co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/s/summaries/mwpsolarother.jsp

Clues to past climatic conditions may be found in a wide variety of proxy data pertaining to many more things than simply temperature and precipitation. In the paragraphs that follow, we review the findings of some recent studies of such data that tell us much about the genesis and demise of the Medieval Warm Period, along with what these things imply about the planet’s current warmth.
co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N6/C1.jsp

Maasch et al. (2005) examined changes in eight well-dated high-resolution non-temperature histories covering the past two millennia: (1) K+ concentrations obtained from the GISP2 ice core in Greenland, (2) Na+ concentrations derived from the Siple Dome ice core in Antarctica, (3) percent Ti present in an ocean sediment core retrieved from the Cariaco Basin off the coast of Venezuela, (4) Fe intensity from a marine sediment core extracted near the coast of mid-latitude Chile, (5) oxygen isotope fractions from Punta Laguna near the Yucatan, (6) carbon isotope data from a speleothem in Makapansgat, South Africa, (7) percent of shallow water diatoms found in a sediment core taken from Lake Victoria, and (8) past levels of Lake Naivasha in equatorial Africa. They then compared these histories with a similar history of atmospheric 14C to ascertain if any solar influence might have operated on these parameters. This comparison revealed that over the past 2000 years there had been, in the words of the researchers, a “strong association between solar variability and globally distributed climate change [our italics],” and they say that this “remarkable coherence” among the data sets was particularly noticeable in the Medieval Warm Period to Little Ice Age transition.
In a similar vein, but covering the entire period of the current interglacial or Holocene,
co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V7/N51/C3.jsp

Mayewski et al. (2005) examined some fifty globally distributed paleoclimate records in search of evidence for what they call rapid climate change (RCC). This terminology is not to be confused with the rapid climate changes typical of glacial periods, but is used in the place of what the sixteen researchers call the “more geographically or temporally restrictive terminology such as ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Medieval Warm Period’.” Hence, RCC events, as they also call them, are multi-century periods characterized by extremes of various climatic properties, rather than the much shorter periods during which the changes that produced them took place.

Mayewski et al. identified six RCCs during the Holocene: 9000-8000, 6000-5000, 4200-3800, 3500-2500, 1200-1000 and 600-150 cal yr BP, the last two of which intervals are the “globally distributed” Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, respectively. In speaking further of these two periods, they say that “the short-lived 1200-1000 cal yr BP RCC event coincided with the drought-related collapse of Maya civilization and was accompanied by a loss of several million lives (Hodell et al., 2001; Gill, 2000), while the collapse of Greenland’s Norse colonies at ~600 cal yr BP (Buckland et al., 1995) coincides with a period of polar cooling.”

With respect to the causes of these and other Holocene RCCs, the international team of scientists says that “of all the potential climate forcing mechanisms, solar variability superimposed on long-term changes in insolation (Bond et al., 2001; Denton and Karlen, 1973; Mayewski et al., 1997; O’Brien et al., 1995) seems to be the most likely important forcing mechanism.” In addition, they note that “negligible forcing roles are played by CH4 and CO2,” and that “changes in the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 appear to have been more the result than the cause of the RCCs.”
In another study that shows the pervasiveness of the Medieval Warm Period-Little Ice Age type of cyclical climate change,
co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V5/N13/C3.jsp

 

[Al_Masetti]

It was too long; here’s the rest of it:

---

de Garidel-Thoron and Beaufort (2001) reconstructed a 200,000-year history of primary productivity in the Sulu Sea north of Borneo, based on measured abundances of the coccolithophore Florisphaera profunda in a giant piston core. Three time-slices of this core were explored in detail in order to determine high-frequency cycles in the primary production record: one from 160 to 130 ka, one from 60 to 30 ka, and one from 22 to 4.1 ka. The finest-scale repeatable feature observed in all three time-slices was a climate-driven primary production oscillation that had a mean period of approximately 1500 years. With respect to this cycle, they say that its occurrence in the three different time-slices is suggestive of “a common origin and an almost stationary signal across different climatic conditions.” They also point out the primary production cycle’s similarity to the 1470-year temperature cycle observed by Dansgaard et al. (1984) in the Camp Century d18O ice core record, the ~1500-year d18O and chemical markers cycles observed by Mayewski et al. (1997) in the Summit ice core, the 1470-year climate cycle found by Bond et al. (1997) in North Atlantic deep-sea cores, and the 1500-year climate cycle found by Campbell et al. (1998) in an Alaskan lake. These and other observations led them to suggest that there is also “a common origin” for the documented cyclicity in the climates of both high and low latitudes, which Bond et al. (2001) associated with variable solar activity.

In light of the findings of these many multi-parameter analyses, it is becoming ever more clear that the millennial-scale oscillation of climate that has reverberated throughout glacial and interglacial periods alike is indeed the result of similar-scale oscillations in solar activity. Consequently, Mayewski et al. (2005) suggest that “significantly more research into the potential role of solar variability is warranted, involving new assessments of potential transmission mechanisms to induce climate change and potential enhancement of natural feedbacks that may amplify the relatively weak forcing related to fluctuations in solar output.” We couldn’t agree more, for until these mechanisms have been elucidated to everyone’s satisfaction, the world’s climate alarmists will continue to ignore the mountains of evidence that link millennial-scale climate cycles with similar solar cycles, and they will push ever harder for the adoption of wrong-headed energy policies to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the serious detriment of man and nature alike.

References
Bond, G., Kromer, B., Beer, J., Muscheler, R., Evans, M.N., Showers, W., Hoffmann, S., Lotti-Bond, R., Hajdas, I. and Bonani, G. 2001. Persistent solar influence on North Atlantic climate during the Holocene. Science 294: 2130-2136.
Bond, G., Showers, W., Chezebiet, M., Lotti, R., Almasi, P., deMenocal, P., Priore, P., Cullen, H., Hajdas, I. and Bonani, G. 1997. A pervasive millennial scale cycle in North-Atlantic Holocene and glacial climates. Science 278: 1257-1266.
Buckland, P.C., Amorosi, T., Barlow, L.K., Dugmore, A.J., Mayewski, P.A., McGovern, T.H., Ogilvie, A.E.J., Sadler, J.P. and Skidmore, P. 1995. Bioarchaeological evidence and climatological evidence for the fate of Norse farmers in medieval Greenland. Antiquity 70: 88-96.
Campbell, I.D., Campbell, C., Apps, M.J., Rutter, N.W. and Bush, A.B.G. 1998. Late Holocene ca.1500 yr climatic periodicities and their implications. Geology 26: 471-473.
Dansgaard, W., Johnsen, S.J., Clausen, H.B., Dahl-Jensen, N., Gundestrup, N. and Hammer, C.U. 1984. North Atlantic climatic oscillations revealed by deep Greenland ice cores. In: Hansen, J.E. and Takahashi, T. (Eds.), Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 288-298.
de Garidel-Thoron, T. and Beaufort, L. 2001. Millennial-scale dynamics of the East Asian winter monsoon during the last 200,000 years. Paleoceanography 16: 1-12.
Denton, G.H. and Karlen, W. 1973. Holocene climatic variations: their pattern and possible cause. Quaternary Research 3: 155-205.
Gill, R.B. 2000. The Great Maya Droughts: Water, Life, and Death. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
Maasch, K.A., Mayewski, P.A., Rohling, E.J., Stager, J.C., Karlén, W., Meeker, L.D. and Meyerson, E.A. 2005. A 2000-year context for modern climate change. Geografiska Annaler 87 A: 7-15.
Mayewski, P.A., Meeker, L.D., Twickler, M.S., Whitlow, S., Yang, Q., Lyons, W.B. and Prentice, M. 1997. Major features and forcing of high-latitude northern hemisphere atmospheric circulation using a 110,000-year-long glaciochemical series. Journal of Geophysical Research 102: 26,345-26,366.
Mayewski, P.A., Rohling, E.E., Stager, J.C., Karlen, W., Maasch, K.A., Meeker, L.D., Meyerson, E.A., Gasse, F., van Kreveld, S., Holmgren, K., Lee-Thorp, J., Rosqvist, G. Rack, F., Staubwasser, M., Schneider, R.R. and Steig, E.J. 2004. Holocene climate variability. Quaternary Research 62: 243-255.
O’Brien, S.R., Mayewski, P.A., Meeker, L.D., Meese, D.A., Twickler, M.S. and Whitlow, S.E. 1995. Complexity of Holocene climate as reconstructed from a Greenland ice core. Science 270: 1962-1964.
Last updated 14 June 2006

 

[The_Barbarian]

If your guy is right, we should be in the middle of a low spot, since we are just between the end and the beginning of a sunspot cycle. And yet, the last five years have been the warmest on record.

Ooops…

 

[Al_Masetti]

More reading.

climateskeptics.org/index.php/Past_temperatures

 

[Al_Masetti]

If your guy is right, we should be in the middle of a low spot, since we are just between the end and the beginning of a sunspot cycle. And yet, the last five years have been the warmest on record.

Ooops…

Please use current data.

Thanks.

---

A Y2K bug, and perhaps probably some politically motivated turning of blind eyes, produced data that has misled the public for years:

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

A NASA scientist likely covered up this information, at least for as long as possible:

So James Hansen, who claimed Bush was politicizing Global Warming, refused to provide his algorithms to other researchers so they could simply check his work, hiding his own errors from them and distorting the science he claims to care about oh-so-much until some persistent researchers went to the great trouble of reconstructing his algorithms themselves.

I’ve written on the cult of Global Warming in the past (here, here, and here – some excellent links in those posts and related comments), and noted issues with the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, as well as the possible effects of a weakening magnetic field and solar activity (e.g. cosmic rays). The best argument for the doomsday scenarios turns out to be data “suggests” drastic change occurred under “similar” conditions – 55 million years ago. But it is after all a religion of sorts.

www.areastudies.org/2007/08/14/ 1934-–-not-1998-–-warmest-year-on-record/ - 34k -

 

[The_Barbarian]

And some research on the subject:

**A Stellar View on Solar Variations and Climate
Peter Foukal, Gerald North, Tom Wigley

Accurate reconstruction of solar irradiance variations is important for assessing human and natural contributions to climate change. Fluctuations in the Sun’s brightness, measured directly by space-borne radiometry over the past two 11-year sunspot cycles, seem too small to drive climate. Recent reconstructions of solar irradiance extending back to the 17th century have assumed that larger, multidecadal irradiance variations occur, similar to those detected on other Sun-like stars. In their Perspective, Foukal et al. discuss the recent retraction of this stellar evidence and of the solar irradiance reconstructions based on it, which has important implications for the relative roles of various forcing factors in climate change. **
Science 1 October 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5693, pp. 68 - 69

Of course, we can’t rule out the possibility that it was different in the past. But in the here and now, sunspots aren’t what’s driving the warming.

 

[Al_Masetti]

And some research on the subject:

**A Stellar View on Solar Variations and Climate
Peter Foukal, Gerald North, Tom Wigley

Accurate reconstruction of solar irradiance variations is important for assessing human and natural contributions to climate change. Fluctuations in the Sun’s brightness, measured directly by space-borne radiometry over the past two 11-year sunspot cycles, seem too small to drive climate. Recent reconstructions of solar irradiance extending back to the 17th century have assumed that larger, multidecadal irradiance variations occur, similar to those detected on other Sun-like stars. In their Perspective, Foukal et al. discuss the recent retraction of this stellar evidence and of the solar irradiance reconstructions based on it, which has important implications for the relative roles of various forcing factors in climate change. **
Science 1 October 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5693, pp. 68 - 69

Of course, we can’t rule out the possibility that it was different in the past. But in the here and now, sunspots aren’t what’s driving the warming.

One paper is hardly authoritative.

 

[The_Barbarian]

A Y2K bug, and perhaps probably some politically motivated turning of blind eyes, produced data that has misled the public for years:

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding.

Let’s take a look…

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/hansen-t2.jpg

If you look closely, you’ll see that the old and new figures are on two different curves, but at the resolution possible on a computer screen, the difference is too small to measure. The five-year mean is essentially unchanged. That’s the “astounding difference” they told you about.

The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.

Take a look. That’s not what the data show.

So James Hansen, who claimed Bush was politicizing Global Warming,

And yes, there is congressional testimony from many government scientists who have so testified to the pressure placed on them to change their findings to make them politically correct to the government.

BTW, the office of the agency responsible for handling whistle-blower complaints was raided by the FBI yesterday, and computer systems locked down. The political appointee in charge of the agency also had his home searched under a warrant for obstruction of justice.

The real extent of this scandal is yet to be seen.

Of course, none of this will have much effect on the true believers, who will continue to consider the changes shown above as “astounding.”

Heh, I’ve had Jehovah’s Witnesses tell me that the Catholic Church is a cult, too. It’s what they fall back on, when they know their apologetics aren’t working.

Grasping at straws, pretty much. Go look at the graph again. “Astounding.” *

 

[peregrinus_WA]

** UNITED STATES**

**Climate Summary **

**April 2008 **

  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/1998/bluebar.gif

The average temperature in April 2008 was 51.0 F. This was -1.0 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 29th coolest April in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

2.39 inches of precipitation fell in April. This was -0.04 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 54th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.01 inches per decade​

ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

 

[The_Barbarian]

One way deniers try to avoid the data, is to present local data for a very restricted period of time, hoping people will not notice it is not global data and is for a short period. Thus any unusual small period of time in a localized area can be presented as representative of the trend as a whole. If people don’t take notice, it can.

How many people noticed the quick switch from global to US data, and from hundreds of years, to months?

Nice try.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Regarding the role in the current administration in pressuring scientists:

**The Office of Personnel Management’s inspector general has been looking into allegations that Bloch retaliated against career employees and obstructed an investigation. Sources close to the probe said the FBI’s raid this morning was related to work the inspector general had already done.

In addition to concerns about obstruction of justice, investigators are also looking into whether Bloch violated the Hatch Act, a congressional mandate that prohibits employees from using their offices for partisan political purposes.

Bloch has admitted to hiring Geeks on Call — a computer servicing company — to purge his computer and two of his deputies’ computers, sources said. But he said the computers contained a virus, which necessitated a purge. Investigators are looking into whether the purge was meant to destroy evidence related to the current investigation.**
npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90222494&ft=1&f=1003

No one is yet talking about what happened, but numerous public complaints by scientists, including Congressional testimony has pointed to government attempts to rewrite climate data.

 

[Al_Masetti]

One way deniers try to avoid the data, is to present local data for a very restricted period of time, hoping people will not notice it is not global data and is for a short period. Thus any unusual small period of time in a localized area can be presented as representative of the trend as a whole. If people don’t take notice, it can.

How many people noticed the quick switch from global to US data, and from hundreds of years, to months?

Nice try.

No.

The problem, as evidenced here throughout this thread, is that “anti-warmers” will bring up 20 arguments counter to the the “man-made warming” arguments. And the alleged refutation deals with one statement made by one of the “anti-warmers” in a venue unrelated to climate. Or, there will be dozens of arguments that make the case against man-made warming and the counter argument is that the anti-warmers don’t stick to just one argument.

 

[steveandersen]

** UNITED STATES**

**Climate Summary **

**April 2008 **

  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/1998/bluebar.gif

The average temperature in April 2008 was 51.0 F. This was -1.0 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 29th coolest April in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

2.39 inches of precipitation fell in April. This was -0.04 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 54th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.01 inches per decade​

ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

What is the significance of comparing 1 year’s data to a 100-year average?

Other than saying this particular year in this region was warmer or colder than average it is kind of meaningless for discussing long term trends.

If you are looking for trends you would need to compare running averages.

And you would need to look at global data rather than that for a single nation so that regional differences can be accounted for.

 

[Al_Masetti]

With respect to whether or not solar cycles affect climate, in response to a previous poster.

[There must be something in the “talking points” because a poster on www.climatechangedebate.org made a similar point, to which another poster couldn’t resist replying. So herewith is the reply]

---

In the mean time I would like to respond to [name deleted’s] ludicrous statement that the solar cycles don’t affect climate. Sorry, didn’t cause the warming of the late 20th century. Of course he is referring to the Lockwood paper, the only one of it’s kind and full of the deceptions those that support AGW are so famous for. Read 'em and weep.

Here:

scienceandpublicpolicy.org

scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_reprint_series/a_critique_on_the_lockwood_frochlich_paper_in_the_royal_society_proceedings.html

Sorry for the length of the url but tiny’s don’t work with my
computer.

A key point is:

“The Lockwood paper manipulates the cosmic ray count data to
eliminate the 11 year cycle by extrapolating between the nodes of the cycles. The nodes are points where the top part of the cycle has the same mean as the lower part, approximately the midpoint of each cycle. The result is the “Cosmic ray count” graph shown in the BBC article and reproduced above. Note that this reveals a 22 year cycle. But totally eliminating the 11 year cycle implies that the damping effect of the oceans is near infinite, which would also eliminate a 22 year cycle, or any other cycle length. If the oceans really had a near infinite heat capacity, it would absorb all effects of the Sun and CO2 changes and global temperatures would not change! Lockwood essentially applies a 100% damping to the 11 year cycle but 0% damping to the 22 year cycle, which is complete nonsense.”

If you can get to the full paper it destroys Lockwood’s paper as it should.

As I have said before the drivers of this AGW scam are in a panic because they know this is probably the last year they can continue to sell it without everyone laughing out loud.In their collective faces. As I see it it is no longer an honest debate although I am sure for some it is. Your reference to the quote that it is hard for someone to see … when their paycheck depends on it clearly does not apply to sceptics. All a sceptic has to do is come out of the closet and their income dries up so that statement applies but not to skeptics. To say so is laughable.

Cheers,
[name deleted]

#######

 

[tmts]

For all those concerned about the so-called man made global warming hysteria, has anyone noticed the impact Al Gore’s green policy has had on
the worlds food supply? Of course the poor nations of the world are suffering because of the shortage of rice, wheat, and corn that they are using to produce the ultra-expensive ethanol fuel. I think if anyone has a fever, it is
Mr. Gore. His latest is the cyclone that hit Burma, (the thugs and terrorist now call it Myanmar) is once again, global warming. In my local newspaper today, on this date May 11, in 1953 a tornado swept through Waco, Tx. that killed 114 people and caused $200 million, in 1953 dollars. One more tid bit- N.E. Ohio-on this date in 1881 it was 87 degrees and in 1977 on this date it was 33 degrees. Climate changes, and changes, and changes. All the charts, graphs, and barbarian talk won’t matter much to those poor souls shivering from the cold and starving to death because of one mad man and his followers. God help us.

 

[steveandersen]

For all those concerned about the so-called man made global warming hysteria, has anyone noticed the impact Al Gore’s green policy has had on
the worlds food supply?

You think Al Gore has something to do with world food prices?

Of course the poor nations of the world are suffering because of the shortage of rice, wheat, and corn that they are using to produce the ultra-expensive ethanol fuel.

There are several factors contributing to food prices.
The price of oil, which is used in everything from fertilizers & pesticides to the truck that drives food to market being a major component.

A couple of crop failures and export restrictions enacted by several major food exporters doesn’t help either.

In the US the federal subsidies for corn ethanol are seriously distorting the crop mix (as a home brewer I am appalled by the price of barley)

I think if anyone has a fever, it is
Mr. Gore. His latest is the cyclone that hit Burma, (the thugs and terrorist now call it Myanmar) is once again, global warming.

A warmer atmosphere is typically a more energetic atmosphere.
no big news there
But I doubt that anyone would/could try to blame a particular storm on climatic treads.

In my local newspaper today, on this date May 11, in 1953 a tornado swept through Waco, Tx. that killed 114 people and caused $200 million, in 1953 dollars.

Terrible tragedy
What is it apropos to?

One more tid bit- N.E. Ohio-on this date in 1881 it was 87 degrees and in 1977 on this date it was 33 degrees.

once again what is that apropos to?

Are you suggesting that a climate trend means that variance is eliminated?

there is a difference between weather and climate

Climate changes, and changes, and changes. All the charts, graphs, and barbarian talk won’t matter much to those poor souls shivering from the cold and starving to death because of one mad man and his followers.

Al Gore has not held elective office for almost 8 years. It has been almost 16 years since he was in a legislature and had a vote on agricultural policy.
If you want to blame someone try the current crop of legislators.
The 2007 US farm bill (the latest in place) was a compromise bill the pretty much continued the policies of the previous bill (which the UN objects to because it is contrary to WTO policies)

God help us.

Amen

 

[The_Barbarian]

Darn, Al Gore is now responsible for food prices and hurricanes?

That rascal.

 

[roanoker]

Well, Barbarian, you’ve got to blame somebody! And he’s a particularly easy target…Roanoker