Question US
SATELLITE INDICATES 23-YEAR GLOBAL COOLING. Are you still sure about Global Warming?
lady bear May 19, 2008 04:54:17
- 49 answers
- Read all 136 comments
- +12 / -3 raves
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. (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
http://www.cgfi.org/2008/05/0...
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. (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
http://www.cgfi.org/2008/05/0...
Loading... 

Top Comment
-
No
I never was convinced that it is what Al Gore and his green partners said it is. Too many scientists have been proving his findings wrong. There have been quite a few groups of scientists that have been proving that the earth has for a fact been cooling. All the panic and hysteria that Gore has caused is for nothing more than to fill is wallet.View thread




Undecided
Undecided
No
i think these people are just confused about the difference between summer and winter.
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Thanks for spreading the word.
Undecided
No
No
I have wondered why we haven’t seen any Hurricanes hit the U.S., let alone Katrina size hurricanes since 2004. After all, Al Gore blamed Katrina on Global Warming and predicted more frequent Hurricanes. Where are the Hurricanes?
I have wondered how Al Gore can predict 33 ft sea levels in thirty year when he can’t get tomorrow temperature correct. I would bet Al Gore ten dollars a day that he can’t accurately predict the high and low temperature of New York City, providing he would bet for 365 days. I would win 95 percent of the bets.
I have wondered why so many of the countries that signed the Kyoto treaty had no responsibility to reduce CO2. If Global warming is such a disaster why wouldn’t China have a responsibility? Instead they are currently building 50 new old fashion coal fired plants to produce electricity in a single year. China certainly knows how to produce clean nuclear plants if the government really cared about CO2.
I think Global Warming is just a tax scheme. There is a tax on corporations which is passed on to the citizens which used their products. T...
I have wondered why we haven’t seen any Hurricanes hit the U.S., let alone Katrina size hurricanes since 2004. After all, Al Gore blamed Katrina on Global Warming and predicted more frequent Hurricanes. Where are the Hurricanes?
I have wondered how Al Gore can predict 33 ft sea levels in thirty year when he can’t get tomorrow temperature correct. I would bet Al Gore ten dollars a day that he can’t accurately predict the high and low temperature of New York City, providing he would bet for 365 days. I would win 95 percent of the bets.
I have wondered why so many of the countries that signed the Kyoto treaty had no responsibility to reduce CO2. If Global warming is such a disaster why wouldn’t China have a responsibility? Instead they are currently building 50 new old fashion coal fired plants to produce electricity in a single year. China certainly knows how to produce clean nuclear plants if the government really cared about CO2.
I think Global Warming is just a tax scheme. There is a tax on corporations which is passed on to the citizens which used their products. Then just follow the money. It goes to wealth transfer program at least the part that doesn’t go to Al Gore’s pockets.
There is one consolation; the self named Communist party of Sweden which appointed all six members of the Noble Piece prize committee was tossed in the street. So maybe we won’t get another Al Gore or Jimmy Carter winning the Nobel Pease prize but on the other hand, the panel might take a while to replace.
Undecided
Yes
Yes
I think what is really going on is that on a 12 month cycle the winter will push to 6 months and the summer six months.
So spring will be way way longer than it is now, and the same with fall, making global warming and global cooling appear to be happening at the same time. because if you measure cold against cold and hot against hot without considering the whole temp as a mean value your missing the point.
If we are in a long winter and just as summer arives if the earth burps up a volcanic eruption that is bigger than average during the wrong season the Earth will simply have no summer for year, and that will kind of freeze things. And if the burp is big enough, watch out!
It happened in 1816 , and it was called the year without summer.
So imagine addint global cooling and so colder winter, a volcanic event that shuts off summer, then a colder winter still,....and how many years do you think it will take to correct the climate and recover?????
Try 130 in 1816, but what about now?
But hey, your all geniuses right and way too smart to be fooled, ignore the ice caps melting and dont see things holisticly. Meaning global warming also means global cooling, just ignore everything and you will be juuuuuust fine!
No
No
I am more concerned about global stupidity.
Undecided
This whole global warming bovine excrement was a scam from the git go. One hugh conjob to separate us from more of our money in taxes, liberties, and freedoms. I don't care how guilty you liberals are about anything and everything (which explains why obummer ..er obama a nobody from no where, with no experience is your front runner) but you are dragging the rest of us down with ya'............................
Ya'all remember enron? This cap and trade trick is what enron was hoping for. No wonder the government put 'em outta business. Billions if not trillions of dollars to be made. The U.S. government thought that money shouldn't be going to a private company. But to us.
No
Undecided
Yes
Screw Al Gore and all the distractions his global warming theory has created.
People; get real... pollution is a problem; it's in our air, oceans and land. Quit this childish debate over the question of our impact on global warming. If we clean up our act, literally, we'll know after the fact if we've made any changes in the temps.
My point is forget the argument, clean up pollution, and if we are contributing to global warming it will be fixed... if not, we'll still be so much better off.
I would have expected An Inconvenient Truth to make a positive impact, but it seems as if people have turned away from the general topic of pollution to argue the facts he presents. It completely frustrates me. It seems as if the big picture is just lost in the argument.
Yes
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Ok thats funny. First off do you really think there are 31,000 climatologists?
because if you do I have a bridge somewhere you might wish to buy. :)
Though it is hard to find the exact data the department of labor has about 18,000 phsyics jobs reported in 2005. I am assuming climatologists are not outnumbering physicists so that is almost every climatologist or geologist signing that petition!!!!
Did you see the link where you too could be a "scientist" and sign the petition?
Petitions are not science either; this is though:
lets look at what is science:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
here is one specifically dealing with the limited cooling
http://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
ok if you read those articles one thing to notice is that they are all peer reviewed journals
This is where actual science is published.
Ok thats funny. First off do you really think there are 31,000 climatologists?
because if you do I have a bridge somewhere you might wish to buy. :)
Though it is hard to find the exact data the department of labor has about 18,000 phsyics jobs reported in 2005. I am assuming climatologists are not outnumbering physicists so that is almost every climatologist or geologist signing that petition!!!!
Did you see the link where you too could be a "scientist" and sign the petition?
Petitions are not science either; this is though:
lets look at what is science:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
here is one specifically dealing with the limited cooling
http://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
ok if you read those articles one thing to notice is that they are all peer reviewed journals
This is where actual science is published.
Yes
No
Undecided
No
No
Undecided
No