Search This Blog

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Now Global Cooling is having perceived consequences

While some Dumbbells and lots of miscreants continue to try to convince the uninformed that global warming is both happening and is a terrible threat...

Alaska’s Glaciers Are Growing

By Dennis Avery Monday, October 27, 2008

Alaska’s glaciers grew this year, after shrinking for most of the last 200 years. The reason? Global temperatures dropped over the past 18 months. The global mean annual temperature has been declining recently because the solar wind thrown out by the sun has retreated to its smallest extent in at least 50 years. This temperature downturn was not predicted by the global computer models, but had been predicted by the sunspot index since 2000.

The solar wind normally protects the earth from 90 percent of the high-energy cosmic rays that flash constantly through the universe. Henrik Svensmark at the Danish Space Research Institute has demonstrated that when more cosmic rays hit the earth, they create more of the low, wet clouds that deflect heat back into outer space. Thus the earth’s recent cooling.


Unusually large amounts of Alaskan snow last winter were followed by unusually chilly temperatures there this summer. “In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years,” says Bruce Molnia of the U.S. Geological Survey, and author of The Glaciers of Alaska. “It’s been a long time on most glaciers where they’ve actually had positive mass balance (added thickness).”


Overall, Molnia figures Alaska had lost 10–12,000 square kilometers of ice since 1800, the depths of the Little Ice Age. That’s enough ice to cover the state of Connecticut. Climate alarmists claim all the glaciers might disappear soon, but they haven’t looked at the long-term evidence of the 1,500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger climate cycles. During the Little Ice Age—1400 to 1850—Muir Glacier filled the whole of Glacier Bay. Since then, the glacier has retreated 57 miles. But the Little Ice Age was preceded by the Medieval Warming, the cold Dark Ages, a Roman Warming, and a whole series of moderate warmings and coolings that extend back at least 1 million years based on the evidence of the microfossils in the world’s seabed sediments.


The real question is whether today’s warming is different than the previous Dansgaard-Osechger warming cycles. I think that the difference, if any, is slight. Most of our Modern Warming occurred before 1940 and virtually all of our human-emitted CO2 came after that date. The temperatures in 1998—the recent peak—were only 0.2degree C higher than in 1940. After the temperature drop of the past 18 months, the temperatures are now cooler than in 1940.


The 1,500-year cycles usually start with a sudden shift of 1–2 degrees—in temperate zones—and double that in Alaska. Then temperatures erratically rise and fall with the sun’s total irradiance changes, often in 11-year cycles. At the end of the warming, comes another Little Ice Age; or, every 100,000 years, a Big Ice Age that will drop temperatures about 15 degree C. That’s when insulation will truly become the most important invention in history.


The sunspots are now predicting a 30-year cooling of the earth. That would thicken the Alaskan glaciers somewhat, but probably wouldn’t refill Glacier Bay with ice. That’ll have to wait for the next icy age.
The sunspot index has a 59 percent correlation with our temperatures (with a roughly ten-year lag). CO2 has only an “accidental” 22 percent correlation with our temperatures, which should be grounds for dismissing CO2 as a major climate player.


All this is radically different from the 5-degree C warming predicted by the computer models. However, the scientific rule says: if actual observations tell you something that’s the opposite of your theory, change your theory.

~

I believe the scientists have good data back until before the Romans but after that they do not take into account the possibility of a global flood and the events that would be associated with the post-flood major ice age. But the data they have for the last 4,000 years certainly should finally put the kibosh on AGW.

3 comments:

Hawkeye® said...

The evidence against man-made global warming just keeps accumulating (like snow?) day after day. The alarmists probably won't concede until their up to their neck in evidence.

(:D) Best regards...

Jon Woolf said...

However, the scientific rule says: if actual observations tell you something that’s the opposite of your theory, change your theory.

This, from a creationist?!?

ROTFLMAO

creeper said...

"I believe the scientists have good data back until before the Romans but after that they do not take into account the possibility of a global flood and the events that would be associated with the post-flood major ice age."

As you know (or should know), any climate data going back well before the Romans requires the use of techniques that you claim are entirely unreliable: dendrochonology and ice core layers.

So make up your mind. If you say these methods are completely unreliable, then all you have are temperature records going back about two centuries.

Instead, you are doing completely the opposite of letting observations dictate your conclusions. You already have the conclusion and blithely make up stuff to make it all fit together, regardless of facts. As Jon already pointed out, the irony, chutzpah and dishonesty of such a statement coming from a YEC is simply breathtaking.

Now you're saying that dendrochonology and ice core layers are actually accurate going back approx. 2,500 years, but before that they are unreliable.

What scientific findings led you to that conclusion? What possible mechanism would there be for, say, ice core layers being produced at a rate of one layer per year going back 2,500 years, and then suddenly ice core layers being produced every couple of days? Same for tree rings...

As for "taking into account the possibility of a global flood", it's one thing to take into account the possibility of a global flood, another thing altogether to accept it when there is no evidence for it and plenty against.

"Conspiracy"! "Brainwashing"! I can hear it already.

If you weren't into this climate issue, you'd at least be a little more consistent in your stance, but this just adds another layer of cognitive dissonance.

-- creeper