Global Climate Status Report


Red

Well-Known Member
Nobody has any causitive research on human impacts specific to any event, because events like we are seeing now have also happened before we learned about fire, and our CO2 generation is still small compared to natural cyclical events. We just haven't been collecting data long enough to differentiate this current cycle from other cycles without human contributions.

 

babe

Well-Known Member
Such assertions are impossible to make on evidence. They are absolutely unscientific.

So here's a list of the unknowns...... or unknowables...... in our data over the past 30 years and the less reliable information/data of the past 100, and the even less evidenced last 200 years.

We do not know what causes interglacial warms, or the variations characterisristic within those warms, which are of comparable magnitude with our current excursion. Any "Scientist" who does not begin the discussion with this caveat is a blowhard ******* so far as scientific qualifications can go.

The current climate in the research community is more pressured than "Science".

Look, I know you musta be a paid staooge posting political activist ****;, because you so rarely respond in an even thoughtful way to considerations which don't support the political agenda of using climatge alarmism to support political objectives like the fabled virtues of world Fascism.

But I'm willing to look at the data, reserving my skepticism about what it means while accepting actual data.

Like I said above, Artic meltoffs happen, and repeatedly.

Every interglacial warm achieves that several times before the sudden and dramatic return to the more usual temperature regimes of Ice Ages. Our current melfoff is not out of the league with others we have have evidence of. There's a reason the wooly mammoths have been caught unprepared in the Arctic. There was lots of feed there, and it was pretty warm to boot. We don't have that up there yet in this event.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
Such assertions are impossible to make on evidence. They are absolutely unscientific.

So here's a list of the unknowns...... or unknowables...... in our data over the past 30 years and the less reliable information/data of the past 100, and the even less evidenced last 200 years.

We do not know what causes interglacial warms, or the variations characterisristic within those warms, which are of comparable magnitude with our current excursion. Any "Scientist" who does not begin the discussion with this caveat is a blowhard ******* so far as scientific qualifications can go.

The current climate in the research community is more pressured than "Science".

Look, I know you musta be a paid staooge posting political activist ****;, because you so rarely respond in an even thoughtful way to considerations which don't support the political agenda of using climatge alarmism to support political objectives like the fabled virtues of world Fascism.

But I'm willing to look at the data, reserving my skepticism about what it means while accepting actual data.

Like I said above, Artic meltoffs happen, and repeatedly.

Every interglacial warm achieves that several times before the sudden and dramatic return to the more usual temperature regimes of Ice Ages. Our current melfoff is not out of the league with others we have have evidence of. There's a reason the wooly mammoths have been caught unprepared in the Arctic. There was lots of feed there, and it was pretty warm to boot. We don't have that up there yet in this event.
Continuing the checklist........ Part One..... Known Cycles in Nature

(1) Galactic rotation of the Milky Way around some center of clustered galaxies..... Brings us into varying densities of space dust and hydrogen "clouds", and maybe variations in proximate "dark matter" phenomena.

Could cause variations in solar cycles and other less extensive cycles in nature susceptible to impacts of changing space environment...... magnetism, upper atmospheric order, intensification of solar processes(or waning). We have no knowledge of how incoming materical being collected by the Sun may alter radiance or internal nuclear processes.

(2)Milky Way rotation, about 65 Million years....... moving us through nonuniform space resulting in some but likely lesser variations in space context.

(3) Solar system variants in relation to other planets. No astrology here, just recognition of asteroids and other debris we encounter, and the probably slight effects of interplanetary events.

(4) Solar cycles......

The 22 year cycles has had some observational research, but there is little we can now know about longer-term cycles, at present.

Inside our planetary space.....

(5) Atmospheric cyclic variations........fluxes in the qualitative/quantitative character of what's above us. Possibly related to disturbances caused without, or within the various layers being considered. Variations in magnetism both outside the earth space, and from within the earth's core.

(4) Variations in surface and lower atmospheric dynamics...... now being studied with appreciable funding.....but still relatively new and without long term data. We have a short list of "Oscillations" with speculative interrelations now being used to predict "weather".

(5) Variations of internal Earth processes.

A little volcanism can have severe impacts on short term climate, an age of volcanism as we have in geohistory would have as much as a million years or even 50 million years duration. Such an event would take current greenhouse gas contributions from an order of magnitude presently dwarfing human emissions to excursion of and order or two in magnitude greater still. We have no data on worldwide volcanic emissions. A lot of this happens undersea, or under hotspots like the Anarctic. A signal possibly related to shifts in volcanism would include an unexpected, otherwise unexplained, change in oceanic carbon dioxide outgassing (or other gases like SO2)

A recent professional peer reviewed article reported such outgassing and called for some second thoughts about the ability of anthropogenic carbon diosice emissions in relation to recent atmospheric increases. The article has been ignored. Not political useful.

Really.

I mean "Wow". This fact discredits the objectivity of the whole climate change alarmist "established consensus Science"

The obvious first explanation for the increased outgassing is warming oceans. Some scientists have been saying the increased CO2 recently is a lagging indicator of climate change, not a leading one. Climate change perhaps more attributable to heat inputs from the seafloor than from the surface.

We know the Antarctic is a geologic hotspot, with massive heat anomalies coming from the core. Not enough to melt the ice entirely, but forming underice lakes and rivers which help ice flows out to the sea.

We have learned recently, that only half of the heat being provided to the surface of the earth by the core is residual from the molten past. We now know that about 2 billion years ago, there has been an increasing nuclear generation of heat within the core. Nuclear reaction rates are highly dependent on location and concentration of reactive nucleii. We can imagine that at the outset of our planet, there could have been a rather uniform or dispersed state, and that with solidification and the establishment of a gravitational center, we have heavy atoms settling downward....

But the more important reaction now appears to be due to the iron core providing a crystalographic site for deuterium fusion under heat and pressure.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
Continuing the checklist........ Part One..... Known Cycles in Nature

(1) Galactic rotation of the Milky Way around some center of clustered galaxies..... Brings us into varying densities of space dust and hydrogen "clouds", and maybe variations in proximate "dark matter" phenomena.

Could cause variations in solar cycles and other less extensive cycles in nature susceptible to impacts of changing space environment...... magnetism, upper atmospheric order, intensification of solar processes(or waning). We have no knowledge of how incoming materical being collected by the Sun may alter radiance or internal nuclear processes.

(2)Milky Way rotation, about 65 Million years....... moving us through nonuniform space resulting in some but likely lesser variations in space context.

(3) Solar system variants in relation to other planets. No astrology here, just recognition of asteroids and other debris we encounter, and the probably slight effects of interplanetary events.

(4) Solar cycles......

The 22 year cycles has had some observational research, but there is little we can now know about longer-term cycles, at present.

Inside our planetary space.....

(5) Atmospheric cyclic variations........fluxes in the qualitative/quantitative character of what's above us. Possibly related to disturbances caused without, or within the various layers being considered. Variations in magnetism both outside the earth space, and from within the earth's core.

(4) Variations in surface and lower atmospheric dynamics...... now being studied with appreciable funding.....but still relatively new and without long term data. We have a short list of "Oscillations" with speculative interrelations now being used to predict "weather".

(5) Variations of internal Earth processes.

A little volcanism can have severe impacts on short term climate, an age of volcanism as we have in geohistory would have as much as a million years or even 50 million years duration. Such an event would take current greenhouse gas contributions from an order of magnitude presently dwarfing human emissions to excursion of and order or two in magnitude greater still. We have no data on worldwide volcanic emissions. A lot of this happens undersea, or under hotspots like the Anarctic. A signal possibly related to shifts in volcanism would include an unexpected, otherwise unexplained, change in oceanic carbon dioxide outgassing (or other gases like SO2)

A recent professional peer reviewed article reported such outgassing and called for some second thoughts about the ability of anthropogenic carbon diosice emissions in relation to recent atmospheric increases. The article has been ignored. Not political useful.

Really.

I mean "Wow". This fact discredits the objectivity of the whole climate change alarmist "established consensus Science"

The obvious first explanation for the increased outgassing is warming oceans. Some scientists have been saying the increased CO2 recently is a lagging indicator of climate change, not a leading one. Climate change perhaps more attributable to heat inputs from the seafloor than from the surface.

We know the Antarctic is a geologic hotspot, with massive heat anomalies coming from the core. Not enough to melt the ice entirely, but forming underice lakes and rivers which help ice flows out to the sea.

We have learned recently, that only half of the heat being provided to the surface of the earth by the core is residual from the molten past. We now know that about 2 billion years ago, there has been an increasing nuclear generation of heat within the core. Nuclear reaction rates are highly dependent on location and concentration of reactive nucleii. We can imagine that at the outset of our planet, there could have been a rather uniform or dispersed state, and that with solidification and the establishment of a gravitational center, we have heavy atoms settling downward....

But the more important reaction now appears to be due to the iron core providing a crystalographic site for deuterium fusion under heat and pressure.

Just to be clear.....

Data to me suggests our oceans are warming up, at least 1C overall. We don't really have good data on depth profiles yet, but most data suggests most of the volume of our oceans is the 4C dense water. Salinity at depth is not known well, I mean...... who has ever lowered a sample tube to 20K depth......

It would be likely that isotopic enrichment of deuterium oxide figures in, along with saline gradients which somehow don't just form crystals and settle to the bottom.

All of these issues increase the weight of the argument, as well as the water, and the value of heat contained in the water overall. We have reports of anomalous saline flows and other disturbances of what we'd suppose should be perfect uniformity of content. The most obvious is the saline pump that drives convection currents. Local withdrawals of evaporation over vast oceanic "desert" regions resulting in higher surface salinity, and local inputs of rivers and melting ice. We have no measurement of the Antarctic rivers which flow out under ice cover, but expect them to be something like the Amazon in size. A lot of large rivers flow into the Arctic Ocean, and we may be assured that all that fresh water supports flows into the Atlantic and Pacific, and figure importantly in known weather system oscillations like the ENSO which is the best known.

If I am correct about increasing geothermal heat outflows from our planet's deeper materials, due to fusion and fission reactions which are credibly expect to increase over the coming millions of years, it is certain we will have climate changes.

Overall, I support nuclear energy as better than carbon-based energy period. We have plenty of good ways to use oil. Nuclear energy would enable us to economically produce lighter planes and cars and trucks and trains, moving away from iron and steel towards aluminum, magnesious, and lithium alloys. Titanium, about the ninth most abundant element is as a metal half the density of steel and twice the strength. Nuclear power would make Titanium and the other alloys of metals i've mentioned much cheaper.

We are going to have climate change. We should not do economic transformation to failed systems like socialism, communism, or the current UN new world order Fascism. It is Fascist because it is the destruction of real democracies and real republican forms of governance, displacing human societal hopes with business wet dreams that just crap all over all the people of the world.

We can deal with climate change if we are as nations, states, local government units, and people, more free to make our own adjustments.
 

Red

Well-Known Member
Look, I know you musta be a paid staooge posting political activist ****;, because you so rarely respond in an even thoughtful way to considerations which don't support the political agenda of using climatge alarmism to support political objectives like the fabled virtues of world Fascism.
Boy, I really give you a workout, don’t I? You sound like one of the goodfellas I grew up around, hey I musta be! Chill, goombah!
 

babe

Well-Known Member
Boy, I really give you a workout, don’t I? You sound like one of the goodfellas I grew up around, hey I musta be! Chill, goombah!
when I was growing up there was maybe one real commie in southern Utah, the founder of SUWA...... The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. He looked outta place and hardly dared talk to anyone he met on the street. But he woulda run if he knew who I was. lol. He had I think a Subaru that was 15 years old and covered with stickers abaout whales, and the one with "Peace" symbol merged withs the Arm and Hammer and Sycle, and the Chinese star I think, along with the Islamic crescent and the UN /Star Wars wreath. But I think there were more stickers about Yosemite, Arches, Bryce and Cedar Breaks Moab hadn't been discovered yet.

You give me a sort of imaginary audience...... and you don't just run...... so it's all good.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
when I was growing up there was maybe one real commie in southern Utah, the founder of SUWA...... The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. He looked outta place and hardly dared talk to anyone he met on the street. But he woulda run if he knew who I was. lol. He had I think a Subaru that was 15 years old and covered with stickers abaout whales, and the one with "Peace" symbol merged withs the Arm and Hammer and Sycle, and the Chinese star I think, along with the Islamic crescent and the UN /Star Wars wreath. But I think there were more stickers about Yosemite, Arches, Bryce and Cedar Breaks Moab hadn't been discovered yet.

You give me a sort of imaginary audience...... and you don't just run...... so it's all good.
So, here's the scoop.

Hawaii rarely gets hurricanes hitting directly, most go by a bit south. Warmer ocean in the mid-Pacific.


Note the huge deviation (+) in the North Pacific. This is likely related to the warmer Arctic currently. Hudson Bay also has a warm SW sector, as well as the north Atlantic. We are in a sort of ENSO negative/La Nina pattern in the Subtropical northern Pacific, which means less than the normal hurricanes there,and more in the Atlantic.

Overall, just using the visual data, think we have a global SST around +1C, maybe a little more, which is not enough for a significant shift in Climate from our current regime of interglacial warm.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
So, here's the scoop.

Hawaii rarely gets hurricanes hitting directly, most go by a bit south. Warmer ocean in the mid-Pacific.


Note the huge deviation (+) in the North Pacific. This is likely related to the warmer Arctic currently. Hudson Bay also has a warm SW sector, as well as the north Atlantic. We are in a sort of ENSO negative/La Nina pattern in the Subtropical northern Pacific, which means less than the normal hurricanes there,and more in the Atlantic.

Overall, just using the visual data, think we have a global SST around +1C, maybe a little more, which is not enough for a significant shift in Climate from our current regime of interglacial warm.
Hi
 

babe

Well-Known Member
Early polar storm .....

snow in Wyoming, Colorada, even NM mountains following a 50 F temp plunge as some cold air comes straight down from Canada.

Not so long ago..... June.... I was here noting the strong "polar vortex" which has been giving some lower-lattitude areas something approaching an Arctic weather regime.

The usual crew of alamist banshees has been in here moaning about how our planet is doomed because the Arctic Ocean and nearby lands are melting. Fun clips of Russians out on little boats looking for Woolly Mammonth tusks floating up outta the muck, after thousands of years in the deep freeze. I was trying to tell them this is not all that unusual, that it happens perhaps more than once in each global warming/interglacial warm epoch, and that we are still within geohistorical commonplace events.

I mean, it has to be a melted Arctic if Woolly Mamoths are up there eating the lettuce, in huge herds no less. And we haven't got to the lettuce climate there, yet, in out current global warming "crisis".

It just proves, to anyone with any common sense, that the global warming thing is being worked, for obvious political purposes which are anything but scientific.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
Early polar storm .....

snow in Wyoming, Colorada, even NM mountains following a 50 F temp plunge as some cold air comes straight down from Canada.

Not so long ago..... June.... I was here noting the strong "polar vortex" which has been giving some lower-lattitude areas something approaching an Arctic weather regime.

The usual crew of alamist banshees has been in here moaning about how our planet is doomed because the Arctic Ocean and nearby lands are melting. Fun clips of Russians out on little boats looking for Woolly Mammonth tusks floating up outta the muck, after thousands of years in the deep freeze. I was trying to tell them this is not all that unusual, that it happens perhaps more than once in each global warming/interglacial warm epoch, and that we are still within geohistorical commonplace events.

I mean, it has to be a melted Arctic if Woolly Mamoths are up there eating the lettuce, in huge herds no less. And we haven't got to the lettuce climate there, yet, in out current global warming "crisis".

It just proves, to anyone with any common sense, that the global warming thing is being worked, for obvious political purposes which are anything but scientific.
All this is just to say we do have unusual weather and that it does tie into climate change. But it is a new ice age we need to be talking about, not an unprecedented warming. This happens prior to every Ice Age, as the oceans warm and the energy flows reset. We have to have pretty warm oceans to kick off an Ice Age, for the simple reason that ice is water, and all that ice, thousands of feet deep in an Ice Age, has got to evaporate form oceans somewhere. I am looking for data to show the Oceans continue to warm up, past the present 1C above the 20th Century normal.

What we have on tap right now is a La Nina event...... ENSO negative oceanic conditions, but with warmer than normal North Pacific surface waters. We have a stronger than normal northern Jet Stream capable of doing semi-permanent sub-arctic "stands". Now it's setting up to give the central USA especially northern plains and Canadian plains/Hudson Bay a "standing wave" bringing cold air down form the Arctic.

Very cold winter, dry Southwest.

I expect this to be the normal Ice Age position of the Jet Stream. If the oceans were just a few degrees warmer, the snowfall would be there for sure.
 

Red

Well-Known Member

babe

Well-Known Member

Thanks for the latest, Red. I haven't read them yet. Not very interesting from the title being obviously biased.

The simplest fact is the picture of some Russians in Siberia, out on the melting permafrost waters, pulling woolly mammoth tusks into their little boats.

Those big critters are like cows, they eat grass and green stuff. The fact that they were there ten thousand years ago is the fact that the Arctic melted off then, too, and then froze up again, within the current interglacial warm. About 2 to 4 C degrees up and down several times in the past twenty thousand years.

Anyone who wants to interpret this as somehow proof of a crisis now is just pushing the facts further than the science really goes.
 

Eenie-Meenie

Well-Known Member
Such assertions are impossible to make on evidence. They are absolutely unscientific.

So here's a list of the unknowns...... or unknowables...... in our data over the past 30 years and the less reliable information/data of the past 100, and the even less evidenced last 200 years.

We do not know what causes interglacial warms, or the variations characterisristic within those warms, which are of comparable magnitude with our current excursion. Any "Scientist" who does not begin the discussion with this caveat is a blowhard ******* so far as scientific qualifications can go.

The current climate in the research community is more pressured than "Science".

Look, I know you musta be a paid staooge posting political activist ****;, because you so rarely respond in an even thoughtful way to considerations which don't support the political agenda of using climatge alarmism to support political objectives like the fabled virtues of world Fascism.

But I'm willing to look at the data, reserving my skepticism about what it means while accepting actual data.

Like I said above, Artic meltoffs happen, and repeatedly.

Every interglacial warm achieves that several times before the sudden and dramatic return to the more usual temperature regimes of Ice Ages. Our current melfoff is not out of the league with others we have have evidence of. There's a reason the wooly mammoths have been caught unprepared in the Arctic. There was lots of feed there, and it was pretty warm to boot. We don't have that up there yet in this event.
Babe, you are one of those skeptics hiding your head in the sand. Do you realize that scientists who study the history of global temperatures say that the precipitous rise in global temperatures is unprecedented -- what takes hundreds of thousands of years is happening in a century -- and that this mushrooming increase, which is yet speeding up, coincides with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-late 19th century. Also, while some debunkers claim the sun is getting hotter, it is actually the reverse. Take a look at this graph from NASA:

Global Temps and Heat of the Sun.jpg
The Arctic hasn't been this warm in 3 million years:
https://news.yahoo.com/arctic-hasnt-warm-3-million-122739770.html

So, Babe, stop being a disbeliever just because your politics won't allow you to face the truth.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
Babe, you are one of those skeptics hiding your head in the sand. Do you realize that scientists who study the history of global temperatures say that the precipitous rise in global temperatures is unprecedented -- what takes hundreds of thousands of years is happening in a century -- and that this mushrooming increase, which is yet speeding up, coincides with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-late 19th century. Also, while some debunkers claim the sun is getting hotter, it is actually the reverse. Take a look at this graph from NASA:

View attachment 9827
The Arctic hasn't been this warm in 3 million years:
https://news.yahoo.com/arctic-hasnt-warm-3-million-122739770.html

So, Babe, stop being a disbeliever just because your politics won't allow you to face the truth.
My friend......

If you will look twice at this graph, you will see that in the range of years shown, there is virtually no change in the solar radiance, perhaps a 0.1 C decline, with a large rise in the decades around the 1950s, which were historically a serious drought in the Western USA..... a rise of perhaps 0.2 C above "normal". The solar cycle swings are known to have some effects on weather so we could just say even a 0.1C rise or fall will have some correlation with shifts in weather patterns.

If you will review my comments on sea surface temps in these forums, you will see that I have been saying for at least a couple of years that SSTs appear to be about 1C above what we believe to be "average" over the pastr 150 years, which is exactly what this graph claims.

Nevertheless, we are still within the IceAge/Interglacial Warm cycle range. I believe you will find scientific reports estimating, from some data believed to be capable of estimating the temps of ages long gone, which show that near the beginning of each Ice Age there is a short-term "spike" in temps...... whether derived from data of geologically embedded pollen, or isotopes entrapped in ice bubbles in ice formed during some long-gone epoch, or whatever other method. The short term rise in temps is less than 50 years, typically estimated at 20 or 15 years. I believe those spikes are necessary to trigger the advent of an ice age. And our current departures from long-range "normals" are still less than those estimated rises in the pre=Ice spikes.

Human use of steam or internal combustion engines, coupled with increased open fires, is not demonstrated to be greater than the natural fires we can see as cyclical in some areas, nor than volcanic emissions which vary on some scale, sometimes much greater than human outputs at least short term.

Another factor I'm looking at is estimates of geological nuclear fission/fusion reactions occurring inside the earth. We have recently had pretty good reports that support the idea that deuterium fusion is occurring within a zone of the inner core where iron exists under heat and pressure in a solid form, and that crystal lattice supports a catalytic nuclear fusion of deuterium which is believed to be present in that environment. This nuclear process is "recent" because until the core cooled to the point where it is now..... estimated to be around 1-2 billion years ago..... that environment had not formed yet.

Other recent science reports have increased the heat being released to the surface from 42 TW to 47 TW. Such a trend, rationally speculated to be correlated with an oncoming "volcanic age", would mean likely that our deep ocean temps may be warming.....0.1 C or so in the 200 or so years correlated to the Industrial Age.

I can't "blame" anyone for believing CO2 from human activities might be significant. But a natural cycle that impacts ocean temps a tenth of a degree would figure, by ocean solubility of CO2 considerations, would produce more of an increase in atmospheric CO2 than our burning.

The fact is, scientifically, that there are other factors that we have poorly measured or understood, and it is by no means proven that our activities are the most important cause of what we are seeing now. The "Science" popularly claimed today is more like "Speculation" and "Extrapolation".

Of course I don't know everything. I am quite enthusiastic with the research being done.

But I am looking for a SST (Sea Surface Temp" rise on the order of 2 C to 3C, sustained by a correlated rise in the whole ocean temp profile having a rise of 1C, which I think is competent to set off a new ice age.

All that ice has to come from the Oceans. It has to evaporate and get transported to higher lattitudes. You can't have an Ice Age without warm oceans at the outset.

Later in the ice age cycle, cold melt water feeds into the oceans on a scale that cools the oceans, and slows the evaporation, and slowly ends the ice age.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
La Nina currently underway, with a strong Hudson Bay low established, is giving us the prospect of a continued severe drought in the US Southwest, maybe even into the US Northwest margins perhaps.

In my theory, this setup has the potential of years length, with above average Gult of Mexico/Caribbean and mid-Atlantic surface temps, which we've seen this year as capable of supporting a lot of moisture being fed up the Mississippi valley. This is some of the scenario I've been trying to describe as feeding the development of a huge ice sheet around the Hudson Bay, and the start of a new Ice Age.

Only, imo, the seas aren't really warm enough to sustain it very long.....

Along with the huge ice sheets in the Great Lakes/Hudson Bay region, the last Ice Age supprted lakes filling all the Western USA basins. Lake Lahontan/Lake Bonneville, and even lakes in the Mohave Desert region, as we term it today, which some believed were host to significant human cultures.
 

Eenie-Meenie

Well-Known Member
La Nina currently underway, with a strong Hudson Bay low established, is giving us the prospect of a continued severe drought in the US Southwest, maybe even into the US Northwest margins perhaps.

In my theory, this setup has the potential of years length, with above average Gult of Mexico/Caribbean and mid-Atlantic surface temps, which we've seen this year as capable of supporting a lot of moisture being fed up the Mississippi valley. This is some of the scenario I've been trying to describe as feeding the development of a huge ice sheet around the Hudson Bay, and the start of a new Ice Age.

Only, imo, the seas aren't really warm enough to sustain it very long.....

Along with the huge ice sheets in the Great Lakes/Hudson Bay region, the last Ice Age supprted lakes filling all the Western USA basins. Lake Lahontan/Lake Bonneville, and even lakes in the Mohave Desert region, as we term it today, which some believed were host to significant human cultures.
My friend......

If you will look twice at this graph, you will see that in the range of years shown, there is virtually no change in the solar radiance, perhaps a 0.1 C decline, with a large rise in the decades around the 1950s, which were historically a serious drought in the Western USA..... a rise of perhaps 0.2 C above "normal". The solar cycle swings are known to have some effects on weather so we could just say even a 0.1C rise or fall will have some correlation with shifts in weather patterns.

If you will review my comments on sea surface temps in these forums, you will see that I have been saying for at least a couple of years that SSTs appear to be about 1C above what we believe to be "average" over the pastr 150 years, which is exactly what this graph claims.

Nevertheless, we are still within the IceAge/Interglacial Warm cycle range. I believe you will find scientific reports estimating, from some data believed to be capable of estimating the temps of ages long gone, which show that near the beginning of each Ice Age there is a short-term "spike" in temps...... whether derived from data of geologically embedded pollen, or isotopes entrapped in ice bubbles in ice formed during some long-gone epoch, or whatever other method. The short term rise in temps is less than 50 years, typically estimated at 20 or 15 years. I believe those spikes are necessary to trigger the advent of an ice age. And our current departures from long-range "normals" are still less than those estimated rises in the pre=Ice spikes.

Human use of steam or internal combustion engines, coupled with increased open fires, is not demonstrated to be greater than the natural fires we can see as cyclical in some areas, nor than volcanic emissions which vary on some scale, sometimes much greater than human outputs at least short term.

Another factor I'm looking at is estimates of geological nuclear fission/fusion reactions occurring inside the earth. We have recently had pretty good reports that support the idea that deuterium fusion is occurring within a zone of the inner core where iron exists under heat and pressure in a solid form, and that crystal lattice supports a catalytic nuclear fusion of deuterium which is believed to be present in that environment. This nuclear process is "recent" because until the core cooled to the point where it is now..... estimated to be around 1-2 billion years ago..... that environment had not formed yet.

Other recent science reports have increased the heat being released to the surface from 42 TW to 47 TW. Such a trend, rationally speculated to be correlated with an oncoming "volcanic age", would mean likely that our deep ocean temps may be warming.....0.1 C or so in the 200 or so years correlated to the Industrial Age.

I can't "blame" anyone for believing CO2 from human activities might be significant. But a natural cycle that impacts ocean temps a tenth of a degree would figure, by ocean solubility of CO2 considerations, would produce more of an increase in atmospheric CO2 than our burning.

The fact is, scientifically, that there are other factors that we have poorly measured or understood, and it is by no means proven that our activities are the most important cause of what we are seeing now. The "Science" popularly claimed today is more like "Speculation" and "Extrapolation".

Of course I don't know everything. I am quite enthusiastic with the research being done.

But I am looking for a SST (Sea Surface Temp" rise on the order of 2 C to 3C, sustained by a correlated rise in the whole ocean temp profile having a rise of 1C, which I think is competent to set off a new ice age.

All that ice has to come from the Oceans. It has to evaporate and get transported to higher lattitudes. You can't have an Ice Age without warm oceans at the outset.

Later in the ice age cycle, cold melt water feeds into the oceans on a scale that cools the oceans, and slows the evaporation, and slowly ends the ice age.
I guess we read graphs differently. Look at the graph over the last 40 years. They are moving very quickly in opposite directions. And what about the rising temperatures of the oceans? All that ice you talk about is melting at both poles. And this all correlates with the rapid rise in CO2 emissions. But you are saying that is just a coincidence. Seriously, everything you attribute the Global Warming to is pure speculation. What is your source for: "a natural cycle that impacts ocean temps a tenth of a degree would figure, by ocean solubility of CO2 considerations, would produce more of an increase in atmospheric CO2 than our burning"?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which gathers up evidence from scientists worldwide, periodically summarizes the state of knowledge about the planet’s present and future. It then offers a reassessment based on a consensus of the world's scientists about the state of the planet's oceans and ice. This is from its most recent report (I believe in 2019):

Climate change’s impacts, the report says, are already readily visible from the top of the highest mountain to the very bottom of the ocean—and tangible for every human on the planet.

The problems aren’t theoretical, the report stresses: Science shows that they are here, now. And the oceans, polar ice caps, and high mountain glaciers have already absorbed so much extra heat from human-caused global warming that the very systems human existence depends on are already at stake.

In 2015, world leaders gathered in Paris at a climate-focused meeting, where they agreed to try to limit planetary warming to an average of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial temperatures—and to aim for a more ambitious goal of keeping warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).

At the time, 2 degrees Celsius was considered a “safe” target. Keeping the planet’s average temperature below that, world leaders said, would still result in great stresses on the economy, social systems, and natural environments, but would stave off the most devastating impacts.

Since then, two things have happened: First, science has made clear that the planet has already warmed about 1 degree Celsius, on average, while some regions, like the Arctic, have overshot that warming by at least four times. Second, thousands of scientists have diligently catalogued evidence that even 1.5 degrees of warming could push parts of the climate system in ways that would have devastating environmental, social, and economic impacts.
 

Eenie-Meenie

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the latest, Red. I haven't read them yet. Not very interesting from the title being obviously biased.

The simplest fact is the picture of some Russians in Siberia, out on the melting permafrost waters, pulling woolly mammoth tusks into their little boats.

Those big critters are like cows, they eat grass and green stuff. The fact that they were there ten thousand years ago is the fact that the Arctic melted off then, too, and then froze up again, within the current interglacial warm. About 2 to 4 C degrees up and down several times in the past twenty thousand years.

Anyone who wants to interpret this as somehow proof of a crisis now is just pushing the facts further than the science really goes.
I have seen a good number of those videos of the melting permafrost in Greenland and Siberia made by scientists, not politicians. With all your technical bluster, you have failed to provide any links or even quotes from scientists or scientific organizations to bolster your poopycock.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
I have seen a good number of those videos of the melting permafrost in Greenland and Siberia made by scientists, not politicians. With all your technical bluster, you have failed to provide any links or even quotes from scientists or scientific organizations to bolster your poopycock.
It's a time issue, really.

Did you notice in those videos from Siberia the ones I did mention about people out there on the meltwaters pulling up the tusks from the woolley mammoths of some thousands of years ago.

The mammoth is extinct now. There is one report from an early American explorer in Skull Valley, on the southwest arm of the Great Salt Lake, where there are some springs. The Indians in the 1840s told the story about a severe winter where even the valleys were packed up with perhaps ten feet of snow. They almost starved, they said, but the mammoths froze there, and the Indians survived by eating the frozen meat.

Mammoths were grazing animals, like cows or Buffalo, but larger. Their bones are found around the shores of the ancient Lake Bonneville in Utah, and likely elsewhere in the basin and range geological area, where there were once lakes, and a climate with much more rainfall or snowfall. Coincident with the end of the last ice age those lakes dried up, and it proved the end of the mammoths here.

In the Arctic, their bones or tusks are proof that the Arctic Ice...... low elevation polar locatation, melted off completely near the beginning of this interglacial warm era. Other interglacial warms are believed to have achieved similar or even higher temps.

You are, or should be, more interested in looking for this information in your own searches, and more willing to question politically-motivated propaganda sorts of distortions of the evidence.
 
Top