Little ice age in 2030

[jvenge]

Hi,

There isn't a little ice age coming any time soon. The sun won't reach the LIA output levels for centuries, 400 or so years and even then it wasn't just solar output that brought on the LIA. There are only tenuous links between solar and temperature, at best, and certainly no evidence that the sun directly has a big effect on temperature. Maybe it can trigger something if certain volcanic and ocean activity takes place at the same time, but it doesn't look to be any more that, at present.

 

Edited November 29, 2016 by jvenge

[Gray-Wolf]

"Anytime soon" looks to be at least 2 precessional cycles so at least 46,000 yrs?

Many moons ago I posted an Email reply from the orbital forcings guru in NOAA who said current AGW forcings had already overcome the current orbital forcings that had been cooling the far north for over 1,000 years and reversed that cooling by the start of the 1900's. 

he said that we would definitely miss the next precessional forcing due to our current warming but the long term impacts ( ice loss from Antarctica/Greenland etc) might ensure that the next cycle would be skipped as well.

Yellowstone going 'Pop' or a big impactor would put us in a 'nuclear winter' scenario but thereafter warming would resume ( the GHG's would still be up there) and probably even become worse due to the upsetting of the workings of the carbon cycle that the death of 'vegetation' ( forests etc.) during the 'winter' would cause?

[jvenge]

3 minutes ago, Gray-Wolf said:

"Anytime soon" looks to be at least 2 precessional cycles so at least 46,000 yrs?

Many moons ago I posted an Email reply from the orbital forcings guru in NOAA who said current AGW forcings had already overcome the current orbital forcings that had been cooling the far north for over 1,000 years and reversed that cooling by the start of the 1900's. 

he said that we would definitely miss the next precessional forcing due to our current warming but the long term impacts ( ice loss from Antarctica/Greenland etc) might ensure that the next cycle would be skipped as well.

Yellowstone going 'Pop' or a big impactor would put us in a 'nuclear winter' scenario but thereafter warming would resume ( the GHG's would still be up there) and probably even become worse due to the upsetting of the workings of the carbon cycle that the death of 'vegetation' ( forests etc.) during the 'winter' would cause?

Sorry, in case it wasn't clear. The LIA corresponded with a low value in the Bray cycle, which is approximately every 2400 years, give or take. Please note the so named LIA is very different to a glacial period. Please also note that the low is the Bray cycle was not enough by itself to explain the LIA, so you have no guarantees that a similar impact would be noticed.

In short, there isn't any present evidence that the sun can directly cause something like the LIA (as the original question stated).

There also isn't currently any evidence that the sun can directly impact temperature presently either. Certainly not to a level to make a meaningful, recordable, difference. Maybe someone will find it one day and explain how it interacts and overlaps with various ocean cycles and where CO2 then fits into all that, but it hasn't been done yet ;-)

 

 

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

So in a matter of months after the El Nino has gone there has been a 1c drop in land temperatures this year measured by satellite.   That is some rapid drop. ?Ocean temps will also drop but are lagged behind.  When they follow who knows the effect.  Even metO study accepts we enter into LIA.....but they do say the very quiet sun won't save us from AGW climate change.

The notion that we won't get frigid air like times of the last LIA is quite frankly bizarre.  The cold would come from the east and the last time I looked there is incredible widespread cold over there.

Climate models are not evidential science.

 

BFTP  

 

[Methuselah]

20 minutes ago, BLAST FROM THE PAST said:

So in a matter of months after the El Nino has gone there has been a 1c drop in land temperatures this year measured by satellite.   That is some rapid drop. ?Ocean temps will also drop but are lagged behind.  When they follow who knows the effect.  Even metO study accepts we enter into LIA.....but they do say the very quiet sun won't save us from AGW climate change.

The notion that we won't get frigid air like times of the last LIA is quite frankly bizarre.  The cold would come from the east and the last time I looked there is incredible widespread cold over there.

Climate models are not evidential science.

 

BFTP  

 

Of course they are, Fred: they make predictions which are testable by future reality; in precisely the same way as your own LIA Footprint ideas are...

Edited November 30, 2016 by Ed Stone

[jvenge]

1 hour ago, BLAST FROM THE PAST said:

So in a matter of months after the El Nino has gone there has been a 1c drop in land temperatures this year measured by satellite.   That is some rapid drop. ?Ocean temps will also drop but are lagged behind.  When they follow who knows the effect.  Even metO study accepts we enter into LIA.....but they do say the very quiet sun won't save us from AGW climate change.

The notion that we won't get frigid air like times of the last LIA is quite frankly bizarre.  The cold would come from the east and the last time I looked there is incredible widespread cold over there.

Climate models are not evidential science.

 

BFTP  

 

Well, the temperatures dropped so much because they were so high to begin with. However, people shouldn't jump on El Nino years, especially the biggest one since we started measuring (as with the recent) and then try to say it is Co2. ENSO events are not related to Co2. 

The sun being quiet now is in respect to how it was from 1950 to 1990 or so. There isn't anything to suggest it is entering to the activity seen during the LIA. Even if there was, it is widely accepted that the sun along didn't cause the LIA and ocean cycles and volcanic activity likely timed together well to produce it. 

Guessing that won't happen again because of Co2 is just guess work, but also assuming the sun can directly impact temperature on a meaningful scale isn't supported by the past 25 years of data. Saying that, the Co2 correlation has been fairly stagnant since then as well. 

People get caught up in sun influence because until the past 100 years or so there was a very persuasive correlation. However, like with any hypothesis, when the observations deviate from it, you need to reconsider the hypothesis. 

However, to the person who linked temperature to Co2 from 1850, that is also not scientifically supported or even accepted. Your AGW theory is on the basis of activity from 1950 till now and your strong correlation stopped in 1998. Like with anything, you now need to fully understand what happened since then, what parts the oceans played, maybe even the sun, or other pollutants. That way you can make medium term models and predications that actually hold water.

 

[BornFromTheVoid]

1 hour ago, BLAST FROM THE PAST said:

So in a matter of months after the El Nino has gone there has been a 1c drop in land temperatures this year measured by satellite.   That is some rapid drop. ?Ocean temps will also drop but are lagged behind.  When they follow who knows the effect.  Even metO study accepts we enter into LIA.....but they do say the very quiet sun won't save us from AGW climate change.

The notion that we won't get frigid air like times of the last LIA is quite frankly bizarre.  The cold would come from the east and the last time I looked there is incredible widespread cold over there.

Climate models are not evidential science.

 

BFTP  

 

Using the latest UAH satellite temperatures data. lower troposphere land temps are down 0.3C from Oct 2015 to Oct 2016. but global temps as a whole are equal. Sure, we're down 0.81C over land from the peak in February but there's lots of variability in land temps in general, such as a 0.76C increase during 2012, or a 0.86C drop from 2010 to 2011.

There will always be plenty of widespread cold, but it's relative! Is it as widespread and as cold as 100 years ago, 50 years ago even? What alterations might a warm Scandinavia and warm north Atlantic have on the cold that might reach us?
Keep in mind, I think it's still very much possible to break CET cold records nowadays, but we need much better set ups than we've seen in the past because there is less frigid and more warm air circulating..

Anyway, 3 record warm years in a row, long term ocean heat content continuing to climb, incredible record low global sea ice levels. The last prolonged solar minimum did little to alter the trend in global temps, the downward trend in solar activity since the 60s did little, the change to -ve PDO/IPO did little.
What's the explanation for the continuing climb in global temps despite so many factors working against it?

[Gray-Wolf]

To me it strikes me as very interesting that we saw IPO/PDO flip positive in 2014 esp. as China had begun winning its battle to produce less particulate/sulphate pollutants for the sake of its populations health?

We just had a paper ( linked in the papers thread?) linking global dimming with impacts on PDO/IPO ( how it read to me?) so could recent global temp surges be linked to the lessening of the 'Brown cloud' over the Pacific allowing in more solar and so warming the oceans ( big driver in global temps recently) and allowing us to 'regain' some of the losses dimming had been driving?

If 'Dimming' is a factor in recent rate of global temp rises then , no matter the 'naturals', we have plenty of warming to come? In the mid noughties NASA told us we were only seeing 50% of the warming GHG's were able to cause because of the impacts of the 'flip side' of fossil fuel pollution ( particulates and sulphates). 

We surely must see some cooling post 15/16 Nino but will it be of the same scale as we saw post 98' Nino? If not then it will not be long until we see records being broken again as China continues to reduce dimming and the full potential of our current GHG forcing begins to be felt?

And what of the Arctic? Are we now seeing warming forcings, via albedo flip, that were just not present in 98'? 

We were told , in the early noughties, to expect a slowdown in the rate of change in global temps but that by the middle of the next decade ( NOW!) we should expect a renewal of the warming spurt we saw in the 80's/90's but that the rate of change would be greater than we saw in the 80's/90's?

What have we started seeing?