New Iceage? Much Evidence? - Global Cooling

[Gray-Wolf]

I agree with all of that...But - I am also biased in favour of cold weather - the evidence, alas, clearly indicates the very opposite.

Content yourself with the 'transition' then .

U.S. studies show that 'warmer years' are responsible for the heavier snowfall events..........

[Methuselah]

Content yourself with the 'transition' then .

U.S. studies show that 'warmer years' are responsible for the heavier snowfall events..........

If only there was a cause-and-effect mechanism operating from wishing to receiving??

Time to pray for snow,eh??

[MR EXTREMES]

If only there was a cause-and-effect mechanism operating from wishing to receiving??

Time to pray for snow,eh??

in time it will come when is a BIG question i voted stayed the same although i was going to go with increasing but due to the up and down nature of global temps in the last few years im holding out and voting the same.

clearly there have been increases in the last couple of decades and i think it has started to flatline somewhat but because of the skeptical side of science and the nature of natural cycles im not convinced.

there are some that would love to drum it into my head but like many millions of others im on the fence but leaning towards cooling times i could be wrong,

and maybe im selfish wanting cold winters like dickens era,

but its about being old skool and having fun what ever the weather i know old people suffer they do in heat aswell but that is how planet earth has always been it part of life.

so colder winter warmer summer bigger thunder storms i love it all so either way it goes i love the weather what ever it does.

[Ladyofthestorm]

Appears to be cooling, after this la nina event, it will show a global cooling... however I would like to have seen a choice in the voting box of regional variation...

[Iceberg]

6 Months into this La Nina(currently moderate in strength) and the global temp records that have reported for September so far (both pro and ANTI AGW) ALL have September as the warmest September they have ever recorded......Even warmer than September 1998.

[jethro]

How quickly does the atmosphere register changes in ocean temperatures?

[Gray-Wolf]

How quickly does the atmosphere register changes in ocean temperatures?

Depends if you wish to show a 'nino' propping up temps or a nina' not influencing temps........just yet.

[jethro]

Surely you're not suggesting that folk choose which bit of info supports their stance best and ignore the bits which counter it

[Methuselah]

6 Months into this La Nina(currently moderate in strength) and the global temp records that have reported for September so far (both pro and ANTI AGW) ALL have September as the warmest September they have ever recorded......Even warmer than September 1998.

I'd imagine that that just about says it all, really, Ice...Unless one categorically rejects all the current methods of data-collection as somehow invalid, the world is still warming. That said, there will of course be both spatial and temporal variations within this trend. Said trend might even reverse in time. Who knows?

But I won't be holding my breath!

[MR EXTREMES]

6 Months into this La Nina(currently moderate in strength) and the global temp records that have reported for September so far (both pro and ANTI AGW) ALL have September as the warmest September they have ever recorded......Even warmer than September 1998.

im not cherry picking but this is 1 month if you said all 12 months were the warmest on record or even 24 months then id be concerned must of been a lag effect of el nino or just a pattern flow that put us there.

russia had major heatwave this summer and now its cooling off just fine,

graywolf i bet you had the party poppers out ready when you herd september was the warmest on record still never had much of an impact on the arctic .

a ice age is coming when nobody knows,

but ive seen nothing that concerns me in the last few years although temps of 0.6c is most likely a delay from the moderate el nino.

[VillagePlank]

How quickly does the atmosphere register changes in ocean temperatures?

Well, I think it's variable depending on magnitude .....

[Gray-Wolf]

a ice age is coming when nobody knows,

Mr Alley seems to think that we need another 46,000yrs at least;

"The orbital forcing is near, and for most latitudes just past, the minimum for the Holocene, so the natural trend should be slow, weak warming in the midsummer in high northern latitudes. You might see Archer, D. and A. Ganopolski, 2005, A movable trigger: Fossil fuel CO2 and the onset of the next glaciation, Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems 6, Art. No. Q05003.

There is a good bit of discussion in the community, but a reasonable interpretation is something like this:

If the next ice age had followed the pattern of the three previous ones, we probably would have started into it already. However, the eccentricity (out-of-roundness) of Earth’s orbit has a 400,000-year cycle as well as a 100,000-year cycle. Right now, the orbit is stuck at very nearly round, which has the effect of making the precessional changes small (more-or-less, they control how close to the sun we are in northern summer), so it is hard to get minimal mid-summer sunshine in the north to allow snow to survive. So, it will be a precession cycle or two before we naturally would be likely to slide into an ice age. (Note that Bill Ruddiman has argued that early humans helped the orbits a bit in heading off the ice age.) --Richard"

=====================================================================================

Then , only being one of the planets top men in the field, wot's he to know? (LOL)

[knocker]

How quickly does the atmosphere register changes in ocean temperatures?

Depends whether you are talking regionally or globally. If the former we can bump this up to the GS thread.

[Essan]

Mr Alley seems to think that we need another 46,000yrs at least;

"The orbital forcing is near, and for most latitudes just past, the minimum for the Holocene, so the natural trend should be slow, weak warming in the midsummer in high northern latitudes. You might see Archer, D. and A. Ganopolski, 2005, A movable trigger: Fossil fuel CO2 and the onset of the next glaciation, Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems 6, Art. No. Q05003.

Hey, GW, is this comment from Richard from personal correspondence? Would like to know exactly what he's said?

I thought Mid Holocene N Hemisphere insolation reached a peak ~8,000 years ago and has been in decline ever since (precipitating the end of the African Humid Period and onset of more active ENSO ~5.5ky). I wasn't aware that the trend has shifted back again towards increased insolation - which if true would surely imply Arctic warming and declining summer ice cover?

(I don't dispute 46ky before the next return to a full glacial though)

Edited October 13, 2010 by Essan

[Ladyofthestorm]

There is bound to be a lag time of the effect of La Nina on atmospheric cooling. However it is the feedback mechanism of fresh water melt from the ice shelves of the polar ice caps that may throw a spanner in the works for the GW protaganists.

1. Cool water increases photoplankton and photosynethising bacteria, and it is this CO2 sink that interests me greatly.

2. Flooding of cold fresh water in relatively warm oceans decreases salinity and can possibly cause quite large scale oceanic circulatory change.... we dont know extactly what yet.

3.Increase in cloud cover, caused by an increase in evaporation, due to higher glbal temps may actually decrease the amount of solar radiation reaching the earths surface as it is refleced back into space. There is of course the insulating blanket theory which would work for a few years before eventually heat loss would be greater than heat gain.

[knocker]

There is bound to be a lag time of the effect of La Nina on atmospheric cooling. However it is the feedback mechanism of fresh water melt from the ice shelves of the polar ice caps that may throw a spanner in the works for the GW protaganists.

1. Cool water increases photoplankton and photosynethising bacteria, and it is this CO2 sink that interests me greatly.

2. Flooding of cold fresh water in relatively warm oceans decreases salinity and can possibly cause quite large scale oceanic circulatory change.... we dont know extactly what yet.

3.Increase in cloud cover, caused by an increase in evaporation, due to higher glbal temps may actually decrease the amount of solar radiation reaching the earths surface as it is refleced back into space. There is of course the insulating blanket theory which would work for a few years before eventually heat loss would be greater than heat gain.

I agree that point one is an interesting area that brings in the carbon cycle and ocean and atmospheric regulation. A couple of quick observations on the subject.

The absorption of CO2 by the oceans is greatest where the water is rich in organic matter or where it is cold. Thus the oceans are capable of regulating atmospheric CO2, of changing the greenhouse effect, and of contributing to climate change. The most important aspect of the carbon cycle linking atmosphere and ocean is the difference between the partial pressure of CO2 in the lower atmosphere and that in the upper oceanic layer. This results in atmospheric CO2 being dissolved in the oceans and in some of this being subsequently converted into particulate carbon, mainly through the agency of plankton, ultimately sinking to form carbon-rich deposits in the deep ocean as part of a cycle lasting hundreds of years. Thus two of the major effects of ocean surface warming would be to increase its CO2 equilibrium partial pressure and to decrease the abundance of plankton. Both of these effects would tend to decrease the oceanic uptake of CO2 and therefore to increase its atmospheric concentration, thereby producing a positive feedback (i.e. enhancing) effect on global warming. However, the operation of the atmosphere-ocean system is sufficiently complex that, for example, global warming may so increase oceanic convective mixing that the resulting imports of cooler water and plankton into the surface layers might exert a brake (i.e. negative feedback) on the system warming. The point you were making unless I've picked you up incorrectly.

Regarding increased cloud cover a couple of observations from my somewhat limited reading on the subject. It seems to depend on the level of the increased cloud cover. Increased low cloud will give a positive feedback regarding AGW and increases in medium and high cloud the reverse. And then you have the cosmic ray influence on which subject there seems to be complete disagreement. That being the case, what chance have the lower orders (good old Jane) such as myself got of getting to grips with it?

Edited October 14, 2010 by weather ship

[Iceberg]

Sorry Jethro I forgot all about your question re lags of ENSO effect.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/17/the-trade-winds-drive-the-enso/

I've put in the above link, not because I really believe in what it says, but if I posted a link from realclimate it would be dismissed by many(unfortunately)(not yourself I should add).

The longest lag that I can find that's generally accepted by Pro and Anti AGW scientists is 3 months.Also I know that an upto 3 month lag was mentioned by Spencer several times.

If we go back 3 months to say the 7th of July the weekly ENSO figure was -0.8C so a weak La Nina.

Going by this you would have expected the state of the the ENSO 3 months ago to have had some effect on global temps by now. It would also be difficult to see how the main cause of the record monthly temps could be attributable to the El Nino that ended in the spring.

The PDO was also negative in June and July.

Re the comment about whether Sept is a fluke month, just to remind people according to Spencers own Satelite temperature record set the 12 months to and including Sept is the highest it has ever recorded, even higher than upto Sept 1998 with the mega El Nino.

I am certaintly not saying however that global temperatures will stay at the current record highs, particularly given 10 years of declining solar, negative PDO and a moderate to strong La Nina, if they did the world might as well sign it's death warrant now. A small decline must be expected before maybe/probably record highs are exceed again during the next positive ENSO event.

[jonboy]

Regarding increased cloud cover a couple of observations from my somewhat limited reading on the subject. It seems to depend on the level of the increased cloud cover. Increased low cloud will give a positive feedback regarding AGW and increases in medium and high cloud the reverse. And then you have the cosmic ray influence on which subject there seems to be complete disagreement. That being the case, what chance have the lower orders (good old Jane) such as myself got of getting to grips with it?

[jethro]

Thanks for that Iceberg; logic dictated that there should be a lag but I'd no idea by how much.

If the Sun stays subdued and we do get more Nina's than Nino's, it will be interesting to see where we are in five years time.

[knocker]

My understanding is the other way round in that low cloud cover gives a negative feedback in that it reflects above whereas high cloud acts as a positive feedback. Taking the cosmic ray stance that it can influence cloud formation then as we are now in a period of low solar activity which allows greater cosmic ray penetration of the atmosphere this is increasing low cloud formation and thus with a negative feedback will lead to a cooling.

You are quite right jonboy, I've got it the wrong way round. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Gray-Wolf]

If the Sun stays subdued and we do get more Nina's than Nino's, it will be interesting to see where we are in five years time.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/03/nasa-giss-james-hansen-study-global-warming-record-hottest-year/

http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/14/nasa-hottest-january-to-september-on-record/

The reality does not seem to favour that J' with the suns irradiance back on the way up.

If we believe low irradiance means global cooling then, even though we are still very warm this year, surely the only way is up now irradiance is rising?

[barrel1234]

http://climateprogre...d-hottest-year/

http://climateprogre...mber-on-record/

The reality does not seem to favour that J' with the suns irradiance back on the way up.

If we believe low irradiance means global cooling then, even though we are still very warm this year, surely the only way is up now irradiance is rising?

That's what concerns me although I still think that the suns activity will be low enough to encourage some cooling, also maybe the lag time from the recent low activity could start causing some lower global temps over the next few years.

[MR EXTREMES]

http://climateprogre...d-hottest-year/

http://climateprogre...mber-on-record/

The reality does not seem to favour that J' with the suns irradiance back on the way up.

If we believe low irradiance means global cooling then, even though we are still very warm this year, surely the only way is up now irradiance is rising?

lol perhapes being in a dalton type minimum dont mean all that much to you!

but for the people that understand past climate and the sun would understand!

but once again the push from yourself just get a reaction like mine!

because theres plenty of evidence to prove that the sun has an effect.

and from what ive been seeing in more ways than one.

we shall see.

why was it the hottest year maybe because of a moderate el nino.

a positive pdo i can tell you right now im not convinced i dont think summers since the record 100f have been the same i dont need data to work that out for myself.

i think theres a massive hype in the over heating earth story and its rubbish total rubbish.

Edited October 16, 2010 by badboy657

[Gray-Wolf]

That's what concerns me although I still think that the suns activity will be low enough to encourage some cooling, also maybe the lag time from the recent low activity could start causing some lower global temps over the next few years.

I think when they say 'at the lowest' and similar they think that the worst is past? Somewhere (on this thread I think) someone is mooting a 6 month lag for ENSO signals and I think the 'solar' max lag is around 2 years?. We've been either 'on the way down' or just plain 'down' for so long ,with cycle 23/24, that we are well beyond it's influence being 'felt' by now.

Depending how you look at it we've been PDO-ve for at least 3 years (NASA) or 11 years (Me), moderate La Nina for over 6 months and low solar for 3 years yet we can still possibly hit a top 3 temp year globally?

We were told to expect a period of global 'flat-lining' or 'cooling' prior to a '2015' resurgence in our warming trend......no sign of any of that yet?

If we look at the Arctic as a 'guide' to how nature 'changes' you can see a gradual change punctuated by sudden bouts of acceleration in the rates of change followed by an increase in the rate of change.

With global temps we saw one 'step change' (in our warming.....the hockey stick?) through the 80's and 90's and since then, even with 'negative cycles' trying to slow the rate of change, we are heating as fast ,if not faster, than ever.

Are we about to find that the next decade is one in which will see another step change in our temp increase 'rate of change'? (with the loss of Arctic summer ice 'flipping' a few tipping points, that had already been running at the point of flipping for a long time,along the way?).

If we look at the 'come down' from the 98' Nino' then this current Nina' needs to do a lot of 'cooling' to match that decline? and this in such an auspicious 'cooling time' (as the PDO/ENSO/low solar would point to?) as now?

Though I fear it greatly there has to be some form of relief in seeing even more proof of us 'going to hell in a handcart' if that proof convinces more folk of why we are having to endure such things.

We all know that if the science proves correct we have already stored up a lot of hurt for the planet that we are near helpless to mitigate. Before we see too many more of these 'step changes' we need to all agree that this 'warming' has been given a shove by us and, like the teeny amount of CO2 that enables large amounts of water vapour/clouds to warm the planet ,enough of a shove to push the unique 'balance' for our temp/ice cover/CO2 out of kilter.

Edited October 16, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

I think when they say 'at the lowest' and similar they think that the worst is past? Somewhere (on this thread I think) someone is mooting a 6 month lag for ENSO signals and I think the 'solar' max lag is around 2 years?. We've been either 'on the way down' or just plain 'down' for so long ,with cycle 23/24, that we are well beyond it's influence being 'felt' by now.

Depending how you look at it we've been PDO-ve for at least 3 years (NASA) or 11 years (Me), moderate La Nina for over 6 months and low solar for 3 years yet we can still possibly hit a top 3 temp year globally?

We were told to expect a period of global 'flat-lining' or 'cooling' prior to a '2015' resurgence in our warming trend......no sign of any of that yet?

If we look at the Arctic as a 'guide' to how nature 'changes' you can see a gradual change punctuated by sudden bouts of acceleration in the rates of change followed by an increase in the rate of change.

With global temps we saw one 'step change' (in our warming.....the hockey stick?) through the 80's and 90's and since then, even with 'negative cycles' trying to slow the rate of change, we are heating as fast ,if not faster, than ever.

Are we about to find that the next decade is one in which will see another step change in our temp increase 'rate of change'? (with the loss of Arctic summer ice 'flipping' a few tipping points, that had already been running at the point of flipping for a long time,along the way?).

If we look at the 'come down' from the 98' Nino' then this current Nina' needs to do a lot of 'cooling' to match that decline? and this in such an auspicious 'cooling time' (as the PDO/ENSO/low solar would point to?) as now?

Though I fear it greatly there has to be some form of relief in seeing even more proof of us 'going to hell in a handcart' if that proof convinces more folk of why we are having to endure such things.

We all know that if the science proves correct we have already stored up a lot of hurt for the planet that we are near helpless to mitigate. Before we see too many more of these 'step changes' we need to all agree that this 'warming' has been given a shove by us and, like the teeny amount of CO2 that enables large amounts of water vapour/clouds to warm the planet ,enough of a shove to push the unique 'balance' for our temp/ice cover/CO2 out of kilter.

The multi quote thing isn't working for me so I'll try and answer all your points in order...

No one has actually shown categorically what the time period is for Solar lag, nor the impact.

I seem to remember NASA confirming the PDO switch a couple of years ago. The current La Nina isn't moderate, it's the strongest one since (I believe) 1955; so no "milding out" as you have claimed/expected/anticipated.

I think it was the MET who said earlier this year, we may experience a decade or so of cooling. Firstly, you're expecting things to happen quicker than the climate machine actually works - it takes time to shed heat. Secondly, the MET prediction including the prospect of the AMO also going into a negative phase, as yet that hasn't happened but it is expected to in the not too distant future (impossible to pin down an exact date).

The Arctic isn't representative of the rest of the planet, nor how the climate works - it is a unique environment.

The step change in climate happened back in 1976/77, it is known as The Great Pacific Climate Change - it was an ENSO event of unknown cause.

Pure speculation with no basis in scientific fact.

Please explain further, I could be being a complete thicko here but I don't understand your reasoning.

I don't see us going anywhere in a hand cart, but we've long since agreed to disagree on that point.

The planet doesn't have feelings to hurt, that's just emotive talk. We're only helpless to mitigate any change if we choose to be helpless, we do have a choice. We've seen one step change, it was an ENSO event, not AGW. Extra CO2 and the impact upon water vapour and clouds is one of the biggest, if not the biggest uncertainty in all of this, your claim is just speculation.