New Iceage? Much Evidence? - Global Cooling

[Methuselah]

I prefer to be wrong only once a day, Pete!

Just to keep you updated, Sparticle: so far, my intense level of internal thinking has yielded nothing. And I don't think that that claim is falsifiable in any way at all...

[Cheese Rice]

What is interesting to note is that despise a dramatic rise in CO2 emissions global temperatures didn't correlate with a significant change. IF there is indeed a direct link then why did global temperatures decrease from 1930 to 1970? I suppose one argument is that emissions stagnated between 1935 and 1945, causing global climate to reassert itself, yet when global emissions started to increase again global temperatures began to rapidly fall.

Global temperatures have definitely stagnated from 1999 onwards. 1998 seems to be the peak of warming over the last century. What is evident is that although global temperatures are at an all time high they haven't risen from its peak despite a rapid rise in global CO2 emission. In answer to the thread question, no the earth hasn't cooled, any dips are just variation of the current stagnated trend.

EDIT: Images haven't loaded when posted but loaded when typing my post.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Cheese Rice

[Cloudman]

The globe has, of course continued to warm since 1999, the warmest year on record so far is 2010. Of course. the warming since 1999 is not satisitically significant, with an underlying warming rate of about 0.2 C per decade due to AGW and ENSO fluctuations of a similar magnitude it takes about 20 years to establish significance at the 95% level.

[anvilhead]

hey all

As I ride out the fifth non continental style summer, cant help wondering about the temperature anomolies around us - i Just stumbled on the met office model's prediction for twice the co2 as we have now, and its not a million miles away in principle to the 'weather' the planet has expierenced in the last 5 years imo - http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/160492/enlarge.

Saying that, I'm still yet to be convinced that warming is happening, but the anomolous nwerly every summer for us is making me worry!

sam

[Guest]

Everybody speaks about temperatures but this merely indicates a level of heat and not the amount of heat itself and it is more simplistic- if we say the earth is cooling then it is losing heat, or if it is warming it is gaining heat, therefore would it be more accurate to calculate the heat energy in therms?

[Alan Robinson]

Everybody speaks about temperatures but this merely indicates a level of heat and not the amount of heat itself and it is more simplistic- if we say the earth is cooling then it is losing heat, or if it is warming it is gaining heat, therefore would it be more accurate to calculate the heat energy in therms?

It took me a little while to work that one out Mike, but I'd say you are right, only therms is an old unit. Today we use SI units, and the correct unit of measurement is the Joule.

This is however where the whole climate debate starts, because according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a cool body cannot give heat energy to a warmer one without the aid of an external heat pump; so we become embroiled in all manner of speculation and disagreement about what exactly is going on. I am still waiting for the climate debate to include explanations why the earth's core remains molten after all these millions of years, when one could reasonably expect its energy to have dissipated into space by now. Something extraordinary is going on beneath our feet I'd say. Who knows just what the earth's internal energy is?

[Guest]

It took me a little while to work that one out Mike, but I'd say you are right, only therms is an old unit. Today we use SI units, and the correct unit of measurement is the Joule.

This is however where the whole climate debate starts, because according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a cool body cannot give heat energy to a warmer one without the aid of an external heat pump; so we become embroiled in all manner of speculation and disagreement about what exactly is going on. I am still waiting for the climate debate to include explanations why the earth's core remains molten after all these millions of years, when one could reasonably expect its energy to have dissipated into space by now. Something extraordinary is going on beneath our feet I'd say. Who knows just what the earth's internal energy is?

Sorry about the use of old parlance giving away my age.

James May did a fascinating series of programs for the telly aimed at uneducated masses like myself examining the Earth from the surface to the core - as far as the core was concerned he spoke of a nuclear process going on, which I understood to be similar to the "hot" spots in the granite of the west country which are caused through an atomic decay in the process of converting one substance to another but on a much larger scale with a half life of 4.5 billion years. Under normal atmospheric pressure the core would be molten but under enormous pressure it is solid again with an intervening layer of liquid basalt, which has been heated by the core and having a circulation which powers the "continental drift".

It is very important because it also powers the magnetic field which in turn protects life on earth from the more dangerous of the sun's rays. I think I heard somewhere that some of the smaller planets of the solar system no longer have a magnetic field which would indicate that their core has cooled to an extent it can longer support one but with a half life of 4.5 billion years we should be ok for the next few years.

We also have some practical problems in getting down to that depth in order to verify the theories.

I understand we have some involved in earth science on the forum who would have a far greater knowledge than myself or James May.

Edited August 30, 2011 by mike Meehan

[Cutty Dyer]

The poll asked: Do you believe the world is Cooling or Heating up?

My vote went to “seems to be decreasing”.

I’m basing this on my own experience within my own little world, shuttling between the UK & US.

For US graph see:

For UK graph see:

Both US & UK graphs show a very steep decline over the last 1/2 decade.

Interesting correlation between the temp graphs and this solar activity graph:

Data Sources:

http://data.giss.nas...raphs/Fig.D.gif

http://www.metoffice...rs_uptodate.gif

http://www.solarham.com/sunspots.htm

Edited August 31, 2011 by Cutty Dyer

[keithlucky]

The IPCC had told us that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035.

Later admitted that the figure 2035 was created by permuting digits in the figure 2350 which was casually mentioned in an interview with a random mediocre alarmist as the earliest moment when the bulk of the glaciers in the Himalayas could be melted.Not true infact the opposite is occuring

Forget global warming: Scientists discover glaciers in Asian mountain range are actually getting BIGGER by Ian Garland

Sunday, April 15th 2012, 5:40 PM EDT

Photos taken by a French satellite show glaciers in a mountain range west of the Himalayas have grown during the last decade.

The growing glaciers were found in the Karakoram range, which spans the borders between Pakistan, India and China and is home to the world's second highest peak, K2.

The startling find has baffled scientists and comes at a time when glaciers in other parts of the region, and across the world, are shrinking.

French scientists from the National Centre for Scientific Research and the University of Grenoble, were forced to rely on satellite images, to study the region - because much of the Karakoram range is inaccessible.

They compared observations made in 1999 and 2008 and found a marginal mass increase.

They estimated the glaciers had gained between 0.11 and 0.22 metres of ice each year.

Edited April 16, 2012 by keithlucky

[Gray-Wolf]

Are you sure you have a grip on the percentage of the planets 'ice' we are looking at here Keith? When you look at Greenland an West Antarctica's losses combined do these few glaciers offset the 'trend' for rapid deglaciation across the planet (sea ice included). Peterman is due to shed another chunk this year (not as big as the last but effectively moving the 'ice front' up glacier beyond 'normal cyclical variation') and closer to allowing the seas into the basin underlying the G.I.S.) which would probably nearly account for all of last years 'mass increase' across the Himalayan catchment area?

It worries me more to see the Denialasphere now focusing on such trivia as the above and NSIDC 'sea Ice extent measurements'.......are there no longer any real doubts about what is occurring on the planet to focus on?

[keithlucky]

Some more info

Data set from arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008 Arctic ice on the increase also.You missing the point Grey Wolf IPPC said that the region would be ice free in 35 yrs the reverse is happening .

Edited April 23, 2012 by keithlucky

[BornFromTheVoid]

Some more info

Data set from arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008 Arctic ice on the increase also.

Might be better for the sea ice thread, 'because it certainly doesn't indicate global cooling.

Is that your own work or from elsewhere?

How about putting a trend line through the data? Or maybe using yearly or seasonal averages rather than just a single day (does the cold April so far this year mean that Britain's weather is getting ever colder?).

[Cheshire Freeze]

Might be better for the sea ice thread, 'because it certainly doesn't indicate global cooling.

Is that your own work or from elsewhere?

How about putting a trend line through the data? Or maybe using yearly or seasonal averages rather than just a single day (does the cold April so far this year mean that Britain's weather is getting ever colder?).

Good point but there's seemingly been quite a good upturn since the grim days of 2007

[knocker]

Enter stage left GW. Sorry don't have access to the full paper.

Arctic methane leaks threaten climate

As Arctic sea ice breaks apart, massive amounts of methane could be released into the atmosphere from the cold waters beneath.

High concentrations of the greenhouse gas have been recorded in the air above cracks in the ice. This could be evidence of yet another positive feedback on the warming climate – leading to even faster Arctic warming.

The Arctic is home to vast stores of methane – there are billions of tonnes of methane in permafrost alone. It is a potent greenhouse gas, so a major methane release would greatly accelerate climate change. The gas is found in icy crystals called hydrates beneath the shallow seas that flood some areas of the continental crust, as well as in permafrost. It is also being released from Arctic wetlands.

But this doesn't explain why Eric Kort of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, and his colleagues found patches of methane in remote regions of the Arctic Ocean, far from any of these known methane sources.

The team found the patches during five flights over the Arctic Ocean between 2009 and 2010, as part of a project to systematically map greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere.

Didn't mean to post this in this thread but cannot change it.

http://www.newscient...en-climate.html

Edited April 23, 2012 by Weather Ship

[keithlucky]

Might be better for the sea ice thread, 'because it certainly doesn't indicate global cooling.

Is that your own work or from elsewhere?

How about putting a trend line through the data? Or maybe using yearly or seasonal averages rather than just a single day (does the cold April so far this year mean that Britain's weather is getting ever colder?).

A trend that over the last ten years the ice is thicker now on this particular date than it was 10 yrs ago.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Can you provide evidence that it is thicker? What about the other 364 days, and the other years?

Cherry picking individual days to fit an agenda doesn't prove anything, you can find "evidence" for anything you want with that method.