CasualBystander
Celestial
Both what?
Both what?
Some people say global cooling, some say global warming. As someone living in middle EU, I can tell you that the winters are definitely warmer, and warmer. The last 3 winters have been unbelievable, here we've had local headlines telling that plants are confused, summer flowers still blooming in winter, etc. I personally confirm that it's really warm for a winter, and it's getting warmer. This saturday is forecasted to be 12 celsius, which is just impossible in the middle of European winter. I'm sweating here when outside, in a coat. But I noticed people from USA are saying global cooling, they say this new year had record-breaking cold temps.
So now what? Is it global cooling or warming? Here's an idea...let's lose the word 'global' and admit our weather is being played with. By whom or what, I don't know.
So now what? Is it global cooling or warming? Here's an idea...let's lose the word 'global' and admit our weather is being played with. By whom or what, I don't know.
Last edited:
Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
The title of the thread is global cooling or global warming.
CasualBystander
Celestial
Well...
We'll address scientific incompetence later.
First we will do some math.
This is earth.
This is air:
This is water:
Scientist tell us that measuring ΔTair + ΔTwater = ΔTearth.
This is nuts.
Air and water are heat engine working fluids.
Measuring the land air temperature and water surface temperature to determine if the planet is warming or cooling is like measuring the inlet temperature to your air conditioning compressor to guess if the passenger compartment is getting warmer or cooler. If the inlet temperature goes up (all things being equal) the passenger compartment is losing more heat (perhaps someone turned the fan up in the car).
Further Tair and Twater are different measurements. This is a case of claiming Apples + Oranges = Mangos.
Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
As I said earlier......the earth is going thru a long term cooling trend and also a short term warming trend.
Not sure where the incompetence comes in there.
CasualBystander
Celestial
The point is we don't really know what is happening.
It would be nice to have accurate data, because given the pattern of the last ice ages, the current and predicted future insolation levels are on the cusp of what is necessary to initiate an ice age.
The temperature oscillates wildly as earth enters an ice age. At some point one the downward swings continues and shazzam, we are 10C cooler.
Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
Actually there is data that indicates there were no ice caps 50 million years ago and now there are......and since we are no longer in an ice age for the last 12,000 years I'd say we are in a warming trend. How its happening or what will happen in the future is not known......or when the next ice age will occur. Whatever the case we know its getting warmer since the last ice age.
CasualBystander
Celestial
Huh???
Let's back up a bit.
Climate is controlled by Malkovich cycles and global topology.
Normally there is no land at the poles and the ocean freely mixes.
When the earth is 10C warmer it is 10C warmer ON AVERAGE. The tropics aren't any warmer than they are now. The poles just aren't a lot cooler than the tropics.
The current land-at-South-Pole, North-Pole-ocean-enclosed, and two land strips from pole to pole is why we have ice ages. When South America separated from Antarctica and the Circumpolar Current started, so did the ice age cycles.
The north pole is a halocline that restricts ocean mixing.
So we have two cold poles. If the Malkovich cycles drop Northern Hemisphere insolation below a given value we enter an ice age.
Because of hysteresis (the northern ice reflects 2-3 times the energy that Antarctica does) it has to get 30-50 W/m2 higher to come out of an ice age.
CO2 has had little effect on historic climate, it is icing, not the cake. Climate has been driven by Malkovich (or is it Milankovitch) cycles and global topology.
The increase in CO2 forcing from 1900 to today is about 1.1 W/m2 more or less. That doesn't do jack in the bigger scheme of things. The Eemian was about 2°C warmer than today with 50 W/m2 more insolation.
The claim that CO2 can make more than 1°C difference in temperature (unless you get into the thousands of PPM) is a laughable joke.
Last edited:
Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
Thanks......yes they are referred to Malkovich Cycles.......couldn't really get anything clear on topology. What was written in Wikipedia on these cycles showed there are issues bringing it to question. Also the person who wrote it doesn't appear to be a geologist.
I'm not sure where it says there is normally no land at the poles.
What I have in italics doesn't really make sense.....any chance you could translate it.
Could you explain what a hysteresis is and what the w/m2 formula denotes.
Volcanic release of co2 has lead to warming periods in the past.....and since the last event left no ice caps the earth has been in a long term cooling trend.
I'm not talking about what has been happening since 1900.....but the "Little Ice Age" did end in the mid to late 1800s.
CasualBystander
Celestial
I actually looked up the reasonable estimates of the evolution of the plate locations going back about a billion years or more.
Between plate locations, Malenkovitch, impacts, and occasional vulcanism you can explain past temperatures. CO2 cannot.
For example, the PETM temperatures, from lake sediment isotope studies, rose 5k+ years before the CO2 so the warmunists are claiming CO2 "leads from the rear" and that the threat of more CO2 scares the earth into warming 5k or more years in the past.
If you want to defend the claim that CO2 has controlled past climate, by all means do so.
Come get some.
Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
Yes all those things and numerous others. affected past climates. By the way volcanism releases co2.....so it is part of the process......it just doesn't control it.
As you noted there were many things affecting paleoclimatology.....there never is any one thing controlling the system and its not one thing controlling it now. However, co2 affects are part of the system.
I just wanted to let you know that volcanism is far from occasional in the past, present or future.
CasualBystander
Celestial
Well... yes it does have some effect.
The IPCC claims CO2: RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig) and claims a 3 times "water vapor multiplier".
A study that actually measured it came out in 2015 and it is:
CO2: RF = 3.46 ln(CO2/CO2_orig) with no multiplier.
You can apply this to past CO2 situations to figure out how much CO2 affected things. RF is in W/m2.
As far as the ice caps, Antarctica moved to the South Pole 30 million years ago and started building ice during the long temperature decline from the Tertiary temperature peak.
But the ice ages didn't start until it separated from South America and the Circumpolar current kicked in.
The current South Pole is almost dead center on the continent.
Last edited:
CasualBystander
Celestial
The other thing the tectonic shifts do is mess with heat transport.
The current ocean is a halocline at the poles and a thermocline in between. Most of the heat transport is by the atmosphere (an insulator) not the ocean. The bottom half of the ocean is at around 2°C (the maximum density of seawater). What little heat transport is done by water just serves to freeze the bottom of the ocean.
A cubic meter of ocean transports 4000 (roughly) times as much heat as a cubic meter of air.
A 1 meter/s current transports as much heat as a jetstream at Mach 12.
So:
1. The poles receive significantly less heat from the tropics.
2. The poles receive perhaps 1/3 as much heat because of reflection (they are white).
3. The absolute humidity (particularly Antarctica) is damn close to zero and for IR the atmosphere leaks like a sieve.
CO2 is a lousy narrow band IR absorber. In Antarctica that is all you have.
Having a single lump of land or a single pole to pole strip has completely different thermal dynamics and no thermocline since there isn't a cold source.
CasualBystander
Celestial
Please answer some questions about "science" studies:
1. What does p < .05 mean?
2. What does this predict in terms of the guarenteed reproducibility percentage?
3. What is the actual reproducibility percentage?
4. What is p-hacking?
Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
CasualBystander
Celestial
nivek
As Above So Below
Cold means hot?...
This Bitter Cold Is What Global Warming Looks Like, Explains Al Gore
Al Gore has spotted a Rahm-Emanuel-style opportunity to promote his renewables scam. This bitter cold, he wants you to know, isn’t a sign that his global warming theory is a busted flush. It’s a sign that he’s even more right than ever before!
This Bitter Cold Is What Global Warming Looks Like, Explains Al Gore
Al Gore has spotted a Rahm-Emanuel-style opportunity to promote his renewables scam. This bitter cold, he wants you to know, isn’t a sign that his global warming theory is a busted flush. It’s a sign that he’s even more right than ever before!
Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
I have no problem with renewable energy or cleaning up the environment.....but he pretty much showed most of this current short term warming trend is natural. He showed in his inconvenient truth film.
CasualBystander
Celestial
I have a problem with renewable energy and cleaning up the environment.