No More Globle Warming! Brrr!

[mystic64]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-cooling-real-inconvenient-truth-140500879.html

The globle warming folks are going to have to go into hiding for a while. The high CO2 levels are going to save our "tushes" because the sun is in a cooling off cycle and the greenhouse effect is going to come in handy. Well at least we will get to see and study how the weather patterns were durring most of the the Ice Age . At least for the next twenty years. I hate the cold! Grrrr.

Anybody want to discuss this ?

 

[metis]

The article is bogus as the worldwide temperature average is still climbing, with 2013 being the third hottest internationally since records have been kept. So, the reality is that there isn't really anything to discuss-- one either accepts the facts from the records or one doesn't.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

The author is a journalist. If he had any qualifications to discuss climatology, he'd be boasting about them. It's interesting that he mentions the loss of England's vineyards during the "little ice age": they've just started making wine in Scotland:
‘First’ Scottish wine to be bottled this year

 

[Sunstone]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-cooling-real-inconvenient-truth-140500879.html

The globle warming folks are going to have to go into hiding for a while. The high CO2 levels are going to save our "tushes" because the sun is in a cooling off cycle and the greenhouse effect is going to come in handy. Well at least we will get to see and study how the weather patterns were durring most of the the Ice Age . At least for the next twenty years. I hate the cold! Grrrr.

Anybody want to discuss this ?

Koch brothers: 1 Mystic64: 0

 

[Jainarayan]

This past winter has been one of the coldest I can remember. My catchphrase was "global warming, my ***". But it's not so much global warming as climate change. Some parts of the globe will be warmer than others at a given time. But I have no doubt the average temperature is climbing. We have to remember that the Earth's orbit is not circular, and it's not even consistently elliptical, not to mention slight wobbles on its axis apart from its axial precession.

 

[mystic64]

Koch brothers: 1 Mystic64: 0

What the heck ! I placed this topic in "General Discussion", and it probably should have been placed in "General Debate." Opps ! So who are the Koch brothers and what is their side of the arguement?

 

[mystic64]

http://www.iceagenow.com/Sunspots_and_global_cooling.htm

All heat and light comes from the sun guys . Science has been saying for a couple years now that the sun is going into a cooling off phase which means less heat from the sun. And the records taken in the past indicate that the sun goes through cycles of warming up and cooling down. All indications at this time indicate that the sun is going into a cooling down phase. There is actually not any debate about this guys, the sun "is" going through a cooling off phase. The only debate is, "How long will this cooling cycle last?", and, "How cool will the sun get?" And yes greenhouse gasses are not good when the sun is going through a warming up phase, but, greenhouse gasses "are" good when the sun is going through a cooling off phase.

 

[BSM1]

The article is bogus as the worldwide temperature average is still climbing, with 2013 being the third hottest internationally since records have been kept. So, the reality is that there isn't really anything to discuss-- one either accepts the facts from the records or one doesn't.

Soo...what is the average worldwide temperature and how much has it risen in, say, the last ten years?

 

[Sunstone]

Soo...what is the average worldwide temperature and how much has it risen in, say, the last ten years?

See, for instance.

 

[metis]

See, for instance.

Thanks for posting this link as I have not the time nor the desire to deal with these deniers, as my experience with them is that it's simply their politics masquerading as science. I've had a subscription to "Scientific American" for over 40 years now, plus my field was science (now retired), and the evidence has become overwhelming, particularly over the last two decades, as other hypothetical causation has been gradually discounted.

 

[BSM1]

See, for instance.

You're kidding, right? Did you even read the article? 1.3 degrees over a century? Significant cooling since 1990? Cooler averages over the last four years? Excuse me if I don't retire my tinfoil hat.

 

[metis]

You're kidding, right? Did you even read the article? 1.3 degrees over a century? Significant cooling since 1990? Cooler averages over the last four years? Excuse me if I don't retire my tinfoil hat.

The above is simply a lie. Do the research from scientific sources and not the pseudo-scientific trash that's out there. If you have no interest in actually doing real research, then you can simply wallow in the nonsense you gullibly have waded into.


Added: I just ran across this by coincidence which was posted by someone on another thread, and even though it's not a scientific site, nevertheless it matches the real science sites I've seen: http://www.theguardian.com/environm.../may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

 

[Sunstone]

You're kidding, right? Did you even read the article? 1.3 degrees over a century? Significant cooling since 1990? Cooler averages over the last four years? Excuse me if I don't retire my tinfoil hat.

A planet wide increase of roughly 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit average surface temperature over the course of a century might not impress you, but it still represents a huge increase in energy. Remember this is planet-wide.

As for your notion the article said there have been cooler temperatures over the last four years, that's not what the article said. For instance, look at 2012 -- at the time, it was the warmest year on record since records began to be kept. But even if the temperatures were cooler over such a short period, that kind of fluctuation is to be expected.

 

[mystic64]

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

The below quote came from the discussion part of the artical on the above webpage:

Ben Lankamp at 17:38 PM on 13 September, 2007
"An increase of 1365,7689 to 1366,6620 is not in any way statistical significant. Pick two others years and you get a decrease (e.g. what Lockwood did). You did not account for the 11-year periodic cycle which needs to be substracted before looking at trends, which underlines the uselessness of randomly picking TSI from any given year or years. Ergo: looking at the data with the 11-year cycle substracted, the trend in the last 50 years is more or less neutral (+0,08 W/m²) and in any case not statistical significant, given the amount of variance in that same period.

Inciding IR upon the Earths surface is not ~240 W/m², sure I agree with that, but then again I am not claiming it is (I said it was the outgoing flux at the TOA). The ~469 W/m² is the [total] incoming IR at the surface, which is a combination of solar flux and radiation coming from the GHGs (water vapour, carbon dioxide, so on). IPCC puts it at 492 W/m² as a consensus though. Of that amount about 452 W/m² goes into the atmosphere by latent heat exchange, evapo(trans)piration and absorption by GHGs (the latter roughly 350 W/m²). The atmosphere itself radiates 195 W/m² upwards into space and 324 W/m² downwards towards the surface. About 40 W/m² makes it directly from the Earth's surface into space. The incoming solar flux is ~235 W/m² (and outgoing as well), of which 67 W/m² is absorbed by the atmosphere and 168 W/m² reaches the surface. So summarizing: the [surface] incoming flux is ~492 W/m² and outgoing as well, the TOA incoming and outgoing flux is ~235 W/m². The atmosphere absorbs 519 W/m², most of it from below from the Earth's surface, and emits this upwards and downwards (mostly the latter). As far as I can tell, nothing of this appears in real contradication with your article from Manrique (2007).

The 5.34/5.35 is indeed in W/m², I stand corrected. The ln(co2/co2_orig) only scales the value and deltaF is in W/m²."

And I agree with this fellow .

 

[Sunstone]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-cooling-real-inconvenient-truth-140500879.html

The globle warming folks are going to have to go into hiding for a while. The high CO2 levels are going to save our "tushes" because the sun is in a cooling off cycle and the greenhouse effect is going to come in handy. Well at least we will get to see and study how the weather patterns were durring most of the the Ice Age . At least for the next twenty years. I hate the cold! Grrrr.

Anybody want to discuss this ?

Your premiss is wrong. See also.

 

[mystic64]

Your premiss is wrong. See also.

Maybe . The problem is in the numbers. The sun is cooling off but the earth is not . And the sun cooling off might actually be giving us a reprieve or time to solve the greenhouse gass emissions problem, because the sun is going to warm up again and things will get worse. Apparently the Earth is also giving off heat and the greenhouse gasses are holding that heat in. And this is messing with the numbers.

We are in the begining of an interglacial episode and these interglacial episodes normally last 60 to 150 thousand years. So historically speaking things are going to, over all, get warmer for quite awhile before the next true Ice Age.

So with that said, "The Earth is generating heat and that heat is being trapped by the greenhouse gasses that apparently Humankind is responsible for being released into the atmosphere. The sun is cooling off but the heat that the Earth is generating is being concerved by the greenhouse gass layer. So if one uses the average ambient worldwide tempture as a measurement, then nothing has changed at this point in time.

Just for the record guys I am not saying that Globle Warming because of greenhouse gasses is not a problem, because it is a serious problem. What I am saying is that because of the greenhouse gass layer we are not going to have the same problems as was experienced in the past cycles of the sun cooling off. Yes it will get colder because the greenhouse gasses can only hold in so much heat, unless the Earth itself is actually heating up, but at the sametime it is not going to get as cold as it did in the past, average tempture worldwide. The main problem is going to be the weather because the Jet Stream has a developed a permanent dip toward the south, at least relative to the US, just like it does durring the glacial building phase of an Ice Age. When the Sun returns to its warming phase the Jet Stream will return to the North again.

Anyway, because of the greenhouse gasses it is not going to get as cold as it did in the past. But also because of these greenhouse gasses holding the heat in at equator there is going to be more water vapor in the atmosphere (which also adds to the greenhouse effect) and this water vapor along with the high amounts of particulate matter that is also in the atmosphere there is going to be major rain and snow where the warm moist air meets the cold air just like we experienced in the US this winter.

This topic is in "General Discussion" because it is not about the Greenhouse Gasses emissions debate and their effect on globle warming because these emissions are going to be a very serious problem when the sun starts to warm up again. The greenhouse gass emissions that are being created by Humankind has got to be stopped or most of this planet will end up being a tropical paradise like it was durring the age of the dinosaurs, if you wish to call very high humidity and very warm temperatures a paradise.

 

[mystic64]

Footenote:

Also if the Earth's core itself is heating up because the greenhouse gasses are holding in the heat that the core generates, then that means that the Earth is going to start expanding instead of shrinking which is going to cause a whole bunch of new challenges. Earthquakes in reverse, mountain building in reverse, and God only knows what effect it will have on continental drift.This greenhouse gass problem that Humankind has created and is still creating may be a bigger problem than it was originally thought to be . Well on the upside, plant life is going to be very happy living on this panet. Most of them love a warm moist very high CO2 environment!

 

[dust1n]

When whoever these people are suppose to be, Oil and Gas Investments Bulletin, write an article on the science of climate change in the Finance section of Yahoo, I tend not to give it any weight at all. I really don't know much about the full science of climatology, but I certainly have no reason to give these guys any credit.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My thoughts are is I want a better source than Yahoo! "news." Last time I actually looked over it I started to get the feeling their contributors really have no idea what they're talking about, and if they don't have anything to talk about there is perpetual story of Japan promising the world of a cloned Woolly Mammoth. And pointing out the first snow fall in Cairo in 112 years doesn't disprove Global Warming, as extremes in winter were predicted as with extremes in summer along with a gradual increase in the average global temperature, but it does prove the term "global warming" itself may have not been the best choice of words.

 

[BSM1]

See, for instance.

Not helping! Still saying the same thing as the other article-about one degree per one hundred years. And this-like all the other speculation in the article-is not conclusive. Again, much ado about nothing.