Finally an explanation about what looks like global cooling

Post Reply New Topic

The slow down won't last, according to science:

It's something I have found confusing about the topic in the past. Why does it seem things are cooling. So much conflicting info out there. Hope this sheds some light!

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obs ... SA_Twitter

There is no global cooling, but there has been a local cooling in most of north america last year.

A slowing of the warming trend, which has been 1.2 degrees in 130 years.

Warming is not even, and the mid American and Russian Urals are cooling.

Most warming is the oceans, 4/5 of earth, most cooling mid continent America and Russia, just where the snow fell during the last ice age.

Before the last advance of the ice it was a few degrees warmer, sea level was 22 foot higher, Norway had the climate of Spain.

It was still a hotter world as snow fell mid continent, the cold spot, when the earth held more water vapor in the air.

Year to year is weather, but a few questions, does anyone track rising humidity? Are any spots getting colder?

The last few years, Buffalo to Boston has seen record snows.

Hottest year in a hundred! Makes the press, but it seems hundred year record snowfalls are happening.

It does fit, hotter ocean, more water evaporates, blocked from falling as rain, spreading drought, now falling as snow.

I have seen snow in the Rockies in June, in shady places. Will the melt by days increase?

It only takes one year where snow cover survives the summer, then it grows.

It seems the colder places, north of the Great Lakes, The Russian Urals, were the starting place of the last ice sheet.

It was not a sudden event, it took thousands of years, when 45 miles of snow compacted to five miles of ice, then spread under its own gravity over twice the area, till it was three miles thick.

It was still a warmer world, and as sea level declined, a new climate. Air a sea level will become denser. Pressure will increase.

All of our models use 14.2 psi, what if it becomes 14.5 psi?

Seems to me, now they have come out with this, really makes me question things. They didn't seem to know about this when they were telling everyone the earth will get warmer and warmer. People literally believed the temperatures would be warmer and are confounded by these really cold winters in certain locations, like in the Northeastern US, Britain and parts of Russia. So what about other things they do not seem to know about? What kind of surprises will there be?

Really makes me wonder, are we dealing with chance percentages or stone cold facts?

Does it matter??

1) Don't trust a central authority to "save us" from anything. Save yourself; when you've done that, save the guy next to you.

2) Don't excrete in the spring.

3) Enough is enough.

Three simple little pieces of advice, gleaned from 'dumb hillbillies' and cleaned up a bit for the consumption of those who are not comfortable with my usual casual profanity.

Those three pieces of advice will pretty much take care of it.

WHY is it SO HARD for people to do this??

It does matter to a great deal of people. I think what people want to see most is a sense of balance in what we do as a collective species. That's just my take on it.

Another thing not taken into account is some countries seem to be noticing the effects right now while others aren't so much and the ones in the countries not noticing want to discount the experiences of the countries that are. Ever notice?

It doesn't matter if the world will start warming in a couple of decades, if it's going to cool before that. It's cold summers that cause crop failures, not warm winters.

It seems to be the northern hemisphere that is experiencing this and not entirely. We have not experienced it where I live. MUCH greater concern is how these lakes are looking and YES it's very alarming because, you see, if they continue on this rate these area lakes will simply be gone in less than a decade. It is that bad and a great concern. I am really shocked people are not even more concerned. Unfortunately, because of the phenomena known as cognitive dissonance the lakes could be very well nearly gone by the time people start to panic over what is happening now. It's plain to me they are in a state of crisis right NOW and if the trend continues, there won't be water in the lakes that are already several feet (and by several I mean like, lots, not sure on the exact count but by looking at them, they are really low. Scary low) below what they were just a few years ago. What are people going to do in a city without any water? It's a real concern. You cannot borrow from so many lakes to replace the water in the ones that are losing so much every year. The lakes will all eventually dry up. If things do not improve weather wise, there won't be any lake water here.

Oh, now they're calling it a "pause" in global warming. What will it be next; sorcery?

I would not call this Science. If there was a long term ocean cycle, when was this discovered?

The dates are important, so how did this cycle affect the climate before now. The time is important, multi decade is not a number, Science runs on numbers.

Things like graphs, showing a warming/cooling in the oceans, with dates, and how that relates to world climate is Science.

Recent discoveries, El Nino, La Nina, were science brought to you by fishermen in Peru. They had long known the warming/cooling cycle, since Inca times. A quick check showed the cycle fit our hurricane cycle, something considered random before. Science connects events in time.

Now the talk is of warm water from below melting Antarctic ice, leaving a thinner ice sheet that seems to be growing, but it is all global warming.

Ocean currents were mapped by the British several hundred years ago, deep ocean currents are known for having patterns of circulation that take thousands and tens of thousands of years and hence, rising warmer water could be from the end of the last ice age, not recent human activity.

It is not Science to claim it is all human caused global warming, The only reason this was brought up was because the steep rise of heat did not happen, no hockey stick graph, no children never seeing snow.

Next they will discover The Gulf Stream, and the Japan Current, and want to tax them, to fund more Science, to prove Global Warming.

We are a product of the Holocene, and since Rome have been sliding into cooling, a Little Ice Age, which ended in 1850. We are well below the Holocene Climate, and hardly a degree above the Little Ice Age.

There are long term cycles, Rome was warm, followed by cold, until the Medieval warm period, followed by cold, the Little Ice Age, and Science would expect, based on evidence, numbers, another period as warm as Rome and the Medieval Period.

It is as Science Based as saying, when the sun goes down it gets dark.

We will never know the exact cause, there are many, cycles do overlap, sometimes they oppose, sometimes reinforce. We can know that it is a good bet that it will happen again, and the longer the cycle, the more data points, the more likely.

This article, a Global Warmer excuse for failed projections. We are right, but something is messing with our data.

Now how hard would it be to graph these ocean cycles? Multi Decade? More than One, less than Ten?

Global Warming is blamed for the drought, now fifteen years. What about the drought from 700 to 1500? Was that Global Warming?

700 saw the Black Sea and the Nile freeze over, only time in records. That cold seems to have come from The Urals, and reached south. The same pattern of the Jet Stream bringing Polar Air far south is happening again.

I mention this because Global Warming would be happy with a degree rise in a hundred years, but the Polar Air makes it 30-40 degrees colder right now. It also happens just where the last ice formed, grew, and covered the land.

I used to like Science, but now I see it as a field for people who lack big picture thinking, art ability, and Engineering. They do not tell whole stories, and it is just stories, their graphs and illustrations lack the ability to communicate information, and as Engineering, their Models would fall down.

Science now patch their models by the same means Creationists did for thousands of years. They start from being right, and as lab coated priests of the science god, defend the sacred knowledge.

People did not study Climate because they were good at anything else. Even their idea of a Computer Model, shows their lack of knowledge of Computers and Models.

While they are always so sure, they were in 1970 when an ice age was expected, that got dropped as the 1990s were warm, and now the 00s are cooling. The 50s and the 30s were warm, dust bowls and tornados were supposed to become and every day happening.

Back during Katrina, Science claimed hurricanes every month from now on. New Orleans has not had even a small one since.

The goal of this Disaster Science seems to be getting jobs, not many in academia, so the big chance is being a FEMA Science Officer. Calling for disasters is for getting more funding, so we can have unquestionable Science of Homeland Security, Science above the law, with a gun.

They do not have to be right, publish, but with a Masters the government paycheck is large, excellent benefits, lifetime employment, golden retirement. Their Doctorate will be fully funded.

J Edgar Hoover built the FBI on a Red Scare, when two thirds of the Communists were FBI agents.

FEMA and Homeland Security are doing the same with Natural Disasters and false flag attacks.

Its been done before, only Comrade Stalin can protect you from Comrade Stalin.

Liberal logic: when your wrong make up more lies to cover it up!

That's what YOU are calling it. It's a term coined by statistically illiterate or disingenuous climate change deniers to imply that temperatures are no longer going up, and therefore AGW is a conspiracy perpetuated by evil scientists and Big Windfarm.
Anyone who examines the data can see that there's no "pause" or "slowdown" of the sort. Talk of a "pause" is just propaganda.

Did the original experiments showing CO2 to have a greenhouse effect take into account the effect that a very large heat sink would have? As in, did they run an experiment with a one bell jar for a control, one experimental condition in which the concentration of CO2 was doubled, and another in which the concentration of CO2 was doubled whilst also having it filled almost entirely with water?

It's understandable, if global warming is indeed happening, that there would be a lag followed by the warming of the oceans, because the oceans have a far higher mass than the atmosphere and a far greater specific heat capacity. I'm surprised this wasn't in the models to start with...

It also explains why the planet has only had a couple of degrees warming or cooling throughout human history, and why the poles warm up far more than the equator (ocean current carry heat to the poles).

Even if global warming is happening (there's some doubt), and even if it is caused by humans (sizeable doubt), it's still very unlikely to have a negative impact (the warmer periods have also been the most biodiverse and productive).

The East Coast Americans took our snow!! !! (they can have it btw, I hate snow)

I think you have an inaccurate idea of the nature of the experiments done...

Initially, it was proven that, like every other molecule capable of changing its dipole moment, CO2 has a radiative forcing effect. This is in a completely different context.

It has since been backed up in the field: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empiric ... vanced.htm

The effect of a heat sink is another question entirely, and one that it would be all but impossible for a chemist to ignore, and one that has been factored into climate forecasts since they became a thing.

It was. It's been well known for years that the oceans will warm before the air. The current reducing rate of warming is entirely consistent with the forecasts made.


Well yes, but there's some doubt that anti-biotics kill bacteria...

Perhaps you should get your knowledge of biology from biologists, not eric76.

Your closing parenthetical remark is technically accurate, but it's also ridiculously simplistic and completely ignores the context. The current rate of extinction is well above the background rate, largely for reasons unrelated to climate change (off the top of my head, I believe it is considered the fourth biggest factor in current extinctions, a long way behind habitat loss). Putting more energy into the system doesn't simply mean that you get more out, species would need to adapt to the new conditions, and they're already struggling. Some species of bacteria will find it easy, but not complex lifeforms. You also need all elements of a food web to adjust in sync with each other, or you have a predator "adjusting" and finding it doesn't have any food. Then you need there to be suitable habitats for species to move into, rather than just the places that humans don't want because they're hostile to life. In the short and medium term, we will see further extinctions.

Of course, extinction provides opportunities for radiation, but again, that's contingent on the environment being suitable. I also would not be confident of something rapidly evolving to fill a crucial pollinator niche, for example...

What lakes are you talking about? The only lakes I saw mentioned were the Great Lakes. If you think those are going to dry up in ten years, you really need to think again.

Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that our current drought has anything to do with Global Warming.