Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum july cold snap next week

global warming enthusiast will be happy to know
that the U.S. portion of global warming will be
slightly delayed for a few years as the fluctuations
of the coming ice age make itself known globally.

not to worry however , after a few years have passed
global warming will begin to pick up its pace once again
for an even shorter period than the last warming period that extended
from the 1970's until recently which was also a
fluctuation of the coming ice age.

------------------************************--------------------
notice: as far as I know of...
the above statement has not been approved by the IPCC.
------------------************************--------------------





http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/...n_east_and.html

we cant stop it , but we can prepare for it.

Paul, your 2nd graph looks "altered," compared with the commonly available graphs of the same data, istm. Where did your copy come from?
===

But regardless (since it has no relevance to the OP), this increased variability (in weather)
...agrees with AGW predictions; especially as a consequence of the increased warming of polar regions.
That extra warming lessens the temperature differential, so....

That weakens the Polar Jet Stream, which if it were strong enough, would normally keep the polar vortex more centered at the pole.
Now, with a weaker Polar Jet Stream, the 'vortex' can wander more.

This also allows even more warm air to infiltrate into the (normally protected by the Jet Stream) polar regions. I'd bet that if you look at global weather, you'll find some unusually warm temps in the Arctic regions, concurrently with your (local) 'July cold snap.'

This video explains how that works, but it is in Celsius; so when they talk about "differences" or "increases" in degrees, you need to double (roughly) the changes ...to get Fahrenheit degrees change. Also: 100mm/hr = 3.94 inches/hr...



...plus one more:

"And with the speed that emissions still enter the atmosphere, we're right on track for an unrecognizable future."

~

p.s. At minute 12:00 is where the 'Jet Stream' explanation starts (really 13:00-14:00), and it follows through between minutes 15 to 16 ...plus.

It looks like extreme weather events are here to stay. In time we may even have a new American desert in the central US. The desert southwest is suffering a prolonged drought. The Midwest may move into a desert eventually. The Missouri river has already flooded near here once this year due to heavy rains in the northern tier of states that feed its tributaries. The amount of water exceeded the capacity of the dams on the Missouri to buffer the flow, so some local farmland got irrigated that wasn't supposed to be irrigated. I hope they had flood insurance. It's hard to see your friends and neighbors lose their livelihood at the mercy of Mother Nature. At least it is not as bad as the floods of 2011 that wiped out whole towns and endangered 2 nuclear power plants. I expect we'll learn to cope with it eventually.

lets not look at a graph then sam, here is a side by side
comparison of the artic sea ice from

july 1 1979 and july 1 2014

now if we are in a global warming period then why is there
more white snow cover that would reflect the suns light back into space in the year 2014?

and why has the snow cover increased around Greenland and further south into Canada and into Russia.

the video you posted states that the snow cover or the white stuff is decreasing.

I don't see that happening , I see the snow cover or the white stuff increasing.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test...=01&sy=2014


now if that bit of fact sparked your interest then wait till
you see whats next.

January 1 1979 and January 1 2014

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test...=01&sy=2014

seeing is usually believing.

I really do think that this site should also have a
side by side comparison of the Antarctic as well , that
could be very revealing when global cooling is concerned
as the ice age progresses.

as it stands you would need to visit the site each
day and download the image for the day and build a comparison
yourself.

and yes that has worked well.




what we do to the atmosphere cannot stop or slow the
coming ice age , we should not focus on what is causing the
climate changes , we should focus on preparing for the coming
ice age.

Paul, your 1979 – 2014 comparison shows distinctly warmer conditions in 2014. True there is the patch you mention where there is more snow cover; but to use these pictures, even to imply a global decrease in temperature is below your usual standard of argument.

I tend to avoid “Global Warming” arguments, precisely because I suspect both sides of skewing the evidence.

When I first met the “Global Warming” arguments, my interest in geology made me think it was probably sensationalist hype. Looking at geological history, I saw a succession of glaciations and inter-glacial periods. I could see no reason to think that the present was anything other than an inter-glacial period, that we could expect temperature fluctuations and eventually another glaciation.

However, there are a few things we should keep in mind. Global Warming is a singularly unfortunate term. It tends to give the impression that what we are considering is a steady progression towards a warmer, possibly drier, climate everywhere, all at once. A better term is Global Climate Change, which allows for a patchwork of changing conditions which may, or may not, be heading towards generally warmer conditions in the future. To make any sort of decision on this last point requires a careful and unbiased look at all the evidence.

One of the things in dispute is whether or not human activity is influencing the weather. Consider the effect that stromatolites and subsequent oxygen producing organisms had on the atmosphere. The rise of oxygen levels brought about a major extinction of life on Earth. The effects of this change are still with us, but we are removing large quantities of the tree cover that helps to clear up CO2 and refresh O2; and we are pumping vast amounts of “greenhouse” gasses into the atmosphere. What makes us think that we are less efficient than stromatolites at altering the composition of the atmosphere?

I think that, to some extent, both sides are right. We are altering the atmosphere, we are moving towards an increasing “greenhouse effect”, it may have disastrous consequences in terms of sea level changes, and agricultural problems; but in terms of the geological perspective, who or what ever may not survive, the planet will.

“Save the Planet” means, in its broadest sense, save the current occupants – animal and vegetable, and in its narrowest sense, save the human race.

In the long run, Earth will survive and continue with its cycles of warm and cold, whatever we do. The important thing, in my view, is that we try to minimise the harm and suffering we cause while we are here.

Im guessing that you didnt look at the
January 1 1979 and January 1 2014 comparisons.

as the top link was to a set of images made from satellite
data taken in the summer , there is a great
amount of difference between the summer and the winter
comparisons between the two years.




its obvious to me that you did not see the bottom link to
the winter data.

to me even the july 1 1979 and july 1 2014 data shows
a large amount of cooling as it shows a great increase
in the snow cover area as in thousands possibly hundreds of thousands of square miles.





Forbes has a article about the hype you spoke of
as profiteers of global warming knowingly propped
up global warming as a means of gain.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara...rth-is-cooling/

Look at the "whole picture", Paul.

True, there is more extensive snow cover in 2014, but that proves nothing other than that there was heavy snow that year. Even here in UK we have isolated years in which we have a lot more snow than usual. Often, these do not co-inside with years of lowest temperatures.

Balance against the extra snow the fact that the areas of lowest temperature are smaller in 2014. Either side could find supportive evidence.

could you post a link to that data?


it would be nice to have a whole picture to look at.

a picture that would reveal how the temperatures throughout the
globe have fluctuated over a period of time.

the problem with the construction of that picture is that
there are groups of people who have an incentive to lay out
the picture the way that their group wants the picture to appear.

there is free data available but not for commercial use.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/

even though the acquisition of the data has already been
paid for by the citizens of the U.S. the citizens can only
access the data through the web site or a application that
might have been compromised by a group of people that
may have an incentive to sway the data in a manner that
would further advance their cause.

if the data was freely available for use to programmers
that build applications then this would give an incentive
to programmers to develop an application that would not
cherry pick the data to be displayed and it would remove
the monopoly that the incentive driven groups have on the
display of the data.

I haven't looked at the applications on the web site yet
and you may not have access.

but I can tell you that I personally would not place any
bets on the data that is used in the applications representing
a true account of the overall climate.

as the incentives would cause the data to be cherry picked.

all that I can do is look at the thousands of record low
temperatures in the summer time.

and all of the thousands of record low temperatures in the winter time.

and the satellite imagery that tells its own story from day
to day.

let me give a few examples of global incentives.

#1 ... cap and trade.

#2 ... real estate.

#3 ... United Nations agenda

etc...etc...etc...

I just looked at a few of the web apps...

what a waste of taxpayer money , the apps they have are
anything but useful unless you only want to try and use it
for some purpose , just to try and use it for some purpose.

I guess that's the way they want it , because that's what
they have.

that really makes me sick , not angry because I understand
that its the government , but they have all of that data
from all over the world , just think about all the instruments
and all the labor and time involved to get the vast amount
of data and then to have this as the final product...
it really is the year 2014 isn't it , but from the looks of the web site
and the usability of the web site it looks as
if the apps were built using windows 3.1 and visual basic 2.0

its like having a bank vault that is continuously
filling itself with money , but you don't have any way
to get into the vault to spend any of the money.

Bill S , you wouldn't happen to have a whole picture I could
look at would you?

Try the picture presented by the graph at:

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Recent%20land%20surface%20temperature





Are we so far apart?

I still think we are in an interglacial period, but I don't see that as an absolute argument against human activity being able to influence climate in the relatively short term.

I'm told there are "fundamentalist" groups who argue that we cannot influence the climate, because it will always be what God wants it to be, but I'm a little reluctant to accept that reasoning in its entirety.

those are some nice pictures , I especially like the
one below.



http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif

click on the above link , save the image to your hard drive , then open it with ms paint.

then zoom in on the red box to the right.

that is where we are right now on the graph , below the 0.0 mark !




we definitely are not far apart , were just looking at
different scales of data.

I try to look at the evidence on a larger scale and that
larger scale is what turned my opinion from GW and AGW
into IA only with fluctuations of course.

we are in an ice age , and trying our best to maintain the warm
weather , but its just not possible...

all the money that is being spent on talking about it will
accomplish nothing except a lack of preparedness.

the governments are not lacking they are busy building the
underground survival facilities all across the globe.

were not invited to attend , but were paying for them.

its time for us to start our own preparations.

I can easily say in reply to the part about God , that
God gave us all a brain to think with , and its up to us
to fill the brain with our choice of data.

we can no longer just assume that all data is correct and
that is where the brains capability of logic comes into play.


I suspect that orac will see the above as an opportunity to
impress us with his favorite rant about some goat god that he
must believe exist.

Bill, that is a huge site! Lots of graphs, but I didn't see this type (from a Greenland ice core) that gives more resolution.
www.eoearth.org

These ice core graphs are showing the change or anomoly relative to the "present day" temperature, such as the -55.5 C (degrees below zero) that was recorded with Paul's Vostok graph. But it's all relative; so they all still indicate climate changes, more or less....

What I find most interesting, is the long and relatively flat period ...during which civilization arose. It seems relatively flat and level compared with almost any other similarly long period from either the 100kyr graph [with the much better resolution or magnification of Paul's 'box'] ...or the 400kyr graph with the exaggerated 'y-scale' and a 'zero' that is different from today (if I am to believe what I read here earlier).
===

History (of civilization) is a long story filled with tales of how climate changes have helped make or break various regional societies, istm.

But looking at these graphs, doesn't it seem that climate is usually much wilder than anything we have experienced over the past few thousand years or so? You can imagine how those peaks of Paul's (the previous interglacials) would look on the scale of this 100,000 year graph ...I hope!

It may have been briefly "warmer" during the past interglacials; but for how long or how 'evenly' was the climate as warm or warmer, during those previous interglacials ...compared with our current interglacial?

That which history experienced as the MWP & LIA seems to only register as a level slope on both of these graphs.
Can you imagine civilization's story overlayed onto any other period, from either of these graphs? How lucky have we been?

I'd agree it is prudent not to 'force' our climate too far away from the 'level slope' that civilization (especially agriculture) has enjoyed
...or survived--or not ...since the beginning ~10,000 years ago--so to speak.

~

p.s. ...or at this scale also, the past ten thousand years are unusually calm, compared to how climate behaved before.
www.soest.hawaii.edu/

Sam

the below temperature change graph clearly shows that we
are currently in the below 0.0 mark I pointed out.





I like your two images above also.
and I really like the way these images explain that more
cooling is taking place vs warming.

even these two images show a distinct cooling over the
last (+/-) 10,000 yr period , no one could even suggest
that human interaction has caused any warming using these
images , however by using these images they would have a
good argument that humans may have caused an unusual degree
of climate stability along with a steady increase in cooling.

but , I highly doubt that the amount of interaction that
humans have contributed to the climate has had any truly significant effect on the climate.

the earth itself is highly capable and really very stubborn about cooling itself down all by itself as is evident in all
the ice core data.



zoom this page in to 400%.
we are currently at the -1.3 mark on the above graph.
now draw an imaginary line from your right to your left of the
-1.3 mark until you reach apx 120,000 years ago.

you can get a idea of what our future temperatures
will be as the coming ice age approaches.

...why?

Search: ruddiman early anthropogenic hypothesis

You don't even need to select any of the search results, but just browse ...to get the idea.
[such as: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110325/full/news.2011.184.html ]
"...new evidence in support of the controversial idea that humanity's influence on climate began not during the industrial revolution, but thousands of years ago. Proposed by palaeoclimatologist William Ruddiman in 2003, the theory says...."

Ruddiman was an early researcher, and is widely cited in old climatology research; but he's now moved beyond the mainstream IPCC dogma, and he sees a more comprehensive, big-picture, perspective ...imho.

http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/ruddiman-william-f/
His "...earliest research was on orbital-scale changes in North Atlantic sediments to reconstruct past sea-surface temperatures and to quantify the deposition of ice-rafted debris."

A few years ago I met with a local climate science professor to ask him about my ideas of soil, and soil's influence on climate. He told me about Ruddiman's ideas, which were along similar lines, and he suggested I read "Plows, Plagues and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate" by William Ruddiman.

Have you not heard of this? His book was "Winner of the 2006 Book Award in Science..." in case that makes any difference for you. Have you also not read 1491, by Mann ...or not read Vestal Fire, by Pyne?
===

As you noted, the planet is "highly capable and really very stubborn about cooling itself down all by itself...." But Humans have been fighting the planet's natural trends, for millennia, as Ruddiman, Mann, Pyne, and others show.

...of course recently we've gone a bit overboard, with that 'industrial age' phase, but we can still moderate things.
~

sam

...why?

Im not saying that humans have not added heat to
the atmosphere because its clear that we have
caused additional heat , when I said truly significant
effect on the climate , I meant that what we have done
has not been enough to maintain the warm climate because
the climate is cooling.

and has been steadily cooling for over 10,000 years
which is the apx scientifically recognized time
when civilizations supposedly first appeared.

we cant avoid the ice age and its global cooling
effects by reading books and simply saying that the
climate is warming and making money off of the many
profiteers schemes that are arising because of the
not so well hidden hype of global warming due to human
interaction.

true , you can make it appear that the climate is warming
by only showing people the last few hundred years but as
soon as you look at the natural pattern of global climate change
that is made evident in the ice core data that stretches past several
ice ages you realize that even
with human interaction the climate is still cooling not warming.

Certainly the Milankovitch Cycle should have 'forced' a steady cooling, it would seem:


...note the "present" at zero, in the center.
Presently, we are near a low point, following a large decline.
===

=>Here is an enlarged image of that most recent decline (at the far right)
...for orbital forcing (dotted line) ...and the temperatures (colored line):


Well, you might expect a cooling trend to have started some 8-10 thousand years ago,
except for some reason temperatures switched with the forcing, with temps now registering above the orbital forcing line.
...hmmmmmm.

~

yes , this image also shows that a steady cooling has been
taking place in the last 10,000 years , and clearly shows
the extent that many people will go to in order to circulate propaganda that we are in a warming period due to human interaction.

have a look at the orbital line between the years
-180,000 and -140,000 the temperatures were way
below the orbital forcing line , however there
was a steady decrease in temperatures with fluctuations
of course , and this continued to remain in effect
even as the orbital forcing line dips to its lowest
point at -160,000 years ago and then rebounds to its
highest point around -148,000 years ago and continued
further into -140,000 years ago.

which shows a 40,000 year period that is somewhat
stable accompanied by a steady decrease in temperatures.
could this 40,000 year period have been caused by an
advanced civilization?

of course today any evidence of those civilizations would
be located under the oceans , and we have explored our oceans
to such a great extent that we already know that we know enough to claim that we know it all.

I would say that there is something else other that the
orbit that causes temperature changes and according to this
graph and the vastness of human knowledge it certainly is not human interaction.

of course if you look at the years between
-100 and 0 you can see a slight upturn of temperatures.
and we can of course claim that human interaction has
caused this slight upturn , but that would also mean that
all the other upturns were also due to human interaction
and we have no scientific evidence of advanced civilizations
living hundreds of thousands of years ago.

so we can only go by what we supposedly already know about everything there is and ever was.

and we can feel comfortable about that vast amount of
knowledge and all the books that support the knowledge as
we freeze to death in our homes because of global warming.

Paul, you should learn about the evolution of "interglacial soils," along with what the mastedons and giant beavers were doing to those soils, back in those periods you are wondering about.
Note: Interglacial soils are also called mollisols, chernozems, Temperate-Zone soils, or good agricultural soils.

Your certainty is impressive!
...you must be right (and all those others must be wrong).



...it must just be a big coincidence....

~

methane kind of hits the nail on the head , wouldnt
you say?

what do you think caused the upturn in methane 5,000 years
ago?

can I suggest a world full of rotting corpses?

we know that apx 11,000 years ago it was a methane
release that brought a end to the last ice age , but
the upturn at 5,000 years ago is much greater than the one at 11,000 years ago according to the above graph.

recap
:

Carbon dioxide, has steadily increased.

Methane , has steadily increased.

yet temperatures have steadily decreased.

the global warming hypist ( I was once one of them )
for some reason believe that we should reduce the amounts
of carbon dioxide and methane in our atmosphere.

I believe that these gases are the force that
has brought about our somewhat stabilized warm climate.

these gases are mostly due to rotting plants and animals
and rotting life in general through decomposition
,flatulence , excrement , breathing , etc... LIFE!

all the wildfires that we see occurring around the
globe are removing a lot of the natural methane that
warms the climate.

but we just let them burn out on their own.

and we spend billions on complaining about carbon dioxide which is a much less warming gas.

so , if you want to understand anything in science that
involves climate just read a main stream science approved article and form an opinion on what the article is claiming
that causes the warming , then simply know that
what the article is claiming is completely backwards.

http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/07/global-warming-%E2%80%98pause%E2%80%99-reflects-natural-fluctuation?et_cid=4059541&et_rid=517749120&type=cta

The term "global warming" should join "continental drift" in the historical archive. They are both misleading.

global warming would mean mostly warming.
global cooling would mean mostly cooling.
climate change would mean warming to cooling
to warming to cooling etc...

global cooling seems to be the better choice to use
because the globe has been mostly cooling for 10,000 years.

climate change would suggest that there has not been a steady
cooling , but thats just not the case , nor has there been a steady warming.

a curiosity I have been thinking about.

some of the fema camps that have been built all over
the united states have really large heating systems
in them , and are located along rail roads and they have
windsocks for helicopter landings.



could it be that the us government knows were going into an ice age and these camps really are there to evacuate people
who are in cities that have basically frozen over?

I know it sounds opposite from what we normally hear about
the fema camps , but just think about it awhile.

has the government ever kept secrets from its citizens?

would they want to start alarming people?

and why all the underground bases if they think the oceans
will rise?

FEMA camps? I haven't seen any FEMA camps. Now I live close to the local Red Cross headquarters and they have a lot of portable shelters. They are trailers stuffed with the stuff to put together a refugee shelter when there is a disaster of some sort. It depends on using existing facilities, such as school gyms and so forth.

Bill Gill

fema camps on google maps

that really is a curiosity that fema has so many places for refugees , you would think that they are expecting a lot of refugees.

its nice that we do have these camps and places to house
refugees in case of a disaster because just think about Katrina
we had these refugee camps then , just ask anyone of the Katrina refugees that were housed inside them.

Im guessing ( zero )

or the tens of thousands of mobile homes that fema purchased
just ask the auction attendees who purchased these new condition mobile homes after Katrina , they will tell you
how many refugees actually used these mobile homes.

Im also guessing ( zero )

if its not ( zero ) then its most likely below 1% of them.

so that kind of leaves the reason for these camps wide open.

have any of the old school yards been fitted with razor wire
in your area?

heres a video that shows the large furnaces that have been
installed into buildings that never had needed heat before.

maybe it really will be used to repair the trains that will
be needed to move the refugees out of the frozen cities
because the roads are all iced up and bottlenecked with stalled cars.

Paul,

Out of curiosity I tried the link you posted. One of the places mentioned,
Bay City, MI, I am quite familiar with. The description reads "Classic enclosure
with guard towers, high fence, and close to shipping port on Saginaw Bay,
which connects to Lake Huron. Could be a deportation point to overseas via St. Lawrence Seaway”.

The location given is the intersection of Columbus Ave and Washington Ave.
I drive by there about once a week and have never seen anything as in the
description. No guard towers and no high fence. It is about 5 miles from the Saginaw Bay though.

On the 4 corners of that intersection there is an ambulance garage, a bakery, a
neighborhood park and a tavern parking lot.

I wouldn't doubt that there are a few of the proposed
fema camps that are nothing more than power plants that look
like prisons.

?

heres a video that tells a little more about the
proposed fema camps.

Yep, that was a major boondoggle. Some of the mobile homes were issued to Katrina survivors, but a lot of them never left the staging areas. Of course after they had been sitting in the Sun for a few months without being ventilated they mostly had unhealthy levels of formaldehyde in them, so that kind of messed up distribution plans. That is what happens when you don't properly ventilate new mobile homes.

Of course I don't think anybody can in any way claim that FEMA, or much of anybody else, did much of anything right with Katrina.

Bill Gill

Pokey, how could you be so naïve? Do you not realise that FEMA have access to cloaking technology? Obviously, the camp is hidden and what you are seeing are holographic projections. Not until you can accept this and ask how many other cloaked facilities there might be will you even be able to begin to take action to protect yourself and those around you.

It’s all an illusion. Even FEMA is a front behind which the real threat hides. The real “shadow government” is the CDC. It is they who have overt detention camps and the power to detain vast numbers of US citizens.

Has anyone even thought that the camps could be used to
contain ZOMBIES !!!



spooky there at the end of the video , where the pentagon
is preparing for zombie attacks.





theres to much evidence to list in a single post.

There is a strong possibility that it is the zombie virus that will be used by FEMA once the CDC have perfected an antidote. The virus will then be released, providing an excuse to round up millions of people, who will disappear into cloaked camps and never be seen again. The antidote will be given to selected people who will then easily take over the country, and subsequently, the world.

Thread drift is a wond’rous thing,
It flits from A to B;
From climate change –
Though it seems strange –
It finds conspiracy.

That would also explain the large heating systems that Paul says they will have. They aren't heaters, they are furnaces to dispose of the bodies.

Bill Gill

That makes a lot more sense than the idea that FEMA are stockpiling plastic coffins to bury the bodies.

"Do you not realise that FEMA have access to cloaking technology? Obviously, the camp is hidden and what you are seeing are holographic projections. Not until you can accept this and ask how many other cloaked facilities there might be will you even be able to begin to take action to protect yourself and those around you.

It’s all an illusion."


Bill S,

Would that be Classic cloaking, holographic projections and illusion, or Quantum?

Be reasonable! This is Paul's thread, we can't let "quantum flapdoodle" in here.

well , I certainly couldn't offer a valid argument to that
Bill S , and it makes sense because zombies don't have rights
and this way the globalist scum bags who are intent on attaining a global power over the inhabitants of the globe
will be able to impress upon the global civil population
the idea of justified mass slaughter of the unfortunate
yet well planned zombie population and this way once again
as has always been the norm throughout history the tyrannical globalist scum bag engineers of evil and masters of death
will have used fear to cause humans to murder other humans.

all this evil and death played out by the uninformed gullible actors on the stage inside the theatre of the most evil one from whom they have received their appointed measure of power so that the globalist excrement of the earth can have more power to give to the most evil one when he needs more power.



heres a video that shows the military training to extract an
uninfected civilian who was possibly the one who had delivered
the medication that infected the civilian populace in the area of operation.



the military cant just train in the killing of civilians
so they make the civilians look like zombies , and after all a mass of hungry sick and desperate civilians might well look like and even act like zombies.

I found this video and it seems to fit into the direction
that this thread has taken , so I thought I would post it
before the thread becomes redirected.

I've no wish to divert the thread from the direction it has taken, but I thought you might like this one, Paul.

http://www.nature.com/news/error-discove...d=NEWS-20140729

thanks Bill S.



vigilance

back to real science anyone?

That 'Nature' article that Bill S. linked to also says: ...But that "pattern" (of competing gains and losses) was predicted back in the early 1990s! Maybe they missed some notes.

From: Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics no.16; Paleoclimatology; Crowley & North; 1991.

[Section 14.2.1 Regional Responses to a Greenhouse Warming]

"Although the East Antarctic Ice Sheet could grow during the initial stages of a greenhouse warming, it is possible that melting could occur if CO2 values reached very high levels. Since CO2 doubling studies indicate winter warming around coastal Antarctica of 8-14 C degrees (cf. Fig. 2.12), much higher CO2 levels could tilt the mass balance of the ice sheet from accumulation to ablation." -p.258
===

I think the entire 21st century will qualify as the "initial stages of a greenhouse warming" event, as this book speaks about it.
In the news, when they talk about "Antarctica gaining ice," they mean EAST Antarctica (as predicted by global warming theory, back in the early 1990s).
However, West Antarctica is still warming and losing ice ...in response to greenhouse warming.

~

that was a good find , Bill S.

have you considered that the new waves are causing the
sea ice to break up in the summer time?

I mean until recently the sea ice hasn't been breaking up
during the summer time , so would it be reasonable to think
that millions of pounds of water pushing up from underneath
and washing up over the top of an ice sheet
(depending on the height of the ice sheet of course)
could have some tiny amount of force that could possibly
break up the ice sheet?

once broken up by the waves the chunks of ice would be
surrounded by warmer water that does not reflect the heat
from the sun which melts the ice.

it cant be warmer temperatures because the temperatures
aren't increasing according to the increasing amount of
snow and ice accumulating on the artic and surrounding land.

we also are experiencing the effects of storms further south
of the artic , and plenty of them.

like I said a few years back CO2 levels follow Temperature
levels , this video shows that the CO2 following occurs
apx 800 yrs after temperature !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWUoBm1epEY




it took a while to find an image to put up that didn't
look skewered to fit into a cause or a groups agenda.

here is a graph that shows the lag time
before CO2 levels follow the temperature levels.
this clearly shows that CO2 does not cause temperature
changes , unless CO2 levels transport themselves into the future somehow.

we would need to check this using QM math to find out if
this has already been claimed as a quantum effect.



since it took such a long time to find a image to use I
decided that I needed to copy the image to my hard drive.

after all it is from a government web site ( EPA ) and
if anyone would want to skewer data in order to gain income
from CO2 taxes it would be the government.

so , I copied it just in case they decide to take it down
or skewer it to fit into any tax purposes.

I actually like the EPA !!!
but as in all govt agencies , they too have outside influences.

...or perhaps the CO2 feedbacks "transport themselves into the" different hemispheres of the planet ...at different rates.
===

Gosh Paul, if you had a question about the Temp/CO2 lag, you should just ask; there is a lot of evidence (and better resolution graphs) out there. The 'lag' is also one of the points we covered in this EdX class on climate change, which MIT is now offering online, that I took last semester (see certificate at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/verify.edx.org/downloads/950c5511765d4c3fb39f5ecf5cf7e4b2/Certificate.pdf).
…it is a good idea to learn the mainstream science, if you want to proudly debunk it.
===

Quoting from the instructor....
Kerry Emanuel (in reference to this picture below) described how,
“Antarctic temperatures varied in sync with CO2;
and global temperatures, shown in this bluish color, lagged a little bit behind the rise in CO2.”

I’ve never visited that actual site, but their picture seemed valid. Some higher resolution versions can be found by searching 'images' for: Shakun et al., 2012
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/images/nature10915-f5.2.jpg
& http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/images/nature10915-f2.2.jpg
…from: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
===

In paleoclimatology, and just from thinking about the continent/ocean distributions, there is plenty of evidence to explain why the Northern and Southern Hemispheres don’t always act, or respond, in the same way. But it is good you’ve also got solid evidence from those EPA postings. So to recap, the mainstream scientific view is that:

“Antarctic temperatures varied in sync with CO2, and global temperatures …lagged a little bit behind the rise in CO2.”

~

LOL

Your graph doesn't show the famous spike in CO2 there sam.

in fact at 10 kyrs it shows a decrease in CO2 and a corresponding increase
in temperatures !

care to explain that one?

this is why I believe that the data should be made freely
available to programmers.

this type of cherry picking and data skewering is only available to those who have financial backing.

it should be made free , since we paid for it.

perhaps the oil companies could purchase the data for the
programmers?

anyway , your graph of 22 kyrs really doesn't tell me that
the total CO2 levels are causing warming.

in fact it shows the opposite.

Paul, that information validated what you'd been saying about the lag pattern, so I'm not sure what you're objecting to; but whatever.......I'm not familiar with your "famous spike in CO2" reference either, for that time period; so sorry.
===

But as to the 10,000 yr mark, where CO2 begins declining --as expected geologically-- you're right; something else (such as deforestation, methane, and/or NO2) seems to have entered the picture and started offsetting the expected decline in temperatures ...especially after the dawn of the Bronze Age.



...plus, these little graphs add on the most recent few thousand years of GHG levels, for those greenhouse gases, which were not shown in the 'lag' graph that you replied about.

~

its the same spike as in the image you posted below , it just
happens to be in a much smaller scale.




pictures are nice to have when you need to make a specific
point , but lets consider real world events that would cause
CO2 to increase...

temperatures rise.

the number of plants rise because of the warmer temperatures.
the number of animals in the oceans rise because of the warmer
water.

the number of animals in the ocean and on the land rises because theres more plants as food and theres more sea food
for sea animals.


animals exhale CO2.

warmer = more life = more CO2.

can this work in reverse?

as in...

more CO2 = more life = warmer

you must have a reason for more CO2
what is it?

the levels of CO2 rises because of _________.



120,000 years ago , as is depicted in the above graph.
temperatures were highest , there was then a lag time
before CO2 levels reached their highest for that period.

if temperatures follow CO2 then why does this graph tell
the exact opposite story?

in the graph at apx 30,000 years ago the ice age was at
its peak , the temperature difference was -18F , at this
point the earth was fully engulfed in an ice age and sea
levels had dropped significantly , what do you think could
have caused the increase in CO2 levels that you claim are followed by temperature increases?

Im really curious to understand why you think this way.

I think that I would then have an investment that I might
need to protect.

but Im glad that you earned your certificate in global
warming physics.

I am wondering if your instructor avoided any type of
discussion that would have been focused on the overall
physics of global warming of the entire recorded
history of the climate or did he focus mainly on the last
few thousand years?

and , did he ever mention volcanic action as being a
cause of greenhouse gasses?

or was he mainly concerned with human intervention as being
a cause of CO2.

because , I have checked the image you posted below against
several long running volcanoes and calderas and I find the years seem to match the CO2 increases in the image below
for the Vesuvius eruptions but your graph seems to stop
at the 6000 year mark , why does the graph stop at the 6000 year
mark?

is this an example of cherry picking data to fill a basket
full of cherries to give to the public?



Vesuvius

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Vesuvius




I was going to compare santorini to the graph but the graph stopped before I had the chance!

Oh! That spike (today's famous hockey stick 'blade')! No wonder I didn't recall any famous spike from "that time period" covered in the graph you were asking about. So, glad you figured that out ...and can see it hasn't disappeared.
===



This overly simplified picture should make you wonder.

...By that reasoning I wonder also ...if "the number of plants rise because of the warmer temperatures,"
then why doesn't that offset the rise, as more "animals exhale CO2."
===



What are you, deaf or blind or just feigning ignorance? You are looking at graphs, which are comparing Antarctic readings and global readings
...but “Antarctic temperatures varied in sync with CO2, and [while] global temperatures lagged a little bit behind the rise in CO2.” –Prof. Dr. Kerry Emanuel, 2014.
===


Paul, historically "...the levels of CO2 rises because of _________"
...Milankovitch (orbital) 'forcing' cycles ...and associated feedback forcings.

Paul, the planet's albedo (snow/ice cover) has historically been
especially sensitive to the July insolation at 65° N. Latitude.

So if the planet tilts just right, in some cycle, then (historically, over the past few million years), 'forcing' of the climate has ensued.

~

do you have a graph available that shows what you want a
graph to show , other than the graph that you showed earlier
that only has a 16 thousand year span that reflects your temperature following CO2 proposition?

I can probably guarantee you that if there is a period where
Temperature increases actually follow CO2 increases it will
most likely be due to CO2 released by volcanic action.

BTW , please try to get a graph that will start today and
go back in time at least 100,000 years.

maybe you can find one that will show both the arctic and Antarctic CO2 levels along with global temperatures.

good luck.

...The class covered the whole 4.5 billion years of biogeochemical evolution for the planet, and the physics for heat distribution and balance, all of which is what generates the climate. But I can see how, since they didn’t call the class “Climate Science,” you could think the focus was only on global warming. I think the title was designed to attract the most interest.

But here is what their syllabus looked like:
…click to enlarge, or there is a text version, if that’s still too unreadable.

I think they were perhaps “screening” for some likely ‘best prospects’ to help them wrangle, and improve, their current climate models; since most of the homework was geared toward deriving or “proving” or demonstrating how models work for each topic, by using standard physics and thermodynamics, and calculus ...or what they called “ordinary differential equations” ...which the syllabus said we'd only need occasionally (yea, on part of almost every section)!


Of course, Paul, volcanoes are one of the major climate forcers; and with multiple effects.


He is “mainly concerned” with reality …and learning how to better model our circumstances.


...you ask "why does the graph stop at the 6000 year mark?"

Paul, you are seeing conspiracies where none exist. The picture isn’t from the class, though they did use it in one lecture.
The picture is from some other scientific source (Shakun et al., 2012 iirc). That is the way science works; it builds on the provisionally vetted work of others.

Too bad they didn’t know what you thought was important.

...but as they state in their [free] abstract:

“Here we construct a record of …the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation.”

Their focus is on then (and the few thousand years on either side of 'then'), rather than now.
Does that make sense to you, or do you still see it as cherry picking the data?
===


...very interesting!

There are plenty of very high-resolution records for the period you are wondering about, if you want to focus on that period and look for patterns.
But that wasn’t the purpose of Shakun’s paper.

Maybe this Vesuvius record will help you see a pattern for the period you are interested in:

Gosh, it looks as if maybe the ice-age part of the cycle
keeps the volcano quiet, but that
the volcano gets more/differently active
when a 'warmed up' climate also warms up the oceans and the crust of the planet
...but when it is more likely topped with ice, it is quieter,
more effusive, and/or the lateral vents are preferentially active.
===

But seriously now folks... Paul, do you know about Milankovitch “forcing” ...of the climate, and those Milankovitch (or orbital) cycles?

Do you know how the orbital forcing compares, and contrasts, with greenhouse gas forcing?

...or about why different hemispheres respond to change differently, or why the different oceans have different salinities and different temperatures?

~

sam , when you posted the image below , I had just posted
that CO2 increases lag behind Temperature increases by apx
800 years and my image spanned 800,000 years.

your image had a span of only 16,000 years and was an
obvious attempt to support your proposal that Temperatures lagged behind CO2 increases , thus my claim that cherry picking data was in play.

I may have misunderstood your post , you may have simply been
showing that volcanic activity can cause CO2 levels to lead Temperature levels.




even so , what it all boils down to is that temperatures are
not increasing , temperatures are decreasing even though mans
contribution of CO2 through the use of fuels is 1000 times the amount of global CO2 produced by volcanic activity per year.

CO2 is not causing warming it is causing cooling...

if you need a reason to reduce the CO2 emissions then you
should focus on the obvious ability of CO2 to cause the earth to cool.

I would say that focusing on increasing methane to warm the planet would be the choice.

and of course a balance of methane when the right temperature
has been achieved.

but I don't really think that we can get ourselves out of
this backwards way of thinking that we have gotten ourselves into quick enough to actually accomplish a balance.


think about how the world is using methane as a energy source today...

landfills now burn the methane to make energy.

3rd world nations homes have methane digesters to make methane as a fuel.

fires destroy much of the natural methane.

man really is changing the climate , we just have the
wrong information.

BTW; did America get the predicted cold weather?

here is a follow up on the july cold weather in the U.S. from
the weather channel.



http://www.weather.com/news/weather-forecast/polar-invasion-july-record-cold-temperatures-20140716

sam

here is a website that talks about the 800 year lag time
from temperature increase to CO2 increase.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html





I have noticed as you may also have noticed in the above
graph at apx 147,000 years ago
also that is as far back as the CO2 data on the graph goes
there was an event that caused
CO2 levels to lead Temperature levels , this is most likely
due to volcanic action.

ok , I found it I think , it was a caldera , the Cos Caldera


http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/nisyros.html

...Sorry Paul, that is (I feel certain) a well-known AGW denialist website.

I first ran across that site (iirc) back in '08 or '09, while searching for graphs that showed the evolutionary and climate history of the planet. They have neat pictures and graphics, which are usually valid and unmodified, and from valid scientific sources.

But their "conclusions" are editorialized claptrap opinions. Don't get trapped! Look, but don't leap!

So even when they use valid scientific data/graphs, they only post their own (denialistically) 'logical' contusions; instead of posting the freely available conclusions, which experts have written specifically to accompany the original data/graphs.
So I hope they are ‘well known’ for being a slick, junk-science website ...albiet with useful pictures and graphs!

Your cited site is an extensive site (covering any search on paleoclimate that somebody might try). But they manipulate valid data to "show" how any problem with the climate (which people might search online for information about]) can be viewed as normal and not a sign of any problem.

If anyone knows differently, or my memory is faulty regarding that website's content,
please update this WARNING!

~

ok then , I see what your saying.

the images they have are valid , but the reasons they give
to compliment the images are not scientifically accepted.

personally , I can easily argue with that line of thought.

simply because CO2 levels follow Temperature levels.
except when volcanic action is in play.

and for some reason the scientifically accepted reasons
never seem to bother explaining why the global ice core
data and the images produced from that data clearly
show that CO2 follows Temperatures.

but the GW scientist or whatever they think they are
expect us to blindly believe that the exact opposite
is true.

with this data / evidence in hand it seems more truthful
to say that those who believe that CO2 causes warming are
the true deniers of the truth.



expert at what?

from what I understand the IPCC uses only a tiny fraction
of the available experts possibly / reportedly because
the remaining majority of experts
do not think along the lines that could sustain
the existence of the IPCC and its goals or its agenda.

...even Death Valley is breaking all time 'cold' records (while Seattle simultaneously breaks record highs).
===

Meanwhile, it is topping 100 degrees in Latvia…?
...at the same latitude as Kodiak Island, Alaska!
===

So it all averages out, in the end; nothing new to see here, right?

~

an average number can be obtained from any set of numbers!

so it does all average out.

there will be fluctuations of highs and lows.

but the big picture shows that cooling is the average on
a global scale.

Nothing is ever as simple as one might like it to be.

http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/...20&type=cta

that all makes sense , so its like a heat sink only its
for carbon and life in general that existed in the lakes
before the lakes drained.

and the "ice box" effect locked it up inside the permafrost
and sediment.

that definitely was not something I had considered , Im
not sure what its impact has been on the overall climate
but could it really have a significant effect when considering
the amounts of CO2 that humans have released by burning fuels?

we haven't caused a rise in temperatures and we pump 1000 times the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere each year than volcanoes do.

as far as the locked up methane goes , if this permafrost
will melt enough to release some of the methane then maybe
that will stall the ice age for a while.

...yep; volcanoes are just part of the baseline variance; yet some new complication is afoot!
===

...and back on topic:
Alaska also has some record high temps, in the news today.
Though the July temperatures anywhere, in any given year, have nothing to do with proving (or disproving) climate change or global warming theory.

The scale of climate is too long (and variable) for "record" temperatures to serve as evidence for those. Nor is global warming theory based on observations about temperatures or any recent temperature trends. It’s just physics ...that informs climate change and global warming theory.
===

....Which is why I want to thank you for that neat link.
http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/...20&type=cta

Here is the original source:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/n7510/full/nature13560.html

...where they mention:
“Our estimate of about 160 petagrams [gigatonnes/Billions of Tons] of Holocene organic carbon in deep lake basins of Siberia and Alaska increases the circumpolar peat carbon pool estimate for permafrost regions by over 50 per cent.” ...fyi, that is equivalent to over 500 gigatonnes of CO2!


I have been looking for information on just this subject;
since I’m also advocating for building more soil,
instead of only cutting emissions
...as a solution to the greenhouse gas problem.
===

...and globally: ...equivalent to over 8,000 Billion Tons (Gt) of CO2 ...while we worry about emitting an extra 30-40 Gt each year

And that soil carbon is in flux too! Both naturally, and because of anthropogenic land use/land cover changes, soils and soil carbon have recently become significant players in the global carbon cycle.
Opportunities abound for offsetting our [relatively] puny problem with CO2 emissions.

~

http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/08/study-blames-humans-melting-glaciers

Interesting article, but highlights the confusions that can arise as terms cross the Atlantic. Here, a ton is bigger than a tonne.

"Over the last two decades, about 295 billion tons (269 billion metric tons) of ice is melting each year on average because of human causes and about 130 billion tons (121 million metric tons) a year are melting because of natural causes, Marzeion calculated."

That's a pretty blaring typo. Someone might wanna let that writer know. Talk about adding confusion. 130 billion tons converts to 118 billion tonnes, not million.

The thing that gave me pause for thought was tons being smaller than tonnes; I didn't even notice the arithmetic or the typo.

I didn't notice the typo either (million/billion), but am familiar with the ton/tonne conversion.

Since 2.2 pounds is a kilo:

...a thousand kilos would be 2200 pounds.

So a metric ton (tonne) is 1000 kilograms

...or would that be 1000 kilogrammes?

On this side of the Atlantic a ton is 2,240 lbs. It's not often we have something bigger than the Americans have.

...details, details....
1 kilo = 2.20462 pounds. But searching online:

"unit of weight in the avoirdupois system equal to 2,000 pounds (907.18 kg) in the United States (the short ton) and 2,240 pounds (1,016.05 kg) in Britain...."

Nothing is simple, eh?
===

"The tonne (British and SI; SI symbol: t) or metric ton (American) is a non-SI metric unit of mass equal to 1000 kilograms; it is thus equivalent to one megagram" -wikipedia
...so 2,204.62 pounds?

So a metric ton (tonne) is neither a short ton (American) nor a long ton [or imperial ton] (British), it seems. "A long ton is 20 hundredweight."

~

http://www.nature.com/news/himalayan-plants-seek-cooler-climes-1.15771?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20140828

"In India’s Western Himalayas, changes in altitude are so dramatic and steep that alluvial grasslands, subtropical forests, conifers and alpine meadows lie stacked almost on top of each other, producing a spectacular range of vegetation. Now, the myriad plants that inhabit these mountains are migrating upwards because of climate change — and some are in danger of being lost before anyone has even recorded their existence."