John Blake comment

[Sunsettommy]

Quote:John Blake Says:

May 28, 2010 at 7:07 pm

Over the past 2.6 million years, Earth’s Pleistocene Era has exhibited well-defined cyclical glaciations averaging 102,000 years, interspersed with remissions of a median 12,250 years.

Continental glaciers vanished some 12,800 years-before-present (YBP), but Earth’s temperate rebound was set back 1,500 years by an impact-induced “cold Shock” called the Younger Dryas, which ended only about BC 7300 (8,800 YBP). On this basis, our current Holocene Interglacial Epoch should have ended about AD 500, coincident with the Fall of Rome. In reality, our Long Summer was due to terminate about AD 2000 + (12,250 – [8,800+1,500]) = 2000 + (12,250 – 12,300) = AD 1950, sixty years ago.

Geophysical cycles are always imprecise, but in face of a 20-year “dead sun” Dalton if not a 70-year Maunder Minimum, projecting a secondary Little Ice Age seems optimistic. The last 500-year LIA ended only c. 1890, more likely a precursor to an overdue 102,000-year main event.

By c. 2050, if not before, we could be entering on the real thing, a Big Ice Age due to destroy near 70% of Earth’s agricultural capacity. Given enviro-wackos’ and climate hysterics’ decades-long sabotage of global energy economies, the resulting mega-deaths will make childs’ play of 20th Century totalitarians’ democidal ventures.

LINK
======================================================== ======

I personally believe that the LIA was the beginning of the descent into the BIG ice age epoch.

Now that the sun has recently ended it's most energetic run of the last 8,000 years.The recent warming trends was no greater than other warm periods in the 19th century,that has a less energetic sun.That means the warming power in the system is currently weak.

[Derek]

That is a distinct and truely disasterous possibility SST.
Do I share it, I do not know in all honesty.

There seems to be several distinct schools of thought now on climate,
if I may paraphrase them as I see them.

1) AGW. Man mostly through his CO2 emissions dominates climate.

2) Lukewarmers (including a lot of "main stream respected skeptics")
- AGW is corrct in the basics, but quibble the numbers / magnitude.
(I think these are mostly "politicians" or politicians "friends" trying to give AGW politics
a soft "acceptable retreat" from the defunk harmful, and will be disasterous politics / policies of AGW.)

3) "Old school" - Mostly back to the science of the 60s and 70s.
(Commonly suspecting almost all the " AGW consensus" supporting climate science of
the last 20 years is at best poitically correct [massaged to produce the right picture] bunkum.)
We are in an interglacial, and the next glacial is only a matter of when.
- by natural variations we are only just beginning to phathom.
ie, Sun, oceans, water, clouds - man made CO2 is insignificant.

4) "Climate is an everchanging chaos" - This school seems the most peculiar to me at least,
it seems to suggest we have no idea at present. AND more importantly,
climate could change for reasons we know not what in any direction in the future.

Overall in my humble opinion, 1) is a virtual reality, that bares no relevance to reality.
2) Is equally "dreamworld" as is school 1). BUT, 2) is useful of occasion in that
it does expose problems with the all powerful at present 1).
It does seem though that 2) never really seems to drive it's points home,
infact it commonly seems to protect 1) from criticism. WHY.???

3) Has always had a following, a quiet following mostly. Presently though it is growing, and becoming more vocal.
This schhol has an ever widening basis, and many "internal" divisions, most obviously including,
"We know the presently modelled greenhouse effect is wrong, but is there a greenhouse effect at all."
Never the less school 3) is growing fast, not just from it's traditional (retired so I can now speak out) scientist only base,
I think at least partially because of 2) timid / pandering to AGW approach, and
the obvious dangers such an approach presents to us. Pandering to a lie (AGW), is lying in my book.
The question remaining for 2) is WHY LIE.???.

4) Well, why don't we just give up now trying to understand something too complex and variable for us to understand.....

So, where does that leave me on this thread, and why do I think the above is relevant to this thread. ?
Out of all the present AGW bunkum hopefully some at least partially reliable global metrics will result.
Hopefully more relaible proxies, and methods also, as well as openesss of research and data.
Why, because then we can look at the possibility that we are entering a cooling phase or ice age with far greater clarity than at present.

IF we are entering another ice age now, and I hope we are not, then what we need is a climate science producing data and information we can trust.
That is sadly, and obviously not the case at present because of 1) and 2) above.

I would suggest "we" approach climate related politics and policies at present as if we do not know what is going to happen next (ie, 4),
so we plan for all cooling eventualities, because cooling is far more dangerous than warming at a global scale for humans.

This approach would then buy us time (not much, but some) to research far better the distinct possibility that an immanent ice age is upon us.
So, all in all in my opinion the matter the post / quote SST raises in this thread needs far more general discussion, awareness, and research.

[strogoff]

Voices for global cooling are strongly raising lately. At least this time it doesn´t look it is human`s guilt. It would be a pity if alarmism moved from one extreme to the other. In a few months a new Gore would appear to teach us why it is happening and how to fight against it.

I found this article a few days ago: http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm . It has a NICE chart but, please note the text box where it claims that global temperatures can suddenly plummet, often within weeks or months.

[Derek]

(05-29-2010 04:11 AM)strogoff Wrote:  It would be a pity if alarmism moved from one extreme to the other.
In a few months a new Gore would appear to teach us why it is happening and how to fight against it.

Indeed, my "fear" exactly.
I do have some sympathy for school 4), but feel school 3) is a far more positive approach.
Just like 1), 4) does not have a (credible) mechanism by which or when such changes would occur.
Niether does 3) in all honesty, BUT, it does provide a better way to look for such mechanisms / combinations of factors.
I am still of the firm "understanding" that our best answers going forwards will come from
the sun, oceans water vapour and clouds, mostly through Milankovich, Svensmark, and Dilley.
They (Milankovich, Svensmark, and Dilley) need relating to climate better however via
their hypothesises action to/upon solar input, albedo, and internal heat transfers, particularly in the oceans.
The final part in the jigsaw may well be the "wildcards" such as volcanism, but no "name" springs to mind on that point.

[strogoff]

Quote:The final part in the jigsaw may well be the "wildcards" such as volcanism, but no "name" springs to mind on that point.

Derek, it looks as if Mother Gaia was reading you:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/vol...a-ecuador/

[Mike Davis]

Strogoff:
That is a minor release of pressure so a larger event does not occur in the future. The graph you provided is sort of iffy. The historic records I hve seen showed the globe started cooling about 5 thousand years ago with short periods of warming Such as Minoan warm, Roman warm, Medieval warm, and current warm. The warm periods have gotten shorter and cooler. There is evidence of 8 warming/ cooling cycles over the last 8 thousand years in the Alps and the Arctic circle with tree lines not recovering previous locations. The process is slow during cooling phases and faster during warming phases. A major volcano could affect weather for a few years but the weather will recover depending on the trend at the time. It appears we are currently in a cooling trend and a volcano will appear as a step down in future historical research. The last glacial maximum was not until about 20 or so thousand years ago so it took 90 thousand years to cool to that point and 4 or 5 thousand years to warm to the Holocene thermal optimum. Maybe 10 thousand years! All of the above involved smaller cycles of warming and cooling trends.

John Blake is right and wrong because the time periods are not fixed and the warming or cooling are not instantaneous events. That would mean he is being an alarmist about the expected cooling. It took 500 year for the glaciers in Glacier National park to form and 180 years for them disappear. Some of the passes in the Alps were ice free during the RWP and they are still glaciers today.

[strogoff]

Thanks you for your comment, Mike Davis. Of course anything that happened in the past is NOT a guarantee for what is going to happen in the future. We all must know this.

I was NOT advocating the graph I provided. On the contrary, I wanted to expose it as another scaremongering ploy. But you must recognise that it is a beautiful one and it has valuable information (at least to be rebutted for us all).

We know nothing about atmosphere, although we´re trying hard. We know less about what´s happening under the cortex, and so we have unexpected beautiful lessons one day and another:



¡¡well mixed gases!!

Etna is beginning to smell, I feel. This one is my favorite; it is a very difficult word to breath. Would you bet if it is going to "move" next year? I think it would do. We had two big earthquakes in Italy and Turkey a few months ago. In my very short life, one of the tiny things that I learnt by experience (tv, hahahaha) is that earthquakes and eruptions have some kind of misterious connection. Is this Science?. Of course not. But I will bet.

And, of course, I´ll continue studying to know where "they" tried to cheat us. "They" did and would do again.

[Sunsettommy]

Quote:It has a NICE chart but, please note the text box where it claims that global temperatures can suddenly plummet, often within weeks or months.

There have been some years long ago that actually had such a big temperature drops.One such year was recently noted back in year 532 or so that was radically different from the year before .A huge drop in temperature caused by a volcano,severe enough to cause widespread damage to agriculture.

Then there was an event about 70,000 years ago when Mt. Toba erupted that caused a massive cool down that lasted for years.That supposedly brought mankind near to extinction.

It is indeed possible for such a quick drop in temperature to occur.

[Sunsettommy]

Regarding post # 3 chart.I think the Roman warm period was actually warmer than the MWP and shown that way in other charts I have seen over the years.

I wonder why Harris and Mann thinks it differently.

I think the main value of that chart is that it is composed of many temperature swings,that indicate it is NORMAL to have them.

[Sunsettommy]

I think this chart is more accurate and makes the important point that CO2 is NOT driving temperature changes.

LINK

Something else is and that is the point that needs to brought up again and again.

[strogoff]

Thank you, SST. I was trying to find a graph with a comparable timescale.

You are talking about year 532 AD, which matches exactly with the end of Byzance Empire, and first? Krakatoa eruption took place 535-550 AD. The second one in 1883 is well documented and, yes, things changed in a few days.

I´m searching. Still don´t know if MWP & RMP are OK. The one of Mt. Toba is out of the timescale.

Let´s ruin, kill and decease this graph. It is too alarming.

[Mike Davis]

Strogoff:
I was commenting about the graph and not about you! I had seen that before and felt the same as you that it is a bad to promote alarm for cold or volcanoes as it is for some magical warming thing that someone believes will happen. Normally I would have just not commented on that particular chart but thought you wanted others opinions!
Your Mt Etna and the earthquakes is a natural situation which happens when the earth moves around volcanic regions. Nothing to get real worked up about. The volcano at Mammoth mountain in California was active like that and the property values fell but the thing has not blown yet. They have been waiting for over 30 years! There is the Yellowstone Caldera, MT Rainier, Mt Adams and others that are claimed to be over due. When it is time to blow they will! The volcano experts are monitoring the activity and are learning to get a feel for when the activity is excessive. Actually it breaks down to when it blows it blows worrying about it solves nothing and diminishes your life experience. Just like earthquakes and other natural disasters.
SST:
I like that chart even though it only represents one ice core and what has been estimated as the CO2 extent with a estimated current warming tacked on the end. From the other graphs I have seen it fairly matches. Drastic changes in temperature on a regional basis are normal and natural. The oceans are the smoothing influence on the global scale that would make it appear the climate cools slowly and warms fast because warmth is measured at surface or historical temperatures are measured at depth which smooths out the changes over a period of time. Some of the signal is lost over time and only the major swings are evident. Speaking of drastic temperature swings , one day a cold front came through and the temperature dropped over 30 degrees in 5 minutes. I read where in Texas the cold fronts come through in the summer and bring instant sub zero temperatures with the down drafts. The theory is that Katala eruption "could" cause cooling similar to what was experienced during eruption events in the early 1800s such as Krakatoa! I think they called it the year without a summer!

Volcanic and earthquake activity is related to the entire earth environment and what effects the climate effects the land also because it is changes in pressure that control weather and changes in pressure that control geologic activity. All things vibrate at their own frequency and external changes in the frequency result in changes in the situation such as weather or volcanoes or even earthquakes. Some regions of the earth are attempting to move and earthquakes are the release of pressure just like volcanoes are the release in pressure or earths attempt to equalize the pressure difference. That is weather, tides, climate! Earths attempt to equalize pressure differences. It could be internal gravitational or external gravitational forces that exert the pressure that starts the pendulum swinging. The more extreme the pressure the more extreme the result. The start of the event might be centuries or millions of years ago and we are just now experiencing the after effects.

[strogoff]

Mike Davis said:

Quote:I was commenting about the graph and not about you! I had seen that before and felt the same as you that it is a bad to promote alarm for cold or volcanoes as it is for some magical warming thing that someone believes will happen. Normally I would have just not commented on that particular chart but thought you wanted others opinions!

I love your comments, Mike! As Derek uses to say, we´re discussing, not debating. I think we agree essentially in what we are saying. I´m reading between the lines and just trying to smell where the alarmist connotations are for the next great cooling. Excuse my poor english; sometimes I say AND understand strange things

SST said:

Quote:Regarding post # 3 chart.I think the Roman warm period was actually warmer than the MWP and shown that way in other charts I have seen over the years.

I wonder why Harris and Mann thinks it differently.

I think the main value of that chart is that it is composed of many temperature swings,that indicate it is NORMAL to have them.

You´re right SST: RWP>>MWP. And LIA doesn´t look little at all in the post #3 chart.. But on a second look I realized that it is not a graph; it is a sketch. There´s not a temperature scale in Y axis. The chart only represents time and, in general terms, number of eruptions. It shows temperature at three points and their values don´t obey spatial scale.

Thus, this is a misleading chart. Why? I think it would have been easy to draw the same but observing "consensus temperatures"... Consensus?

[Sunsettommy]

My personal view from May of last year in this thread is still unchanged.

I believe that the little ice age was the first big step in leaving the Interglacial period.The unusually active sun may have stopped it and forced a delay.

Now that the sun has gone down in radiative output.The ocean waters will get less inflow of energy over time and thus contribute less "heat" outflow to the atmosphere.

This is a concern that is not being addressed.Due to the insane infatuation over a trace gas,that barely absorbs any of the outgoing IR.That we are NOT building those Nuclear power generating plants we are going to need very badly.

This I will place the blame for the lack of preparation on the Environmentalist morons and their egg sucking followers.From the Media,political and sewer gutter sleepers.To the scientists who should stop counting their public money.Who should see the enfolding disaster building up in front of them.

When the day does come.They should go to the back of the line in getting support in order to survive the coming chill down.

[strogoff]

There´s been a lot of water under the bridge since last may of 2010. I´ve read & studied a lot, but it seems it´s never enough (and my spanglish hardly improves). I miss an active role in this beloved forum and I hope my IRL pressing issues release me back soon, but for the time being they´re still pressing issues :/

I use to come back here to recall some topics we´ve discussed. I´m "surviving" with Twitter and some spanish blogs cause it is easier for me, and less time consuming. Some of you are really fast thinkers for me (Derek... )

Honestly, I cannot add any advance to the science strugglying in my brain (still studying). But I´m increasingly worried with what I´m watching in my sorroundings. My job allows me to be very close to the international carbon etiquette and I´m having midnight panic attacks. Science is never worrying; it is politics the thing that scares.

SST, I´ve seen your recent link to PopTech´s 1000 references on global cooling and, of course, I´ve not read any of them (I´m about to tweet it). Be sure I´ll be back very, very soon. This is the best place I´ve known for being informed, to learn, know other victims and, thank God, not being cheated. God bless you.


See you soon! Alicia

[Sunsettommy]

Thank you.

We will be here when you are able to come back more often.When you can resolve your access problem.

I have been missing your visits the last few months.But I understand why.

Harpospoke is being missed too.Hopefully he can resolve his problems as well.

[Derek]

(05-14-2011 03:18 PM)strogoff Wrote:  Science is never worrying; it is politics the thing that scares.

See you soon! Alicia

I also second that, as SST says, you HAVE been missed, genuinely.
(although I do not know the reasons why - which is of no matter, as I am sure they are genuine)

Science SHOULD never be worrying....But it is at present, as you say, and SST has said many times,
BECAUSE of the politics / politicization of science AND scientists at present.

Have you caught up with the Joe Postma paper yet, if not, PLEASE SEE,
Breaking Climate Science News not to be missed.

It took me some time to get my head around what Joe Postma is saying,
but once you do get your head around it,
you have a completely different understanding, that you can see is actually real.

Inescapably and simply, you also "see" that, there is no greenhouse effect.
The GH effect "theory" as presently proposed / taught is imaginary.

[strogoff]

Thank you, SST and Derek. It feels so good to think I contributed something to the forum.

A lot of times I wondered what happened to other forum members that suddenly vanished. I guess each one have their particular reasons. I´ve met MostlyHarmless, Nasif Nahle or Mike Davis but it would have been a honour to interact with Harpospoke or R. S. Courtney, to name a couple of them whose contributions remain here for us all to read and enjoy.

Fortunately my contract finishes on june 10th (or is it 9th; it is amazing I don´t even know that!) The environment in my country is nauseating. I´m being a marionette of the government ploy to fight long term unemployment (the time I took care of my mom). "They" obligue you to accept silly green jobs unless you want to lose all your rights (which rights?) At the end of the contract you are just a short-term unemployed and not a macroeconomic insult.

I´ve been dealing with urban solid waste. At least there are some environmental problems I can comfortably address. But "they" use us (a team of 48 "environmentalists" including psychologists, sociologists,...) for whatever they need. Last week I´ve been selling something alike greenwashed carbon credits for the city council in an international trade fair. Greenpeace tried again to recruit me (no way!) and my "cousins" (you may know Cathlyn or Catalina) tangled all they could...

Add to this terrorists included in voting lists for next local elections, moving to a new home, upsetting family disappointments... I simply collapsed.

It would take some time for me to catch up with you. Derek, I really appreciate what you share with me and I´ll address it as soon as possible (I´m now dealing with a Svensmark´s nightmare). My feeling is that I´ve never been gone. Just remained silent as I couldn´t follow you; I need other rythm now. Soon I´ll continue putting my two cents in this valuable forum. Just need a break

[Derek]

Check out Joe Postma's paper it will REFRESH and INVIGORATE you.
There is hope.

[Richard111]

I have just one small niggle with Joe Postma's paper. He refers to a bar of gold whilst explaining the average molecular collision rate with temperature.

I think the Maxwell_Boltzmann kinetic energy distribution curves explain this much more clearly as they are referenced directly to molecules in the atmosphere where temperature and pressure is constantly changing.