Global Cooling or Global Warming?

[Dundee]

Dundee, a recent study indicated the the oceans were 6°C warmer during the Eemian interglacial (the previous one).

That just guts the warmest ever narrative.

Further they are now claiming that agriculture is cooling the midwest, while ignoring the fact that converting vegetation to buildings or dirt should have a 10x greater effect.

It is just mindless the claims of the warmunists.

Since this is not the climate thread if you want to present any real proof of harm from global warming or continue the discussion, do it over in the climate thread.

You are quick to request proof for the support or denial of a long term trend that wont really be proved or disproved for many many years to come. If you and I were walking home from the Pub, and you took a shortcut through a lane, and I said, "CB, I am pretty sure that there s a bloody big dog down there that will probably bite you on the arse" Would you ignore me and not care, or take steps, "I big bloody stick" just in case.
My point with global warming is this. You are better at science and math than I am it seems, so you know better than I, that any set of numbers can be twisted to suit any argument for, or against a proposition.
That proposition can be influenced by industry that has a vested interest in denial, science that has a vested interest for funding, supporters, and the many people in between. So how reliable are the numbers?

But then I look at things like this...

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Conclusive? absolutely NOT
However, as a lay person who makes no pretense as to an adequate scientific background, or the time it would take to analyze all the pro's and cons. Al I can do is look at the evidence put forth.

You and Nivek are two intelligent blokes, however, so is the other 97% of scientists quoted above.
When playing with your children's and our planets future.Whos opinion is likely to be right?
The 97$ of supporters, or the 3% of detractors?
Or are you suggesting that 97% of climate scientists are either wrong or corrupt, and you as an engineer, and Nivek as an industry leader know more than them.
Doesn't it make sense to play it safe and look after our planet.

 

[3FEL9]

I been to places where the majority were out of their minds and wrong about a lot of the fundamental things in life..

A majority guarantees nothing else, than a bunch of people afraid to say or think anything else than the agreed upon agenda.

Those who dare. Will have to face the mob.

 

[Castle-Yankee54]

You are quick to request proof for the support or denial of a long term trend that wont really be proved or disproved for many many years to come. If you and I were walking home from the Pub, and you took a shortcut through a lane, and I said, "CB, I am pretty sure that there s a bloody big dog down there that will probably bite you on the arse" Would you ignore me and not care, or take steps, "I big bloody stick" just in case.
My point with global warming is this. You are better at science and math than I am it seems, so you know better than I, that any set of numbers can be twisted to suit any argument for, or against a proposition.
That proposition can be influenced by industry that has a vested interest in denial, science that has a vested interest for funding, supporters, and the many people in between. So how reliable are the numbers?

But then I look at things like this...

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Conclusive? absolutely NOT
However, as a lay person who makes no pretense as to an adequate scientific background, or the time it would take to analyze all the pro's and cons. Al I can do is look at the evidence put forth.

You and Nivek are two intelligent blokes, however, so is the other 97% of scientists quoted above.
When playing with your children's and our planets future.Whos opinion is likely to be right?
The 97$ of supporters, or the 3% of detractors?
Or are you suggesting that 97% of climate scientists are either wrong or corrupt, and you as an engineer, and Nivek as an industry leader know more than them.
Doesn't it make sense to play it safe and look after our planet.

The earth is currently going thru a long term cooling trend.......but no the scientists are not that corrupt. Its easy to see why some think they are......

 

[Caeldeth]

The earth is currently going thru a long term cooling trend.......but no the scientists are not that corrupt. Its easy to see why some think they are......

The earth is going through a warming trend. Not sure where you are seeing a cooling trend.

 

[nivek]

The earth is going through a warming trend. Not sure where you are seeing a cooling trend.

Only a short term warming trend, the long term trend is the earth has been cooling...

 

[Castle-Yankee54]

Only a short term warming trend, the long term trend is the earth has been cooling...

Yes.....the short term warming trend is since the last ice age.

 

[Castle-Yankee54]

Yes.....the short term warming trend is since the last ice age.

Actually compared to some geologic events the current cooling trend is also short term as only 1.1% of the total age of the earth has passed since then.

 

[CasualBystander]

Yes.....the short term warming trend is since the last ice age.

The short term warming trend is since the LIA (Little Ice Age) the coldest period of the interglacial. That there is natural warming forcings increasing the temperature is indisputable (as least if you have half a brain).

The trend since the start of the interglacial is it has been cooling.

The question is will the next 20 years be warmer or cooler.

It is a coin flip which will happen.

 

[Castle-Yankee54]

The short term warming trend is since the LIA (Little Ice Age) the coldest period of the interglacial.

The trend since the start of the interglacial is it has been cooling.

The interglacial is the warming period between actual ice ages......if it was cooling there would still be 2 miles of ice over NYC.

Yes it has been warming since the little ice age......but the short term warming trend began with the current interglacial period. Bear in mind that the current long term cooling trend is in itself short term compared to other geological events. Since it began only 1.1% of the earths age has passed.

 

[ImmortalLegend527]

There's been much debate about the rise and fall of temperatures, many beating the drums of manmade rising temperatures and the drums also beat for natural fluctuations in temperatures...Myself I go with the latter, although to a certain extent man is adding to the temperature fluctuations I think what we see are natural extremes for the most part...

GLOBAL OCEAN COOLING CONTINUES



Global Ocean Cooling Continues | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

Tropics Lead Ocean Cooling

Global Cooling is Here



http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783

I don't know what to call it but the only thing I know is that the oil that has kept the inner core of earth moist and stable is becoming your global warming.Your undersurface of the earth is getting hotter and this is whats melting the ice caps.

I have giving warnings because everyone is going to live and be alive to see this because of its just 5 years away.Your going to realize what happens when the majority of oil is gone from the earth and the sad thing about it is,they have known this for the last 20 years and they don't care and they are going to take a chance on the outcome of what will happen if too much oil is sucked from the earth.

They give you global warming and global cooling to mask whats really going on.This information was classified in the ranks of never telling humans about aliens and if a comet was to hit the earth type secrecy.

 

[Castle-Yankee54]

Only a short term warming trend, the long term trend is the earth has been cooling...

If memory serves there were no ice caps 60 million years ago and there was 86% coverage of water compared to todays 72%. That's why there are marine reptile fossils in Kansas.

 

[CasualBystander]

If memory serves there were no ice caps 60 million years ago and there was 86% coverage of water compared to todays 72%. That's why there are marine reptile fossils in Kansas.

Historic temperatures vs CO2. Earlier (before this graph) the CO2 was 30,000 PPM. There is little or no correlation of CO2 and temperature.

During all the cold periods there was a large land mass at the south pole.

 

[Castle-Yankee54]

Historic temperatures vs CO2. Earlier (before this graph) the CO2 was 30,000 PPM. There is little or no correlation of CO2 and temperature.

This graph nicely shows the current long term cooling trend.....I haven't been talking about any correlation between co2 and temp. However the graph doesn't have the temp and co2 values which would help to see how accurate it is. It shows nicely how the temp has been above todays levels for much of the time since the beginning of the Paleozoic.

Bear in mind the earth is currently in the Quaternary Glaciation and has been for the last 2.85 million years......and the climate has been much warmer over the last 11,700 years.

 

[CasualBystander]

This graph nicely shows the current long term cooling trend.....I haven't been talking about any correlation between co2 and temp. However the graph doesn't have the temp and co2 values which would help to see how accurate it is. It shows nicely how the temp has been above todays levels for much of the time since the beginning of the Paleozoic.

Bear in mind the earth is currently in the Quaternary Glaciation and has been for the last 2.85 million years......and the climate has been much warmer over the last 11,700 years.

Well.. about 3 million years ago the separation of South America from Antarctica was complete and the circumpolar current started up. This kicked off the current ice age with help of the tectonic arrangement of the other land masses.

As far as temperature in the Holocene:

 

[Castle-Yankee54]

Nice graphs.....much better labeling. Though it appears you left a zero off the age of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. The Drake Passage appears to have opened 34 million years ago.

Antarctic Circumpolar Current - Wikipedia

 

[CasualBystander]

Nice graphs.....much better labeling. Though it appears you left a zero off the age of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. The Drake Passage appears to have opened 34 million years ago.

Antarctic Circumpolar Current - Wikipedia

Yup, you are right.

But as seen from this graph the channel had to get fairly wide for the existing currents to develop.

Also the Isthmus of Panama had to close. That did happen 3 million years ago and would have altered the circulation patterns.

The current dizzy circulation pattern is because the currents north of the Antarctic region are confined to going north/south. And the circulation pattern in the Arctic ocean is isolated.

As a side note: the North Atlantic (where the current loop ends) is getting significantly cooler.

 

[Diva]

Well imo i think we are going through a global warming. Otherwise the North and South poles won't be melting isn't it?

 

[nivek]

Well imo i think we are going through a global warming. Otherwise the North and South poles won't be melting isn't it?

This noticable warming trend is natural and short term...

 

[CasualBystander]

Well imo i think we are going through a global warming. Otherwise the North and South poles won't be melting isn't it?

The North Pole hasn't melted the last two years.

As far as the south pole:
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/zwally-antarctica-study.pdf

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
...
“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”
...
The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year. This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice – enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise.
...

But what you hear is this:

Almost half the mass loss is due to sublimation. So most of the mass gain is due to interglacials (warm periods) when precipitation is higher.

Further the peninsula is only about 1% of the ice, and the entire West Antarctica sheet is only 10%. Small surface gains in the huge East Antarctic make what is happening in the West irrelevant.

Further:
https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/54/4/4.33/181897

The article shows a range of models of crustal displacement in Antarctica.

The surface of Antarctica is assumed to be uplifting (mostly). The Zwally study says the ice mass increased during the interglacial so the surface should really be subsiding.

Since Grace sees surface subsidence as mass loss this would have a major impact on Grace estimates.

 

[Diva]

The North Pole hasn't melted the last two years.

As far as the south pole:
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/zwally-antarctica-study.pdf

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
...
“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”
...
The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year. This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice – enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise.
...

But what you hear is this:

Almost half the mass loss is due to sublimation. So most of the mass gain is due to interglacials (warm periods) when precipitation is higher.

Further the peninsula is only about 1% of the ice, and the entire West Antarctica sheet is only 10%. Small surface gains in the huge East Antarctic make what is happening in the West irrelevant.

Further:
Progress in modelling and observing Antarctic glacial isostatic adjustment | Astronomy & Geophysics | Oxford Academic

The article shows a range of models of crustal displacement in Antarctica.

The surface of Antarctica is assumed to be uplifting (mostly). The Zwally study says the ice mass increased during the interglacial so the surface should really be subsiding.

Since Grace sees surface subsidence as mass loss this would have a major impact on Grace estimates.

Thanks for the info