Global Warming "On Hold" due to unidentified factor

While this article doesn't name it, I wonder if the speculated 30 year cooling trend is part of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which is thought to be entering a cooling phase right now, and has contributed (along with the lingering solar cycle minimum) to two consecutive cold winters in my area:
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation]Pacific decadal oscillation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

But I don't think this is a good time to talk about a paused GW in front of any Aussies, at least until their incredible fire season ends.

 

So the planet was cooling from 1940-1980, and is starting to cool again but man is making the climate warmer overall. That is science?

 

Not really an interesting article. It belongs in that other garbage thread.

 

Why is that article garbage because it comes to uncomfortable conclusions?

 

I disagree. I'm an affirmed environmentalist (altho I don't like labels), but I find this very interesting.

We're currently at a minimum in solar activity (measured by sunspots), actually well overdue for the next 11-year cycle to start, and this has some effect on weather. By that alone, we should be cooler than normal right now. The Maunder Minimum (very little sunspot activitiy) is credited to causing the lowest temperatures during the Little Ice Age. The last cycle peaked about 2001, which was one of the hottest years in the record books.

A new sunspot was sighted in November, possibly starting the next solar cycle.
Here's a tongue-in-cheek opposing view of the influence of sunspots. Humorous, but not entirely accurate, IMO. Obviously there's a lot more out there about this, I tried to find a good chart, but it's hard to sift thru all the sites.

 

I didn't describe it as garbage, but the other thread.

It does belong in that denialist thread though. There isn't much purpose to having a bunch of silly denial threads. Y'all spin new theories every few days depending on which way the wind is blowing.

 

The last few years have not warmed according to theory. A year or two is not a big deal when you're talking about a long-term climate change, but this is becoming an issue that needs to be resolved, in order for climate science to take itself seriously. I'd like to see what happens after the solar cycle starts cranking back up, theoretically later this year. In the meantime, I'm enjoying the cool respite.

If there's any legitimate science that contradicts some common beliefs, it's worth investigating. However, there's been so many contradictory theories, most of which are unsubstantiated and not well thought out, I can see where a person would get tired of continually investigating claims.

 

I was kind of thinking the same with regards to the AGW crowd getting more and more desperate/creative on trying to convince the public on AGW when world temps have stalled (well, actually just 'regular temps' for us ole' timers) for nearly a decade despite no real change in mankind's habits regarding the use of fossil fuels and such.

Bundle up, you have snow and temps down to the mid 20's in your Chicago forecast for next week...

Rick
#4 2006

 

Well, we've had a cooler winter than the last few years according to records, but that is still hotter than previous decades. And this winter we've broken several all time high temp records here for given days without breaking any of the lowest as far as I can tell. (It's 78 F right now, but I doubt that is a record high for this time of year.)

The ice sure wasn't thick enough to do the things I did annually as a boy a 100 miles farther south three decades ago. Of course, the streams there have been mostly dry for the past 10-15 years too, nothing like when I was a kid.

Can't speak for Chicago area.

 

I should clarify that even if temps have not climbed the last couple years, the added CO2 will still cause warming down the line, and may be preventing a cool-down right now. Just because we don't understand everything that causes ripples on the temperature charts doesn't mean that we're not lifting the whole chart up with our atmospheric changes.

I still think human causes are about 30-80% of the increase in temperature over the last century. Obviously that's a pretty wide range, but it still doesn't negate the need to reduce our petroleum usage, particularly when it does so many bad things to our economy and national security.

But before then we're enjoying several days of 50's & maybe even 60's. Ah, the joys of March. Saw the first starling today. Geese are starting to congregate, as newcomers join those that overwintered and they're ready to push north.

 

The cycle transition has been abnormally slow and weak. There was a sunspot from the new cycle in the past month, and one from the old cycle before that.

There were quite a few sunspots still during the two year long drought we had in south Georgia (I was doing some solar observation and showing elementary classes through the scope in 2007.) The swamps dried up and caught fire there and in Florida while I was in the region, but there's no warming... :flame:

 

quick question for the more intelligent people here,,, since we are now in about a decade or so since the first stirrings of AGW based on the scientific calculations and formulations....

how have the observed temperatures of the past 10 years matched with the expected temperatures based on the math models being employed to predict global warming?

 

Arctic temperatures are rising much faster than predicted. The NorthWest passage will be open during summer months in a few years, instead of a few decades.

 

there is nice rebuttal above,,, but you just give me arctic temps,,, i want to know what the math models that have convinced everyone of AGW have predicted as world temperatures for each year for the past 10 years or even five years,,, i just want to see how accurate they are. simple...

if you can,, and you want to stick to arctic temps show me what were the predicted temps and the observed temps,,, and if easy,, i would love to see that for several other areas of planet earth.

thanks

 

Here's the article I read in this morning's paper. But of course, it's just one article and one scientist, 'going along' with the other 95%. Maybe you should write to him and tell him his education is a sham, his life's work is a waste of time, and he's a completely worthless human being, because you know better.