Are we heading for a mini ice age?

[KimberleyChris]

"If that were true wouldn´t you expect the global temperature to have risen a lot more than 0.5 degrees with an increase of 25% i.e. 300 to 400 ppm".


Yes, I see your reckoning, but you also have to take into account our oceans.

The ocean depths have massive 'thermal inertia' like a colossal storage radiator. and act as a 'damper' on short-term changes. They could take centuries or more to catch up with the land and the air.

The surface may melt one year, and freeze the next. It's what is going on three miles down in the middle of the Pacific that needs to be watched.

[pjclarke]

Since so much published literature turns out to be wrong I would take it with a pinch of salt, eg the coming ice age in the 1970´s, Hansens predictions (and the list goes on and on).

That would be a list of mistakes. Most studies in the 1970s predicted warming, if you are referring to Hansen's famous 1988 predictions, they stood up well for 20 years... Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong

There is no evidence that the increase in CO2 gas has a measurable influence on climate.

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

We´ve had a solar maximum over the last 50 or 60 years and the globe warmed slightly, oh surprise surprise.

Nope. Solar output has flatlined or declined while temperatures rose remorselessly.

Pjclarke confidently predicted that 2012 would be a record hot year The temperatures are aproximately 0.3 degrees below normal. As usual he´s made an incorrect prediction, based on what the scientists were saying.

I wrote this:-

Towards the second half of the year, there will one or more 'warmest on record' months, globally, and the global mean temperature for the year as a whole will set a new warm record.

Erm. We are still in January, and temperatures are certainly not below any long term average.

Blimey. I can't find a single accurate sentence in that post. A new record.

[BlasterBates]

"If that were true wouldn´t you expect the global temperature to have risen a lot more than 0.5 degrees with an increase of 25% i.e. 300 to 400 ppm".


Yes, I see your reckoning, but you also have to take into account our oceans.

The ocean depths have massive 'thermal inertia' like a colossal storage radiator. and act as a 'damper' on short-term changes. They could take centuries or more to catch up with the land and the air.

The surface may melt one year, and freeze the next. It's what is going on three miles down in the middle of the Pacific that needs to be watched.

We we'll see. It is convenient to have the heat hidden where no-one can measure it, so I', somewhat sceptical on that.


Anyway the temperatures are dropping like a stone.






It looks like the global temps will have to be very high indeed in the second half of the year if pjclarke's prediction is to be correct.

[BlasterBates]

That would be a list of mistakes. Most studies in the 1970s predicted warming, if you are referring to Hansen's famous 1988 predictions, they stood up well for 20 years... Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong



Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming




Nope. Solar output has flatlined or declined while temperatures rose remorselessly.



I wrote this:-



Erm. We are still in January, and temperatures are certainly not below any long term average.

Blimey. I can't find a single accurate sentence in that post. A new record.

The strongest (i.e. shortest solar cycle on record) started in 1992 and ended in 2006. Since 1997 temperatures haven't risen.

since the trend of sunpot cycles was an increase in strength throughout the 20th century you would expect therefore the temperature trend to follow and the highest recorded temps were attained coincided with the peak of the strongest sunspot cycle (1998). We now have a weak sunpot cycle and you'll now see the temps start to follow down.

[pjclarke]

It looks like the global temps will have to be very high indeed in the second half of the year if pjclarke's prediction is to be correct

Thats the NCEP re-analysis, not raw data. Useful for weather, not so much for climate. You DO know what a re-analysis is don't you?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...analyses-r-us/

[BlasterBates]

Thats the NCEP re-analysis, not raw data. Useful for weather, not so much for climate. You DO know what a re-analysis is don't you?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...analyses-r-us/

if you don't like that set of data you can check the current satellite data; where you'll see similar values

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutem...?amsutemps+002

You are aware of the use of Satellites to measure global temps I believe

...and your case for a record looks pretty hopeless

Hint: compare 2012 to 2010, and you might see a rather large difference (currently approx 0.75 degrees colder than 2010).

By the way your comment doesn't make it a lot of sense in the context of the current discussion. You seeem to be latching onto buzzwords without really understanding them, ie re-analysis is not suitable for climate (analysis, prediction??) Anyways its perfectly suitable for showing the current global temp anomaly and a prediction for the next few weeks, which as we all know is weather. That was the context of our discussion.

You need to read things properly and it would help if you were finish your phrases so we can understand what you're driving at.

[EternalOptimist]

"we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…” IPCC co-chair of Working Group 3, Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer, November 13, 2010 interview

[OwlHoot]

"we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…” IPCC co-chair of Working Group 3, Dr.

Well that's a dead giveaway - Talk about a blatant watermelon agenda.

Actually, it's more an overripe tomato agenda

[EternalOptimist]

Well that's a dead giveaway - Talk about a blatant watermelon agenda.

Actually, it's more a tomato agenda

its been taken out of context - pjLinkFest

[pjclarke]

Taken out of context, and probably mistranslated. Here are Ottmar's views at more length

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/11/o...s-himself.html