The earth is getting colder: and people's reactions

The first part is accurate "the earth is getting colder(for the years 2003-2013)".

The second part "global warming does not exist" was generated by your own mind.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you're saying the earth is getting colder and global warming does exist? That's a contradictory position to take.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The question of if the biosphere of Earth is heating or cooling is best settled by looking where the heat is. Water is 800 times dense than air with more than correspondingly greater heat capacity (more that 3000 times by volume). So if the Earth is cooling because it's excess heat is radiating to space we ought to see that in the oceans.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051106/abstract

So global warming is continuing apace and global averages of surface air temperature are simply noisy proxies for this ongoing long-term trend.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/3/034016
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...nt/2014/apr/03/earth-has-fever-global-warming
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes. I have been doing extensive reading as/re msw events, ssw events, rossby waves, etc...
The science is young and instrumentation still being developed, so there seems to be much speculation for little data.
10 years ago, ssw events were thought of as "events" and not considered very common.
Now there seems to be developing the concept that there are several different mechanisms for creating SSWs. There is still the old model of one very large air mass being shunted from the lower troposphere into the lower stratosphere. There also seems to be a growing consensus that the additive combining of several rossby waves can create an ssw. One fellow I read even thought that some north polar effecting SSWs originate in the southern latitudes.
What causes the vortex to move while remaining intact vs splitting the vortex into 2 vortices, or collapsing it altogether is something I'd like to understand.
SSW events seem more common now than 10-20 years ago, but that may be instrument bias. More instruments looking = more data, and a seeming increase in events?

The re-tasking of SMILES on the space station may be state of the art now, but it cannot scan the entire tropopause in real time.

So much we have yet to learn. So many questions we have yet to formulate and voice. The adventure continues.

 

I think that it only seems to be a conflict. We had been warming since the maunder and dalton and "little ice age" and more rapidly during the last 1/2 of the last century(coincidentally(?) during the recent modern solar maximum). Now, we are cooling slightly, but much(most) of the gathered heat still remains within the global heat-sink.
Did you want to guess what next year will tell us?

Isn't "little ice age" a silly name?
We are (most likely) still in an ice age, and just enjoying the comfort and bounty of our current interglacial.

 

Do you not see that the heat content can still be high while the oceans are now cooling?
The cooling rate as per the linked charts is .05 degreesC per decade, while the gain from 1951 is almost .5degreesC ; so even if this trend continues at that pace it will take the better part of a century to lower the oceans heat content to the levels of 1951.

Which brings us back to the prognostication of Livingston and Penn?

 

The science is as old as Darwin, crystallizing by 1900 to the prediction that human activity could cause global temperatures to rise. And it did.

If you create a vortex by flushing water down a pipe, do you expect it to split? It's possible, but it's not the expected result. Change the energy and something different should happen.

The destruction continues. By the time I post this, huge ice cliffs will shear off of the Greenland ice sheet and plummet into the ocean, raising the sea level yet another notch. The clock is ticking. IPCC just published its "what should we do about it" report. The "adventure" involves changes to business as usual, leading to carbon sequestration.

 

That does not explain further gains in heat content, further accumulations of thermal energy in the biosphere of the planet, during a diminution of solar supply.

No evidence of that has been posted here, nor have I run across any. Where did you get that idea?

 

see the links from post #1
(you may have to reset the trend to 2003-2013)

while there, if you switch to land only and drop the time frame to 8 years---2005 to 2013, then the land is also cooling, and at a faster rate than the oceans = -.07 degrees C per decade

This is very recent data beware of drawing conclusions beyond the time frames specified.

 

It's also very limited. It's interesting you choose the ten years between 2003 and 2013.

 

never ignore the words "on record"
doing so will invariably lead you astray

.................
Interesting
uh huh
and, i suspect, rather obvious also.

 

Yes. The record goes back to 1880. So we're looking at a record of 130 years. And in that 130 years are the 10 years you've selectively decided to look at, and still, it does not support your contention that the earth is getting colder.

Never ignore the words 'on record', but never ignore the data either.

 

10 years
ten years
ten years of land and ocean cooling
ten years of ocean cooling
8 years of land cooling

It is all there in the charts if you will but look
...............
edit: Epimethius
Hell, dad, it's there in the charts even if you won't look.

 

g'night guys
pleasant dreams

 

130 years of warming, including your ten year snippet.

It's all there in the record, if you don't ignore it.

 

Warmest year on record: 2010 (Land AND land+ocean)
So in reality at most you can claim 4 years of cooling.

 

No. To see something that isn't there -- that is literally insane. The data shows that the average of the oceans is getting warmer from year-to-year. That's the great agreement between the heat content of the biosphere and the overall energy imbalance. The 5% of heat in the atmosphere and land is noisy as heck, but not a game changer. It's just human prejudices and convenience that give us a 130-year "instrumental record" which is nothing more than a dismal proxy of the actual heat content of the biosphere.

Looking at short-term trends in noisy data is always going to give you spurious fits to the actual long-term trend. Your analysis of the surface instrumental data is extremely non-compelling. Your failure to address the difference between temperature and heat is damning. You don't even have a high-school senior's grasp of thermodynamics.

You are conflating surface air temperature with averages of ocean temperature.

Sunspot cycles aren't magical. Livingston and Penn's own advice is that it is risky to extrapolate linear trends. What is needed is understanding.
Our understanding of climate and solar history suggests that a century of zero sunspot number will not result in global cooling.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-basic.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

 

When I do that, I see evidence of further warming during a diminution of solar energy supply. I see all the anomalies are postive numbers, the trend line is up, the rank numbers of later years are typically lower than earlier years, etc. Where do you get cooling - actual cooling, not a slowdown in the warming trend - over that time?