The earth is getting colder: and people's reactions

If you were at the linked charts, you might have taken one of noaa's links on the left side of the page, wherein, they caution that we are still in a long term warming trend.

Despite what your mind formulated, this is something that I have never disputed.
I even extended that 130 year trend back another 130 years to the end maunder(about 260 years of warming).

For the most part, I have limited my discussion to the 10 and 8 year trends posted on the noaa site.

All else is in your own mind.

Beyond all that: I could accurately state that we are in a 3 million year old long term cooling trend. I could accurately go even further and state that we are still in a 65 million year long cooling trend.
I could even state, that we are still in a cooling trend from mid eemian. as we have still not warmed to the peak of the eemian(approximately 125,000 years):

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I could also have accurately stated that we are still in an 11,000 year long warming trend.

None of which, is why I opened this thread to discuss the short-----(very short now that I've tossed in the million years stuff)--- cooling trend assumed to still be in a 130 or 260 year long warming trend.

Pick a pair of trend dates, any trend dates, and open a new thread
(I think that I have been handing out apples here and you're complaining that they don't taste like oranges)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

WOW Trippy
you are so much better at this techno stuff than I am now or likely ever will be.
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As far as the earth water and heat capacity, fresh or pure water has higher heat capacity than salt water. The salt will lower the activity of the water so it can absorb less heat. The heat capacity could go up, and the temperature could fall, if the oceans decrease average salt content by gaining more fresh water. Or conversely the ocean temperature can rise with the heat content lowering, if it become more salty, such as by more evaporation so there is more fresh water on land, atmosphere and frozen.

I doubt that NOAA measure the salt content of the oceans from surface to floor all over the earth to do this right. If there is more evaporation, and we only measure the surface 100 feet, temperature can rise, in the saltier water by absorbing less heat. Larger storms more over land, will remove fresh water and cause the ocean to lower heat capacity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That doesn't show a ten year cooling trend either - in the first place, the trend line they draw is a visual misinterpretation of an already visually misleading eleven year bar graph (they chose a combination of 2/3 up the left margin of the 2013 bar to 1/3 up the left margin of the 2013 bar, which I presume on visual evidence was based on some kind of average involving the 12 months before 2004 but not the 3 months after 2013- an illegitimate base for the interpretation here)

and in the second, according to their data set supposedly used for the graph four of the six hottest years on record are in the right hand (most recent) half, not even counting 2014 (which is setting us up for some bad news, cross your fingers). What that graph shows then, if anything, is increasing instability in the year by year weather (the presence of a couple of sharply anomalous relatively cold years in the recent half).

That matches the prediction of global warming alarmists, and contradicts the hypothesis that there is some kind of hidden storage of solar energy on the planet delaying the observable response to solar flux variations for just long enough to bury the signal and then releasing it smoothed enough to prevent back correlation.

The actual discussion of ten and eight year "trends", their existence and significance, has been from others. You have limited yourself to asserting the existence of a "trend" based on an eleven year bar graph of the year to year global temperature means.

 

That's how I took it, but as I pointed out the inclusion of the data from 2003 is illegitimate in a "ten year" argument, which the guy was very explicit and precise about making. That eleventh year appears significant, visually - changes the slope of the trend line.

Cherrypicking the start year in such matters is a critical flaw very common in this arena.

For the first of the two ten year intervals illustrated, maybe (2003 - 2012) - probably not for the second (2004 - 2013). He's arguing from the second, I think - he wants the latest evidence, the most recent developments. But his trend line looks wrong for that interval.

Of course it's trivial, but the guy is making his entire argument about the exact interval he says he wants to "discuss" - some time in the future, maybe - so let's nail it down.

Then we can point out that there's a likely contradiction between claiming that the planet can store solar energy invisibly and only heat up years later from solar flux captured now, and claiming that a couple of years of lower than previous (but still positive) temperature anomalies is good evidence of a cooling trend. That combination needs an explicit mechanism, for plausibility.

 

iceaura:
If it makes you feel any better, i would just as soon have chosen a chart of the next 10 years of temperature data instead of the last 10, but couldn't find an accurate chart for those dates.

seriously
Did you really want to derail this thread by complaining about the dates?
Or would our time be better spent discussing the potential causal factors in the diminishement of the temperatures shown?

It seems that we cannot look to lower CO2, nor volcanic particulates.
2 of the possibilities were mentioned in the opening post.

Every ssw event expels lots of earth's atmospheric energy into space, and, one would assume that if there are more or greater SSWs then more energy would be lost.
Solar energy, or the lack thereof seems another likely causal factor. If we are receiving less energy, then we would seem likely to be retaining less energy.

Do ssw events react to solar energy?
Are the recent ssw events expelling more energy than those of 30 years ago?
Are we having more ssw events? If so, why so?

etc.............
You may be able to think of ways of addressing the obvious energy imbalance that I have not.

May we proceed in this manner?

 

It wasn't my idea to make a big nitpicking deal about one specific 10 year interval, was it? No, it's not a serious idea, but simply observing that doesn't make it go away.

The first observation is that there isn't any "diminishment of the temperature shown". You've got too short an interval to draw any conclusions, and even then you have to cherry pick your start year to get a negative slope on the trend line. That doesn't "show" anything.

 

Seriously! Anyone with a half-brain should realize there is something called an "INSIGNIFICANTLY SMALL SAMPLE"!! If you are doing some kind of research on people and grab ONE (or ten) people off the street and since they are all men, reach the conclusion that everyone is male, does that mean anything????

Of course not! Even though ten random chosen people could indeed be male. it means exactly nothing because that is TOO FAR a small sample to be of value. And the same would be true for any ten-year data grab. Even the dumbest idiot should know that!

 

Part of the negative slope in this decade was the prevalence of moderate sized volcanoes injecting sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere. This causes a reflection of radiation back into space before it is even absorbed by the rest of the atmosphere(it is also eating our Ozone layer, but that's a different problem). The uptick in volcanic activity is a temporary situation, however. It could end at any time.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Grumpy, do you have a source for that? Because the Ocean heat record doesn't show negative slope.

 

Many discrepancies you may find concerning the heating or cooling of our oceans (and climate in general) may be attributable to the hemisphere on which the studies have been based. A good portion of climate studies have farmed data that is primarily sourced from northern hemisphere sensory input, which of course is really stupid. So if anyone has a useful link to a more broadly scoped study, please feel free to put it here.

 

Satellite temperature monitoring. Circumpolar satellites can monitor the temperatures on a daily basis in both the northern and southern hemispheres.

 

I concure. Global "meltdown" does not exist....
I add I do believe that the earth will melt enough "ice" to alter our ocean currents and plung us into a mini ice age. If that don't help ol' yellow stone may erupt and doom us all.

 

If memory serves, the disruption of the Thermohaline circulation was proposed when it was claimed that the "Little Ice Age"(LIA) and or the younger dryas was/were regional to Europe.
There is much information from China, Japan, Patagonia, antarctica, etc..., showing that the LIA was a global phenomenon.

Interesting hypothesis, but just an hypothesis.