Is our Earth is cooling?

  • 135 Replies
  • 27945 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #50 on: 02/04/2013 18:01:31 »
henry@jp
now there is reasonably intelligent response.
the problem is the UAH.
That is the one station that I had excluded  because there is no correlation whatsoever with this one with all the other data sets.
btw
my selection was not cherry picked. I just chose the last equivalent of one solar cycle (= ca. 11 years).

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #51 on: 02/04/2013 19:09:38 »
Hmm :)

you do have your ways set, don't you.
Reread my last post, added some stuff. If you want to base it on statistics that is?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Henry Pool

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 88
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #52 on: 02/04/2013 19:26:45 »
@yor_on
I am ur stats man. Please help me to see where I am wrong?
using my own data FROM 47 STATIONS  (not enough?)

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #53 on: 02/04/2013 19:56:51 »
Did you read the bit about needing data over a long period of time?
After all, if you knew the temperature of every square metre of the world's surface today that would be something like 500 million million stations,  it would tell you something about the weather, but nothing about the climate.
When it is known that there's a (roughly) 11 year cycle it's clear that 11 years isn't enough data- you can't tell if some cycles are deeper than others and, if so, how much deeper.

So you can't make any valid deductions about the earth's climate from 11 years worth of data.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Henry Pool

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 88
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #54 on: 02/04/2013 20:34:50 »
@ bored chemist

yes, we know that earth has been warming from around 1928
but this warming stopped around the start of the new millennium
now, almost all data sets including my own are showing this....
what is ur point?
why are you all claiming that it is still warming when clearly it is not?
who are you fooling but yourselves?
Are you hoping it will still warm when all indications are going in the opposite direction?
mankind must adapt to a cooling climate, not a warming climate.
get wise
live with it

*

Offline Henry Pool

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 88
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #55 on: 02/04/2013 21:06:07 »
mankind must adapt to a cooling climate, not a warming climate.


that means less agriculture at higher latitudes (e.g. Alaska, http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html#storylink=misearch)
and PROMOTING more agriculture at lower latitudes  (Africa/ South America)

\
MARK MY WORDS
\
DO SOMETHING

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #56 on: 02/04/2013 23:34:23 »
Are you trolling?

"The Industrial Revolution spanned the 18th and early 19th Century. Over this period, global CO2 emissions were a fraction of current levels. During the 18th Century, global CO2 emissions were around 3 to 7 million tonnes per year.

During the early 19th Century, CO2 emissions steadily rose reaching 54 million tonnes per year by 1850.

Currently we are emitting over 8000 million tonnes per year."

See if you ideas fit any of those cited in skeptical Science  Global Warming & Climate Change Myths it have the accepted, proven by field work, answer beside the argument.

You just don't get it, do you? It's not your blog. I'm starting to suspect that you just want to write about global cooling, and advertise your blog, at TNS expense? And you are not a prophet, coming down from the mountain. God is not your personal property, to use in whatever manner that please you. At least not on this site.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #57 on: 03/04/2013 00:06:18 »
For your information.

"Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University in Corvallis and colleagues have compiled 73 such proxies from around the world, all of which reach back to the end of the last glacial period, 11,300 years ago. During this period, known as the Holocene, the climate has been relatively warm – and civilisation has flourished.

"Most global temperature reconstructions have only spanned the past 2000 years," says Marcott.

Marcott's graph shows temperatures rising slowly after the ice age, until they peaked 9500 years ago. The total rise over that period was about 0.6 °C. They then held steady until around 5500 years ago, when they began slowly falling again until around 1850. The drop was 0.7 °C, roughly reversing the previous rise.

Then, in the late 19th century, the graph shows temperatures shooting up, driven by humanity's greenhouse gas emissions."

The cooling you want should have been here as belonging to Earths normal cycle, but it isn't, due to us. Instead we're going in the opposite direction, and we're just now finding that we might have a greater reason to worry about West Antarctica than thought before.

Hansen warned about it around twenty years ago, and if you bothered to look at the link I recommended earlier you can see that he's much closer to being prophetic than anyone else I know of. Here is Shaun Marcott et al summary, and FAQ.

Why not read it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #58 on: 04/04/2013 15:01:41 »
Here is another sign of times to come.

Polar research: Trouble bares its claws.

And then we have Krill and plankton. Where the "Krill numbers may have dropped by as much as 80% since the 1970's - so today's stocks are a mere 1/5th of what they were only 30 years ago. The decline in krill may  in turn account for the decline in the numbers of some penguin species."

And what did those whales feed on btw?
He*, why not let Japan eat as many as they want? :) They're soon gone, or if smart migrating to the south pole, anyway. Just as we now start to see polar bears mating with 'ordinary' brown bears. Nature seems to have its own ways storing genetic information, but she do not plan for it with human 'times scales' in mind.
==

Btw, want to meet a winner?

"Another animal that feeds on the same phytoplankton food as krill, jelly-like colonial animals called salps that drift in the ocean currents have increased in the same time the krill have decreased."

Jellyfish.
« Last Edit: 04/04/2013 15:15:41 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #59 on: 04/04/2013 15:53:31 »
Still, there are new breeds, amongst whales too. "The loss of Arctic sea ice is predicted to open up the Northwest Passage, shortening shipping routes and facilitating the exchange of marine organisms between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. Here, we present the first observations of distribution overlap of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) from the two oceans in the Northwest Passage, demonstrating this route is already connecting whales from two populations that have been assumed to be separated by sea ice. Previous satellite tracking has demonstrated that bowhead whales from West Greenland and Alaska enter the ice-infested channels of the Canadian High Arctic during summer. In August 2010, two bowhead whales from West Greenland and Alaska entered the Northwest Passage from opposite directions and spent approximately 10 days in the same area, documenting overlap between the two populations."

And Norwegian dna test, made as they started up their whale hunting again in 1993 have found arctic and antarctic minke whales mating and producing off spring. But this are recent developments, just as I will assume the mating between polar bears and brown bears to be. Think it's high time accepting that global warming is happening, and accept that we need to change our ways.
=

Maybe I will be shown wrong when it comes to the chances for those whales?

Even though the antarctic/arctic species of krill respectively plankton are decreasing there seem to be a inflow of 'sub- and -tropical' plankton following the global warming. It will depend on if they can, and will, increase to such numbers that they can feed a whale population? Also it will depend on what temperatures whales will feel comfortable in. But it would certainly be good if I was wrong there, wouldn't it :)

Although, there's no certainty to those findings yet, as this also is a new situation, not described before.

Tropical Plankton Invade Arctic Waters

And yes, not all whales feed on plankton. But maybe they will change their diet? I don't know.
Do whales eat plankton or krill??
« Last Edit: 04/04/2013 16:25:09 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #60 on: 04/04/2013 17:12:09 »
I don't usually weigh in on these threads since most contributors seem to have a horse in this race and use the thread to promote their particular viewpoint on climate change.  It's also outside of my area of expertise (physics).  However, as I posted in one of yor_on's other threads, there was an interesting article in The Economist last week that discussed the lack of warming in the past decade and cited some recent studies.  It does appear to be a real effect, although it doesn't negate the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that greenhouse gasses, including CO2 do cause average temperatures to rise. 

What I can comment on is the proper way to deal with this data, which is basic science.  All decent models should include an analysis of uncertainties and include error bars.  Those that predicted a temperature rise over this past decade include error bars, and the lack of temperature rise does fit within those error bars, although if it continues it will fall outside the error bars of the model.  What this means is that the past decade is interesting, but not confirmation that the model is wrong. 

We also know that current models are not exhaustive: it's impossible to model every aspect of the earth's climate and all models make a lot of simplifying assumptions.  If these assumptions are wrong, the models will be off.  From what I remember from the article, two effects might be important: clouds and deep ocean warming.  Both need to be studied in more detail. 

I can also finally comment on the wrong way to do science, as I'm a scientist and this is a science forum.  It's bad science to come in with an agenda and cherry pick a few data points to "prove" you're correct--especially if you ignore the fact that the past decade is within bounds of current models.  Sure, more research is probably needed to figure out if the past decade indicates the models are wrong, but telling us you're correct because you can draw a sine wave through some cherry-picked data has little to do with the scientific method.  Similarly, arguing away the past decade as a meaningless hiccup in the data is also bad science.  Checking it against the error bounds in models is the proper way to do things--to see just how much meaning there is in the lack of warming. 

The Economist article is linked below, which includes references to the various studies involved.  Given the way such threads tend to go on the internet, I'm not holding my breath for a scientific discussion.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #61 on: 04/04/2013 17:45:28 »
There are some interesting ideas.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=673
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/jan/29/drop-in-warming-linked-to-water-vapour-decrease
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/the-key-to-the-secrets-of-the-troposphere/

When it comes to both the atmosphere and the ocean it's really difficult to make those extensive studies. Before all they need to be funded. And considering how NASA:s budget looks those days, and what satellites etc, they plan to shoot up?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #62 on: 04/04/2013 18:24:11 »
JP - stats isnt my strong point although I am now trying to set that straight, could you help me out a bit. 

If you have a mathematical model of a physical process ie given x1, x2,x3.... , y1,y2,y3 & z1,z2,z3 etc. we can predict a1,a2,a3 - I presume all of your input data has an observational error and uncertainty.   I would think that for an iterated process with high dependence on initial variation there is a methodological uncertainty introduced by your processing.   Both of these will be translated through to the prediction which will have confidence ranges and error bars etc.  Now your actual observations that you test against your predictions - in this case the global mean temperature, this will also have empirical error and uncertainty.   So to test your model you can plot observed against predicted - and hope that the observed falls within your error bars.    I hope this is right so far cos this is the bit I think I am sure about. 


1.  is there a single descriptive statistic that gives the probability that model gives results a1,a2,a3 and observation A1,A2,A3 - each numbered pair being temporally seperated and a new test.  the famous 5 sigma is your choice in physics - but isn't this for multiple observations of similar but unconnected events rather a single entity being observed over time?    (homespun example of what I am getting at - if I predict 3.5 for the roll of a die I will never be correct; however if the results are judged cumulatively rather than individually after a few rolls I will start to look pretty spot on)

2.  The article shows 5-95% and 25-75% percent confidence intervals - they look more like error bars to me.  And whilst I don't fully understand this page on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval it doesnt seem to be talking about the same thing.  It looks from the graph as they are saying that of the models we have run only the top 5% and the bottom 5% are outside this coloured band - or is it saying that only if the error is in the 5% that would maximise or minimise the prediction would it be outside this coloured band. 

sorry that I could not provide a science response on the issue.  But i loved your post and felt it deserved a response. 

There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #63 on: 04/04/2013 18:53:39 »
Not too happy about this conclusion. "if, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6°C increase is trivial), the calculation might change. Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge. There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you do not live in an earthquake zone. In this case more adaptation rather than more mitigation might be the right policy at the margin. But that would be good advice only if these new estimates really were more reliable than the old ones. And different results come from different models."

First of all, adjust is what we will do. The CO2 concentrations are not going down, they are raising.
Secondly, what it bears down too is an assumption of 'business as usual', with all that this will bring with it in forms of exploitation and a poorer Earth. It's like the id**s finding it good that the Arctic melts, because we can then prolong our usage of oil, methane, coal etc. It's not good, whatever makes you think that it is?

Greed?

And then using papers that's not been peer reviewed supporting such an assumption?
« Last Edit: 04/04/2013 18:57:43 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #64 on: 04/04/2013 19:45:32 »
Are you thinking of how climate scientists define a Standard deviation Imatfaal? Same as everyone else I would say?

"Standard deviation - A measure of the spread or dispersion of a set of data. The more widely the values are spread out, the larger the standard deviation. It is calculated by taking the square root of the variance."

Variance - A measure of the average distance between each data point and the data mean value; equal to the sum of the squares of the difference between each point value and the data mean." From National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)

Look here The Science and Practice of Seasonal Climate Forecasting at the IRI for some of the complexity of the task.
And here is a preliminary prediction 2012 Updates to model-observation comparisons. And if you check the sources there you will see 'Skill and uncertainty in climate models.'

"Abstract

Analyses of skill are widely used for assessing weather predictions, but the time scale and lack of validation data mean that it is not generally possible to investigate the predictive skill of today's climate models on the multidecadal time scale. The predictions made with early climate models can, however, be analyzed, and here we show that one such forecast did have skill. It seems reasonable to expect that predictions based on today's more advanced models will be at least as skillful. In general, assessments of predictions based on today's climate models should use Bayesian methods, in which the inevitable subjective decisions are made explicit. For the AR4, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommended the Bayesian paradigm for making estimates of uncertainty and probabilistic statements, and here we analyze the way in which uncertainty was actually addressed in the report. Analysis of the ensemble of general circulation models (GCMs) used in the last IPCC report suggests there is little evidence to support the popular notion that the multimodel ensemble is underdispersive, which would imply that the spread of the ensemble may be a reasonable starting point for estimating uncertainty. It is important that the field of uncertainty estimation is developed in order that the best use is made of current scientific knowledge in making predictions of future climate. At the same time, it is only by better understanding the processes and inclusion of these processes in the models, the best estimates of future climate will be closer to the truth."
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #65 on: 04/04/2013 21:16:16 »
Not too happy about this conclusion. "if, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6°C increase is trivial), the calculation might change. Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge. There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you do not live in an earthquake zone. In this case more adaptation rather than more mitigation might be the right policy at the margin. But that would be good advice only if these new estimates really were more reliable than the old ones. And different results come from different models."

That's a question of policy, not science, though and The Economist tends to be pragmatic about policy. 

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #66 on: 04/04/2013 22:02:45 »
Mattew,

From what I understand of climate science, the confidence interval takes into account uncertainties in the model and predicts the results of measurements at different points in time (and potentially space).  Since any single measurement can't be predicted with certainty, the confidence interval simply says that X% of measurements should fall within this range if the model is correct.  Usually due to the law of large numbers, the confidence interval is a Gaussian distribution about the mean, and you can measure it in terms of # of standard deviation.  A measured data point that falls outside the 95% confidence interval would be only 5% likely to be due to random chance.  This might seem meaningful, but if you've taken 20 measurements, one of them is likely to fall there just due to random chance. 

Your example of a die is a bit tough, since the die is equally likely to come up 1-6, but you could always say that it will average a 3.5 with a 1/3 chance of being 3-4 and a 2/3 chance of being 2-5 (those would be your confidence intervals).  If you rolled a single 6, it wouldn't tell you much--only that it's outside the 66% confidence interval.  But if you rolled 20 6's in a row, then you could look at the data, find that such a result is incredibly unlikely, and start to question your model (maybe your die is loaded).

I'm not an expert on complex time-dependent processes, and haven't had to do any probabilistic analysis of them.  I assume the scientists developing climate models are experts and that they've rolled their model uncertainties as well as past measurements into the predictive powers of the model to correctly compute confidence intervals.  Then, like your die, you can count measurements and use statistics to quantify how likely your model is to be wrong based on those measurements.  (Remember, in science you don't prove a model correct--you can only say how consistent or inconsistent it is with data.)  I'm assuming climate scientists also do this, and that's what the article I linked hints at.  I haven't gone to the other analyses they speak of, but then I'm not the one trying to show that climate scientists are wrong. 

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #67 on: 04/04/2013 22:43:05 »
I guess my take-home point is that it's insufficient to draw a line through existing data to "prove" your model.  That's not proof: that's developing a model to fit data.  "Proof" involves testing the model with new measurements that weren't already used to develop it in the first place!  More importantly, you can't prove a hypothesis, you can only disprove it, so most scientific advances happen when a new model is proposed and then scientists go out and collect data that disprove an existing model.  In the case of climate change, this would involve figuring out how likely our measurements of temperature are in light of existing models, and if they are exceedingly unlikely this would be grounds to accept a new model. 

I'm a physicist, and making the argument that the past decade disproves climate models is a bit like particle physicists taking a handful of measurement on the LHC and saying "we didn't see the Higgs, therefore it doesn't exist" without doing any statistical analysis of the results.  It turns out that if the Higgs existed, those measurements would be EXTREMELY LIKELY anyway because it shows up so rarely. 

Saying that the past decade "proves" cooling is like if I looked at those LHC measurements and came up with a theory for a JPoson particle that just happens to have the exact signatures of those measurements.  Of course it would 100% match those measurements by design so appealing to them as proof is absurd.  I'd have to make predictions (including confidence intervals) based on my theory and then gather more data before I could discuss how well it fits with data.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #68 on: 05/04/2013 00:42:43 »
Yeah, pragmatism cements. But we're getting a new climate, and we really should try to adapt. Although pragmatically seen, I don't either expect that to happen, ahem, which is why I don't (normally) bother writing about this any longer. I find us very stuck in our ways, human momentum, whatever :) A little like a big ship, meeting the opposite of a iceberg? ah well, we live in interesting times, and our offspring will live in even more interesting. I would give a great deal to be here in fifty years, cause I'm terribly curious about what we will say then.

Physics is easier
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #69 on: 05/04/2013 01:08:31 »
And beautifully explained JP, you have a way :) of breaking it down into understandable words. And that's also why we need more data, we all want to know how well the models will fit the future, don't we? And to know it well, we need as many measurements over time we can get, at as many locations as is possible. So we really need those satellites, and we really need those weather stations, and we need them to monitor continually over those fifty years. But amazingly NASA don't get the money, and then we have Canada who don't seem to 'believe' in using weather stations anymore. A Canadian climate scientist wrote that to get a really good weather report today (a year or so ago) she had to tune in to American weather :)

Isn't that slightly weird?

and I have more examples of the same type of behavior. So yeah, considering it all, I can't help but wonder what our offspring's judgment will be of how we handled the situation.
'
« Last Edit: 05/04/2013 01:14:32 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #70 on: 05/04/2013 11:04:04 »
Thanks JP. 

The more I read (and with your added explanation) the more errors I see in media presentation of facts.  And this is a problem - the science is robust and the scientific presentation correct, however the newspapers feel they have to simplify but then they lace the article and diagrams with buzzwords and jargon - often quite wrongly.  It is this that leads many honest (non-climate) scientists to look at the argument presented in the press and say "that's rubbish" - their error is to assume that the scientific argument presented in the journals suffers from the same problem.

With the Higg's / LHC in the press so much I spent some time reading up on the statistics that physicist used - and it blew my mind the complexity and subtlety of it; this is why I am on a course to start afresh from the very beginning.  I have no doubt that the climate scientists - who deal with a unimaginably complex system that is prototypically chaotic and  highly reliant on small variation initial conditions, and are under greater and harsher scrutiny than any other group of researchers - must use powerful and rigorously tested statistical methods.

I am sorry there will be no JPoson - I will certainly back your claim for precedence.  But as Peter Higgs and his colleagues postulated the breaking of electroweak symmetry before I (and I think you) were born, we might have a struggle convincing the rest of the world.  However I do know some pretty high ranking oilco executives  and if we can get them on board, well you never know - shamefully it has worked before in challenging and casting doubt on perfectly good scientific knowledge....
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #71 on: 05/04/2013 12:05:06 »
JP says
 (the cooling)  does appear to be a real effect , although it doesn't negate the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that greenhouse gasses, including CO2 do cause average temperatures to rise.

henry@jp

there is NO real evidence for this. Everything is based on what was presented 100 years or so ago,
i.e. the so-called closed box experiments. For example, there is the cooling effect of GHG's that has never been accounted for.
I have tried to explain this here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/


CO2 also causes cooling by taking part in the life cycle. Plants and trees need both warmth and CO2 to grow – which is why you don’t see trees at high latitudes and – altitudes. It appears no one has any figures on how much this cooling effect might be. There is clear evidence that there has been a big increase in greenery on earth in the past 4 decades.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/

From all of this, you should have figured out by now that any study implying that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming, must exhibit a balance sheet in the right dimensions showing us exactly how much radiative warming and how much radiative cooling is caused by an increase of  0.01% of CO2  that occurred in the past 50 years in the atmosphere. It must also tell us the amount of cooling caused by the increase in photosynthesis that has occurred during the past 50 years.

There are no such results in any study, in the correct ranges, let alone in the right dimensions. For example, consider the fact that time must be in the dimensions (of the test results).

If you claim that more CO2 causes more warming rather than cooling, you have to come up with that balance sheet....


*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #72 on: 05/04/2013 15:22:54 »
Henry,

From what you keep posting, I can see two possibilities.  Either you don't understand the scientific method or you're trolling us.  In either case, there isn't much point in arguing your ideas on climate change, since this is a science forum and you're not discussing science. 

If you're posting in good faith and don't understand the scientific method, I've tried to explain it in the posts above.  You can also check out wikipedia articles on the scientific method and hypothesis testing as good places to start.  Though I'd recommend using their links to more rigorous sources to really understand the methodology of science.  That will give us good common ground to have a scientific debate on the matter.  Until then I won't be responding to your posts since you keep repeating the same arguments and ignoring science and this is a science forum.

If you're trolling, then obviously taking the bait would just give you more ground to post links to your blog (promoting your own blog, by the way, a major no-no on this forum). 

If others want to continue debating, that's their prerogative.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #73 on: 05/04/2013 17:29:48 »
Henry@jp
I believe you are one of the intelligent people here on this blog and I am hoping to get your ideas straight so that ultimately we can get the whole of Europe thinking straight.
Please look at my tables here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
(sorry for the reference but I don't know how to upload those tables here - anyway it is not like I am not advertising or selling anything)
If you take a careful look: these tables prove in a very simple way that there has been no warming due to the increase in CO2 or other GHG's.
Namely, if a manmade GH effect were real, we should see minima rising, pushing up means. Namely the GH effect theory (if you understand it) proposes that cooling (down of earth) becomes slower, as GHG % increases. Naturally, this should cause minima to rise faster. What I can see from the RATIO in my tables is that it was the maxima that were increasing (until around 1998-2000), pushing up means and minima at a ratio of about 6:3:1
So I have proven to you that there has been no manmade GH warming effect. The warming from 1973/4 was natural. Maximum temps. rising pushing up means.
Now, how and where is that not a logical procedure of investigation and where did I not use scientific method?
I  put it to you that you don't understand the scientific method or that you do not want to understand it.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #74 on: 05/04/2013 19:09:23 »

henry@jp
I figure you got that story from the Economist just about right....you are so near and yet so far from the right track...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/warming-and-worry-go-awol/
one step for one man
a whole step for Europe and humankind
for you to become a skeptic (of man made climate change)
like I did
5 years ago.
God will bless you if you keep following the Truth, and nothing but the truth.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #75 on: 07/04/2013 18:10:44 »

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #76 on: 08/04/2013 10:00:37 »
MoreCarbonOK

This is a text-based forum and argument and points of interest should be made if at all possible in writing.  Unadorned videos and bare links to your blog are not in keeping with the spirit of the site as a Science Question and Answer Forum.  Many of the members will not have the time, inclination, or ability to view a 10+minute video by an unknown amateur commentator.

In future, links may be deleted and videos removed unless they are entirely pertinent to the discussion and the points they raise or refute could not have been made in a more traditional manner

Thanks

imatfaal - moderator
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #77 on: 08/04/2013 19:37:03 »
Everything I say or quote is clearly on topic and on target. There has been no "man made"  global warming for at least 16 years. Live with it. I wonder why you keep chasing away the real scientists on this site, i.e. those seeking the truth. Truth is important, you know. In fact your whole life (and after life) depends on it....

*

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 756
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #78 on: 10/04/2013 01:37:17 »
From your post #7:

I happen to be familiar with spectrophotometry. You have to understand what actually happens when we put a beam of light of certain wavelength on a sample of liquid or gas. We have various spectrophotometers that can measure the various ranges of UV-visible -IR etc. Usually you have the option to vary the wavelength of the beam of light, either manually or automatically. If the gas or liquid is completely transparent, we will measure 100% of the light that we put through the sample coming through on the other side. If there is “absorption” of light at that specific wavelength that we put through the sample, we only measure a certain % on the other side. The term “extinction” was originally used but later “absorption” was used to describe this phenomenon, meaning the light that we put on was somehow “absorbed”. I think this was a rather unfortunate description as it has caused a lot of confusion since. Many people think that what it means is that the light of that wavelength is continually “absorbed” by the molecules in the sample and converted to heat. If that were true, you would not be able to stop the meter at a certain wavelength without over-heating the sample, and eventually it should explode, if the sample is contained in a sealed container. Of the many measurements that I performed, this has never ever happened. Note that in the case of CO2, when measuring concentrations, we leave the wavelength always at 4.26 um. Because the “absorption” is so strong here, we can use it to compare and evaluate concentrations of CO2.

I was fairly sure that I had signed off from this forum and that I would have no further input, but this has really provoked me! Let me explain what really happens when light is absorbed:

• it is true that light energy is converted to heat energy, and in the case of CO2 absorption at 4.25 µm this means an excitation of the O=C=O asymmetric stretch from the zero vibrational level to the first excited state vibrational level.

• This energy can be re-radiated, but the equation for rate of spontaneous emission goes as the inverse fourth power of the wavelength, which would mean a time of the order of seconds for the carbon dioxide to re-radiate.

• Is there an alternative? Well, yes there is. Our excited state molecule is suffering about 109 collisions per second if in the gas phase or 1012 "jostlings" per second if in the liquid phase. About 1 in 1000 of these interactions will be super-elastic -- that is, the excess vibrational energy of the carbon dioxide will be lost in the interaction and turn into translational energy of the solvent or other gases in the gas mixture.

• Once the excess energy is in the form of translational energy it will be conducted or convected away, eventually being transformed into heating of the cuvette and then of the laboratory generally. This is why you do not see your cuvettes warming and then exploding.

• In the atmosphere, and especially in the outer atmosphere, there are no "walls" and it is very likely that a stationary equilibrium will be set up, albeit at a slightly higher temperature, and this is what is being described when a respectable article talks about re-emission. You need to remember that in between the initial absorption and then re-emission, there will be a lot of nitrogen and oxygen molecules moving faster, and even being excited collisionally into vibrational states that can only be collisionally relaxed.
1 4 6 4 1
4 4 9 4 4     
a perfect perfect square square
6 9 6 9 6
4 4 9 4 4
1 4 6 4 1

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #79 on: 10/04/2013 16:41:44 »
Sweet explanation Damocles :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #80 on: 11/04/2013 19:38:13 »
Henry@damocles
clearly you have not understood at all the principle of the Gh effect and the reality of re-radiation.
I suggest you read the examples that I quoted. When UV and IR light hits water it is converted to heat because water absorbs in the UV and IR region and is converted to heat because there is MASS in the oceans.
In the case of gas there is little mass, so it has to re-radiate, mainly. There is too little mass to take in the heat...
How else do you explain the paper that I quoted showing you that radiation specific to the CO2 absorption spectrum  bounces back from the moon the earth?
(meaning cooling of the atmosphere by the CO2)
perhaps it will help if you read and quote my whole post...
and come up with the balance sheet that I have been asking everyone about.

*

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 756
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #81 on: 11/04/2013 22:49:18 »
I suggest you read the examples that I quoted. When UV and IR light hits water it is converted to heat because water absorbs in the UV and IR region and is converted to heat because there is MASS in the oceans.
In the case of gas there is little mass, so it has to re-radiate, mainly. There is too little mass to take in the heat...

On the contrary, there is plenty of mass. The lifetime for spontaneous emission of CO2 is of the order of seconds; the lifetime for collisional deactivation (in the atmosphere, specifically near the stratopause, because collision rates vary directly with pressure) is of the order of milliseconds. So the probability of collisional deactivation is at least 1000 times that of (immediate) re-radiation.

Quote
How else do you explain the paper that I quoted showing you that radiation specific to the CO2 absorption spectrum  bounces back from the moon the earth?
(meaning cooling of the atmosphere by the CO2)

This is a very technical paper. It is looking at the possibility of detecting life on Earth through features in its reflectance spectrum. The aim is to use the methodology on Earth-like planets that are discovered in other solar systems. The reflectance spectrum shows clearly the presence of CO2 among other things as an absorption feature (most clearly seen in Figure 7). I completely fail to see why this indicates cooling rather than heating.

Quote
perhaps it will help if you read and quote my whole post...
and come up with the balance sheet that I have been asking everyone about.

You clearly have no real understanding of the nature of scientific debate. Science is a very conservative institution. There are good reasons for this -- it needs to change slowly in the light of good evidence of anomaly in the accepted picture. Even then, a certain amount of anomaly can be temporarily accepted -- difficult issues are often put on the back burner. You do not come to a scientific debate with a preconceived attitude of attack, because of your belief that something simply cannot be true. In order to attack the accepted position you need to
• have a deep understanding of all of the science behind the accepted position.
• understand why the majority of scientists in a particular field have come up with an accepted position -- and this means a respectful understanding; no conspiracy theories or assuming that all of the scientists who have accepted the position are less intelligent than you are.
• be armed with good evidence of an anomaly.
• effectively refute any arguments that are brought forward against you. An effective refutation does not mean continually referring an opponent to points you have already made; it means addressing their points on the terms and basis on which they have been made.
• recognize that the onus is on you to prove your point.

The whole reason for this is that science would be very unstable and unsatisfactory if every time anyone had a new thought it could quickly get into the mainstream.
1 4 6 4 1
4 4 9 4 4     
a perfect perfect square square
6 9 6 9 6
4 4 9 4 4
1 4 6 4 1

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #82 on: 12/04/2013 01:29:55 »
Funny thing, the more sane the responses the less hits?
What is it with people :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #83 on: 12/04/2013 13:08:09 »
damocles says
 I completely fail to see why this indicates cooling rather than heating.

henry@damocles
Nevermind, you completely fail to understand the argument that I make. I will try to explain it again to you from another angle. Check this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
The red is what you get on your head. The yellow marked amount of radiation of that solar spectrum is what is being back radiated, to space, mostly by the O3, HxOx and NxOx, and lastly also by CO2. This is why we are even able to measure it as it bounced back to earth from the moon. That is the what the "technical" paper was about. All these gases are GHG's, agreed?
Now, do you not understand that if there is more of these gases coming into the atmosphere, either naturally or man made, that more of it is being back radiated? If more is being back radiated it means that less radiation is coming in, the red part is becoming smaller, hence we are cooling. So, more GHG naturally means more cooling. 
Hence the reason why I say that if you want to prove that the net effect of an increase in one particular GHG is that of warming rather than that of cooling you have to show me a balance sheet that would prove how much cooling and how much warming is caused by a certain% increase of that gas.   
The problem is that science has stood still in this regard and has relied heavily on the closed box experiments - by Tyndall and Arrhenius-, and these only show one side of the coin. Further more, the absorption of CO2 causing the back radiation to earth 14-16 um, is at around 200K, while the incoming radiation at 2 and 4 um being back radiated to space is around 5000K. Therefore, I am naturally inclined to think that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of cooling rather than warming.
Do you now see what the problem is? If you want to prove to me that more CO2 causes warming you have to give me the balance sheet that would convert those 2 differences in energy caused by a certain % increase of the GHG, so that I can compare... If you say such proof exists, of all GHGs, then where is it?

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #84 on: 12/04/2013 14:32:51 »
Damocles says
 ....the majority of scientists in a particular field have come up with an accepted position....
......be armed with good evidence of an anomaly.....

henry@damocles
So, do you not agree with me that if it were not for a few people in history, like Isaac Newton, we would all still be crawling around in the darkness?  quite literally, at night, I think!
Sorry for you, pal. Science is not by consensus. Unfortunately for many people, their income now depends on this whole sick theory. Millions have been invested and even our pension now depends on it. That is why there is this reluctance to accept the (naturally occurring)  facts. Actually, this whole warming-by-CO2 theory was mainly driven by one man, namely Hansen, and I am sure that history will soon prove him wrong, as this article by a respectable scientific publication relates.
http://www.dailytech.com/Warming+Evangelist+Hansen+Retires+Researchers+Advise+Panic+Despite+Flat+Temps/article30322.htm

As to your 2nd statement: you seem to want to claim that I have not provided good evidence to the contrary of the current theory

I put it to you that I did provide this evidence.
1) as related in the article above, it is even generally accepted now, even by members on this forum - if you read through the posts- , that earth has in fact not warmed for the past 16 years, despite the increase in CO2.
2) In my first post on the first page, I have shown to you what my own results show: it has been globally cooling for the last 11 years, which is the equivalent of one whole solar cycle.  I have also shown that most other data sets also show a negative trend i.e. a cooling trend over the last 11 years.
3) In my last graph, which I will quote here again,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
it is clear to me that this cooling will continue, because there is a clear definable pattern. It happens every 90 to 100 years or so with 50% of the cycle time warming and 50% cooling. Even the ancients knew about this. Think about 7 x 7 years= 49 years + 1 jubilee year every 50th year?
According to my prediction, we are on our cooling path back now, and by about 2040 everything will be back to where we were in 1950.

I may have a slight error on the time scales, but all indications are that global cooling will continue and that it will accelerate in time to come. Better get ready for that. To prevent famines as experienced in the past during such times, I recommend less agriculture at higher latitudes and more at lower latitudes...please.

Have a happy cooling off time.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #85 on: 12/04/2013 18:03:28 »
You are stepping out of my comfort zone. The reason why I do not waste time with you is not that you in any way will be found correct. Damocles made some very valid points, that you just don't seem to accept? Taking a personal affront to them instead? Too many wild west shows maybe? The lone gunslinger coming to town, is it?

Cleaning it up??

Please, feel absolutely free to go somewhere else.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #86 on: 12/04/2013 18:15:16 »
ur-on says
You are stepping out of my comfort zone.

henry says
true science frightens you? I cannot help you/.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #87 on: 12/04/2013 18:24:02 »
Well you can actually :)
please find some other outlet for your frustrations.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #88 on: 12/04/2013 18:28:15 »
@your-on
what is wrong with you?

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #89 on: 12/04/2013 20:17:09 »
Hmm?

It's not me refusing to accept facts. We've shown you statistical evidence and explained the energy distribution. And we do not fill the space in between with 'righteous calls' to, and for, some personal divinity, do we :) Let's just say I'm getting sick and tired on lone rangers wanting to disprove decades of scientific work on some loose assumption, or even worse, presumption, not accepting any answers. I've seen this kind of behavior before. And while I'm at it, why not learn how to read a name correctly?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #90 on: 12/04/2013 20:44:57 »
henry@your-on
seems to me you are refusing to accept the facts,
as you are clearly not engaging into the scientific debate we are having here?

I thought you were the clever one here
perhaps damocles is the clever guy:
he remains silent if he does not know the answers....

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #91 on: 12/04/2013 20:49:33 »
Cool it with the personal attacks, folks, or I'll lock this thread.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #92 on: 12/04/2013 20:59:30 »
henry@jp
sorry
I agree that I should not have reacted to the remarks of yor-on
as he did not engage in any scientific argument or debate

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #93 on: 12/04/2013 21:13:14 »
That includes making intentionally trollish and provocative remarks, Henry.  Knock it off if you want this thread left open.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #94 on: 12/04/2013 21:29:23 »
JP says
That includes making intentionally trollish and provocative remarks, Henry.
henry says
there are no such remarks from me
please clarify?

increasingly I get the impression on this blog that you think you can turn the 60 years or so back (or have the right to do so) with all of your so-called "rules"
AS EFFECTIVELY IT MEANS : CONTROL OF INFORMATION
in the direction where you want it to go

I am waiting for the responses on my remarks I made to Damocles, from either of you or Damocles himself.

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #95 on: 12/04/2013 21:44:44 »
JP says
That includes making intentionally trollish and provocative remarks, Henry.
henry says
there are no such remarks from me
please clarify?

It is not appropriate make disparaging remarks about Yor_on's posts to get in the last word after being warned by a moderator.  Hence the second warning and shrinking of your post.

In addition, if you have complaints about moderation, we'll take them up on the moderator board if you PM one of the moderators.  We do not argue moderator decisions on the forum, as its unprofessional and detracts from the purpose of the side: science Q&A. 

If damocles wants to respond to your posts, he can.  I'm only here to moderate.  I made my opinion of this thread's scientific content clear already and it'd be a waste of time to repeat myself.  :)

*

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 756
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #96 on: 12/04/2013 23:45:21 »
Quote
damocles says
 I completely fail to see why this indicates cooling rather than heating.

henry@damocles
Nevermind, you completely fail to understand the argument that I make. I will try to explain it again to you from another angle. Check this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
The red is what you get on your head. The yellow marked amount of radiation of that solar spectrum is what is being back radiated, to space, mostly by the O3, HxOx and NxOx, and lastly also by CO2. This is why we are even able to measure it as it bounced back to earth from the moon. That is the what the "technical" paper was about. All these gases are GHG's, agreed?
Now, do you not understand that if there is more of these gases coming into the atmosphere, either naturally or man made, that more of it is being back radiated? If more is being back radiated it means that less radiation is coming in, the red part is becoming smaller, hence we are cooling. So, more GHG naturally means more cooling. 
Hence the reason why I say that if you want to prove that the net effect of an increase in one particular GHG is that of warming rather than that of cooling you have to show me a balance sheet that would prove how much cooling and how much warming is caused by a certain% increase of that gas.   
The problem is that science has stood still in this regard and has relied heavily on the closed box experiments - by Tyndall and Arrhenius-, and these only show one side of the coin. Further more, the absorption of CO2 causing the back radiation to earth 14-16 um, is at around 200K, while the incoming radiation at 2 and 4 um being back radiated to space is around 5000K. Therefore, I am naturally inclined to think that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of cooling rather than warming.
Do you now see what the problem is? If you want to prove to me that more CO2 causes warming you have to give me the balance sheet that would convert those 2 differences in energy caused by a certain % increase of the GHG, so that I can compare... If you say such proof exists, of all GHGs, then where is it?

Thankyou henry. I can now at least see where you are coming from. Unfortunately the only part of this post that I can agree with is that "all these gases are GHGs". You seem to be confusing the incoming solar radiation -- mostly in the UV and visible, and largely absorbed at the Earth's surface -- with the Earth's radiation -- mostly in the far infrared. Any back radiation from that will be 50% directed towards the Earth's surface, and lead to warming rather than cooling.

Where is the balance sheet? I suggest that is is present in the fact that the steady state average temperature of the Earth should be around –20°C (easily calculated from Planck's black body radiation laws and a geometric consideration of the proportion of the sun's radiation that the Earth intercepts, and observed in the average temperature of the moon) and the fact that it is 15°C, now going on 16°C, because of a natural greenhouse gas effect from water vapour and carbon dioxide, now supplemented by an unnatural human input of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Quote
Damocles says
 ....the majority of scientists in a particular field have come up with an accepted position....
......be armed with good evidence of an anomaly.....

henry@damocles
So, do you not agree with me that if it were not for a few people in history, like Isaac Newton, we would all still be crawling around in the darkness?  quite literally, at night, I think!

No i do not

Quote
Sorry for you, pal. Science is not by consensus.

In a sense it is, though! Certainly a mass popular vote by people who have no in depth understanding of the issues and can be easily persuaded by those with vested interests, one way or the other, is not the way that science works. But there is a scientific jury that weighs up every piece of science and judges whether or not it deserves to be incorporated into the mainstream, and its judgements are rather conservative.

 
Quote
Unfortunately for many people, their income now depends on this whole sick theory. Millions have been invested and even our pension now depends on it. That is why there is this reluctance to accept the (naturally occurring)  facts.

There is a lobby at least as strong by people whose livelihood depends on the continuing exploitation of fossil fuels (Do you have a vested interest to declare? I do not, by the way -- I am retired, and in all probability have only a short time to live.)

 
Quote
Actually, this whole warming-by-CO2 theory was mainly driven by one man, namely Hansen, and I am sure that history will soon prove him wrong, as this article by a respectable scientific publication relates.
http://www.dailytech.com/Warming+Evangelist+Hansen+Retires+Researchers+Advise+Panic+Despite+Flat+Temps/article30322.htm

Although I have worked in this field for some time I have never previously heard of Hansen, and I would never regard the publication that you cite as "a respectable scientific publication". There is a widely recognized convention of requiring peer review, and of not quoting editorial type articles. Hansen only comes into this story so that the journalist can introduce the real purpose of his article, which is to claim that net cooling over the last 15 years refutes the claim that the changing climate is linked to increasing levels of carbon dioxide

Quote
As to your 2nd statement: you seem to want to claim that I have not provided good evidence to the contrary of the current theory

I put it to you that I did provide this evidence.
1) as related in the article above, it is even generally accepted now, even by members on this forum - if you read through the posts- , that earth has in fact not warmed for the past 16 years, despite the increase in CO2.
2) In my first post on the first page, I have shown to you what my own results show: it has been globally cooling for the last 11 years, which is the equivalent of one whole solar cycle.  I have also shown that most other data sets also show a negative trend i.e. a cooling trend over the last 11 years.
3) In my last graph, which I will quote here again,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
it is clear to me that this cooling will continue, because there is a clear definable pattern. It happens every 90 to 100 years or so with 50% of the cycle time warming and 50% cooling. Even the ancients knew about this. Think about 7 x 7 years= 49 years + 1 jubilee year every 50th year?
According to my prediction, we are on our cooling path back now, and by about 2040 everything will be back to where we were in 1950.

I may have a slight error on the time scales, but all indications are that global cooling will continue and that it will accelerate in time to come. Better get ready for that. To prevent famines as experienced in the past during such times, I recommend less agriculture at higher latitudes and more at lower latitudes...please.

Have a happy cooling off time.

Your "clear definable pattern" does not show up in the ice core records. The fact of a decade of (slight) cooling does not refute the link between carbon dioxide and rising global temperature. You have provided evidence, but the evidence is neither well-organized nor good.

Quote
I thought you were the clever one here
perhaps damocles is the clever guy:
he remains silent if he does not know the answers....

There are several possible reasons for my occasional silence. Not knowing the answers is certainly one of them. Here are a few of the others:

• I am operating on Australian Eastern time, and therefore probably asleep when the discussion here gets lively.
• I see nothing new in the points that are being made and cannot be bothered to keep on replying to the same ones
• I am too busy with real life issues to catch up with this forum
• I am not particularly well

------

My own view of these matters? I am greatly concerned about the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I am slightly agnostic about the link with climate -- there are too many earth systems involved, with complicated feedbacks, and they are too little understood. I think it is about 85% probable
that the increasing levels of CO2 will result in global warming. I am 100% confident that we cannot interfere with a natural system like CO2 to the extent that we have without causing some natural catastrophe (e.g. collapse of the oceanic food chain through increasing acidity of the oceans)
1 4 6 4 1
4 4 9 4 4     
a perfect perfect square square
6 9 6 9 6
4 4 9 4 4
1 4 6 4 1

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #97 on: 13/04/2013 02:29:26 »
Some of the statistical, and experimental, evidence and ideas, you will need to refute MoreCarbonOK.
Climate change: How do we know?

And if it solely is the question if CO2 is the perpetrator driving a global warming from a long time scenario, and how that might work, you should have a look at How do we know more CO2 is causing warming? And as always be sure to read the comments.

And to get that debate, take up your ideas there. See what they make of it.

"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #98 on: 13/04/2013 07:15:27 »
damocles says
You seem to be confusing the incoming solar radiation -- mostly in the UV and visible, and largely absorbed at the Earth's surface -- with the Earth's radiation -- mostly in the far infrared.

henry@damocles
this is the point where everyone went wrong. The graph that I quote clearly shows you that incoming solar radiation (SW) is not constant if there is variation in the composition of the atmosphere..... More CO2 gas in the atmosphere means less (radiation) 2 and 4 um on your head. As long as I can get that in your head, you will be just fine. BTW most recently they also found some absorption of the CO2 in the UV.
What they ("the scientists") have done is not look at the whole spectrum of a molecule, but only the part of the molecule in the far infra red,  where earth emits....Obviously then you only see "warming' i.e. the closed boxed experiments.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
« Reply #99 on: 13/04/2013 07:30:52 »
 
Henry@yor_on
 It is my experience that Skeptical Science have no respect whatsoever for dissenting views. They are the SS of science and they believe they have the right to remove comments as if it is nothing at all.....

Skeptical Science is the ONLY blog listed on WUWT as being completely unreliable due to a) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (b) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.