Global Cooling Is Here!

[Andre]

The recent increase in CO2 is all derived from fossil fuel combustion, according to isotope analysis and so forth at Mauna Loa.

probably, but it's hardly relevant if we're looking at less than a degree for doubling CO2.

What problem ?

That the cold warm cycles during the last glacial transition were actually opposite the scholar ideas, the Older Dryas being relatively warm and arid, the Bolling Allerod being cold with numerous glacier advances and the Younger Dryas being arid and warmer again, followed by a very wet Preboreal.

Are driving the cllimate on thousand-year cycles. Got it.

Think more of the 100,000 Ky cycle.But I think it's a waste of time to even begin to explain which players are active, like gyroscopic precession, lunar gravity on the equatorial bulges, various solid inner core size due to cooling, outer fluid mantle turbulence due to slight misalignments of mantle and core spin axes, etc.

Anyway, it's happening today too. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/equator_bulge_020801.html

 

[Vkothii]

greenhouse gasses are only followers and are incapable of inflicting large changes on the climate.

That's two rather sweeping statements.
The first steps around the fact that CO2 levels can be altered by organisms, like us.

The second ignores what a greenhouse gas is, and why, in the past it's been the gas responsible for large-scale climate change, thanks to tectonic activity, and the time it takes the oceans to absorb it, and the planet and the oceans to cool (radiate energy into space).

 

[Myles]

Not a chance, see that spike in that graph in a previous post at 14,500 years ago. The scholar interpretation (not mine) is ten degrees within a decade. Currently we're looking at 0.6 in a century, followed by the current decline to a lot less.

Try checking out current rate of increase in ocean temperatur in ocean te,perature. Then go talk to the scientists in Antartican and ask about the latest ice shelf, five times the size of Manhattan Island, about to break away.

Wherever you believe the cause lies. should we not at least be making contingency plans for trhe future ?

 

[Myles]

probably, but it's hardly relevant if we're looking at less than a degree for doubling CO2.



That the cold warm cycles during the last glacial transition were actually opposite the scholar ideas, the Older Dryas being relatively warm and arid, the Bolling Allerod being cold with numerous glacier advances and the Younger Dryas being arid and warmer again, followed by a very wet Preboreal.



Think more of the 100,000 Ky cycle.But I think it's a waste of time to even begin to explain which players are active, like gyroscopic precession, lunar gravity on the equatorial bulges, various solid inner core size due to cooling, outer fluid mantle turbulence due to slight misalignments of mantle and core spin axes, etc.

Anyway, it's happening today too. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/equator_bulge_020801.html

Try googling .. global warming sceptic bingo ....and let us now whe what it says there is wrong

 

[Andre]

Try checking out current rate of increase in ocean temperatur in ocean te,perature.

Sure why not:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years.

But even if it had, Suppose that the hypothetical delta radiation was to be 1 w/m2 more than say fifty years ago. The specific heat of water is 4,2 j/g. So it would take 4.2 seconds to heat one gram 1 degree, but there are a million grams in one M3 water, and 4,200,000 seconds is about 50 days to heat the first meter deep one degree or 13 years for the first hundred meters.

But the earlier warming of the oceans was likely much less spectacular:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL027834.shtml

Using bias-corrected XBT data we argue reduces the ocean heat content change since the 1950s by a factor of 0.62.

But even if the oceans had warmed that much, why would we think that it is radiation? IR radiation cannot penetrate water more than 15 micron and cannot heat it. Despite the RC fairy tail about blocking the radiation from beneath, the main thing that IR does is agitating the molecules into evaporation. For ocean warming you need visible light, which was plenty available with a reduced cloud cover in the 1980-1990's ( Palle et al 2006 )

Then go talk to the scientists in Antartican and ask about the latest ice shelf, five times the size of Manhattan Island, about to break away.

Why so dramatic? Happens all the time for millions of years, go and ask the paleo oceanographers how many traces they find back of melting ice shelfs, releasing their debris or IRD (Ice Rafted Detritus) on the ocean floors.

Wherever you believe the cause lies. should we not at least be making contingency plans for the future ?

Sure as long as you don't find yourself bankrupt because of that and then the ice age starts again. Go for no regret

We should abandon all policies that assume either warming or cooling, because there is no clear evidence on what the future holds.

“We should be strengthening our ability to adapt our lifestyle and our economy to whatever climate the future holds for us. We can be certain that climate will change, perhaps dramatically, but no one is yet competent to predict it, and man is powerless to have significant effect on it.

“A “No Regrets” policy means exposing all people to the full cost of their actions, and allowing the climate and the market to deter silly practices and encourage sensible ones...

 

[Andre]

That's two rather sweeping statements.
The first steps around the fact that CO2 levels can be altered by organisms, like us.

Not really, doubling CO2 ultimately give a dry increase of temperature less than a degree celsius. To boost that the whopping IPCC 2-6 degrees or whatever, they invented positive feedback.

It can be measured empirically that the sum of all feedbacks is not positive, no positive feedback, hence that that degree celsius is also the necesary maximum.

The second ignores what a greenhouse gas is, and why, in the past it's been the gas responsible for large-scale climate change, thanks to tectonic activity, and the time it takes the oceans to absorb it, and the planet and the oceans to cool (radiate energy into space).

it's the other way around. The oceans became agitated and released CO2 with a delay of about 600 years. The oceans regulated the climate changes and the CO2 was just a by-product, which did nothing what so-ever. Proof here.

 

[Andre]

Try googling .. global warming sceptic bingo ....and let us now whe what it says there is wrong

What you are doing is witch hunting, typical herd behavior, expelling the unwanted. Also known as groupthink. But for some neat groupthinking you need an enemy. If there isn't one around, you just create one.

 

[Myles]

What you are doing is witch hunting, typical herd behavior, expelling the unwanted. Also known as groupthink. But for some neat groupthinking you need an enemy. If there isn't one around, you just create one.

Now that you have put a convenient name to my activity, would you take one more step and say what you find wrong with the satements on the site.

Name-calling is scarcely an adequate response.

 

[Andre]

Now that you have put a convenient name to my activity, would you take one more step and say what you find wrong with the satements on the site.

Name-calling is scarcely an adequate response.

it's not name calling it's an analysis according to the forensic way, see if patterns can be recognized. Let's say that the match to previously known social behavior mechanisms is remarkably close.

 

[Myles]

it's not name calling it's an analysis according to the forensic way, see if patterns can be recognized. Let's say that the match to previously known social behavior mechanisms is remarkably close.

What is it that you disagree with on the site ? Can you please be more specific.

You denied increases in ocean surface temperatures; visit PNAS and look at images there, together with an explanation of how the data were collected. You will also find convincing evidence in a paper published in 2006, if you follow the trail. Again, if you disagree, you are having a quarrel with the big guns of science, which doesn't make you wrong but does suggest that you are being selective in your references.

Please look and let me have your rebuttal if you feel you have one.

So am I wrong to regard witch hunting as a form of name-calling ? It describes forensic analysis. Well, we live and learn

 

[Vkothii]

The oceans became agitated and released CO2 with a delay of about 600 years.

The oceans became agitated? Why did they do this?

The oceans regulated the climate changes

The oceans still do regulate climate change. But the planet isn't an ocean, it's an atmosphere too. Oh yeah, there's some land on it as well. The oceans are a part of the big story, an important part, but still a part of a bigger story, which includes various other chapters.

According to your theory, there's no positive feedback. How about negative feedback? Or is there no feedback? What does your theory say about the CO2 content of the planet, its oceans and atmosphere? Does it mention the lithosphere or the asthenosphere? Does it have a carbon cycle?

 

[Andre]

The oceans became agitated? Why did they do this?

That's the billion dollar question. But the evidence is everywhere in the records, suggesting that during the glacial, the ocean was horizontally stratisfied, this is based on isotope ratios with depth, during the glacial transition this stratification disappeared, the oceans mixed vertically. Now, since the deep oceans below about 2 km depth are about the same temperature, regards tropics or arctic, it's hard to see how temperature differences in the atmosphere could have brought about these changes.

The oceans still do regulate climate change. But the planet isn't an ocean, it's an atmosphere too. Oh yeah, there's some land on it as well. The oceans are a part of the big story, an important part, but still a part of a bigger story, which includes various other chapters.

True, but the current La Niña is doing a pretty convincing job, explaining that she has an important say in the weather. Now picture a La Niña for several thousand years.

According to your theory, there's no positive feedback. How about negative feedback? Or is there no feedback?

I have demonstrated in the other thread that negative feedback is present, which would tend to neutralize inputs away from the average. This would also decrease the temperature change from doubling CO2.

What does your theory say about the CO2 content of the planet, its oceans and atmosphere? Does it mention the lithosphere or the asthenosphere? Does it have a carbon cycle?

I consider this a irrelevant loaded question fallacy. It's not a theory, just a hypothesis, which should explain more than current theories, for instance the high volcanic and tectonic activity during parts of the last glacial transition, which would fit perfectly in a certain pet idea but which is completely unrelated with a climate explanation.

 

[Vkothii]

So a carbon cycle is irrelevant to your climate theory, then?

It's not a theory, just a hypothesis, which should explain more than current theories, for instance the high volcanic and tectonic activity during parts of the last glacial transition

This hypothesis, what is it again?
What are you referring to with: "high volcanic and tectonic activity during parts of the last glacial transition"? What is the last "glacial transition", in your theory?

 

[draqon]

it will not be just global cooling or global warming...the temperature range will be chaotic from now on

 

[Vkothii]

...we see the temps go up first, followed a few hundred years later by the CO2 due to system lag, giving another heating input as positive feedback. That lag is crucial because lag works two ways, it delays going up and going down like inertia.

Why do temps go up first? Are you sure the record is unambiguous about CO2 always following any temp. rise?

A car needs time to accelerate and time to stop. However this ice core "car" stops instantenously halfway without any delay, while the CO2 is still continuing upwards, pulling the temps up, or not?

Are you sure you understand the dynamics of ice sheets? Where is the evidence that the ice-cores show something "stopping half way"? What's that about? You made this up, right? It's meaningless, there's nothing "stopping half way".

Instead the CO2 just follows the temperature with the same delay, a follower is not a feedbacker. On the contrary, the enhanced steering away form the stable centre position makes strong positive feedback systems having a strong affiliation with the system extreem values, either low or high with very low sensitivity for natural disturbances halfway.

That's the ugly fact, which slays a beautiful hypothesis, the great tragedy of science (Thomas Huxley)

No strong enough positive feedback here

What's this "strong affiliation with extreme values"?
This all appears to be based on a few assumptions.

Can you list what those asumptions are, and why you've made them?
Can you explain the formula you used to get your result, that calculates the positive feedback is non-existent?

Also, if we're all supposed to be sceptical of climate science and the models, why should your simple calculation be trusted instead?

Why do you say it's complicated, and the scientists have a big problem, but then assure us it can be demonstrated (that there's no problem), easily enough, as you claim to have done?

 

[Andre]

Why do temps go up first? Are you sure the record is unambiguous about CO2 always following any temp. rise? Are you sure you understand the dynamics of ice sheets? Where is the evidence that the ice-cores show something "stopping half way"? What's that about? You made this up, right? It's meaningless, there's nothing "stopping half way".
What's this "strong affiliation with extreme values"?
This all appears to be based on a few assumptions.

So you have no clue, apparantly you have neither read the thread nor looked at the graph of which my text should be the caption:

Any doubt about the lagging CO2? The RC bunch doesn't. The data are here. You can simply reproduce the graph yourself. CO2 data and isotope data.

But you can of course check all other data sets out there to check what is leading and what is lagging. But these have the highest resolution and make sure that the difference is well outside the 2sigma error range. And yes the isotope reversal around 14,300 is on an geologic time scale a extreme rapid event.

Did you really try this thread and did you download the simple model to investigate it? Please substantiate your problems

more (much) later.

 

[Vkothii]

So you have no clue, apparantly you have neither read the thread nor looked at the graph of which my text should be the caption:

I've looked at it, but I still have no real idea what you're on about.

Since you seem to have no intention of describing how you got your result. or how you put your "formula" together, I therefore conclude that nothing in any of your posts says anything relevant.

You're just babbling away about something you don't really understand, right?
There's nothing in any of those links that looks like you're doing anything more than jumping to invalid conclusions, from basic misunderstandings of what's really involved in climate dynamics.

You shouldn't tell everyone that you've got some kind of insight into the climate's behaviour, when clearly you have no such thing.

 

[Spud Emperor]

till'm cuzz!

 

[Myles]

I've looked at it, but I still have no real idea what you're on about.

Since you seem to have no intention of describing how you got your result. or how you put your "formula" together, I therefore conclude that nothing in any of your posts says anything relevant.

You're just babbling away about something you don't really understand, right?
There's nothing in any of those links that looks like you're doing anything more than jumping to invalid conclusions, from basic misunderstandings of what's really involved in climate dynamics.

You shouldn't tell everyone that you've got some kind of insight into the climate's behaviour, when clearly you have no such thing.

Be fair ! By his own token he is only witch hunting.

 

[iceaura]

probably, but it's hardly relevant if we're looking at less than a degree for doubling CO2.

No evidence of that - not even your negative feedback assumptions, extrapolating without mechanism at all time scales, from dubious analysis of data covering a climate regime that lacks the current CO2 boost - prevent the extra water vapor from possibly (likely) at least doubling the direct CO2 effect, which is likely more than a degree anyway.

Or are you still holding to your earlier position that CO2 does not trap heat in the lower atmosphere at all - merely delays its journey to space by a negligible time ?