Question:

30 years of global cooling?

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

Solar cycle 23 is going to be about 13 years long. The longest since 1790. it’s been known by solar scientist that the longer the solar cycle the weaker in amplitude of the next 2 solar cycles. Solar cycle 24 is going to be very weak. Solar Cycle 24 and 25 should take us up to 2030. The weak amplitude of solar cycles 24 and 25 will likely cool the globe for 30 years. The earth as already cooled over the past 2 years and is likely to accelerate over the coming years. China as already seen their coldest winter for 100 years. Sydney has seen their first snowfall for decades.

As when the earth cools the temperature gradient increases between the poles and the equator. This will make the jet stream increase its speed from west to east. Britain’s autumn and winters will become milder, maritime in the short term. When the temperature gradient continue to increase between the poles and the equator the jet-stream becomes unstable and more likely to break up in to anticyclone blocking and cyclones. The anticyclone blocking will develop from Siberia to Iceland bringing in months of polar continental air to the UK in winter

The CO2 is to weak of a greenhouse gas to stop natural cooling. As when the oceans cools it will absorb all of the manmade CO2 and a large amount of natural CO2

Ice cores show temperature go up first then CO2 follows

The evidence supporting the manmade global warming hypothesis is getting less and less. There is a large amount of jobs and government tax dependent on the manmade global warming hypothesis so there will be allot of political spin in the data.

 Tags:

   Report

9 ANSWERS


  1. I believe GW -- oh sorry "climate change" proponents have already said this is true-- just setting up the propaganda ahead of time -- so they can keep using the term "climate change".

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur...

    http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/calif...

    http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/005...

    I also agree with Dr. Jello -- the science is already corrupted by politics and funding grants.

    Edit-- and for you thumbs down folks--

    http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=467...

    http://www.greentreegazette.com/articles...

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/g...

    http://www.cnsnews.com/VIEWNATION.ASP?PA...

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprin...

    Shall I post a few more-- ???


  2. The variation between max and min solar cycle energy is about 1.3 W/m² peak-to-trough. Since we are currently in a trough, the only effect a weakened Solar Cycle 24 and 25 would have is that we wouldn't warm up quite as much as we would otherwise.

    So possibly, if we're lucky, instead of adding 1.3 W/m² to the anthropogenic radiative forcing (about 1.6 W/m²) we'll only see an increase caused by the solar cycle of 1.1 W/m².  Meanwhile, the anthropogenic forcing will continue to increase.

    As of Jan. 2008, there was no consensus on the comparative strength of cycle 24 vs. 23.  In either case, since we are already at a minimum, a weaker cycle will definitely NOT cause cooling from our current starting point. If you have any evidence supporting some new consensus view of the solar science community, then please post it. Otherwise, I assume you have merely read some uninformed speculation.

  3. Any source?

    Foxnews?

    Randomconservativeblog.com?

    Realitydebunked?

    Imadeitup.com?

  4. We learned from school science that the earth is warmed by the sun.  Accelerated solar activity means a warmer planet.  We may be in for global cooling again.  The global warming trend stopped in 1998, which was it's warmest year.  It's likely that the earth will begin it's cooling cycle next.  

    And yes, thankfully, the wheels are falling off this global warming scam.  Seems every day it's less and less likely.

  5. This "solar activity" theory has been debunked many times.

    "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar

    climate forcings and the global mean surface

    air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A

    doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

    http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...

    News article at:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.st...

    and many more, such as

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

    People promoting it have been caught messing around with the data:

    Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data, Eos,Vol. 85, No. 39, 28 September 2004

    Boatman1 - I'm still having a hard time with the sources you use.  American Thinker?  Clearly a bunch of right wing radicals.  Thoughtful conservatives are annoyed at them giving conservatives a bad name for ignoring science:

    "Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

    "National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

    I find it hard to believe you don't have more credible sources available to you.  Including real scientists that you know from your Astronomy work.

  6. Exactly!  This is why "Top Scientists" are sounding the alarmist bells.  They know that if they don't secure tax dollars now, they won't when the temperatures get below average in the future.

    Once they start receiving tax dollars then they will take credit for the cooling and demand more money to keep the trend going.

    "Global Warming" is a scam.

  7. Yes, some scientist are predicting a period of low solar activity similar to the Dalton Minimum which occurred between 1790 - 1830 and coincided with a period of lower than average global temperatures.

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/...

    http://www.physorg.com/news75818795.html

    http://sesfoundation.org/dalton_minimum....

    http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2w...

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index....

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_...

    http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archiv...

  8. CO2 does not go into the oceans!!! To prove this take a carbonate drink and put in a tea spoon of salt,be careful . It will cause the CO2 to be released very quickly. CO2 does dissolve into river and lake water. There is very little CO2 in the oceans. Give credit to our plants who need the CO2 as much as U do oxygen.

       The green house gas may be the warming cycle and it is Methane. Methane is released from many things so there should be billions of cubic ft. out there. Methane is very light and explosive. But where is it. I can not find it but I think it is simple. As methane rises in the atmosphere the sun becomes so intense it is causing the methane to oxidize and this produces large amounts of heat and CO2.

  9. Why do they keep saying "continue to increase" - why do they keep referring to global warming - manmade or not - in the present tense?    

    They should refer to their postulation as "it will resume."

    And there is no evidence of whether it will or will not.

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 9 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.