Global warming to take a 10 year vacation?

[wbug1]

You need to read up on the cyclical nature, or movements-relationships of things.

Hey Jim, here's a picture for you.



Sorry, the technology has not advanced enough to keep pace with the consumption of such a large number of people without having negative consequences that build up over time.

Conservation and the simple act of planting a lot of trees or other plants would slow CO2 emissions down till some smart group can get a real climate control system in place. NASA comes to mind.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

You need to read up on the cyclical nature, or movements-relationships of things.

Hey Jim, here's a picture for you.



Sorry, the technology has not advanced enough to keep pace with the consumption of such a large number of people without having negative consequences that build up over time.

Conservation and the simple act of planting a lot of trees or other plants would slow CO2 emissions down till some smart group can get a real climate control system in place. NASA comes to mind.

Nuclear power would be by far the best way to go. It is clean and easly could provide us the energy needs. But hey lets just keep playing around the rossy; who cares if we have to ride around on horses and live by candle light.

Also, I would be willing to bet that ten years from now 1998 will still be number one warmest year in recorded history. In fact I don't believe a year before 2020 will be with in the top three...Hows that!. Yes we will have warmer and cooler years, but we will not see the climate going crazy...The climate changes and that is what happens.

[wbug1]

Matt, I agree that nuclear power is a good way, but the climate issue is much more serious than you, or most people seem to think (well, not everybody) . Greenland is melting, even Google, inc. seems to think so putting in something that looks like a box in the middle of Greenland, you can see it there with google earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLMTvxOaeE

I charge 5 dollars for the first 5 minutes, and then absolutely nothing after that.

http://www.thebulletin.org/content/doom ... k/overview

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

:uarrow: Matt, I agree that nuclear power is a good way, but the climate issue is much more serious than you, or most people seem to think (well, not everybody) . Greenland is melting, even Google, inc. seems to think so putting in something that looks like a box in the middle of Greenland, you can see it there with google earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLMTvxOaeE

I charge 5 dollars for the first 5 minutes, and then absolutely nothing after that.

http://www.thebulletin.org/content/doom ... k/overview

Nuclear power for our city's would bring us down to pre 1990 level very fast. France runs most of their power needs on nuclear as of this moment. Now China on the other hand needs to think about cleaning up big time. But anyways I try to be open minded, but I'm also open minded for any climate changes that we all know could happen. Like the trend of stable to even slightly cooling global temperature since the 90s. Do I agree that we need to clean up and try hard to improve our envirnoment, the answers a yes. But I think that it has to be economy wise and smart...In nuclear is the one thing that is. Also we are going to want more power as we switch over to Hybrid cars.

[KWT]

Well the thing to remember is that we HAVENT cooled really at all....if you look at the longer term trend we are stil on a upward swing compared with the 90's. We are going through a cooler blip due to the low sun activity and the mod-strong la nina we had in the winter but that won't last all that long.

Remember that global temp rises are going to be full of peaks and trough...whilst we hit the last peak in 1998 I believe the moment when we have a strong El Nino will see us see the global record temp broken quite well.

[Jim Hughes]

Well the thing to remember is that we HAVENT cooled really at all....if you look at the longer term trend we are stil on a upward swing compared with the 90's. We are going through a cooler blip due to the low sun activity and the mod-strong la nina we had in the winter but that won't last all that long.

Remember that global temp rises are going to be full of peaks and trough...whilst we hit the last peak in 1998 I believe the moment when we have a strong El Nino will see us see the global record temp broken quite well.

And when is this suppose to occur ?

[Jim Hughes]

You need to read up on the cyclical nature, or movements-relationships of things.

Hey Jim, here's a picture for you.



Sorry, the technology has not advanced enough to keep pace with the consumption of such a large number of people without having negative consequences that build up over time.

Conservation and the simple act of planting a lot of trees or other plants would slow CO2 emissions down till some smart group can get a real climate control system in place. NASA comes to mind.

I'm not to sure what yuor trying to say here toher than we are not well equipped to handle our energy growth. But this is a different arguement than the one about who or what is causing our rising temperatures.

Here's what I have found out for the past 14 years or so from dealing with many folks within the scientific community. Space weather is a poorly misunderstood field, even for those within it, and if you have followed any long range forecasts you might be aware of this.

Now the same holds true for the weather-climate experts. At least in regards to how space weather forces certain things. So the continual talk of us causing all of the warmth is of no surprise, because we have basically been trying to explain all of this, with the only tools-knowledge that we know about.

So your picture is almost on target because we've been going around in circles, and chasing our tails.

[KWT]

And when is this suppose to occur ?

Thats something I just don't know to be honest I've not got enough knowleadge to even have a guess to be honest its just that the next time we have a strong El nino (whenever that is) we can then have a true gauge as to just how far we've come since 1998.

[Jim Hughes]

And when is this suppose to occur ?

Thats something I just don't know to be honest I've not got enough knowleadge to even have a guess to be honest its just that the next time we have a strong El nino (whenever that is) we can then have a true gauge as to just how far we've come since 1998.

I think this is a fair statement. Although some other things might need to be considered.

[Aslkahuna]

I think an even more important indicator may be if the Solar activity does go as far south as many have recently suggested resulting in a major negative forcing factor then if our numbers are either flat or continue to rise then we will have a much better indication as to the amount and effect of anthropogenic forcing along with other forcing factors.

Steve

[wbug1]

You need to read up on the cyclical nature, or movements-relationships of things.

Hey Jim, here's a picture for you.



Sorry, the technology has not advanced enough to keep pace with the consumption of such a large number of people without having negative consequences that build up over time.

Conservation and the simple act of planting a lot of trees or other plants would slow CO2 emissions down till some smart group can get a real climate control system in place. NASA comes to mind.

I'm not to sure what yuor trying to say here toher than we are not well equipped to handle our energy growth. But this is a different arguement than the one about who or what is causing our rising temperatures.

Here's what I have found out for the past 14 years or so from dealing with many folks within the scientific community. Space weather is a poorly misunderstood field, even for those within it, and if you have followed any long range forecasts you might be aware of this.

Now the same holds true for the weather-climate experts. At least in regards to how space weather forces certain things. So the continual talk of us causing all of the warmth is of no surprise, because we have basically been trying to explain all of this, with the only tools-knowledge that we know about.

So your picture is almost on target because we've been going around in circles, and chasing our tails.

The tail is in the dragons/snakes mouth. Which is what I'd like you to do. Shut up.

[wbug1]

I think I'm going to get banned now, but I've made my point.

[Jim Hughes]

[quote="wbug1]
The tail is in the dragons/snakes mouth. Which is what I'd like you to do. Shut up.[/quote]

LOL. And I always like tough guys over the computer screens. So give it a rest. And like I said earlier, read up on space weather. Since I've read up on GHG's and all.

[Jim Hughes]

I think an even more important indicator may be if the Solar activity does go as far south as many have recently suggested resulting in a major negative forcing factor then if our numbers are either flat or continue to rise then we will have a much better indication as to the amount and effect of anthropogenic forcing along with other forcing factors.

Steve

Exactly my point. Since it can work ways, and the low solar activity may actually hide the GHG effect. Or even the PDO-ENSO. It's a very complexed puzzle, and it's not cut and dry.

[wbug1]

It is that simple, and like it or not the CO2 is causing a climate problem. We need to move away from fossil fuel use anyway, even if you don't "believe" it's causing the planet to warm up. Unbelievably, France has the most electricity production from nuclear of any country in the world. "Freedom fries" huh. I'd clock you Jim if I could, but it's not like I'm perfect either, none of us are.

[Jim Hughes]

It is that simple, and like it or not the CO2 is causing a climate problem. We need to move away from fossil fuel use anyway, even if you don't "believe" it's causing the planet to warm up. Unbelievably, France has the most electricity production from nuclear of any country in the world. "Freedom fries" huh. I'd clock you Jim if I could, but it's not like I'm perfect either, none of us are.

Nobody is saying we shouldn't be looking for ways diminsh our use of fosil fuels. Especially not me. I am all for cleaning up the air etc.. But once again this has nothing to do with trying to get to the bottom of some forcings.

[Jim Hughes]

I think an even more important indicator may be if the Solar activity does go as far south as many have recently suggested resulting in a major negative forcing factor then if our numbers are either flat or continue to rise then we will have a much better indication as to the amount and effect of anthropogenic forcing along with other forcing factors.

Steve

Just to touch base on this again. Many people know that I believe that space weather forces the El Nino/La Nina phases as well as the cyclical nature of some other oceanic-atmospheric teleconnection. And they in turn effect weather-climate. Some more than others of course.

Here is a graph of the March-May Global temperatures. I have edited in the time frame where where the PDO (Long line) flipped to positive, El Nino's and La Nina's, as well as solar minimum/maximum.

The El Nino's are the circles on top, while the Nina's are squares on the bottom. The large squares & circles are when the NOI (trimonthly related) was at least +/- 1.0 for two straight months during the preceding five months. While the smaller ones are the weaker events.

The arrows at the top are the time frame of solar maximum, while the arrows at the bottom are solar minimum.

These three months only represent 25% of the yearly temperatures but I think you can see quite clearly how the temperature pattern shifted when we went to a positive PDO regime. And some people believe that we are entering a negative PDO regime phase again.

I also think that you can see quite clearly how the individual ENSO effects the temperatures. Even solar minimum and maximum also. Especially on the rise up, or on the way down, right before minimum.

So we're supposed to believe that GHG's are the lone, or major cause of our temperature swings?

ENSO years

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analys ... ears.shtml

Sunspot data

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/ ... S/SMOOTHED

[Jim Hughes]

Jim, you are trying my patience. Is this average of yours a reliable source of information? I want to see the data source(s), the locations the temperature readings were taken from and the organization for which the employees or automated stations are collecting data for. In addition, you may not understand the significance of the down arrow in your last post. How's the average air temperature over Greenland figure in that diagram you just posted?

Your losing patience ? Please....Look here's the bottom line. I dropped by here and read your silly GW gloom and doom comments. And I'm not going to go running around for some data that suits your purpose. The earth has been cooling in 2008 and I could care less about Greenland. Just like I could care less about how cold the Pacifc Northwest has been lately since we're talking a global.

And BTW why don't you read this discussion. It's about the space weather effect upon the cyclical nature of the Polar Eurasian teleconnection, ozone levels-stratospheric behavior, etc...I wrote it during the late summer of 2006 and 17 of the past twenty monthly POL readings have been negative.

My forecasting methodology is different, but results speak. Why don't you also look in the Talkin Tropics forum for my January 2007 La Nina developmental call , which came out before 99.9% of the expert calls from within the climate field. And many experts within the field heard-got this early call, whether by e-mail, or telephone, or from reading it within forums like this.

Space weather forces much more than what most realize, like the El Nino/La Nina, but the community at large does not understand this. Because your only as good as what you've been taught, and the science community has always been way to conservative. And they've always been looking in the wrong direction anyway. Since there's more to space weather than just sunspots-irradiance levels.


http://www.easternuswx.com/bb/index.php ... pic=103909

Wbug1,

I would have expected you to comment on this discussion by now if you have read it. Or even the global March-May temperature graph I threw together real quick. I just think that some of these things need to be exlpained if you are going to say that we-GHG's, are causing all the warmth. I guess you can argue coincidence but that's really stretching it.

[wbug1]

Jim,

The solar irradiation in watts per square meter, on average, is 342 W/sq meter and has been measured and hasn't varied much in the past 100 years. If the sun were to suddenly drop it's output (a little), then this would counter the effect and (as the previous poster said) allow a real good look at how much GHG's and the increased black body effect of human construction has on global temperatures.

La Nina, et al., is independent of incoming radiation, and overall energy input (warming) into the planet is solely a function of how much of the incoming radiation is absorbed into the atmosphere, oceans and land.

The IPCC report is basically a much more detailed explanation, backed by studies, of the above very simple physics and knowledge of the infrared absorption of CO2 and CH4.

I've done a little paint photo chopping, since I can't afford the real thing:



I'm surprised how close the angle matches.

[Aslkahuna]

Actually Solar Irradiance has NOT been steady the past 100 years but there was an increase in the period from the 1940's through 1960 when we hit our highest level of activity observed since the invention of the telescope. One must realize in this instance that like CO2 levels that relatively small changes in Solar Irradiance can have a big difference down here. Then things settled down to the levels we have had at least through 2007 during which Irradiance was stable. Now we could be facing a downturn as activity levels drop sharply (as postulated by some researchers). In the meantime, we had a strongly positive PDO and significant ENSO warm phase events during the 1970's into 1998 and since we've seen more of a tendency towards weaker warm phase and stronger cold phase events plus a most decidely negative PDO this year. We are not saying that CO2 is not a factor but simply that it's not the ONLY factor which anyone even remotely aware of our climate system should be aware of.

Steve