What do you think about Global Cooling?

I have been reading a lot of stuff on global warming and the impact it has on the variations of seasonal temperatures.

There are some people and 'scientist' who think global cooling is actually taking affect in areas that has sub par temperatures during the winter and claiming we are heading towards a mini ice-age.

I would really like to know what other people think about this. My view is that global warming due to greenhouse gases can cause seasonal temperature fluctuations and this is verified by he EPA.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It can't be real. The atmosphere is very thin and does respond to more emissions being added. They only want to believe in Global cooling to make themselves feel better but the truth is the Earth is under a sort of balance in the atmosphere and we see what happens when it goes out of wack, you get Venus. I have absolutely no doubt the polar ice will melt within 20 years and most cities will flood but by then our oil based society will have collapsed and nothing will be around anyways. I fear however the fish will all be dead because the oceans have turned into acid.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/14/world/ocean-acidification-report/index.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Global warming can have the opposite effect. Has to do with the north Atlantic current and salinity of the water I'm droving ATM so can't get into details I have found

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Science on this has no clue what they are talking about. Anything to do with earths weather or atmosphere, they have no clue. The sun they have no clue about either.

So basically all al gores stuff was bull, but this is as much bull.

Its too complicated for any moron from science world to understand. I never watch the weather or news, and never will. Why do you think they are experts?

They have no clue what is going on.

 

some models of global warming show increased precipitation and increased snowfall, such as is occurring in North America this season. the ironies of global warming.

there was also global warming in ancient times, following the end of the ice-age circa 10,000 BC. there was one last warm spell circa 6,000 BC that raised the oceans only about 20-30 meters, though apparently enough to flood the Black Sea basin, which had been a below-sea-level lake until then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

it remains to be seen what the effect of this recent global warming will entail. loss of the arctic ice in summer appears to be one such result.

 

Interesting to note that we currently -this month- see a very dry (warm?) Siberia and a very cold snowy North America.

Interestingly this was normal during much of the last glacial maximum. While in America the Laurentide ice sheet and the cordilleran ice sheet advanced, there was practically no ice in Northern Siberia.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Some substantiation: Hubberten et al 2004. Check out fig 1 page 3 (1335), and fig 6 on pag 7 (1339) note the coldest period LWI, the Late Weicheselian or Sartanian, producing still horse and mammoth fossils as well as a few steppe insects, quoting the comment on page 8 (1340):

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

emphasis mine.

One may wonder if we are going to see more of this.

 

Imagine what those epochs might have looked like with elevated levels of greenhouse gases and the total human impact seen today -- from decimating the forests, exterminating wildlife, altering hydologic cycles, and even affecting the albedo. At some point in the future these charts may be viewed with nostalgia.

One of the big misunderstandings among the anti-science social conservative/religious/deregulation crowd - and here I'm referring to those who at least seem to grapple with understanding it (as opposed to those so lost in denial that they're not interested in facts and certainly not science) - is that they have not understood what the term "trend" means (and/or they understand but fight it anyway). Average temperatures, in the history of recording it, fluctuate around a positive slope. No scientist is warning of the fluctuations; they're all warning us about the slope. (It's interesting that you mention a mini ice age, since mini-skirts were in vogue when then this idea last came up. I suppose the cycling of human myths is about as predictable as the cycling of the climate.)

The one fact that stands in direct opposition to all anti-scientific rhetoric is that we are in an interstadial warming period from the last glaciation, coupled to changes in atmospheric chemistry. Thus to use the air as a garbage dump is to accelerate the current deglaciation, wreck ecosystems, and leave future generations with the consequences.

It's a destructive thinking error which will probably fade over the generations. There will always be culture wars as long as kids are lied to at home by their parents, and as long as kids leave school for all of the reasons that they do. If education was left to the professionals, and if society ever returns to a culture in which education is uniformly valued above all other kinds of distractions, then hopefully the day will come when the fever and chills of the the anti-science movement will have run its course. In the meantime we simply have to put up with the pseudoscience vomiting and propaganda belching Bible thumpers who continue to infect the most vulnerable minds of the next generation.

The trend is a positive slope. Unless there is a large meteor impact, or an unprecedented eruption, or some other freak cataclysm, there is no reason to think the trend will not continue along its positive slope. The interpretations which come from distoring the data are the ones that lead to the hysteria and hubris from the Right.

One of the serious ramifications of relentless CO[sub]2[/sub] dumping is that it can interfere with the natural cycles of flora and fauna which respond not only to the angle of the sun but to thawing and budding. When spring in the Northern Hemisphere starts to arrive in February, and then January, the fragility of migratory and breeding patterns can be exposed. Birds returning to their rookery may find that the normal food supply has already come and gone - or, in the case that they adapt to the slope, and it deviates due to instabilities, then they may arrive when the blossoms and larva have not yet emerged. Given all of the other assaults on their habitat, CO[sub]2[/sub] may be the straw that breaks the migratory animal's back. That's the risk which the Right believe they have the right to take, without regulation, and with the hand of Divine Intervention to lead them, since, as all good little fundies know, God is on the side of the energy companies and really doesn't give a damn about which species (and genera) get wiped out. Or perhaps God will decide not to wipe them out, and just send them manna from heaven when there are no flowers and larvae. But that view of the crashing ecosystems bodes well for the nuts hoping to see The Rapture sometime soon.

 

Fortunately many non-morons do understand it. I agree, being a moron makes it harder to understand complex science.

 

Well the greenhouse thing I don't know. I do know that the ice sheets, growing a few thousand feet high, do generate their own mountain climate, which drastically reduces the isotope signature in precipitation (orographic rainout). Given the relatively warm Siberia, one could wonder what the temperature would have been in North America and Scandinavia during the Last Glacial Maximum if there hadn't been an ice sheet. Could it be that the effective temperature swing from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene has been overestimated?

There are more clues for that, for instance:.

 

1) What we have is evidence of an initially (before one thinks it over a bit) counterintuitvely warm Siberian summer - not, necessarily, winter.

2) We all know, of course, that the lowest temperatures of any solar or orbital cycle influenced ice age would be reached significantly before - not at - the glacial maximum. That's obvious to us all, one hopes?

That is: There would be of course a substantial interval of time during which any such cycle would be coming out of its depths while things over the ice would still be cold enough to power glacial advance (and possibly more snowy than in the drier conditions of temp mins, powering glacial surges). So we easily expect significant warming in many places where there is no ice in summer, coincident with glacial growth where there is.

The there are adiabatic winds coming off the high points of the ice, relatively insular weather systems created by the ice sheets that contain the lowest temps in season, the influence of desertification on maximum and daytime temps in various regions, etc.

If we were looking for possibilities, potential answers, arenas of research into actual questions, that is. If the goal is to establish "question", doubt, etc, to join the list of others for later repetition, then naturally such responses (or any other discussion of answers to such questions) would not be relevant.

 

That's exactly the question that got me in the paleoclimate business some 15 years ago, mammoths, long before the climate war. I still wonder why it was only me, with alarm going off, when it was clear that the Jarkov Mammoth was roaming in a productive grassy steppe in the northernmost part of Siberia, the Taimyr peninsula during the last glacial maximum as it was dated 20 ka. The presence of Sporormiella suggested the presence of larger herds. The guts also contained a lark needle, but the current treeline is some 200km to the south of the location. There were also horses, aurocs, deer, etc, A little different than the image of a lonely behemoth dragging itself along in the blizzard, a howling pack of wolves in its wake. Not!

Here is one of the scientific reports.

Lateron the Yukagir mammoth confirmed the same ecologic situation further to the east in northern -arctic- Yakutia. A bit farther away from the late Weichselian glacial advance, making predominant fohn effect less likely.

Analysis of its guts produced a list of plant remains, including the greater burnet (Sanguisorba officinalis, table 2 page 366). It appears that its limited winterhardiness would put some limits on the minimum winter temperatures as well.

 

We are currently in an interglacial period.
So, the ice sheets will eventually return unless man made global warming has completely changed the climate system.

During the 2.5 million year span of the Pleistocene, numerous glacials, or significant advances of continental ice sheets in North America and Europe have occurred at intervals of approximately 40,000 to 100,000 years. These long glacial periods were separated by more temperate and shorter interglacials.
During interglacials, such as the present one, the climate warms and the tundra recedes polewards following the ice sheets. Forests return to areas that once supported tundra vegetation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial

 

Maybe go over my previous post, especially reading the links to see that for Arctic Siberia it was in the reverse. It's tundra now, where it was a cold steppe during the "ice age".

 

You may be right about that.
I wasn't contradicting you.

A return of the ice sheets would cause a lot of highly populated countries to become difficult places to survive.
On the other hand, more land would appear, as sea levels fell.
Hopefully, it doesn't happen quickly, so that people can redistribute over many generations.

Our immediate problem is of course global warming, but global cooling would cause as many problems.
A lot more problems for us Brits than global warming probably will.

Added later:
Here's a map of the last European glaciation at maximum:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period

 

The entire manmade climate change assumption is based on a unique set of circumstances, that has never happened on the earth before, and therefore has no precedent within hard data and science. There is no precedent of putting man on Mars, either. There are no historical records of manmade global warming to compare, to make sure we are talking about the exact same thing.

All the scientific precedent of climate change is based on natural data from the past. This data shows that nature can do all this, but does not show man can do this, since man has nothing to do with generating any of that data. The confusion being created is assuming the natural data proves manmade. These are two different things, with natural data only proving natural. Manmade is trying to piggy back on the natural data to confuse these two separate phenomena.

Here is how the misdirection of the magic trick works. I say is I just built a new car concept, that I wish to sell. What I say sounds interesting, but as you look deeper into this car, you notice that this car has never been directly demonstrated before, since it is unique and new. Instead of a direct demonstration of concept, I instead equate my car to the Volvo, and use Volvo data to prove and demonstrate my new prototype. Nobody can argue that this data is false, since it is valid Volvo data. To deny my data is real makes you look uninformed since this is valid data. But many people sense something is not quite right. The misdirection of the magic trick is making an association between good Volvo data and my unproved car without an experiment.

There is no doubt of the climate data seen over the past 100 years, but that is Volvo data. We can also show you Buick data from the last ice age. But this is not direct data from the concept car.. To be real and not magic misdirection, I would like to see the experimental data of a direct controlled demonstration of manmade climate change.

The only approximation to a demonstration has been the predictions of the future, based on the assumptions of manmade. But these are not working out too well. It does not parallel the misdirection of the Volvo data in terms of being solid.

 

Are you saying you doubt that there's a greenhouse effect?

EDIT: What you're referring to here is the question of which core sample studies can be established as deposited under isotropic conditions, and which are in their own classes. That would lead to a discussion of how climate scientists treat the data coming from core samples in order to arrive at estimates of what the average global temps. probably were as a function of time. That would obviously require some modeling and a deeper discussion about the science of paleoclimatology as opposed to the study of the modern climate.

What I was suggesting is that anthropogenic damage may already have gone too far, such the cyclical nature of any carbon-forced glaciation may now be permanently interrupted. That's why I mentioned that we are left to ask whether any of the past glaciation currently being studied would ever have happened in the presence of current anthropogenic GHGs.

What factors would lead you to believe that it has been overestimated rather than underestimated, and why not wonder if the estimate is very nearly correct?

How does the study of the Amazon fan relate to the question you posed? What is the inference you are making from this? (I've only read the abstract you cited.)

EDIT: you quoted them as saying Detrital palynomorphs and phytoliths show that there was only modest cooling and an extension of savannah in the Amazon Basin during the last glacial maximum. That would be consistent with our understanding that within the glaciation period itself the temperatures are still warmer at the equator. If this was your reason for thinking the experts overestimate the temperature swing, then I'm at a loss to understand your rationale. As you know, the core samples are from a handful of collection sites, and without extensive work, they will never be as numerous as the thousands of data collection stations currently in use. But no, I don't think scientists thinking that during glaciation the temperature of the entire globe is uniform regardless of latitude if that was your point. You may be reading something into the data that's not there, and then questioning whether experts are doing the same. I don't think they are at all.

 

That's the question. The concern is that, since CO[sub]2[/sub] levels rose and fell in correlation with the average temperature changes during the recent glaciation, it's conceivable that humans may have forever altered the natural cycle. And in this case 'forever' means for all of humanity, since if for some reason humans should become extinct while there is still other life on Earth, that natural cycle, or something similar, might simply reboot itself.

 

The "climate war" - that is, the scientific research and solidly reasoned alarm - is much older than 15 years.

As noted so often before, it wasn't "just you" noticing the commonly discussed physical attributes of the last glacial advance and its particularly - to us human North Americans, anyway - fascinating era of recent retreat.

This author, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._C._Pielou , was sitting at a desk writing layman's market books describing the steppe climate in front of the ice sheets (Hudson Bay badgers digging holes in what is now permafrost, say, far more indicative than mammoths eating annual forbs hardy to zone 4)- a weather regime that exists nowhere on earth today - in the 1980s (copyright 1991).

 

I believe that the dispute became war only last year

I think we have a time and lattitude difference here. The essence is that this Last Glacial Maximum Mammoth with the moderate zone vegetation was found way above the Arctic circle around 75 degrees North.

Maybe you could provide a publication about this? I can't find it in the Neotoma explorer or elsewhere.

But the thread is about ice ages, so maybe we should have a look at the other side of the world, Antarctica where currently the irony of the adventures of some climate activists is worse than we thought.

Anyway, Hall et al 2010 is about some glacial lakes in Antarctica during the last glacial maximum. I'd encourage everybody to go over it and see if there is something that raises eyebrows, as in the antipodal mammoth vegetation.