## Global Cooling Evidence

A rather interesting site (stumbled on in a comment on WUWT):

http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here

That claims to have found evidence that global cooling is underway. He uses a novel data source (in Spanish, no less):

http://www.tutiempo.net/

so it could use a bit of ‘vetting’ to see where the data originate. Perhaps even a bit of A/B vs GHCN et.al.

Results

We note from my 3 tables below that Maxima, Means and Minima have all turned negative between 12 and 22 years ago. The change in signal is best observed in that of the Maxima where we can see a gradual decline of the maximum temperatures from 0.036 degrees C per annum (over the last 37 years) to -0.016 (when taken over the last 12 years).

If we plot the global measurements for the change in Maxima: 0.036, 0.028, 0.015, -0.016 against the relevant time periods, it can be shown that the best fit for the curve is given by

y= 0.0454 ln(x)-0.1278 (R2=0.994).

At 0 (zero) when there was no warming or cooling we find x=16.7 years. From this sample of weather stations I can therefore estimate with reasonable accuracy that global cooling started somewhere during 1994 (2011-17=1994).

Interesting read… Interesting data source… Interesting ideas…

About all I can add is that with a 60 year cycle, 30 year 1/2 cycle, it would take 4 or 5 years of “sort of flat” near a top / reversal. A 6 year period is 10% of the cycle and temperatures near the top and bottom change more slowly than during the zero crossing.

All THAT makes me wonder if a possible analysis would be to look at “year to year rate of change” to see if the inflections (near zero) and the zero crossings (fastest rate of change) show up. Probably need a 5 year moving average to filter out things like a ‘blow off top’ in any one year.

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW Science and Background and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

### 15 Responses to Global Cooling Evidence

1. omanuel says:

Thanks for this information and the link to Henry P’s analysis. The possibility of global cooling is, of course, very plausible since Earth’s heat source – the Sun – is variable. Everyone knows that except for the most dogmatic AGW proponents.

Lock-step, consensus science was initiated as the means to implement noble intentions of the 1945 UN Charter and “save the world” from nuclear war by selectively funding misinformation on Earth’s heat source – the Sun – after 1946. This abuse of science surfaced as manipulated global temperature data sixty-four years later, in 2009 (2009-1945 = 64 yrs).

In the interval many studies correctly concluded that Earth’s climate changes because of cyclic changes in Earth’s heat source – the Sun [P.D. Jose, “Sun’s motion and sunspots”, Astron. J., 1965, 70, 193-200, . . . ., Richard Mackey, “Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate,” Journal of Coastal Research, 2007, SI 50 (Proceedings of the Ninth International Coastal Symposium, Gold Coast, Australia) pp. 955-968] http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

Now that world leaders are encountering voters’ wrath at the polls, it is time for climatology and astrophysics to abandon models favored by politicians and return to empirical science.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18092779

2. p.g.sharrow says:

Yes, it looks as if the “watermelons” realize that global warming is over and they are moving on to the next “man caused” eminent disaster to the world. They need to be loudly discredited before they can get traction with their next creations. pg

3. Pascvaks says:

Has anyone else noticed that the hardest thing about taking the Earth’s temperature is trying to find the perfect place to ram the thermometer? I have a feeling it’s easier to take Jupiter’s temperature than it is for this planet. Maybe we should give up and find something else to try to measure. How about “Cubic Miles of Ice”? “Sea Level”? Let’s try “Sea Level” this century, OK? Can’t be any worse than tree rings. It’s so hard to “reinvent the wheel” when you haven’t really ever made one. (Remember what Mark Twain said about ‘statistics’; buyer beware;-)

In the work done by Leonid B. Klyashtorin, for the UN´s FAO!
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e00.pdf
(Klyashtorin@mtu-net.ru) and you can see its key graph here:

Where, as you can see, the next minimum will be in 2020

5. tckev says:

I’ve been digging around on http://www.tutiempo.net site and it looks like they have taken nearly all their data from airports/airstrips and military installations around the world. For instance California listing runs for 4 pages and starts here –
http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Weather/USA/California/CA.html

All of the sites look like there is just publicly available data and tutiempo have no say over the quality of these records. I am awaiting a reply to an email I sent to tutiempo asking this, I’ll update when I get a reply.

@P.G. & EVERYBODY: A must read:

Click to access cosmos_without_gravitation.pdf

7. E.M.Smith says:

@Tckev:

I would expect almost all records to be from airports. As all airports are instrumented and do METAR reporting. The number of places outside airports that report is fairly small and lots of them are not tracked anywhere.

I’m more interested just in the idea that they might be getting the data direct from the various Met Offices (or even just the METARS) and recording it without the NCDC / NASA GISS fudge.

Um, I’m pretty sure gravity exists… I’ll take a look at it, but…

@Pascvaks:

IMHO, looking at precipitation ought to work. It is the working fluid in our spherical heat pump. Volume ought to correlate directly with rate of cooling / heat dump. Hot Sun eras ought to give more rain. During the transition to a cold phase precipitation ought to spike (hot source, colder sink) then AT the cold end, precipitation ought to drop off due to less heat delta to drive it.

8. p.g.sharrow says:

@Adolfo; interesting paper. Immanuel Velikovsky was an independent thinker of the early 20th century that could and did discuss science with the best of his time. Many of the the things he proposed have been proved true in the last 50 years. pg

9. Pascvaks says:

EM-
HOOHAH!!!
(I know I’m probably just repeating something you’ve said several times before, but one of the bennies of Old Age is forgetfulness; every day is new and different. I hear it get’s so new and different that we can’t take it anymore;-)

@E.M.: From Gravity just survives its name. It is simply “attraction” as opposed by “repulsion”. It is local statics. The “square” thing is but the pythagorean squared triangle, as magnetism and electricity are at right angles (Örsted´s Law, or Right hand law).
Could you, while going to Reno, read the following?

Click to access unified_field.pdf

http://www.giurfa.com/unified_field.xlsx

11. Brian H says:

17 May 2012 at 11:28 pm

@P.G. & EVERYBODY: A must read:
Hint: don’t tell everyone your own papers are “must read”. It’s excessively egotistical, and off-putting.

12. tckev says:

E.M.
You said “I’m more interested just in the idea that they might be getting the data direct from the various Met Offices (or even just the METARS) and recording it without the NCDC / NASA GISS fudge.” and that was exactly what I was trying to clarify in an email to http://www.tutiempo.net but as yet no reply (probably my poor googlized Spanish)
I have little free time and fear I may have to search through a few other sites to get to the bottom of it.

13. E.M.Smith says:

@Tckev:

Maybe you could sweet talk Adolfo into writing to them in his Spanish from a Latin ISP?