TH!NK post

This article is archived. Comments are closed.

This cooling is just a masked warming

Published 27th November 2009 - 1 comments - 2576 views -

  

MOTTO: Winter is just masked summer.

 

 latif

At the WCC3 conference in 2009 the climatologist Mojif Latif suggested, that in 1998 some 20-30 year cooling started. Due to natural variation (but not to lowered solar activity, no no no, never, never). Yet he believes, that the past warming was CO2 induced and will resume later. (The above estimate of future temperatures is from Mojif's presentation)

 

THEORY

Rising CO2 leads to rising temperatures.

 

PROBLEM

In 1940-1970s and after 1998 the CO2 levels are rising. Between 2000 and 2009 the CO2 emissions got up by cca 30%. Yet no warming.

 

SOLUTION A: HIDE THE DECLINE

Some scientists do not bother about declines. They just hide them.

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxxxx.edu, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address),t.osborn@uxxxx.uk

... I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline...

(from an e-mail leaked in the Climategate)

 

SOLUTION B: REFUTED

Popper: You make a theory. The theory leads to a prediction. The prediction falls flat. The theory is refuted. You know nothing.

 

SOLUTION C: AD-HOC EXPLANATION 

 

In his "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" Kuhn argued that scientists work within conceptual paradigms (beliefs of their era) that strongly influence the way in which they see data.

Scientists will go to great length to defend their paradigm against falsification, by the addition of AD HOC HYPOTHESES to existing theories.

Such as: 

1) CO2 leads to warming, but OCEAN CURRENT CYCLE (ENSO) is able to temporarily cool it down:

 http://mediamatters.org/research/200909240021 Latif stated that due to natural climate variability over the decade-long timescale, "it may well happen that you enter a decade, or maybe even two, you know, when the temperature cools, all right, relative to the present level."

 

2) CO2 leads to warming, but NEW PLANTS IN TUNDRA are able to temporarily cool it down: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522244,00.html 

"Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, looked at thawing parts of Alaska and found that greenhouse gas releases initially are sucked up by new plants as the Arctic gets warmer and greener. But that helpful effect doesn't last. Eventually, between 15 and 50 years, those plants "can't keep up" and get overwhelmed, said study lead author Ted Schuur, a University of Florida ecologist."

3) CO2 leads to warming, but when your mother leaves the fridge door open, it may temporarily cool down the northern hemisphere for a decade.

***

They will invent just any awkward hypothesis. But they will never admit, that the cooling is due to lowered solar activity. It is their dogma, that the Sun no longer affects our temperatures. The solar deniers would rather die, than betray their faith.

Even after decades of freezing cooling, these morons are able to keep saying "it is warming, it is warming". They invented the term "masking". It is a great thing, this masking. The long-term warming trend can be "masked" under a short-term cooling trend.

These people have a serious problem. Completely lost touch with reality. They should go out of their ivory towers and see the real world.

Question: Scientific theory must be falsifiable/refuteable. Oh my, what must happen to falsify/refute their theory? If even cooling does not persuade them it is not warming? If the warming prediction is not refuted even by sudden cooling, is it still science?

The funniest and most awkward "ad hoc hypothesis" trying to save the AGW paradigm might be awarded with some prize in 2040s. We could call it "AL GORE SCARECROW PRIZE". It will be a statue of Al Gore in his swimming-suit frozen in ice.

 

al frozen

 

SOLUTION D: LET US RETURN TO THE PREVIOUS PARADIGM

If a new hypothesis (AGW paradigm) is not confirmed by evidence, what does a scientist do? Nothing at all.

He just takes a cup of coffee a sticks to the good old paradigm (solar paradigm). Before Michael Mann invented hockey-stick, the climatologists thought that Earth temperatures were governed by the Sun. The evidence is based on the correlation between temperatures and the C14 isotopes (which fluctuate with solar wind).

  1. PHASE ONE: Solar activity (increase and stop)

In the 20th century solar activity increased more than millenia before. http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic_just_recovering_from_little_ice_age

The last solar increase was the 21st sunspot cycle  (cca 1976-1986) - after decades of cooling interlude. This is when our "global warming" started! Cycle 22 was roughly the same and cycles 23 (around 2000)  and 24 (since 2009) were weaker. http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/what_no_temperature_sun_correlation_in_the_last_30_years

However there was some rising trend in the level of sunspot MINIMA: A NASA survey revealed a significant positive trend (0.05 percent per decade) in increasing TSI (total solar irradiance) between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present). The study was lead by Richard Willson and was published in Geophysical Reasearch Letters in 2003. To put it into perspective, decreases in TSI of 0.2 percent occur during the weeklong passage of large sunspot groups across our side of the sun. These changes are relatively insignificant compared to the sun's total output of energy, yet equivalent to all the energy that mankind uses in a year.

(see:http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html)

tsi

2. PHASE  TWO: Thermal inertia of oceans (increase and stop)

The warming on Earth continued even after the solar activity stopped rising. Why? Due to thermal inertia of oceans. Oceans are huge and slow.  It took them some time (2 sunspot cycles) to match the increased solar activity. As the oceans kept warming, their evaporation was increasing. This water vapour contributed to the greenhouse effect (water vapour is the strongest greenhouse gas). It is like with a pot of water - it keeps heating up even after you stop increasing the fire. http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/its_the_oceans_stupid

Once the ocean temperature matched the solar irradiance, the ocean warming stopped. After 1998 temperatures stopped rising. Around 2005 sea levels stopped rising.

(graph from the Colorado University: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg)

  

CONCLUSION: If you want to see an explanation of the warming/cooling, it is easy. Just go out and raise your head.

 

 

Category: Climate Science, | Tags: cooling,



Comments

Daniel Nylin Nilsson on 30th November 2009:

If I look at my termometer, it shows 6 dgrees celsius now, which is highly unnormal at the end of november in Sweden.

How is the temperature in Prague?

This article is archived. Comments are closed.