A cold spell soon to replace global warming

RIA Novosti ^ | 1/03/2008 | Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin

[sionnsar]

MOSCOW. (Oleg Sorokhtin for RIA Novosti) – Stock up on fur coats and felt boots! This is my paradoxical advice to the warm world.

Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.

The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.

Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground. Advanced in the late 19th century by Svante A. Arrhenius, a Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner, this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check.

It determines decisions and instruments of major international organizations—in particular, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Signed by 150 countries, it exemplifies the impact of scientific delusion on big politics and economics. The authors and enthusiasts of the Kyoto Protocol based their assumptions on an erroneous idea. As a result, developed countries waste huge amounts of money to fight industrial pollution of the atmosphere. What if it is a Don Quixote’s duel with the windmill?

Hothouse gases may not be to blame for global warming. At any rate, there is no scientific evidence to their guilt. The classic hothouse effect scenario is too simple to be true. As things really are, much more sophisticated processes are on in the atmosphere, especially in its dense layer. For instance, heat is not so much radiated in space as carried by air currents—an entirely different mechanism, which cannot cause global warming.

The temperature of the troposphere, the lowest and densest portion of the atmosphere, does not depend on the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions—a point proved theoretically and empirically. True, probes of Antarctic ice shield, taken with bore specimens in the vicinity of the Russian research station Vostok, show that there are close links between atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and temperature changes. Here, however, we cannot be quite sure which is the cause and which the effect.

Temperature fluctuations always run somewhat ahead of carbon dioxide concentration changes. This means that warming is primary. The ocean is the greatest carbon dioxide depository, with concentrations 60-90 times larger than in the atmosphere. When the ocean’s surface warms up, it produces the “champagne effect.” Compare a foamy spurt out of a warm bottle with wine pouring smoothly when served properly cold.

Likewise, warm ocean water exudes greater amounts of carbonic acid, which evaporates to add to industrial pollution—a factor we cannot deny. However, man-caused pollution is negligible here. If industrial pollution with carbon dioxide keeps at its present-day 5-7 billion metric tons a year, it will not change global temperatures up to the year 2100. The change will be too small for humans to feel even if the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions doubles.

Carbon dioxide cannot be bad for the climate. On the contrary, it is food for plants, and so is beneficial to life on Earth. Bearing out this point was the Green Revolution—the phenomenal global increase in farm yields in the mid-20th century. Numerous experiments also prove a direct proportion between harvest and carbon dioxide concentration in the air.

Carbon dioxide has quite a different pernicious influence—not on the climate but on synoptic activity. It absorbs infrared radiation. When tropospheric air is warm enough for complete absorption, radiation energy passes into gas fluctuations. Gas expands and dissolves to send warm air up to the stratosphere, where it clashes with cold currents coming down. With no noticeable temperature changes, synoptic activity skyrockets to whip up cyclones and anticyclones. Hence we get hurricanes, storms, tornados and other natural disasters, whose intensity largely depends on carbon dioxide concentration. In this sense, reducing its concentration in the air will have a positive effect.

Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean.

Earth is unlikely to ever face a temperature disaster. Of all the planets in the solar system, only Earth has an atmosphere beneficial to life. There are many factors that account for development of life on Earth: Sun is a calm star, Earth is located an optimum distance from it, it has the Moon as a massive satellite, and many others. Earth owes its friendly climate also to dynamic feedback between biotic and atmospheric evolution.

The principal among those diverse links is Earth’s reflective power, which regulates its temperature. A warm period, as the present, increases oceanic evaporation to produce a great amount of clouds, which filter solar radiation and so bring heat down. Things take the contrary turn in a cold period.

What can’t be cured must be endured. It is wise to accept the natural course of things. We have no reason to panic about allegations that ice in the Arctic Ocean is thawing rapidly and will soon vanish altogether. As it really is, scientists say the Arctic and Antarctic ice shields are growing. Physical and mathematical calculations predict a new Ice Age. It will come in 100,000 years, at the earliest, and will be much worse than the previous. Europe will be ice-bound, with glaciers reaching south of Moscow.

Meanwhile, Europeans can rest assured. The Gulf Stream will change its course only if some evil magic robs it of power to reach the north—but Mother Nature is unlikely to do that.

Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

---

Oh really...

[sionnsar]

PETA is not going to like this!

[G8 Diplomat]

First it was the coming ice age, then it was global warming, now we’re back to the coming ice age...

[umgud]

Global warming causes cold spells?

[Snickering Hound]

[Balding_Eagle]

...........but I’ve long said that if there is a change going on, it’s towards a cooling trend.

Iceage? Who can tell, but I say we are going in that direction, not global warming

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1947507/posts#9

[Islander7]

[Global warming causes cold spells?]

Of course! If a planet has a fever, it is sure to have chills too.

[Islander7]

[Global warming causes cold spells?]

Of course! If a planet has a fever, it is sure to have chills too.

[vox humana]

Al Gore did not approve of this message.

[familyop]

Oh, yeah, take it from a Russian state-owned newspaper.

It will continue to get warmer. And we’ll live with it, because we’re not causing it and can’t stop it. It’s not that bad. People who don’t like warmer weather can move north.

[VOA]

bump

[43north]

If you will read this closely with an open mind it is probably the most accurate assessment of the current state of the Earth’s climate that I have read in a long time.

This Russian is obviously NOT a member of the Church of Globabble Warming. He bases his statements on sound EMPIRICAL evidence and he is quite possibly entirely correct. He obviously does not consider human activity to be of much account and in this he is right on. Only a liberal would be so smug as to think what humans do matters one whit in the greater scheme of things.

When it comes to the historical record of Earth’s climate, the only constant is constant change.

[VeniVidiVici]

What if it is a Don Quixote’s duel with the windmill?

Anybody got the email for that putz Jimbo Hansen at NASA? I'd like to forward this to him.

This guy can run rings around Hansen.

[Eagles6]

"It will come in 100,000 years, at the earliest, and will be much worse than the previous. Europe will be ice-bound, with glaciers reaching south of Moscow."

Actually I think we are toward the end of the inter-glaciation period and the next ice age should begin shortly, relatively speaking. Within the next 10,000 yrs, give or take.

[wastedyears]

They’ll just call it ‘climate change’ to cover all their bases.

[JasonC]

It isn't "their bases" that need covering, hanging out in the arctic cold and snow...

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

According to some studies, we’re about 2,000 years overdue for an ice age. We can thank the greenhouse gases released by agriculture over the last 8,000 years for the period of grace (along with more recent industrialization, of course).

[alwaysconservative]

I agree: this scientist is not “buying” into the AGW scam, and is putting forth some sound observations of history and science. Thanks for illuminating that!

[Pontiac]

Bump for later.

[Grizzled Bear]

If a planet has a fever, it is sure to have chills too.

---

If a planet has a fever it needs MORE COW BELL!

[El Gato]

First it was the coming ice age, then it was global warming, now we’re back to the coming ice age...

And it the same coming ice age, based on the same effects. Only we know even more about them now than we did before.

It's coming, the Big One, not just "Hans Brinker and the Silver Skates"(Ice on the Dutch canal networks) But a real Ice Age, big glaciers of the sort that gave us the prairie potholes and the Great Lakes. How soon? Well we're overdue already, but any millennium now, maybe any century.

(The appearance of more, "high frequency" variation in more recent data is due to higher sampling rate, that is more closely spaced samples)

[El Gato]

It will continue to get warmer. And we’ll live with it, because we’re not causing it and can’t stop it.

We can't stop it, but it's not *just* warming. See graph in Post 22

[devere]

This author is in touch with reality.

[steelyourfaith]

"Hot Air Cult"

~~Anthropogenic Global Warming ™ ping~~

[familyop]

"We can't stop it, but it's not *just* warming. See graph in Post 22"

Good! I like to hike up and down the peaks to snowboard in arctic weather. ...was doing some backcountry boarding a few days ago and was toasty warm even under cheap gear. In past recent years, it usually briefly hit lower than -20F some mornings near solstice at this altitude (high). And although most of the winter has been like summer here, it's great to not have other people around. At noon, one can even lay in front of a window to catch the low sun for sunbathing indoors (20 minutes or so for plenty of vitamin D).

I wish that an ice age would come quickly, as a new glacier in the back yard for four-wheeling and boarding would be wonderful (as would seeing all the weirdo greenies go away), but I fear that it won't happen soon. ...will have to settle for watching the multitudes of new bear (from the warming so far) eat the greenies next fall.

[FBD]

-Global cooling is probably still a few years off, based on the solar cycle 24 predictions, which is predicted to peak in 2010. Unfortunately, this gives the AGW proponents a few more years to blather on:

[geopyg]

“Unfortunately, this gives the AGW proponents a few more years to blather on:”

AND - the opportunity to say “see how right we were and how well we have saved the planet” (and just in time for another election year too!)

[backhoe]

A mocking, tongue-in-cheek summary of "the coming ice age," err, "Y2K," err, "global warming," err, "climate change," Yeah! That's right! What we used to call, "Having Weather..."

Snow Flurries Possible In Central Florida During Hard Freeze

...WET AND WINDY WEATHER HEADING FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THIS WEEKEND... Jan 2, 2008

Freeze could bring record low tonight

Neil Frank disputes 'questionable' storm counts

Tennessee drivers urged to 'Take it Slow' in the snow

And, in the "Well, Duh!" department...

NY Times: Global Warming Claims Bogus--Too late for California and Ahnold...

Snow Sets NH Record(And not a peep out of Al Bore!LOL)--This afternoon's global warming in process.

Snow sets NH record-- fer Gawd's sake, somebody please

Sierra could be in for potent storms (up to 5 to 10 feet of snow)

Chiller!

Published by Gaius under Environment

The British Met Office is predicting a brutal cold spell in Britain for the New Year. Many areas will be at sub-zero temperatures and much of the country will be blanketed in snow.The comments are hysterical. A lot of sniping at global warming and the occasional true believer popping in. Including the folks from Australia who say they are having a heat wave - who appear to have forgotten completely that Australia suffered the coldest June since 1950 this year. Or that waiting for a Harry Potter book in bitterly cold Canberra in July could cause hypothermia. Not to mention the fact that there is snow cover reaching all the way to the Mediterranean this year.

Y2Kyoto: "Shocking" Ice Recovery

Just in time for Canada's top weather story of 2007...

Alexandre Aguiar, MetSul Weather Center, Brazil; "In the Northern Hemisphere, the ice and snow cover have recovered to within 1% (one snowstorm) of normal with the official start of winter still more than 12 days away."

Today's image.

Posted by Kate at 6:10 PM | Comments (32) "...the Believers know their ponzi scheme is up..."

Lowest Temps In 4 Years Expected In Central Florida To Begin 2008

'Green fatigue' leads to fear of backlash over climate change

Send Global Warming fast...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=504912&in_page_id=1811

Ice spectacular as plummeting temperatures turn lighthouse into winter wonderlandLast updated at 15:48pm on 28th December 2007

Comments (3)

[driftless2]

Notice that this scientist has stated that temperature changes run ahead of carbon dioxide fluctuations. A number of scientists have pointed that out.

[Justa]

What he's saying folks is the Greenhouse Effect is false.

Great article by a scientist showing integrity in the face of pervasive corruption. However, as is often the case now this conclusion was cited and posted on FR 2 weeks ago. [/shameless self-promotion].

[FBD]

excellant point, and one I’m sure the AGW proponents will use.

[ohioman]

We are still in a Ice Age.

Our current time is considered as an Interglacial Warm Period; that is, the world still has major Ice Sheets but they are not advancing or covering up a large portion of North America or Europe.

What the Gorebal Warming shills never mention is that for many millions of year’s the Earth had no Ice Sheets. I guess they will blame that on Dinosaur farts.

[fish hawk]

Warm weather is not a bad thing. I know because this Island of Maui is loaded with tourist every winter. People mostly from the northern states and Canada. Proof that cold is not very popular.

[Freep EE]

A new sunspot prediction is Out dated 1/2/08. It looks like it is to be later and much lower! Cycle 25 is already forecasted to be very low.-So here comes global cooling.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/Predict_low.txt

[Old Professer]

Notice the dates, 2014 and 2041; the very same as the deadlines in the massive climate-change induced rush to legislation.

In both cases the dates are tantalizingly close to observational proof but the warmers don’t want to take a chance, so they must strike now, while the iron is “hot.”

More and more, it seems like we’re getting hosed.

[Old Professer]

No more than the interregnum causes wars.

[Old Professer]

That conclusion precludes the absence of the previous periods having experienced any such mitigation to disrupt perfect cycles; were they all of equal duration?

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Your query prompted me to dig for citations.

The hypothesis of a delayed ice age was set out in a Scientific American article by William F. Ruddiman. Here's a link:

http://sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=F9374686-2B35-221B-635B1D2A02A8B6D5

And another (whole article, minus graphs, for free):

http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~liougst/Lecture/Ruddiman_SciAm_2005.pdf

Ruddiman has also written a book, which I haven't read, but is probably worth going to the library for. Here's a link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691133980?ie=UTF8&tag=hatrackriver&link_code=em1&camp=212341&creative=384065&creativeASIN=0691133980&adid=61d4947b-1aaf-4899-94da-5a7191ecc309

Ruddiman's thesis is that humans have been altering the climate for at least 8,000 years -- and that's a good thing.

There were some compelling graphs in Ruddiman's SciAm article, which I haven't been able to find. Here's a substitute that shows that the answer to your question is "No" -- or more precisely, we've been enjoying a prolonged plateau in the cycle, which (according to Ruddiman) should have dipped into glaciation thousands of years ago.



Here's a quote from Ruddiman's SciAm article:



"My findings add a new wrinkle to each scenario. If anything, such forecasts of an "impending" ice age were actually understated: new ice sheets should have begun to grow several millennia ago. The ice failed to grow because human-induced global warming actually began far earlier than previously thought--well before the industrial era.

In these kinds of hotly contested topics that touch on public policy, scientific results are often used for opposing ends. Global-warming skeptics could cite my work as evidence that human-generated greenhouse gases played a beneficial role for several thousand years by keeping the earth's climate more hospitable than it would otherwise have been. Others might counter that if so few humans with relatively primitive technologies were able to alter the course of climate so significantly, then we have reason to be concerned about the current rise of greenhouse gases to unparalleled concentrations at unprecedented rates.

The rapid warming of the past century is probably destined to persist for at least 200 years, until the economically accessible fossil fuels become scarce. Once that happens, the earth's climate should begin to cool gradually as the deep ocean slowly absorbs the pulse of excess CO2 from human activities. Whether global climate will cool enough to produce the long-overdue glaciation or remain warm enough to avoid that fate is impossible to predict.

[HankReardon]

What the “climate change” movement is really all about:

Madeline Albright once stated that mankind would be better off if the USA was not a superpower. (paraphrasing, does anyway have the exact quote?)

Many truly believe that the leading deterent to world peace is the USA. These people long for the USA to be “equal” to all the other socialist nations.

The United States cannot be defeated militarily. The “climate change” movement is only one way they are attacking Capitalism, American business and the American economy.

They are right about one thing. The United States of America is the greatest threat to world peace. America saved mankind from tryanny three times during the 20th century.

If not for the USA, the entire world would be lost to tyranny and then there would be world peace. As long as there are Free nations there will be war against dictators and tyrants or there will be no Free nations.

[FBD]

I sure hope so. I’m pretty sure that if this warming trend continues much longer, the AGW fear mongers are going to convince the general populace that we need to give away many of our auto/energy/heating freedoms, and tax fuel up the wazoo....all in their bogus claim of saving the planet.

[FBD]

I think it's doubtful that humans even today have more then a minute impact on the global temperature increases (of 4/10th’s of one degree C). But claiming AGW has been going on since preindustrial times? That seems ludicrous to me. I wonder: How does this guy, Ruddiman, explain the Little Ice age which occurred between 1400 AD and 1800?

[FBD]

bump^ -great post, backhoe!

[backhoe]

[tob2]

He won’t either because he will have to give back his Nobel Peace Prize.

This conforms what I have suspected, the earth is in it’s natural heating/cooling cycle.

[TN4Liberty]

This author is in touch with reality.

Wow, I guess that settles it then. Anything you'd like to add, like specific arguments?

[RetiredArmy]

Remember, all these "predictions" (also spelled: "wild guesses") are being made by people and organizations (I.E. The Weather Channel) who CANNOT get todays weather right or change the 10-day forecast 35 times in the next 48 hours, "because the computer models changed." So, wouldn't that tell you that their stupid computer models could also be WRONG about their predictions ONE HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW!!!!! NO, of course not!!! We might not be able to predict the weather TOMORROW or THE NEXT DAY, but we are ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY POSITIVE that the world is going to end in 100 years from the global warming hoax.

[devere]

“Anything you’d like to add, like specific arguments?”

Ask Fred, he knows.

[TN4Liberty]

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

We agree that the global warming scare is a hoax.

I like Ruddiman’s hypothesis, because it’s reasonable and as “testable” as any other GW hypothesis out there.

Algorians claim we’re all gonna die because of man-made run-away global warming. (Oops — make that climate change, to cover any eventuality).

Opponents to Algore (i.e. rational people like FReepers) usually argue either that there is no global warming; or that there may be, but it’s entirely natural cycles.

Ruddiman gives us more ammo against the Goreheds. Only man-made global warming has kept us from a devastating ice-age for at least 2,000 years. We’re not gonna die, so long as we can keep up the good work of adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.