Ice age on the way (merged threads)

[parmenides3]

P3 "Best estimates of solar flux suggest a cooling effect of about 1 - 1.2C over the 11 year cycle.". Sounds like an awful lot to me. I can't think of any 11 year solar cycle showing any obvious temperature change (over 11 years I mean, or 22 or....). 1C plus is an awful lot imo. It's enough to come out of a LIA and end up where we are now - and that's taken hundreds of years.

So, who's credibly claiming 1C plus?

Lean et. al. (2005) suggest that solar forcing could vary by as much as 0.5 Wm2 during this century. I'm afraid I missed the decimal on the 'best estimates'; they are around 0.11-0.12C in a 'normal' cycle. The estimates of a degree of difference depend on the feedbacks, such as global albedo, cloud and aerosol effects, which respond to the initial effect.

But, if a coming minimum was at a level lower than recent records (the measurement of irradiance being a very recent phenomenon), which is plausible, then a negative forcing of ~-1 Wm2 is not out of the question. I'll try to find a correlation between the level of radiation & the temperature.

P

[snowsure]

No relevance to any earlier posts except for the OP.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/planetearthunde...04/welcome.html

Gabrielle Walker is the author of a report that I saw in Nature or New Scientist regarding the possibility of a cooling event taking place. I referred to it recently but couldn't post a copy of it due to copyright reasons.

As I have said before, any "new" research that points toward a cooling trend will, if it exists, be in the peer-review process. From this link ( http://www.nature.com/news/infocus/climatechange.html ) you get an idea of the balanced nature of climate debate. However, to get access to these you have to subscribe to Nature. Any reproduction of their property is not tolerated so I wil have to wait until these research papers are in the public arena before I can reproduce them!

Research from (IPCC 1996, WG II, Section 7.4.5) suggests that GW may cause arctic sea ice to increase as a result of increased rainfall which "would increase the stability of the upper mixed layer of the ocean, leading to more sea ice production." ( http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/regional/047.htm )

For balance I also offer http://www.newscientist.com/global/global.jsp?id=ns9999625 which shows some more research documents available, of course, upon payment of subscription.

[parmenides3]

No relevance to any earlier posts except for the OP.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/planetearthunde...04/welcome.html

Gabrielle Walker is the author of a report that I saw in Nature or New Scientist regarding the possibility of a cooling event taking place. I referred to it recently but couldn't post a copy of it due to copyright reasons.

As I have said before, any "new" research that points toward a cooling trend will, if it exists, be in the peer-review process. From this link ( http://www.nature.com/news/infocus/climatechange.html ) you get an idea of the balanced nature of climate debate. However, to get access to these you have to subscribe to Nature. Any reproduction of their property is not tolerated so I wil have to wait until these research papers are in the public arena before I can reproduce them!

Research from (IPCC 1996, WG II, Section 7.4.5) suggests that GW may cause arctic sea ice to increase as a result of increased rainfall which "would increase the stability of the upper mixed layer of the ocean, leading to more sea ice production." ( http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/regional/047.htm )

For balance I also offer http://www.newscientist.com/global/global.jsp?id=ns9999625 which shows some more research documents available, of course, upon payment of subscription.

Thanks for the links, SS - I'll check out in detail when I am less pressed for time. One point: regretfully, the 1996 IPCC was superceded by the 2001 TAR, which reverses this finding. The ACIA 2004 & 2005 also project sustained long-term sea ice loss.

There's a more complex situation in the Antarctic, however, where temp. & precip. variations are going in the wrong direction, as far a GW is concerned. The 'pros' argus that this is consistent with the models, bu this ia rather a pat answer and doesn't actually offer an explanation.

More later,

P

[snowsure]

Thanks for the links, SS - I'll check out in detail when I am less pressed for time. One point: regretfully, the 1996 IPCC was superceded by the 2001 TAR, which reverses this finding. The ACIA 2004 & 2005 also project sustained long-term sea ice loss.

There's a more complex situation in the Antarctic, however, where temp. & precip. variations are going in the wrong direction, as far a GW is concerned. The 'pros' argus that this is consistent with the models, bu this ia rather a pat answer and doesn't actually offer an explanation.

More later,

P

Thanks for the knowledge re: 2001 TAR. Something for me to find out about! Quite amazing how things can change in just 5 years!

[Guest Viking141]

Thanks for the knowledge re: 2001 TAR. Something for me to find out about! Quite amazing how things can change in just 5 years!

Exactly why people shouldn't go around categorically stating that GW will be a fact for the foreseeable future. It might not!

[parmenides3]

Exactly why people shouldn't go around categorically stating that GW will be a fact for the foreseeable future. It might not!

In response, this reminds me of an interesting comment I read, which pointed out that if the current climate change had first been noted in a Tropical or Equatorial country, we would now be discussion 'Global Pattern Changes', or possible 'Global Extremes', rather than 'Global Warming'. If it had one of those names, I wonder whether we would be arguing about it at all? After all, Warming is the primary phenomenon observed in some regions, but others are only projecting local increases of around 1-2C this century, and are much more concerned with changes in precipitation patterns, growing seasons, desertification , and other weather-related extremes.

Perhaps because the term is so absolute, and so universal in scope, it encourages schism/division. Naturally, we are most involved in our local or regional climate (is it going to snow in...), but the underlying implication of the term is 'Everywhere is going to get warmer', which is certainly a contestable claim.

For me, the best advocate of an alternative vision on climate change is Roger Pielke, Sr., head honcho at Colorado State University. For a background on his claims, check out the 'mission statement' on the Climate Science website.

P

[Guest Viking141]

In response, this reminds me of an interesting comment I read, which pointed out that if the current climate change had first been noted in a Tropical or Equatorial country, we would now be discussion 'Global Pattern Changes', or possible 'Global Extremes', rather than 'Global Warming'. If it had one of those names, I wonder whether we would be arguing about it at all? After all, Warming is the primary phenomenon observed in some regions, but others are only projecting local increases of around 1-2C this century, and are much more concerned with changes in precipitation patterns, growing seasons, desertification , and other weather-related extremes.

Perhaps because the term is so absolute, and so universal in scope, it encourages schism/division. Naturally, we are most involved in our local or regional climate (is it going to snow in...), but the underlying implication of the term is 'Everywhere is going to get warmer', which is certainly a contestable claim.

P

A good idea P3, why not "Global Climate Change" that would cover all the bases. I think we are all in agreement that the climate globally is changing its just in what direction and to what degree that we argue over.

[Devonian]

Exactly why people shouldn't go around categorically stating that GW will be a fact for the foreseeable future. It might not!

AGW you mean? For the climate forcing due to 'A'ghg's to 'go away' then basic physics involved will have to be shown to be wrong. I don't think that will happen, it's well tested and studied.

Otoh, something might come along that masks the effect of anthro ghg's - a large negative forcing. It might happen, but, as with all 'mights', might doesn't mean will. So, it might NOT happen. Fact is we can't rely on 'mights' to get us out of this pickle.

People should go around saying that as well.

[parmenides3]

AGW you mean? For the climate forcing due to 'A'ghg's to 'go away' then basic physics involved will have to be shown to be wrong. I don't think that will happen, it's well tested and studied.

Otoh, something might come along that masks the effect of anthro ghg's - a large negative forcing. It might happen, but, as with all 'mights', might doesn't mean will. So, it might NOT happen. Fact is we can't rely on 'mights' to get us out of this pickle.

People should go around saying that as well.

But isn't that the point, Devonian? It is the consequences of climate change stimulated by ghgs, rather than the consequences of simply 'getting warmer'. A case in point would be the ocean overturning circulation; nobody is yet sure how this will respond to the changes, how rapidly, or to what effect; one possible effect certainly could lead, regionally, at least, to cooling. If we use the term Global Climate Change, we can cover all of the 'bases'; it doesn't have the same wight of implication as the other statement. Arguably, it is also more accurate. So, instead of arguing that our local climate might get warmer or cooler, we could be discussing the likelihood of different outcomes in the face of climate change, to me, a much less 'loaded' way of looking at the subject.

P

[Guest Viking141]

AGW you mean? For the climate forcing due to 'A'ghg's to 'go away' then basic physics involved will have to be shown to be wrong. I don't think that will happen, it's well tested and studied.

Otoh, something might come along that masks the effect of anthro ghg's - a large negative forcing. It might happen, but, as with all 'mights', might doesn't mean will. So, it might NOT happen. Fact is we can't rely on 'mights' to get us out of this pickle.

People should go around saying that as well.

Perhaps not, but it seems we cant rely on science, technology or legislation either. According to Frances Cairncross, President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, even the "maximal deployment of the best technology cannot stop climate change" and that "attempts to reduce emissions through the UN's Kyoto Protocol will not work" and "even if we threw at climate change all we had at the moment, even if we put it all in place, we would still see a rise in the concentration of emissions" - sound scientific advice or the worst kind of scaremongering - discuss!

Link here

[parmenides3]

Perhaps not, but it seems we cant rely on science, technology or legislation either. According to Frances Cairncross, President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, even the "maximal deployment of the best technology cannot stop climate change" and that "attempts to reduce emissions through the UN's Kyoto Protocol will not work" and "even if we threw at climate change all we had at the moment, even if we put it all in place, we would still see a rise in the concentration of emissions" - sound scientific advice or the worst kind of scaremongering - discuss!

Link here

Probably quite accurate, or at least, pragmatic. Striclty, nothing can stop climate change. We should be worried about emissions control, because whatever the effect is in the longer term, we can be pretty certain that they will cause complex and life-threatening change in our lifetimes. The danger of this kind of statement is that it puts people off bothering; 'if it's going to make no difference, why make the effort?'. This kind of thinking in the face of potential suffering is both dangerous and worrying.

P

[Thundery wintry showers]

I suspect that the trick is to accept that we're never going to stop human contribution to climate change, but aim to reduce the extent to which we contribute, to the greatest extent possible.

[Guest Daniel]

Russian climate experts are still predicting a new little ice age by 2030s and with recent ocean cooling this looks like a possiblity. If we in the U.K do get another little ice age as cold as the last one then we can expect winters two be come much longer and colder on average compared to toady. In the last little ice age. The average winter central England winter mean was around 3 Degrees Celsius. that is 1 and a half degrees colder than now. Many winters in that time were cold to severe with at least 2 months below 2 degrees in central England and in some all 3 months below 2 degrees. The number of average days with snow lying then was around 30. Today in central England its around 2 days. But in some winters there was up to a 100 days of lying snow in central and eastern England in the last little ice age. So if this was to happen again in the future then we would have much colder winters with severe frost and snow being quite common. Our Towns and country side would snow bound in these cold winters of the future and rivers would once again freeze. As for summer the weather patterns would be lot more complex. we could get cold ones but we could well get baking hot summers with great droughts. The 17th century was a time of heat and cold. While rivers froze in winter there were often hot summer heat waves. Also storms would be more common and rainfall would be higher. Even with the heat waves in summers Average year means will be down on those of today. This is an up date and you can see the latest artical on the new little ice age and vast ocean cooing in the famous iceage now web site.

[parmenides3]

You are quite right, Daniel. If there was an ice age in the future, the UK would be a lot colder, especially in Winter.

P

[flagpole]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Coopsy]

we could get cold ones but we could well get baking hot summers with great droughts.

This is an up date and you can see the latest artical on the new little ice age and vast ocean cooing in the famous iceage now web site.

we could get both now

how does ocean cooing work?

[Dawlish]

Probably the same way the ice age now website gets famous.

[The Penguin]

Daniel, this is a Friday night and I’ve ‘taken the long way home’ so I’ll say something that I wouldn’t normally say.

Your interest in colder winters is understandable if, as I suppose, you are young and didn’t live through the old fashioned winters that some of us older fogeys did, but to keep harping on about a new ice age is not productive. Especially when your apparently sole source of reference is (even to me) questionable.

Don’t get me wrong; in amongst all the fashionable Death Through Warming stories that the sensationalist media like to put about, your regular references to Death Through Freezing submissions are a welcome respite. But can I suggest that you look for corroborative sources of evidence to back up your favoured IAN references, and when you find a couple get back to us with those?

The trouble is that you are doing your argument no good whatsoever by repeatedly banging on about one possible climatic evolution with limited back-up. The result of this is that folk are getting bored with it, which may be a shame if you could persuade them otherwise with a bit more, and wider, research.

[kippure]

AAAAaaaa

[Paul]

Errrm, I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu here, who thinks we ought to lock this before someone is less than polite?

[kippure]

Ive idea, since there is alot of talk about IAN. Let Danial start a thread report on all his findings. Instead of starting a new topic each time.

Because its going to come to a point when no one takes what he says seriously, and thats not fair.

K.

[Guest Viking141]

Im assuming this is the report Daniel/IAN is referring to. Enjoy!

NOAA link

Its the report dated August 2006 entitled "Annual Report on the State of the Ocean Observing System for Climate"

[The Penguin]

Tried it, but my keyboard froze. Whozitsay?

[Guest Viking141]

Dunno, its quite lengthy and Ive only just found it so Ive got some reading to do!!

[Essan]

with recent ocean cooling this looks like a possiblity.

What recent ocean cooling?

Looks pretty warm to me, especially so in the N Hemisphere