Global Cooling and the impact of cooling on Hurricanes?

Discuss Hurricane, Typhoon, Tropical Cyclone related news.
Site Admin
Posts: 11526
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:11 pm
Which is the largest number?: 10992
Location: Florida

Global Cooling and the impact of cooling on Hurricanes?

Postby hurricane » Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:47 am

A Russian scientist is predicting global cooling (see, saying we have already reached the maximum. The prediction is that we will see something akin to the 'little ice age'.

With all the talk of global warming and its impact on hurricanes, one can only wonder about the impact of global cooling. No doubt it will be contain many things that are completely unexpected. Unfortunately there are no accurate hurricane records from that long ago.

Posts: 16
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 9:14 pm
Which is the largest number?: 9
Location: Southwest Louisiana

Postby weatherfreak » Sat Sep 02, 2006 5:00 pm

Hey Chris,

I saw a program on ABC the other night that was predicting several doomsday scenarios including a little ice age. It was pretty interesting but some of it was really out there, IMHO.

What is your take on this little ice age theory? I feel that since the Earth is a living planet that it goes through natural cycles of heating and cooling and that we as humans are not necessarily responsible for some of them. It just seems that some people are 100% positive that global warming and such are our fault.

But isn't it also possible that it could just be Mother Earth doing her thing?

Site Admin
Posts: 11526
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:11 pm
Which is the largest number?: 10992
Location: Florida

Postby hurricane » Sun Sep 03, 2006 4:33 pm

As entertainment, things like that ABC special and "The Day After Tomorrow" are fine. As science they usually leave a lot to be desired. We've been hearing about global ice age, global warming, and now again mini-ice ages again and again. I agree that it is probably Mother Earth doing her own thing.

The problem with many of the "so-called" scientists who are predicting global warming are many, but the biggest one is that government science and free science are incompatible - once you are beholden to government money you are beholden to politicians. And many are willing to sell themselves to the people who pay their bills. Government money corrupts and with enough time government money corrupts absolutely. It is disgusting.

Did you see the study (to be published in September's (2006) Geophysical Research Letters) that shows that between 2003 and 2005 *global* average upper ocean temperatures have *cooled* significantly? ;-)

Anyway, two books that deal a lot with the issue are here. They deal with facts and not guesses....all that really matters:
Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong John Stossel (from ABC News)

State of Fear Michael Crichton (Jurassic Park, Terminal Man, The Andromeda Strain etc)

There are links below to make them easy to find. ;-) ... ffff&f=ifr ... ffff&f=ifr

Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:07 pm

Colorado State professor disputes global warming is human-ca

Postby hurricanecom » Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:10 pm

Colorado State professor disputes global warming is human-caused

And now Bill Gray saying there IS global warming, but it is not caused by humans to compare the "Global Cooling" predicted above.

Part of the article says:
Gray, who is a professor at Colorado State University, said human-induced global warming is a fear perpetuated by the media and scientists who are trying to get federal grants.

“I think we’re coming out of the little ice age, and warming is due to changes to ocean circulation patterns due to salinity variations,” Gray said. “I’m sure that’s it.”

Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:41 am
Which is the largest number?: 10992

Re: Global Cooling and the impact of cooling on Hurricanes?

Postby Jacobgoblin » Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:01 am

We have a couple of hundred years of surface temperature data, and perhaps a hundred years of geographically wide spread surface temperature data. We have thousands of years of coarse proxies (ice cores, tree rings, etc) at single points.

From this data we attempt to deduce signals. That is, meaningful variations on the data. Unfortunately our ability to accurately measure causes of such signals in the proxies on the geological time scale is limited. We can only infer, extrapolate, and guess. On our progressively better data it gets better, but the best stuff really is only recent.

There were many limitations to our ability to make spacial measurements of the globe until we had satellites capable of the feat. Nice and even readings over the whole globe, depending on the accuracy of the equipment involved. They really provide our best data but we only have a couple of decades worth of data there. There's only so much gluing one data set type onto another that you can do before you've introduced more error than makes the process worth while.

Some of those signal patterns are on geological time scales rather than decade time scales, and thus, predictions on what those signals actually represent may take just as long to test. Unlike a gravity experiment which can be done and measured on demand, waiting for the entire climate system to reach a particular experiment point, for most practical purposes, is impossible. As are efforts is changing particular individual conditions to test specific characteristics in exclusion of others. We cannot clone the earth for an experiment.

What about computer modeling? Some might ask this as a follow up. Computer modeling is not science, just like math is not science. Math is a completely artificial construct that is often useful to describe a scientific observation. Like math, a computer model might be a useful artificial construct to describe a scientific observation. I can claim my math equation will accurately predict my gravity experiment and then proceed to verify that hypothesis. Proving these out simply requires tests with measurements and the time and effort to complete it. In the case of the global climate, our time scales for some things are geological. Don't read too much into what we think we know, there may well be a lot of signals we haven't accounted for and are not represented in our historical proxies. Hind casting is also not fool proof, you can produce equations that match a historical chart accurately but have zero predictive power. The only way we'll have really solid stuff is to have the hypothesis born out with experimental data. And that's going to take a long long time depending on the signals you are looking for.

Bottom line, climate science is not mature enough to give you any solid predictions and our understanding is really rather small.

Return to “Hurricane News Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest