Global Freezing

[Hector]

On the Monkeypox thread, Said asks why all the previously published evidence for the world's imminent entry into the next ice age has disappeared. Is this a genuine concern?

Below is a link to a Wikipedia writer 's thoughts on the matter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling


Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols or orbital forcing. Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.

[The PNP]

Interesting link, thanks for that. My take on #Climate Change has been and still is, that by rights based on the recent 10,000 year cycles, we're due another Ice Age. But because so much CO2 has been added to the atmosphere via human activity, the climate will instead continue to warm.

[Hector]

Interesting link, thanks for that. My take on #Climate Change has been and still is, that by rights based on the recent 10,000 year cycles, we're due another Ice Age. But because so much CO2 has been added to the atmosphere via human activity, the climate will instead continue to warm.

Well, as I'm sure you know, there are boffins who have estimated that human- induced particle air pollution counteracts the warming effect of Co2, so it could be wise not to throw away your cashmere jumpers yet.

[The PNP]

Well, as I'm sure you know, there are boffins who have estimated that human- induced particle air pollution counteracts the warming effect of Co2, so it could be wise not to throw away your cashmere jumpers yet.

Yeah, there was a time when the theory had some support. But apart from the fact that particulates don't persist very long (whereas CO does) the 'hockey stick' graph put that hope well out the window.

[Toodles McGinty]

I recall watching the movie 'Day After Tomorrow' and reading up on the science afterwards.

Almost all of them said it wouldn't happen, or if it did it would happen over a long time.

I suppose that if we truly eff-up the climate, as we may do in another I-don't-know-how-many decades, it's possible that weather systems could change to produce an extinction level freeze.

Doubt it would happen this century though. The opposite seems far more likely.

[said]

On the Monkeypox thread, Said asks why all the previously published evidence for the world's imminent entry into the next ice age has disappeared. Is this a genuine concern?

Below is a link to a Wikipedia writer 's thoughts on the matter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling


Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols or orbital forcing. Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.

I distinctly remember the media claims made during that period - and this is what I keep saying - if you reference the topic now in the newspapers for that time on the internet, it does indeed mention 'global warming/greenhouse gases etc.,' But there was absolutely no mention of that in the 1980's anywhere. I cannot prove it, but my memory does not let me down. I even remember researching Global Cooling at the time.

[Hector]

I distinctly remember the media claims made during that period - and this is what I keep saying - if you reference the topic now in the newspapers for that time on the internet, it does indeed mention 'global warming/greenhouse gases etc.,' But there was absolutely no mention of that in the 1980's anywhere. I cannot prove it, but my memory does not let me down. I even remember researching Global Cooling at the time.

This might interest you, Said.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/longrea...sequences/amp/

In 1975, Newsweek Predicted A New Ice Age. We’re Still Living with the Consequences

[Hector]

I distinctly remember the media claims made during that period - and this is what I keep saying - if you reference the topic now in the newspapers for that time on the internet, it does indeed mention 'global warming/greenhouse gases etc.,' But there was absolutely no mention of that in the 1980's anywhere. I cannot prove it, but my memory does not let me down. I even remember researching Global Cooling at the time.

This might interest you ,Said.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/longrea...sequences/amp/

In 1975, Newsweek Predicted A New Ice Age. We’re Still Living with the Consequences

[said]

This might interest you ,Said.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/longrea...sequences/amp/

In 1975, Newsweek Predicted A New Ice Age. We’re Still Living with the Consequences

Then what makes you think today's reports are any different to those claims made in the 1980's? If technology had improved to any great extent, why are climatologists unable to forecast one years climate in advance, let alone decades into the future?

There is not one scientist on this Earth who understands all there is to know about climate, nor even weather - and none who could forecast it for long periods. Climate, like weather is chaotic. Chaos cannot be programmed into a computer. Computers only work with set data in a table, there cannot be any variations programmed into a computer. Yet it is computers that they use for Climate Change. If you want more accuracy - better asking a land farmer. They have invested millions into the technology for forecasting weather/climate etc., and they are no better off than before they had it, but they have to try and convince people it was money well spent.

Referred to in that article, a mention of a change in the Seasons. The seasons are not affected by atmosphere and climate as such, the Seasons occur due to the tilt of the Earth as it revolves round the sun.

[Snig's foot]

I blame International Geophysical Year! (1957)
International agreement lead to a major effort starting in 1957 to understand the physical aspects of the earth. Several countries set up polar research stations in Antarctica (e.g. Halley base (UK), Mawson (Australia) among many others, and the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Research Station (USA) at the south pole itself.
Many of the research projects started that year continue to the present day. For example, the UK decided to extend the study of the tropospheric ozone layer by setting up spectrophotometers at the Antarctic base...it was these that detected the seasonal ozone 'hole' at the south pole.
Many other things were studied, e.g. solar radiation impacting the earth, ocean currents, etc.

Sunspots
This all led to scientists becoming aware of detectable variations and cycles of physical parameters affecting the earth.
One of these was a better understanding of the cycling of sunspots on the surface of the sun. These cycles can vary between some years when there are no visible sunspots then changing over a few years to periods when there are always sunspots visible for months on end. 1957 just happened to be the year in which the most sunspots ever recorded occurred. It has been apparent that there are observational links between sunspot cycles and the earth's climate. In the late 1600s-early 1700s there was a period of almost no sunspots (the Maunder minimum), only 50 or so sunspots seen over a 28 year period (1645-1715) when there would normally be 40,00-50,000 in the same period.
This minimum coincided with the 'Little Ice Age' when winters in particular were colder than normal (this was largely the period when the Frost Fairs took place on the frozen River Thames and tree ring data shows much shorter growing seasons).
Another period of low sunspots numbers happened in 1790-1830 (the Dalton Minimum), and again coincided with cool temperatures, failures of crops and cold wet winters.
The 'Year without a Summer' was 1816 when crops failed across the world with famines in China, Japan and food riots across Europe. However a significant effect was probably caused by the massive volcanic explosion of Tambora in Indonesia which ejected about 200 cubic kilometres of material into the atmosphere, this circled the planet reducing sunshine reaching the earth.
This leads us onto recent years..the most recent complete solar cycle (no. 24) (they last about 11 years) was much less active than had been anticipated and followed on a declining trend in recent cycles. This has led many observers to predict that we are entering another period of solar minimum when the climate will become much cooler. Some have predicted that a little ice age is imminent and that it will be upon us by 2030. Solar cycle was comparable in size to those during the Dalton minimum, and this led the scientists to predict that the current solar cycle would be even smaller in sunspot number than no. 24. The current cycle began in 2020 and is predicted to peak with a maximum of 115 in 2025.
The sunspot data has led several scientists to predict global cooling, and has also been seized on by many conspiracists as evidence that man-made global warming and consequent policy is all a scam.
Piers Corbyn (self proclaimed expert meteorologist) has been warning of a coming ice age since at least 2011, based on his study and 'understanding' of the sun. President Trump was delighting in heavy snowfall in Canada and the US.
However, no one told the sun! I'm delighted to say that almost everybody is wrong! The current sun is covered in sunspots, and the most recent monthly number was 130 against a predicted value of 85 or so. It seems that there's many years study of the sun left before we understand what's going on!

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/s...le-progression

If sunspot numbers do reflect underlying processes that affect earth's climate then it looks as though global cooling is on the way out! (But let's check back in 11 years time to see if the sun has confounded us again.)

[sandGroundZero]

Interesting memento from the early days of climate science:

• "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, …"
• "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report.
• "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
• "The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climactic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago."
• The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Worth noting that some of the outcomes are the same as the updated scenario. But at the time, the fear was climate might be reverting to "the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900—years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City".

47 years on, the number of scientists, the volumes of data and the tools for analysis are much greater. Still:

Then what makes you think today's reports are any different to those claims made in the 1980's? If technology had improved to any great extent, why are climatologists unable to forecast one years climate in advance, let alone decades into the future?
There is not one scientist on this Earth who understands all there is to know about climate, nor even weather - and none who could forecast it for long periods. Climate, like weather is chaotic. Chaos cannot be programmed into a computer. Computers only work with set data in a table, there cannot be any variations programmed into a computer. Yet it is computers that they use for Climate Change. If you want more accuracy - better asking a land farmer. They have invested millions into the technology for forecasting weather/climate etc., and they are no better off than before they had it, but they have to try and convince people it was money well spent.
Referred to in that article, a mention of a change in the Seasons. The seasons are not affected by atmosphere and climate as such, the Seasons occur due to the tilt of the Earth as it revolves round the sun.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink!

[local]

Yet again, another one of these pointless back and forth arguments on climate change, why not just accept the earth needs looking after and cleaning up?

Undoubtedly if you start making predictions you have a margin of uncertainty but why argue the toss it is puerile.

[donkey22]

Yet again, another one of these pointless back and forth arguments on climate change, why not just accept the earth needs looking after and cleaning up?

Undoubtedly if you start making predictions you have a margin of uncertainty but why argue the toss it is puerile.

Because, as has been pointed out countless times, it’s not about your vague description of “cleaning up” the earth. It’s about drastically reducing our greenhouse gas emissions which is the major cause of the current global warming event.

[local]

Because, as has been pointed out countless times, it’s not about your vague description of “cleaning up” the earth. It’s about drastically reducing our greenhouse gas emissions which is the major cause of the current global warming event.

You make my point in spades about puerile arguments.

God alone knows why you do it,

the just carry on as we are deniers must love you,

I am not in any way shape or form denying that the earth needs cleaning up, our rivers our air,our land.

I go much, much further than your Co2 brain stop point.

[Hector]

Climate contrarians predicted the world would cool—it didn’t

Scott K. Johnson 08/6/2021


https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstech...oling/%3famp=1

Here are just a couple of examples of how evidence didn t work out for the
Cool guys:

2008, Don Easterbrook (source): “global climates can be expected to cool over the next 25-30 years[...] The real danger in spending trillions of dollars trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that little will be left to deal with the very real problems engendered by global cooling.”

Easterbrook, a retired professor of geology, makes this claim based on the appearance of roughly 30-year fluctuations in a Greenland ice core. Inappropriately extrapolating this local record to the entire globe, he declared that warming between 1977-1998 was entirely due to this unidentified cycle. That would mean 30 years of cooling was next—physics of the greenhouse effect be damned.

He repeated this claim over a number of years, starting in 1998, when he predicted that temperatures would start dropping in the first decade of the 2000s. They did not.

2009, Henrik Svensmark (source): “In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning[...] Everything indicates that the Sun is going into some kind of hibernation[...]”

Svensmark is a Danish physicist who long pushed a hypothesis that climate should fluctuate with solar and orbital cycles because incoming galactic cosmic rays—which are less common when the Sun’s magnetic field deflects more of them—controlled the production of condensation nuclei for clouds.

An experiment at CERN was actually built to test this mechanism, which didn’t pan out. It’s no surprise, then, that the predictions of imminent cooling (including those in his 2007 book titled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change) didn’t pan out, either

Scott Johnson provides links to back up all his arguments.