Arguments
Are we heading into global cooling?
The skeptic argument...
We're heading into cooling
"The climate of this planet oscillates between periods of approximately 30 years of warming followed by approximately 30 years of cooling. Rather than 100 years of unprecedented global warming as predicted by IPCC, the global temperatures have leveled off and we seem to be heading for cooler weather." (Matt Vooro)
What the science says...
In the face of the immense amount of evidence that the anthropogenic warming signal is driving the long-term temperature trend, it's hard to believe that any scientists would be predicting that this trend will suddenly reverse despite ever-increasing human greenhouse gas emissions. For example, according to NASA GISS, 2009 was tied for the second-hottest year on record, and 2010 will likely be the hottest in the past 130+ years. The first decade of the 21st century was the hottest decade on record, the evidence is overwhelming that humans are the dominant cause of the warming trend, climate scientists have even quantified the anthropogenic warming, and heat continues to accumulate in the planetary system:
Figure 1: Build-up in total Earth Heat Content since 1950. The data comes from Figure 6b in Murphy 2009. The ocean data was taken from Domingues et al. 2008
With all of this evidence that humans are causing rapid global warming with no end in sight, one has to wonder how on Earth any scientists would suddenly predict imminent global cooling.
Who Are these Scientists Predicting Cooling?
Some of the names on the lists of 'scientists predicting global cooling' have been predicting imminent cooling for years now, like Don Easterbrook, Syun Akasofu, Habibullo Abdussamatov, Joe D'Aleo, and Nicola Scafetta. Many of these and other names on these lists are not climate scientists, which is no doubt why the claims specify that an increasing number of scientists as opposed to climate scientists are predicting imminent cooling.
One also has to wonder how long the planet must continue to warm while these individuals predict imminent cooling before they lose credibility. Don Easterbrook, for example, has predicted that we should see a global cooling of 2 to 5°F (1.1 to 2.8°C) from 2000 to 2030 based on a shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. We're now one-third of the way into this supposed cooling period and the planet has warmed approximately 0.1°C. The accuracy of this prediction is not looking good.
Several other listed scientists have predicted that we should expect global cooling due to solar effects, like Scafetta, Abdussamatov, Landscheidt, Archibald, and D'Aleo. However, consider the fact that the longest solar cycle minimum in a nearly century just ended, and as mentioned above, the past two years have been among the hottest in the instrumental temperature record. Solar activity has been flat for the past 50 years, and yet the planet warmed approximately 0.6°C during that period. And now we're expected to believe that solar activity is not only going to significantly dampen the anthropogenic warming signal, but cause substantial cooling? These claims strain credulity.
Perhaps the worst part of these lists of 'scientists predicting global cooling' is that they attribute global cooling predictions to numerous scientists who have not made such claims. Let's look at some of the names on these lists.
Mojib Latif
Dr. Latif predicted that between 2010 and 2020, the planet would warm approximately 0.4°C, and has said we risk "an unprecedented warming in the history of mankind if no measures are taken to cut global carbon dioxide emissions."
Noel Keenlyside
Dr. Keenlyside is the lead author on the Latif study referenced above which predicted 0.4°C warming from 2010 to 2020.
Anastasios Tsonis and Kyle Swanson
Regarding the supposed global cooling prediction in their study, Swanson has written "If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020....What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf....humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond."
Mike Lockwood
The Lockwood quote supposedly about global cooling simply discusses that decreased solar activity may impact winter weather in Europe, and has nothing to do with global temperatures whatsoever. Lockwood has performed numerous studies concluding that the Sun is not responsible for a significant amount of the recent global warming, and has not predicted global cooling.
James Overland
As with Mike Lockwood, the James Overland quote supposedly about global cooling refers to winter weather, in Europe and the USA. Dr. Overland has neither predicted global cooling, nor disputes anthropogenic global warming. In fact, in the article linked above, Overland discusses how rapidly the Arctic is warming due to anthropogenic global warming, and that this will cause shifting weather patterns, leading to the snowy and cold winters in Europe and the USA. Not only is Overland not predicting global cooling in this article, he is explicitly talking about global warming.
There are likely many other examples of supposed global cooling predictions being misattributed to climate scientists Most of the other 'scientists' on these lists are not climate scientists, but rather meteorologists, engineers, astronomers, etc. And many of the other supposed 'global cooling' quotes refer to local weather rather than global temperatures.
Summary
Last updated on 4 January 2011 by dana1981.
[Daniel Bailey] Try looking in Figure 4:
"When I read the paper"
It would seem not. Thanks Daniel, you beat me to it.
You said @1 that you had read the paper......
The flip of the EPO and NAO is now taking effect, and we will see a period of about three decades or so of cooler temperatures. The N hemisphere will drive an overall cooling of the Earth during this time, just as it drove an overall warming over the last 30 or so years. Yes, this will be strong enough to overcome the added CO2.
You all can get back to the AGW discussion in about 2040. Then we can talk about the cooling again in about 2070. Maybe you all will get tired of talking about it when it warms again in 2100.
This warming is gonna keep going on till we get sea levels up high enough to interrupt some very important ocean circulations, and then we go into ice age again. Of course a few volcanic things could pop up and play havoc also.
Have fun.
There are plenty of scientists, including meteorologists, that think the warming is ending now. I am with them.
EPO? OPE? POE? I get it now!
You obviously have no idea how ice ages come about - then again, you seem keen on following the lead of meteorologists on climate...
Please stop peddling your pseudo-science. Thanks.
Perhaps he should look up the difference between 'weather' and 'climate' and actually check some temperature records, rather than relying on what can be read in the Denialosphere.
2010 was one of the warmest? Big deal. 1977 was one of the coldest and it was during the beginning of last warm-up period. You get some contradictory times on the edge of periods. We are in a cooling period. you'll all admit it on about ten years.
[Daniel Bailey] Wrong:
I suspect in 10 years you'll still be saying "global cooling is going to start now" because it snowed somewhere during winter.
There is no 60 year temperature cycle. This persistent "skeptic argument" needs its own article.
I have to admit that I do not seriously study the "whole world" thing yet, because quite frankly it's about way too complicated, but I know that many of the "it's never been" stuff we are seeing now is pure baloney.
BTW, my study showed that we have been in a down period for tornadoes over Alabama. Activity peaked in that area in the mid 70s and declined from that point on till the mid 90s. It is now on the upswing and is back to where it was in the early 50s. Using ten year averaging I made a graph that almost looks like a sine wave that shows the trend. A colleague did Georgia and found the same thing.
[Daniel Bailey]
Welcome to the field. If you want to get a degree in climatology you should spend more time learning the hard stuff and less time hand-waving.
Response: [Daniel Bailey] Then prove it: do the analysis, write it up, publish it.
I plan to as a grad student.
Every time we go off topic on one of these NAO/PDO tangents, I have to wonder how an oscillation can give rise to a long period increasing trend. But that topic belongs to this thread.
"More than a few" means nothing. The reality is that proportionately very few climate scientists believe in this.
In spite your unverifiable claims to be studying climatology, you have made several plainly false statements so far, such as the one where you claimed we were in a cooling phase. Daniel kindly showed you you were wrong.
One of the first duties of the wise being admitting when they are wrong, will you recognize that you made an incorrect claim regarding the current temperature trend?
Winter has been exceptionally mild so far here in Montreal.
It's a global thing - but you already know that, don't you?
Is that Winter as in since 21 December ? So you're coming to a conclusion based on a couple of weeks ?
Do you also pop up when the temperatures are record highs in your area ? If not, why not ?
Short memory? Looks like you were probably in the red in November. But now its moisture that keeps it warm? Can you substantiate that, with maybe some data?
I don't see abnormal or unnatural global temperature rises as evidenced bu NASA's own data, taking out the corrupting urban stations. No visual upward slant over many previous decades are seen no matter where you click. Just the natural up and down temperature wiggles you would naturally expect. Check it out on this site and see for yourself: What the Stations Say!
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm#The South Atlantic
However, what needs watching is whether the sunspots disappear in around 2015 and we tip from a Dalton to a Maunder like minimum. Also, watch for the buildup of summer snow (or decreasing summer melt). We do need to get rid of the brownish haze I see every time I fly in an airplane. That has to cause some dimming.
Start here, then look here.
After that, look at the list of Skeptical arguments - all yours are covered.
If you need to know more, comment on one of the above 'argument' threads.
Finally, try to get your information from websites (like this one) that contain facts, figures and rational information - not from dodgy sites like the one you included in your post.
NOAA/NCDC Annual Global Temperature Change vs CO2 dataset clearly shows the big picture: Rising levels of CO2 have had little, if any at all, impact on annual global temperature changes. The global annual global temperature changes are within normal variability.
Spoiler alert: utter nonsense.
Dutch Professor Cees de Jager, a prominent astronomer and solar expert, forcefully asserts that we the world is indeed entering for a long period of very low solar activity. The professor and his colleagues are certain Earth is heading for a "long Grand Minimum" - defined as either a Solar Wolf-Gleissberg or a Maunder Minimum - "not shorter than a century." His 2010 paper, "The forthcoming Grand Minimum of solar activity," outlined the extended period of time that the diminished solar radiation would affect the Earth.
The above paragraph is from the article, "Scientists: Sun's approaching 'Grand Cooling" assures new Ice Age" which is spreading like wildfire throughout Climate Denial land. It was posted Feb 18, 2011 on:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/224557-Scientists-Sun-s-Approaching-Grand-Cooling-Assures-New-Ice-Age
You're absolutely right, Henry. It's not balanced. There's a reason for that. You might check out the journal Energy & Environment, a journal which is desperately seeking that opposing view you mentioned. Why such a hard time finding it, I wonder . . .
Next, your gish-gallop list of the usual so-called skeptical arguments are easily dealt with on these threads :
Climategate and the peer-review process
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
Taking the Money for Grant(ed) – Part I
Taking the Money for Grant(ed) – Part II
(The latter two are from Global Warming : Man or Myth ?.
In fact, you would probably get a lot from just starting at this thread :
Newcomers, Start Here
Finally, your use of a site which contains the following - "intelligentsia ranks of leftists/liberals progressives and socialists", "the 'elites'", "left-liberal climate science", "the left-biased MSM", "the elites' science of stupidity", "liberals-progressives-socialists" - betrays an obvious need for political bias and opinion rather than facts : a sad state of affairs for anyone claiming to be a scientist.
The Climate is Changing Alright, But It's Getting Cooler
It's the link "Are we heading into global cooling?".
Something makes me think he did not really read the entire article ;)