The Naked Scientists Forum
On the Lighter Side
THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING!!!!
THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING!!!!
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING!!!!
29/04/2013 13:49:01 »
I am not sure where to begin my story. I feel a bit like the Joseph of the bible. He was able to correctly predict 7 years of abundance and 7 years of famine, probably by studying the flooding of the Nile (from his prison). Around the time when I heard for the first time of “Climategate” , the e-mail controversy surrounding the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, I was led to conduct my own investigations as to the extent of the problem of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) caused by the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG). As a hobby...
I first studied the mechanism by which AGW is supposed to work. I will spare you all the scientific details. I quickly figured that the proposed mechanism implies that more GHG would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect.
It followed naturally, to my mind anyway, that if more carbon dioxide (CO2) or more water (H2O) or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minimum temperatures rising faster, pushing up the means. I subsequently took a sample of 47 weather stations, analysed all daily data, and determined the ratio of the speed in the increase of the maxima, means and minima. Here you can see the results.
You will find that if we take the speed of warming over the longest period (i.e. from 1973/1974) for which we have very reliable records, we find the results of the speed of warming, maxima : means: minima
0.036 : 0.014 : 0.006 in degrees C/annum.
That is ca. 6:2:1. So it was maxima pushing up minima and means and not the other way around. Anyone can check this trend in their own backyard or at the weather station nearest to you.
HENRY, THE DENIER
Having effectively found little or no real evidence of AGW in the temperature records, I did notice that anyone (like me) now querying the “certainty” of “climate change” being due mostly to AGW, are mocked or vilified in the media and the blogosphere. For the first time I am being censored and called “ a denier” or worse, a liar. However, it also appeared to me that most people do not even understand the very basics of the chemistry involved. Any (good) chemist knows that there are giga tons and giga tons of bi-carbonates dissolved in the oceans and that (any type of) warming would cause it to be released:
HCO3- + heat => CO2 (g) + OH-.
This is the actual reason we are alive today. Cause and effect, get it? There is a causal relationship. More warming naturally causes more CO2. Without warmth and carbon dioxide there would be nothing, really. To make that what we dearly want, i.e. more crops, more trees, lawns and animals and people, God uses water and carbon dioxide, mostly. Warmth and water and CO2 is from God. Anyone wanting less of either must be daft.
Anyway, I did decide to take my quest a bit further by trying to predict the future of our temperature development on earth. Indeed, I did find that climate change is happening, because natural global warming is over. I found that from around the start of the new millennium, earth has started to cool globally. My own data set on maxima shows this very clearly. However, even without my own results (in case you do not trust them or me): the four major data sets measuring the average global air- and sea temperatures, also show that we have started cooling down for the past 12 years (11.66 years is the equivalent time of one full solar cycle). Clearly you can see that the trend is negative for the past 12 years:
From the above simple compilation of linear trends in these 4 major global data sets, you can also see that before 2000 we were still warming and that after 2000 we started cooling....
WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE, AHEAD?
For my own data, I have done a best fit for the drop in global maximum temperatures. Setting the speed of warming/cooling out against time, you get acceleration, or, in this case, deceleration, in degrees C/t
. When looking at that plot for the first time, it was as if God gave me a revelation. The curve exactly looks like the speed of a thrown object plotted against time. My results suggest that earth is most likely on an 88 year A-C wave, the so-called Gleissberg solar/weather cycle, with ca. 44 years of warming followed by 44 years of cooling.
Indeed, I hope that this is the best fit for my data, because any of the other best fits that I could think of, would have us end up in much more global cooling. The results of my plot also suggest that this global cooling already started in 1995 and will last until ca. 2038. Also, from the tables, it looks earth’s energy stores are depleted now and that means that the average temperatures on earth will probably fall by as much as what the maxima are falling now. I estimate this is about -0.3K in the next 8 years and a further -0.2 or -0.3K from 2020 until 2038. By that time we will be back to where we were in 1950, more or less…
THE FLOODING OF THE NILE
Just like Joseph probably observed the variation in the flooding of the Nile within one solar cycle (which indeed can sometimes be longer than 12 years), I decided to do the same thing for the 88 year Gleissberg solar/weather cycle…. There are good records of the flooding of the Nile, for example here:
to quote from the above paper:
“A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
The range in meters between a plentiful flood and a drought flood seems minor in the numbers but real in consequence….
According to my table for maxima, I calculate the date where the sun decided to take a nap (that is just a figure of speech, in fact it is probably a “wake-up”), as being around 1995, and not 1990 as William Arnold predicted.
This is looking at energy-in. I think earth reached its maximum output (means) a few years later, around 1998/1999.
Anyway, either way, (a few years error is fine!), look again at my best sine wave plot for my data,
1900 minimum flooding – end of the warming
1950 maximum flooding – end of cooling
1995 minimum flooding – end of warming.
predicted 2035-2040 – maximum flooding – end of cooling.
There is a clear and pertinent correlation with the best fit sine wave that I proposed for the observed current drop in global maximum temperatures.
THE OX , HXOX AND NXOX CONNECTION
I figured that there must be a small window at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that gets opened and closed a bit, every so often. Chemists know that a lot of incoming radiation is deflected to space by the ozone and the peroxides and nitrous oxides lying at the TOA. These chemicals are manufactured from the UV coming from the sun. Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.
I had now found three confirmations for the dates of the turning points of my A-C wave for energy-in. The mechanism? We know that there is not much variation in the total solar irradiation (TSI) measured at the TOA. However, there is some variation within TSI, mainly to do with the E-UV. Most likely there is some gravitational- and/or electromagnetic force that gets switched every 44 year, affecting the sun’s output of E-UV. It is part of creation. Otherwise there could be run away warming or runaway cooling, and probably no weather (rain!) at all, making life impossible.....
THE BIBLICAL CONNECTION
My A-C wave for the drop in maximum temperatures obviously does not reflect exactly at the same time what happens to temperatures on earth. Earth has an intricate way of storing energy in the oceans. There is also earth’s own volcanic action, lunar interaction, the turning of Earth’s inner core, electromagnetic force changes, etc. It seems to me that a delay of about 5 years either way is quite normal. That would place the cycle time as observed from earth at around 50 years, on average. 50 years of warming followed by 50 years of cooling. It seems to me the ancients knew this. Remember 7 x 7 years + 1 Jubilee year?
SO, NOW WHAT?
As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, less clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become both cooler and drier.
As the people in Anchorage (Alaska) have noted,
the cold weather is so bad there that they did not get much of any harvests. And it seems NOBODY is telling the farmers there that it is not going to get any better.
HOW CAN WE STOP THIS GLOBAL COOLING?
It looks like all the media and the whole world still believe that somehow global warming will soon be back on track again. Clearly, as shown, this is just wishful thinking. All current results show that global cooling will continue. As pointed out earlier, those that think that we can put more carbon dioxide in the air to stop the cooling are just not being realistic. There really is no hard evidence supporting the notion that (more) CO2 is causing any warming of the planet, whatsoever. On same issue, there are those that argue that it is better to be safe than sorry; but, really, as things are looking now, they are now also beginning to stand in the way of progress. Those still pointing to melting ice and glaciers, as “proof” that it is (still) warming, and not cooling, should remember that there is a lag from energy-in (maxima) and energy-out. Counting back 88 years i.e. 2012-88= we are in 1924.
Now look at some eye witness reports of the ice back then?
Sounds familiar? Back then, in 1922, they had seen that the arctic ice melt was due to the warmer Gulf Stream waters. However, by 1950 all that same ‘lost” ice had frozen back. I therefore predict that all lost arctic ice will also come back, from 2020-2035 as also happened from 1935-1950. Antarctic ice is already increasing.
To those actively involved in trying to suppress the temperature results as they are available on-line from official sources, I say: Let fools stay fools if they want to be. Fiddling with the data they can, to save their jobs, but people still having to shove snow in late spring, will soon begin to doubt the data…Check the worry in my eyes when they censor me. Under normal circumstances I would have let things rest there and just be happy to know the truth for myself. Indeed, I let things lie a bit. However, chances are that humanity will fall in the pit of global cooling and later me blaming myself for not having done enough to try to safeguard food production for 7 billion people and counting. It was really very cold in 1940....
But we survived the past 88 years, so why worry about the future (cold), you ask? My counter question is: how many people lived then compared to now?
WHAT MUST WE DO?
1) We urgently need to develop more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
2) We need to tell the farmers living at the higher latitudes who already suffered poor crops due to the cold and/ or due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
3) We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places (FLOODS!),
There are now many results from skeptical scientists that seem to support my position and results, e.g.
PO Box 912887