Jump to content
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Mini Ice Age?

Recommended Posts

enigma99

That is great stuff, but locally based. You must use a global average that is representative of the planet as a whole. Which ain't easy, and hence the source of all arguments.

I've got different different hemispheres etc. Where do else do you recommend? I will run the report

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alicehunter2000

I got a Bachelors in Oceanographic/Environmental Technology from Florida Tech.........and I've stayed in a Holiday Inn Express before. :greenthumb:

I am interested in the ways to correct problems it often is as interesting as the problem itself....they call it solutions...maybe we should talk about your solutions to the percieved problem..... :hmm:

On a side note......I was trying to cover my ponytail "palm" with a sheet the other night......danged if I didn't break the whole head of it off......would have been better off if I would have never tried to keep it warm.........inversely analogous?...hmm. :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
enigma99
A few more.. I just don't know where else to run to get all the warmth:(
2sbjvgo.png
2hhpt1j.png
2dh8fag.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mats

You sure about that?

Most data shows that the warming stopped in the 90s.

Using my script I wrote to rip data off wunderground, it looks like it has been getting cooler, not warmer and that's why we're talking of an ice age. I have shared the script here so we can discuss by using our own data.

Your Wunderground data is only measuring surface air temperature from a select few locations. But you fail to take into account ocean temperatures. The oceans, after all, account for 71% of the Earth's surface.

"To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content.

This analysis ... adds up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice. To calculate the Earth's total heat content, the authors used data of ocean heat content from the upper 700 meters. They included heat content from deeper waters down to 3000 meters depth. They computed atmospheric heat content using the surface temperature record and the heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (the energy required to melt ice) were also included." source

post-235-0-60838000-1389042570_thumb.jpg

This chart arrived at a similar conclusion with more recent and updated data.

post-235-0-14454800-1389042956_thumb.jpg

And this film clip deals with the "It hasn't warmed since 1998" myth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M
.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

While we're having a measuring contest, I have a BS in Geoscience and a Masters in Geology with thesis emphasis in sedimentology and ancient climate shifts. So, yeah, I do understand this stuff on a pretty fundamental level. I also had to teach GEO101 more times than I'd like to mention, so I can (if paid enough) explain anything to anybody regardless of complexity of topic or lack of understanding on the part of the student.

enigma99, I appreciate your skills in writing code to sample specific places and make a graph, but as Keith pointed out, we're talking about global averages not geographic point data. (also, all your graphs are showing the late 90's to today, the hottest group of years on record...)

This is a HUGE and very complex system. There are many variables, but they all add up to the same answer: Global Warming IS Real.

So far (especially this week) every post to the contrary seems to boil down to this:

ujnv.jpg

Edited by Funkthulhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

I got a Bachelors in Oceanographic/Environmental Technology from Florida Tech.........and I've stayed in a Holiday Inn Express before. :greenthumb:

I am interested in the ways to correct problems it often is as interesting as the problem itself....they call it solutions...maybe we should talk about your solutions to the percieved problem..... :hmm:

On a side note......I was trying to cover my ponytail "palm" with a sheet the other night......danged if I didn't break the whole head of it off......would have been better off if I would have never tried to keep it warm.........inversely analogous?...hmm. :hmm:

Do you remember these?

6def591b8145409def0589915e44661b.png (Conservation of mass)

b2df68dc753c7e409f0dcbe507dae585.png (Conservation of momentum)

74a83ef9e9d0bb6755ff68a43c120aba.png (Conservation of energy)

644ac3cb20cf13bea9af190e1120689f.png (Static conservation of energy)

These represent everything there is to know about fluids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

And if you don't remember these, perhaps you used these:

f684122f5b39cdae71d48bfed25dcd55.png Momemtum

a1476ff1311cbece01dcf2073f6b0450.png Temperature

8d1b5e21e33bbe85eaa3cfb0edf685e2.png Salinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Keith

I got a Bachelors in Oceanographic/Environmental Technology from Florida Tech.........and I've stayed in a Holiday Inn Express before. :greenthumb:

I am interested in the ways to correct problems it often is as interesting as the problem itself....they call it solutions...maybe we should talk about your solutions to the percieved problem..... :hmm:

On a side note......I was trying to cover my ponytail "palm" with a sheet the other night......danged if I didn't break the whole head of it off......would have been better off if I would have never tried to keep it warm.........inversely analogous?...hmm. :hmm:

I did that a whole back. I just cut off some the lower leaves shoved in a pot of potting soil and it rooted just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sonoranfans

And if you don't remember these, perhaps you used these:

f684122f5b39cdae71d48bfed25dcd55.png Momemtum

a1476ff1311cbece01dcf2073f6b0450.png Temperature

8d1b5e21e33bbe85eaa3cfb0edf685e2.png Salinity

yeah, too bad the math for anthropogenic warming isn't so simple as a few differential equations, LOL! these are like a spoon as a tool to dig the grand canyon of anthropogenic warming....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

If human influences are indeed contributing to climate change and a warmer than would be without man planet is anything that will realistically be done make any difference? The majority of the world's population is more concerned about where the next meal will come from than climate change. And, those that live in areas of conflict are more concerned about dodging bullets than climate change. Oil and gas production is up in many parts of the world, including where I live right in the middle of the Amazon basin. The climate debate tends to center more around the northern hemisphere than the one I live in. Which I suppose makes sense. People where I live pay little attention to the suject of climate change. In fact during the last glacial maximum 18,000 years ago the temperature was up to 10 C less here on the equator in the humid tropical forest. But, ,that was probably more comfortable than the current temperatures.

One complicating factor is that the more people around the world live better, the more pressure on energy supplies and generation. Brazil where I live is a relatively big player in the world greenhouse gas generation group. Deforestation contributes it's share (although less than many may believe today), the 200 million head of cattle in the country contribute their share, and the major cities in the south theirs. Although the media tries to make an issue of it. Most people are never cold, and for the most part are normally not too hot. What is much more important is what soccer teams are winning. Now that the country has become self sufficient in petroleum the ethnol program has gone south to a large degree. The big issue nationally is how to divide up the royalities between the states. Brazil even imports corn ethanol from the USA now as the local production can not meet the demand. Not because pure ethanol is being consumed (most cars in Brazil are flex fuel both ethanol and gasoline) but because all gasoline is 23 percent ethanol and the consumption of gasoline has grown so much that the demand can not be met. This in a large degree is due a lack of investment in distillation upgrades and production has not grown to meet the demand.

Most of what any of us can do will make little difference on the outcome of whatever happens. I currently have a project that will maybe make some difference. The LED lighting business I am developing is focusing on public lighting (street lights), and large scale users like schools and industry. Since the energy requirements of LED lights are up to 80 percent less than conventional sources this does have a direct impact on the energy needed to run a given segment. In fact the ROI calculator I use shows the reduction in CO2 footprint with the conversion to LED. For example in Manaus there are 140,000 streetlights. If all of those were converted to LED resulting in a 60 percent reduction in energy consumption that is something of at least some consequence.

My main goal with the LED lights is to make money. But, it is also a nice feeling to know that one is dealing with a product that has a postive impact.

The whiteish blue lights in the picture amoung the sodium are our LED lights being tested. Hopefully the whole port will convert to LED. And, these lights were made right in St. Petersburg, Florida. Which is another positive thing for me to sell a made in the USA product. The port will save around 70 percent on their lighting bill and have a return on investment in under 2 years with a 10 year guarantee on the lights.

The night scene looking out over the Negro River is always nice to look at as well.

DSC_0219_zps5d0d9cf6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
enigma99

This is my last post in this thread. Because it is pointless when 95% of wundergrounds temps from all around the world in different climates are cooling since 1996, to just throw it out. A 17 year sample is not a whole lot, but does give an indication if it is consistent.

Anyways, the world is waking up, and more and more people know it to be a hoax each day.

In other thoughts, I believe the #1 threat right now is nuclear power. And one we should all be talking about more. Reports are saying that the Pacific ocean floor is full of dead things, and the west coast has been 3 uSv/hr on some days recently. Yet this situation can get a lot worse if there is another meltdown due to earthquake. And if we were to ever get a bad solar storm and power is knocked out like what happened in the 1800s, and if for some reason due to social unrest they were unable to refill the diesel generators within a few days, we'd be looking at meltdowns all around the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

This is my last post in this thread. Because it is pointless when 95% of wundergrounds temps from all around the world in different climates are cooling since 1996, to just throw it out. A 17 year sample is not a whole lot, but does give an indication if it is consistent.

Anyways, the world is waking up, and more and more people know it to be a hoax each day.

In other thoughts, I believe the #1 threat right now is nuclear power. And one we should all be talking about more. Reports are saying that the Pacific ocean floor is full of dead things, and the west coast has been 3 uSv/hr on some days recently. Yet this situation can get a lot worse if there is another meltdown due to earthquake. And if we were to ever get a bad solar storm and power is knocked out like what happened in the 1800s, and if for some reason due to social unrest they were unable to refill the diesel generators within a few days, we'd be looking at meltdowns all around the world.

I haven't actually looked at your script and try to understand how you are calculating averages. The problem is, you're looking in all the wrong places, and your calculations are suspect. 2008 and 2011 had the warmest Winters on record, your data hides those facts. Besides, Wunderground stations are useless from a more global perspective, the data you want comes from buoys and remote sensors in un-inhabited areas in far Northern latitudes. Most of the anomalous warming is occurring up there. I suspect you're also not calculating the right averages, an annual average is going to be relatively useless because it washes out the actual signal you're looking for. Drawing a line through those graphs is

This is a rather interesting discussion. California is in a drought, and meanwhile, the midwest and Southeast are experiencing record cold temperatures. And the culprit? Way above average water temperatures in the Gulf of Alaska are generating the blocking ridge of high pressure that is the main driver for the unusual weather patterns.

Basically, as the arctic continues to warm, we will continue to see more cold extremes, but we're also getting the opposite, namely warm extremes. And I can tell you that my Wunderground station as measured Winter average highs that are a solid +5F to +8F above the climactic averages due to the ever increasing mid Winter heat waves we've been experiencing. In the last three years, I've seen a Dec average high of 68F, Jan of 72F and February of 72F. Our normal average is 62F.

See http://mashable.com/2014/01/04/polar-vortex-expected/

The cold front, which is predicted to bring temperatures between 20 and 40 degrees lower than average in states that already experience harsh January weather, is coming down from the polar regions above northern Canada. The pocket of cold air, called a "polar vortex," was blocked up north by a high-pressure area that meteorologists refer to as a "ridge," according to Mark Ressler, senior meteorologist at The Weather Channel.

The ridge has high pressure on both the surface level and aloft, meaning miles above the Earth's surface. The ridge was formed by pools of warm water that have collected near the Gulf of Alaska, according to Joe D'Aleo, co-chief meteorologist at WeatherBELL Analytics. These pools of warm water, which are up to seven degrees warmer than normal, heat the surrounding air and expand it, raising the temperature and pressure, and block air from the Pacific Ocean as it tries to move eastward into Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
enigma99

I suspect you're also not calculating the right averages, an annual average is going to be relatively useless because it washes out the actual signal you're looking for. Drawing a line through those graphs is

The script only works on Airports because of how they present the data. Also, most personal weather stations come and go, so I couldn't find anything reliable with them. Didn't think about Buoys though.

Basically how it works, it will compare a single month across the years... it's in no ways meant to be scientific, but just be fun. It the median temp of each day as sent by wunderground, adds them up and divides by the number of days (for example 30). I'm 99% sure the median monthly averages are correct. wunderground sometimes has null/missing data, so the script throws away a month if there is missing/incomplete data.

For example, compare the data source for this graph:

97r3bc.png

With the source url: http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KOAK/2013/12/7/MonthlyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

Please verify by stepping back one year through their online browser with the following chart. Why December was a warm month on 2008 and 2011 and doesn't show here?, i'm not sure, I just write the script. My guess is that it takes the median (night and day temps combined) across the whole month. For example, we might have a record cold event, but overall the month was warm so it wouldn't show

Also, I have released a new version which is more precise http://pastebin.com/uttZB75i

For fun, here is a report from SFO. Only a couple miles away but a completely different picture. Without inspecting both stations, my guess is that one is more sheltered. For the most part they match, but some are way off like 1997 & 1998.

2zhjghs.png

Edited by enigma99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
enigma99

Microclimates in the bay :D

2dcfuqv.png

148zqkh.png

rli7mc.png

I tried to get data off NOAA before, but you have to run a report and it is really slow and awful. I'd be happy to do a NOAA script if I could find a way to access it

Edited by enigma99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

There is a world of difference from SFO to OAK. I used work at SFO for an airline on the ramp loading planes and sometimes froze my rear end off.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mats

This is my last post in this thread. Because it is pointless when 95% of wundergrounds temps from all around the world in different climates are cooling since 1996, to just throw it out. A 17 year sample is not a whole lot, but does give an indication if it is consistent.

Your data of air temperatures from a very few select airports simply does not jibe with other, much more comprehensive scientific observations that have taken place.

Take this report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:for example:

"Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries"

Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years

"The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.
Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere."
post-235-0-29273200-1389109215_thumb.jpg
“Despite the variability caused by short-term changes, the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming,” said Peter Stott, Ph.D., contributor to the report and head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution of the United Kingdom Met Office Hadley Centre. “When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability. Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using multiple data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world.”
"While year-to-year changes in temperature often reflect natural climatic variations such as El Niño/La Niña events, changes in average temperature from decade-to-decade reveal long-term trends such as global warming. Each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the decade before. At the time, the 1980s was the hottest decade on record. In the 1990s, every year was warmer than the average of the previous decade. The 2000s were warmer still.
“The temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the past 50 years may seem small, but it has already altered our planet,” said Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report and chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. “Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common. And, as the new report tells us, there is now evidence that over 90 percent of warming over the past 50 years has gone into our ocean.

Anyways, the world is waking up, and more and more people know it to be a hoax each day.

People that think it's a hoax aren't looking at the research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Microclimates in the bay :D

2dcfuqv.png

148zqkh.png

rli7mc.png

I tried to get data off NOAA before, but you have to run a report and it is really slow and awful. I'd be happy to do a NOAA script if I could find a way to access it

Well, the two main objections I would have to the way you analyse the data are:

1) The green line showing a downward trend is bogus, because it's not even within a standard deviation of the data itself. So it's unreliable. Given how the temperature averages gyrate up and down, you need a longer data sample to see what the tend really is.

2) Doing the calculation based on the mean is not very useful, because the mean will wash out a lot of signals. The Wunderground mean is based on the high for the day and the low of the day, but doesn't take into account the actual hourly temperatures. You need to run the same script but look at the hourly readings and integrate to get heating degree hours and Winter chill hours. What you will find might surprise you. The farmers have known this for a long time: fruit trees bloom earlier because of an earlier and earlier Spring warm up. Chill hours are down, so areas towards the South of the State are experiencing crop reductions.

Another interesting piece of data analysis is to calculate the true average, i.e. take as many measurements as possible and see what the average temperature for the day is. Let me explain the difference. Take two days that both have a high of 80 and a low of 50. In San Jose, a day like that would have temps near 70F by 8PM, whereas in Santa Cruz, the same day might see 80F only for 2 hours in the afternoon with temps near 55F by sunset. You would get completely different results. But I think measuring the heating degree hours and chill hours is more interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Hadley centre graph of recent historic global temperature averages. The other contributor is the University of East Anglia.which was linked to e mail leaks in Climate Gate. But, that does not say that this data is incorrect. This information and much more can be found here - http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm

HadCRUT3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1850%20

Fig.4. Global monthly average surface air temperature since 1850 according to Hadley CRUT, a cooperative effort between the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), UK. The blue line represents the monthly values. An introduction to the dataset has been published by Brohan et al. (2005). Base period: 1961-1990. Last month shown: December 2010. Last diagram update: 3 January 2011.

Here is their ICE AGE cycle data graph covering the last 420,000 years. Our interglacial still is not as warm as others supposedly were, even with much more CO2 in the air.

VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif

Fig.2. Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature. The red square to the right indicates the time interval shown in greater detail in the following figure.

The diagram above (Fig.2) shows a reconstruction of global temperature based on ice core analysis from the Antarctica. The present interglacial period (the Holocene) is seen to the right (red square). The preceding four interglacials are seen at about 125,000, 280,000, 325,000 and 415,000 years before now, with much longer glacial periods in between. All four previous interglacials are seen to be warmer (1-3oC) than the present. The typical length of a glacial period is about 100,000 years, while an interglacial period typical lasts for about 10-15,000 years. The present interglacial period has now lasted about 11,600 years.

According to ice core analysis, the atmospheric CO2 concentrations during all four prior interglacials never rose above approximately 290 ppm; whereas the atmospheric CO2 concentration today stands at nearly 390 ppm. The present interglacial is about 2oC colder than the previous interglacial, even though the atmospheric CO2 concentration now is about 100 ppm higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Here us what the USGS http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ has to say about the current interglacial and sea levels.

Glacial-Interglacial Cycles

Climate-related sea-level changes of the last century are very minor compared with the large changes in sea level that occur as climate oscillates between the cold and warm intervals that are part of the Earth’s natural cycle of long-term climate change.

During cold-climate intervals, known as glacial epochs or ice ages, sea level falls because of a shift in the global hydrologic cycle: water is evaporated from the oceans and stored on the continents as large ice sheets and expanded ice caps, ice fields, and mountain glaciers. Global sea level was about 125 meters below today’s sea level at the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago (Fairbanks, 1989). As the climate warmed, sea level rose because the melting North American, Eurasian, South American, Greenland, and Antarctic ice sheets returned their stored water to the world’s oceans. During the warmest intervals, called interglacial epochs, sea level is at its highest. Today we are living in the most recent interglacial, an interval that started about 10,000 years ago and is called the Holocene Epoch by geologists.

Sea levels during several previous interglacials were about 3 to as much as 20 meters higher than current sea level. The evidence comes from two different but complementary types of studies. One line of evidence is provided by old shoreline features (fig. 2). Wave-cut terraces and beach deposits from regions as separate as the Caribbean and the North Slope of Alaska suggest higher sea levels during past interglacial times. A second line of evidence comes from sediments cored from below the existing Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. The fossils and chemical signals in the sediment cores indicate that both major ice sheets were greatly reduced from their current size or even completely melted one or more times in the recent geologic past. The precise timing and details of past sea-level history are still being debated, but there is clear evidence for past sea levels significantly higher than current sea level.

Now 20 meters would put a lot of the worlds ocean front real estate underwater. That warmer period was a bit beore the industrial revolution.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alicehunter2000

It's funny to me that 50yr. 100yr. and 200 yr. data is used to confirm warming but ignores the larger more long term cycles. Then we are told that it is OUR view that is weather and not climate.

Is there anyone here even arguing that because their weather is hot or cold that it is evidence of long term trends? Is there a "Straw Man" in the room?

For the record...how many of you consider 50,100 or 200 years of data to be indicative of long term climate change? Not me.

Don has brought up many good points about long term CLIMATE cycles, yet I hear the same drone that we are discussing weather and not climate. Nix the weather argument...no one is discussing weather except maybe the people using data from the last 200 years while ignoring the longer term cycles.

We may be going into a Mini Ice Age, we may also be warming. Both have happened in the past, and change will certainly happen in the future...whether man is causing it, whether we have the ability to SAFELY alter it without creating larger problems (geopolitcal, climatological etc.), whether the vast majority of the worlds population even gives a rats "be-hind" about it are the issues. Otherwise, the only ones creating hot air is us ( and yes I'm including myself)

There are things that cannot be changed no matter how much one might wish it.....death, taxes and climate change are a few of them IMO.

Let me go back to what I stated earlier, before being belittled.......We should get away from oil and go towards clean technology but not at the expense of bankruptsy (which would delight majority populations in the world that don't give a rats be-hind about climate change anyway). We should conserve habitats and limit pollution of all kinds. So....yes we can agree on things....my reasons for wanting these things can be different than yours....that's ok..... Lets work toward these goals because I've got the "feeling" that climate change "solutions" the next shoe to fall down this path, are a fruitless endeavor no matter how much some people might want it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Hadley centre graph of recent historic global temperature averages. The other contributor is the University of East Anglia.which was linked to e mail leaks in Climate Gate. But, that does not say that this data is incorrect. This information and much more can be found here - http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm

HadCRUT3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1850%20

Fig.4. Global monthly average surface air temperature since 1850 according to Hadley CRUT, a cooperative effort between the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), UK. The blue line represents the monthly values. An introduction to the dataset has been published by Brohan et al. (2005). Base period: 1961-1990. Last month shown: December 2010. Last diagram update: 3 January 2011.

Here is their ICE AGE cycle data graph covering the last 420,000 years. Our interglacial still is not as warm as others supposedly were, even with much more CO2 in the air.

VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif

Fig.2. Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature. The red square to the right indicates the time interval shown in greater detail in the following figure.

The diagram above (Fig.2) shows a reconstruction of global temperature based on ice core analysis from the Antarctica. The present interglacial period (the Holocene) is seen to the right (red square). The preceding four interglacials are seen at about 125,000, 280,000, 325,000 and 415,000 years before now, with much longer glacial periods in between. All four previous interglacials are seen to be warmer (1-3oC) than the present. The typical length of a glacial period is about 100,000 years, while an interglacial period typical lasts for about 10-15,000 years. The present interglacial period has now lasted about 11,600 years.

According to ice core analysis, the atmospheric CO2 concentrations during all four prior interglacials never rose above approximately 290 ppm; whereas the atmospheric CO2 concentration today stands at nearly 390 ppm. The present interglacial is about 2oC colder than the previous interglacial, even though the atmospheric CO2 concentration now is about 100 ppm higher.

The CO2 argument in the text above is really pretty much stupid. It's only been 100 ppm higher for a rather short time on geological scales. It takes time to find out what the effect of such a high CO2 concentration will do. We don't actually know, but I guess we're gonna find out in the next couple hundred years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

... post retracted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Keith

I could not draw a conclusion Axel. With the irregularity of this cycle, as compared to the previous ones it seems it could still go either way. But even the mini-blips, the ones so small they don't even show, are hundreds of years, so who the heck knows. We might be temporarily and prematurely warming it up, or we might be temporarily and prematurely stalling the next cool down. Either way, it is temporary. In another 1 or 2 thousand years we might have an idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Alex,

I do not know if the people that wrote the info I posted were arguing or simply pionting out what the records show. I did not read into that anything that pointedly said what the role of CO2 is or not. What they did point out was that with lower CO 2 level than today the world was warmer. Some say the CO2 follows warming, some say the opposite from what I have read. And, some say that CO2 really does not force temperature at all. I have no idea which is right. What is very interesting is that over the past glacial periods the interglacials have been warmer than present. And, interestingly enough the USGS certainly agrees with that and there is proof of that. Of course there were not billions of people residing on the planet then.

I graduated from the University of Montana in Geography back a few years ago. I did study quite a bit of geology as part of my course as the two are related. Missoula, Montana where the U of M is located is right in the middle of a very interesting geological area of North America. One striking feature of the Missoula area are the old beach lines that run around the grassy lower mountains in the area. This had nothing to do with sea level, and the sea level was much lower at the time. This was created by an ice dam which blocked the Clarks Fork River creating a lake up to 2,000 feet deep. When it broke up as the ice age started to thaw out it broke and scowered out eastern Washington and Oregon. I have tried to fathom just how big an event this was, but really can not comprehend it. It does go to show one just how changeable Earth is and just how dynamic ice ages are. There may have been people around then. At least there is some evidence that humans were in North America in pre Clovis times. That is earlier than 15,000 years ago. If they were they sure most have had a rude surprise from this flood.

Glacial-Lake-Missoula-Map.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alicehunter2000

Let's all agree to continue to walk down the road and see where it leads us.......ok, lets say we all agree that we are causing man-made global warming. Lets say the top 80 percent contributors of CO2 to the atmosphere suddenly realize that we must reduce the levels to a point to where it will make the climate reverse course or level out or slow down significantly.

In this fantastic scenario....what comes next. How do we fix man-made global warming? What are the geopolitical, monetary, environmental implications of these fixes. Does anyone really believe the ultimate goal of a static climate or normal levels of change (what is the static/normal change level?) can happen? What if we are entering a mini-ice age...would these "fixes" increase the downward trend? In your wildest fantasies what would adherance to the theory by the governments around the world result in?.....in essence what is your end game? What do you hope to achieve/ is it realistic?

The reason I use the word fantasy and fantastic is not mock the science behind climate change. I believe scientist such as Axel, and other educated people have legitimate concerns and draw logical conclusions from their data. This goes for Mini Ice Age discussion as well...the two go hand in hand. What I consider fantastic is the idea that we can ever agree to the extent that it will make a difference, and, even if we could our resultant remedies would neither be practical, efficient or beneficial....I might be cynical but I think that this cynacism is more realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

David,

Those are good points. It is sort of slow here in Brazil as January is vacation month, and many people are gone to somewhere, Orlando, Rio, or maybe Las Vegas. Anyway this thread has at least provided me with some new mental activity. Personally I think that technology may be developing faster than climate change. I have a hard time keeping up with it anyway. Nasa is even investigating Warp Drive for interplanetary travel. What I do think is a danger is when certain elements sell fixes that cost large amounts of money and also burden people who can not afford to be burdened for fixes that generate money for some and results for none. If technology can at least help cope with climate changes, whatever they may be it will be great. I do believe that what ever happens we should promote changes that will help raise the living standards of the have nots of our planet. This can only happen with economic growth. And, that puts more strain on the ecosystem. But, at the same time we can not deny people the opportunity to have a better life. How ever you look at things they are difficult.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Keith

David,

Those are good points. It is sort of slow here in Brazil as January is vacation month, and many people are gone to somewhere, Orlando, Rio, or maybe Las Vegas. Anyway this thread has at least provided me with some new mental activity. Personally I think that technology may be developing faster than climate change. I have a hard time keeping up with it anyway. Nasa is even investigating Warp Drive for interplanetary travel. What I do think is a danger is when certain elements sell fixes that cost large amounts of money and also burden people who can not afford to be burdened for fixes that generate money for some and results for none. If technology can at least help cope with climate changes, whatever they may be it will be great. I do believe that what ever happens we should promote changes that will help raise the living standards of the have nots of our planet. This can only happen with economic growth. And, that puts more strain on the ecosystem. But, at the same time we can not deny people the opportunity to have a better life. How ever you look at things they are difficult.

dk

Don, sure is nice to have you back and more active on the forum. And as you can see, we have come a long way in our ability to have civil climate discussions, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alicehunter2000

Well said Don,

I'm just trying to get my mind off the damn cold weather by discussing of all things..........weather :floor:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Let's all agree to continue to walk down the road and see where it leads us.......ok, lets say we all agree that we are causing man-made global warming. Lets say the top 80 percent contributors of CO2 to the atmosphere suddenly realize that we must reduce the levels to a point to where it will make the climate reverse course or level out or slow down significantly.

In this fantastic scenario....what comes next. How do we fix man-made global warming? What are the geopolitical, monetary, environmental implications of these fixes. Does anyone really believe the ultimate goal of a static climate or normal levels of change (what is the static/normal change level?) can happen? What if we are entering a mini-ice age...would these "fixes" increase the downward trend? In your wildest fantasies what would adherance to the theory by the governments around the world result in?.....in essence what is your end game? What do you hope to achieve/ is it realistic?

The reason I use the word fantasy and fantastic is not mock the science behind climate change. I believe scientist such as Axel, and other educated people have legitimate concerns and draw logical conclusions from their data. This goes for Mini Ice Age discussion as well...the two go hand in hand. What I consider fantastic is the idea that we can ever agree to the extent that it will make a difference, and, even if we could our resultant remedies would neither be practical, efficient or beneficial....I might be cynical but I think that this cynacism is more realistic.

This is the dilemma, how do you make policy decisions based on possible scenarios? If we undertake this discussion, we're gonna end up derailing this thread. I am enjoying the thread, so lets keep it alive by continuing to discuss data as opposed to policy.

I have an interesting question: where was the most Northerly or Southerly coconut growing in the last ice age?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

Alex,

I do not know if the people that wrote the info I posted were arguing or simply pionting out what the records show. I did not read into that anything that pointedly said what the role of CO2 is or not. What they did point out was that with lower CO 2 level than today the world was warmer. Some say the CO2 follows warming, some say the opposite from what I have read. And, some say that CO2 really does not force temperature at all. I have no idea which is right. What is very interesting is that over the past glacial periods the interglacials have been warmer than present. And, interestingly enough the USGS certainly agrees with that and there is proof of that. Of course there were not billions of people residing on the planet then.

I graduated from the University of Montana in Geography back a few years ago. I did study quite a bit of geology as part of my course as the two are related. Missoula, Montana where the U of M is located is right in the middle of a very interesting geological area of North America. One striking feature of the Missoula area are the old beach lines that run around the grassy lower mountains in the area. This had nothing to do with sea level, and the sea level was much lower at the time. This was created by an ice dam which blocked the Clarks Fork River creating a lake up to 2,000 feet deep. When it broke up as the ice age started to thaw out it broke and scowered out eastern Washington and Oregon. I have tried to fathom just how big an event this was, but really can not comprehend it. It does go to show one just how changeable Earth is and just how dynamic ice ages are. There may have been people around then. At least there is some evidence that humans were in North America in pre Clovis times. That is earlier than 15,000 years ago. If they were they sure most have had a rude surprise from this flood.

Glacial-Lake-Missoula-Map.gif

Can we all just nerd out for a moment about the Scablands? This is some wicked-cool geomorphology as a result of the glacial ice-dam failure and the draining of Lake Missoula.

Even bigger was Lake Aggasiz over Central-Eastern Canada and US. One of several drainages of that system raised sea-level over a meter in one go and one of the events triggered the Younger-Dryas return to glaciation nearly 13,000 years ago by shutting down the ocean currents for centuries from all the fresh water dumped into the north Atlantic.

Geology Rocks!

(you may now return to your regularly scheduled argument)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Axel,

I do not know about about other places but I believe that you could have grown them around these parts ok. But, then I am on the equator only slightly south, 3.25 degrees to be exact. It looks like the temperatures here averaged maybe 5 C less than today. So, since our low is now around 22 C, that would put the lows at that time around a fridgid 16 to 18 C.

Thanks Keith. Climate affects us all and the best policy for sure is what you cited.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Erick,

I am glad you liked the Lake Missoula part. I know it was a bit off topic. But, does represent an incredible event from our recent ice age past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Niagara falls frozen? Wow, he last arctic vortex was so cold it froze it solid.

Niagara+Falls+frozen+solid.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Nice picture Alex. The only time I was there was a long time ago for a meeting in a town on the Canadian side. We drove to the other side of the border in a blizzard. I don't really know why we did that. But, sometimes we do strange things.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

its fascinating to see how people think on this topic - Mini Ice Age? the planet is 1.5+ degrees fahrenheit warmer than it was 40 years ago, a known fact, and yet people find this as proof we are heading into a mini ice age. ? The first decade of the 21st century was .2C warmer than the decade before, the 1990's were .2C warmer than the 1980s, the 1980's were .2C warmer than the 1970's, all known and measurable facts, and yet the planet is cooling down somehow and headed to an mini ice age? Its hard to fathom. Nine of the ten warmest years on record have happened since 2001, a period of thirteen years, and still people claim the planet is cooling off? It is an interesting dichotomy/disconnect. 'just sayin' said the fly by night part timer ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
enigma99

its fascinating to see how people think on this topic - Mini Ice Age? the planet is 1.5+ degrees fahrenheit warmer than it was 40 years ago, a known fact, and yet people find this as proof we are heading into a mini ice age. ? The first decade of the 21st century was .2C warmer than the decade before, the 1990's were .2C warmer than the 1980s, the 1980's were .2C warmer than the 1970's, all known and measurable facts, and yet the planet is cooling down somehow and headed to an mini ice age? Its hard to fathom. Nine of the ten warmest years on record have happened since 2001, a period of thirteen years, and still people claim the planet is cooling off? It is an interesting dichotomy/disconnect. 'just sayin' said the fly by night part timer ;-)

The Sun is at its weakest activity in 100 years despite being at the peak of its 11-year cycle. So I think the thread is about if that trend continues what the impact will be to the global climate

Edited by enigma99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

Ahhh i see. So this links back to the original post on Mini Ice Age? which shows the Russian scientist Abdusamatov's Solar Activity Chart where he claims we are entering another Maunder Minimum b/c the Sun seems to be declining and less active in this present cycle. Is that the correlation? It is possible of course but here is a quote from Nasa which would dispute the Sun's influence on our recent warming.

"... However it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means the Sun is not the cause of the present warming."

So basically everyone is hoping a less active Sun will cool the planet even as there is no evidence showing that the Sun has recently warmed the planet.

I do hope your Abdusamatov is right.

Edited by palmblues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

the other problem with a mini ice age or little ice age is that even though there have been many cold records set recently, at the same time there have been 3 times as many hot records set. If the ratio were reversed, 3 x's as many cold records set as warm then that would be some direct evidence of a cool down. Not to say it won't but so far there is no evidence to show that it is happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alicehunter2000

its fascinating to see how people think on this topic - Mini Ice Age? the planet is 1.5+ degrees fahrenheit warmer than it was 40 years ago, a known fact, and yet people find this as proof we are heading into a mini ice age. ? The first decade of the 21st century was .2C warmer than the decade before, the 1990's were .2C warmer than the 1980s, the 1980's were .2C warmer than the 1970's, all known and measurable facts, and yet the planet is cooling down somehow and headed to an mini ice age? Its hard to fathom. Nine of the ten warmest years on record have happened since 2001, a period of thirteen years, and still people claim the planet is cooling off? It is an interesting dichotomy/disconnect. 'just sayin' said the fly by night part timer ;-)

People still talking in increments like 40 years and 13 years....talk about neglible data in the grand scheme of earth weather history....just sayin'....how long we been keeping records? last 200 years?....just a tiny blip on the climatological time scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
enigma99

I thought this was an interesting interview from a meteorologist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...