Scientists predict a century of global cooling

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/05/re...lobal-cooling/

Report: Scientists predict a century of global cooling

This report was published in the middle of last year but I thought i'd post in light of this story - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...tists-say.html - being published in the Telegraph this morning where scientists have stated that the climate is warming faster than feared.

Better start investing in some warm clothes because German scientists are predicting that the Earth will cool over the next century.

German scientists found that two naturally occurring cycles will combine to lower global temperatures during the 21st century, eventually dropping to levels corresponding with the “little ice age” of 1870.

“Due to the de Vries cycle, the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the ‘little ice age’ of 1870,” write German scientists Horst-Joachim Luedecke and Carl-Otto Weiss of the European Institute for Climate and Energy.

Researchers used historical temperature data and data from cave stalagmites to show a 200-year solar cycle, called the de Vries cycle.

They also factored into their work a well-established 65-year Atlantic and Pacific Ocean oscillation cycle. Global warming that has occurred since 1870 can be attributed almost entirely to both these factors, the scientists argue.

According to the scientists, the oft-cited “stagnation” in rising global temperatures over the last 15 years is due to the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean oscillation cycle, which lasts about 65 years. Ocean oscillation is past its “maximum,” leading to small decreases in global temperature.

The de Vries solar cycle is currently at its “maximum,” explaining why temperatures have risen since 1870, but leveled off after 1998. However, this means that as solar activity starts to decrease, global temperatures will follow.

“Through [the de Vries solar cycle's] influence the temperature will decrease until 2100 to a value like the one of the last ‘Little Ice Age’ 1870,” the scientists wrote.

Most scientists argue that human activity — mainly burning fossil fuels — is driving global temperatures higher as more greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere. In response, governments from countries around the world have agreed to limit temperature rises to two degrees Celsius by 2100. Most of this effort focuses on cutting each nation’s reliance on fossil fuels.

Scientists, however, have been increasingly turning against the global warming consensus and arguing that the world is actually in line for a colder century.

Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University argues that the world is set for global cooling due to rapidly falling solar activity.

“By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, [Professor Lockwood] has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years,” the BBC reports. “Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.”

Solar activity is one line of evidence scientists have used to find global cooling. Low sunspot activity has been linked with colder periods in human history, like the “Little Ice Age” during the 1600s, while higher levels of sunspot activity have been linked to warmer periods.

“When we have had periods where the sun has been quieter than usual we tend to get these much harsher winters,” Sunderland University climate scientist Dennis Wheeler told the Daily Express.

Last year, Russian scientists argued that the world could soon plunge into another Little Ice Age based on solar activity, heralding a new “Little Ice Age.”

“After the maximum of solar cycle 24, from approximately 2014 we can expect the start of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055,” wrote Habibullo Abdussamatov of the Russian Academy of Science.

“So the warming we saw, which lasted only from 1978 to 1998, is something that is predictable and expectable,” said Don Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University. “When the ocean changed temperatures, global cooling is almost a slam dunk. You can expect to find about 25 to 30 years yet ahead of us before it starts to warm up again. It might even be more than that.”

What did I say hey? That it was a load of absolute rubbish (and I used to believe it when I was about 10 and happened also to love disaster films) and the main reason why it was complete tripe is that the temperature was found to have dropped over the past decade ALONG with the fact that any dunce could work out that humans are a tiny dot compared to the effects and influences of the giant ball of fuel called the Sun along with the Earth's complex weather systems. That's why they renamed it from global warming to climate change - and sometimes even today I see it referred to as 'sustainable development' which is just another way for greedy governments to steal more money from the taxpayer to 'prevent the end of the world'. Oh so noble, and all for your own benefit - of course.

A lovely bit of irony this week though, apparently (and there's all news reports out there on this) a ship with scientists on 'investigating' global warming has become stuck in Antarctica due to unprecedented levels of snow and ice which have trapped the ship. As this whole thing continues to die away as it's exposed for what it is, I thought that was a nice little finishing touch - especially in light of the warning scientists have given this week (again - see Telegraph article I linked to above) that we're all going to die faster than first thought.

Thoughts?

[Vodafone]

Your journalism totally isn't bias or anything.

[Kardan]

I thought it was well known that about 95% of environmental scientists think that climate change is due to humans, and the other 5% thinks its complete ****. You got a report from that 5%

Of course, the Earth won't get hotter and hotter each year, but the general trend is that it is climbing ever so slowly, and that has to be put down to Human influence in my opinion.

[Ardemax]

Maybe this might help http://www.reddit.com/r/science/sear...restrict_sr=on

Feel free to go through as many pages as you like

[The Don]

I thought it was well known that about 95% of environmental scientists think that climate change is due to humans, and the other 5% thinks its complete ****. You got a report from that 5%

Of course, the Earth won't get hotter and hotter each year, but the general trend is that it is climbing ever so slowly, and that has to be put down to Human influence in my opinion.

Yep

A 2013 survey of 3984 abstracts from peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 that expressed an opinion on anthropogenic global warming found that 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity.

Not to mention that the first scientist quoted in that article (Horst-Joachim Luedecke) has been frequently debunked by the people he claims to associate with.

Mr. Liidecke, residing in Heidelberg retired professor of physics and computer science of the University of Applied Sciences of the Saarland and spokesman for the private club EIKE (eV European Institute for Climate and Energy), has in it the result of anthropogenic (ie man-made) greenhouse gas emissions induced global warming disputed. This is based on misleading, the results of decades of research in the field of environment and climate contradictory assertions, which unfortunately keep popping up in the media. The Institute of Environmental Physics, Heidelberg University is committed to reject these theses publicly. We would like to emphasize that there is no connection between Mr. Liidecke and the University of Heidelberg is. Mr. Liidecke features a familiar mix of arguments on that says, in essence, that it was either give no warming, or if it does, this nothing to do with CO 2 to have to do. It is sometimes even denied that the humanity of the CO 2 -caused increase in the atmosphere. We have such arguments, which individually are neither valid nor in the aggregate, decided back. Since they have already been widely refuted, we do not here on a detailed discussion and content ourselves with a brief essence of our research results.

I would also like to point out that the "European Institute for Climate and Energy" isn't quite what the name seems to suggest, it is in fact simply an association of sceptics, and certainly not a credible source, let alone one to be taken seriously. But then again, Dan doesn't seem to listen to the 90% or so of rational scientists who all agree that climate change is caused by human activity.

Arctic Warming Unprecedented in Last 44,000 Years

Climate Change Is Altering Rainfall Patterns Worldwide

Climate change is happening too quickly for species to adapt

2012 was hottest year in U.S. history
Direct Source

[FlyingJesus]

I'm quite warm I don't even have socks on

[Sieglinde]

not sure whether this is good or bad

[-:Undertaker:-]

Your journalism totally isn't bias or anything.

So anything out of something other than the BBC is biased? I'll let you in on a secret too - the BBC is biased aswell.

Yep

Unless you have read those reports you cannot say whether or not they support AGW which is the real term for global warming/climate change. The vast majority of scientists admit global warming exists, the debate is over whether man causes global warming or to what extent.

Not to mention that the first scientist quoted in that article (Horst-Joachim Luedecke) has been frequently debunked by the people he claims to associate with

A lot of scientists who dismiss AGW are hounded out of the profession and threatened, and it's not surprising given that a lot of funding to science departments comes from global warming. Governments and companies are only going to pay for what they want to hear. Personally I prefer to take what the pro-AGW people say in private - such as the Climategate I incident where emails from the pro-AGW University of East Anglia were leaked where a senior department head was caught saying (in private) that there has been no warming -

"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) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Or this.... which is related to your 'WELL WHY ARENT ANY PEER REVIEWED'

"Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL."

Or this...

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Caught out yet none of them lost their jobs and the scam continues. It did however dramatically change how the media view global warming and thankfully the entire scam is starting to fall apart.

I would also like to point out that the "European Institute for Climate and Energy" isn't quite what the name seems to suggest, it is in fact simply an association of sceptics, and certainly not a credible source, let alone one to be taken seriously. But then again, Dan doesn't seem to listen to the 90% or so of rational scientists who all agree that climate change is caused by human activity.

How have you come to the 90% figure? Have you interviewed all scientists and asked them what their opinion is? No. Nobody has. But here's a huge list you probably didn't know about of scientists who disagree with AGW - http://climatescienceinternational.o...d=37&Itemid=54

None of which you'll ever hear on the BBC, which is one of the reasons why broadcaster David Bellamy is never seen on the BBC anymore simply because he dare disagree with the consensus on global warming.

Arctic Warming Unprecedented in Last 44,000 Years

Climate Change Is Altering Rainfall Patterns Worldwide

Climate change is happening too quickly for species to adapt

2012 was hottest year in U.S. history
Direct Source

Or this - http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2...tats-for-2013/

(the unfunny bill maher)

Bob Lutz wipes the floor with them. This is my favourite climate debunking (three parts) using both UN/IPCC and official data.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I thought it was well known that about 95% of environmental scientists think that climate change is due to humans, and the other 5% thinks its complete ****. You got a report from that 5%

Of course, the Earth won't get hotter and hotter each year, but the general trend is that it is climbing ever so slowly, and that has to be put down to Human influence in my opinion.

So what caused past climate changes before we had the Industrial Revolution?

And again, how did you come to that conclusion of 95%?

[Sian]

the earth goes up and down temperature wise, this does not surprise me.