 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
dhudlud
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 11th, 2004 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3637 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 05:11 am |
|
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its cool phase
http://www.cgfi.org/2008/05/05/satellite-indicates-23-year-global-cooling/
Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling
May 5, 2008
By Dennis T. Avery
CHURCHVILLE VA—Now it’s not just the sunspots that predict a 23-year global cooling. The new Jason oceanographic satellite shows that 2007 was a “cool” La Nina year—but Jason also says something more important is at work: The much larger and more persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its cool phase, telling us to expect moderately lower global temperatures until 2030 or so.
For the past century at least, global temperatures have tended to mirror the 20-to 30-year warmings and coolings of the north-central Pacific Ocean. We don’t know just why, but the pattern of the last century is clear: the earth warmed from about 1915 to1940, while the PDO was also warming (1925 to 46). The earth cooled from 1940 to 1975, while the PDO was cooling (1946 to 1977). The strong global warming from 1976 to 1998 was accompanied by a strong and almost-constant warming of the north-central Pacific. Ancient tree rings in Baja California and Mexico show there have been 11 such PDO shifts since 1650, averaging 23 years on length.
Researchers discovered the PDO only recently—in 1996—while searching for the reason salmon numbers had declined sharply in the Columbia River after 1977. The salmon catch record for the past 100 years gave the answer—shifting Pacific Ocean currents. The PDO favors the salmon from the Columbia for about 25 years at a time, and then the salmon from the Gulf of Alaska, but the two fisheries never thrive at the same time. Something in the PDO favors the early development of the salmon smolts from one region or the other. Other fish, such as halibut, sardines, and anchovies follow similar shifts in line with the PDO.
The PDO seems to be driven by the huge Aleutian Low in the Arctic—but we don’t know what controls the Aleutian Low. Nonetheless, 22.5-year “double sunspot cycles” have been identified in South African rainfall, Indian monsoons, Australian droughts, and rains in the United States’ far southwest as well. These cycles argue that the sun, not CO2, controls the earth’s temperatures.
Dr. Henrik Svensmark’s recent experiments at the Danish Space Research Institute seem to show that the earth’s temperatures are importantly affected by the low, wet clouds that deflect more or less solar heat back into space. The number of such clouds is affected, in turn, by more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth. The number of earthbound cosmic rays depends on the extent of the giant magnetic wind thrown out by the sun.
All of this defies the “consensus” that human-emitted carbon dioxide has been responsible for our global warming. But the evidence for man-made warming has never been as strong as its Green advocates maintained. The earth’s warming from 1915 to 1940 was just about as strong as the “scary” 1975 to 1998 warming in both scope and duration—and occurred too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 defied the Greenhouse Theory, occurring during the first big surge of man-made greenhouse emissions. Most recently, the climate has stubbornly refused to warm since 1998, even though human CO2 emissions have continued to rise strongly.
The Jason satellite is an updated and more-accurate version of the Poseidon satellite that has been monitoring the oceans since 1992, picking up ocean wind speeds, wave heights, and sea level changes. Jason is run by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and a French team.
How many years of declining world temperature would it take now—in the wake of the ten-year non-warming since 1998—to break up Al Gore’s “climate change consensus”?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS T. AVERY is a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC and is the Director for the Center for Global Food Issues. (http://www.cgfi.org) He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years, Readers may write him at PO Box 202, Churchville, VA 2442 or email to cgfi@hughes.net
=========================================================
members.lycos.nl/ErrenWijlens/co2/angell.html
Findings of Erren Wijlens
global cooling is here !!
 Here is a summary of my findings:
1: The current used surface data of CRU and GHCN show homogenity
problems when compared with radiosonde data. In particular the
climatic shift of 1977 is not reflected in both datasets.
[url=http://members.lycos.nl/ErrenWijlens/co2/ghcnsatsondecru5500.gif]http://members.lycos.nl/ErrenWijlens/co2/ghcnsatsondecru5500.gif[/url]
2: To test the claim that global warming is happening, the difference
was plotted between surface radiosonde data and troposphere radiosonde
data. Contrary to what greenhouse warming predicts - troposphere warmer
than surface - there is no warming up to 1991 and then a remarkable
sharp cooling.
[url=http://members.lycos.nl/ErrenWijlens/co2/radiosonde.gif]http://members.lycos.nl/ErrenWijlens/co2/radiosonde.gif[/url]
I use data from Angell:
[url=http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html]http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html[/url]
3: To correct for volcanic eruptions, which cause cooling, this was
removed. The trend is now zero up to 1994, and then again a sharp
cooling.
[url=http://members.lycos.nl/ErrenWijlens/co2/radiosondeco2diff.gif]http://members.lycos.nl/ErrenWijlens/co2/radiosondeco2diff.gif[/url]
(volcanic data from [url=http://climexp.knmi.nl/]http://climexp.knmi.nl/[/url])
4: The sharp cooling after 1994 is atributed to the effect of
stratospheric cooling which cools also the lower lying atmospheric
layers. The data then reveals a slow rising trend which is attributed
to GHG warming. However the CO2 forcing trend is four times larger as predictecd
by IPCC, which could be due to the very crude 3 layer atmosphere that
was used (Tsurf=15C, Ttrop=-30C, Tstrat=-60C), and the use of an emissivity factor of 1.
[url=http://members.lycos.nl/ErrenWijlens/co2/radiosondevolcstrat.gif]http://members.lycos.nl/ErrenWijlens/co2/radiosondevolcstrat.gif[/url] |
========================================================
http://biglizards.net/Graphics/ForegroundPix/HowCosmicRaysCauseCooling.gif
February 12, 2007
Wow - Cosmic, Dude!
Globaloney Sandwich Hatched by Dafydd
A fascinating new theory for global climate change -- that temperature rises and falls are driven less by human production of "greenhouse gases" but primarily by how much or how little the sun's magnetic field protects the Earth from cosmic rays -- has just gained a lot more credibilty due to a recent experiment conducted by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center.
In a book, [the Chilling Stars,] to be published this week, [Dr. Henrik Svensmark of Denmark and science writer Nigel Calder] claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.
High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.
Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.
This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.
This theory holds that the more cosmic rays that strike the upper atmosphere, the greater the cloud cover on Earth. And the amount of cosmic rays we receive is due to the intensity of the sun's magnetic field, which varies: A stronger solar magnetic field means fewer cosmic ray particles, fewer clouds, and more global warming; a weaker field means more cosmic rays, more clouds, and global cooling.
Science writer Nigel Calder, who co-authored the book with Svensmark, explains the theory on a nutshell:
He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.
But this theory is not going down well with those who have staked everything on demonstrating anthropogenic ("human created") global climate change (AGCC). Calder reports that Svensmark had tremendous difficulty getting his research, which contradicts the globaloney orthodoxy (and how's that for an unbiased phrasing?), published at all:
Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate....
In a box of air in the basement, [Svensmark and his team] were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.
The Telegraph story mentions only one skeptic, "Giles Harrison, a cloud specialist at Reading University;" but this is not necessarily representative. I suspect that, even assuming Dr. Svensmark's experiment is replicable, the theory of AGCC will not go down without a fight. Too much political power (including a "world carbon tax" to transfer vast sums of money from the civilized West to the impoverished carbon criminals) rides on AGCC being true. Nobody "in the loop" is going to allow mere reality to decide the issue.
Still, an upcoming experiment could end up throwing a monkey wrench into a cocked hat:
A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.
They hope this will prove whether this deep space radiation is responsible for changing cloud cover. If so, it could force climate scientists to re-evaluate their ideas about how global warming occurs.
. . .
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, February 12, 2007, at the time of 5:12 PM
|
Current time is 02:02 pm | |
|
|
|
|
