Ice Age on the Way!

[Bob Morane]

Originally Posted by newhaul

lets get real shall we .
Explain this graph then.
Roy Spencer, PhD

Looks to me like we have cooled quite a bit .

I'm not a math genius, but isn't this graph's trend obviously up ?
Not that there's hard proof that it's related to human activity, but I struggle to see an actual cooling from that data.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Bob Morane

I'm not a math genius, but isn't this graph's trend obviously up ?

in the past 28 months We have dropped from a high of .86℃ above baseline to .22℃ above baseline. And in the last 20 years we have cooled as well. By my estimates at a rate of .12℃ per decade.
Which means that in the previous 20 years ( from 1979 in till 1998) we warmed by approx .9℃.
Its all a matter of perception

[Bob Morane]

Originally Posted by newhaul

in the past 28 months We have dropped from a high of .86℃ above baseline to .22℃ above baseline. And in the last 20 years we have cooled as well. By my estimates at a rate of .12℃ per decade.
Which means that in the previous 20 years ( from 1979 in till 1998) we warmed by approx .9℃.
Its all a matter of perception

Another way to look at it, using the smoothed out 13-month average :

The 1980s had one year above base line
The 1990s had around 4 years above base line
The 2000s had approximately 8 years above base line
The 2010s is all above base line

Seems like an increase to me. Again no judgment attached to that increase.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Bob Morane

Another way to look at it, using the smoothed out 13-month average :

The 1980s had one year above base line
The 1990s had around 4 years above base line
The 2000s had approximately 8 years above base line
The 2010s is all above base line

Seems like an increase to me. Again no judgment attached to that increase.

basing on that graph specifically there is as of right now a .14℃ rise per decade.
Like I said its all about perception .
And most humans can't think much beyond what's for dinner tomorrow let alone what the climate will do in the next 30 years.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by newhaul

basing on that graph specifically there is as of right now a .14℃ rise per decade.
Like I said its all about perception .
And most humans can't think much beyond what's for dinner tomorrow let alone what the climate will do in the next 30 years.

And why would a species born without a fur coat want to remain living in an Ice Age?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

And most humans can't think much beyond what's for dinner tomorrow let alone what the climate will do in the next 30 years.

First, speak for yourself. Tomorrow it's homemade soup; Friday it will be, er, pizza. Yeah.



Second... that's why we employ specialists, and why some of us favour the opinion of specialists over, say, some guys in a sailing forum.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

First, speak for yourself. Tomorrow it's homemade soup; Friday it will be, er, pizza. Yeah.



Second... that's why we employ specialists, and why some of us favour the opinion of specialists over, say, some guys in a sailing forum.

Would those “specialists” be the same “specialists” jetting back and forth in their private plans from conference to conference trying to find costly ways to save the rest of us from ourselves?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

And why would a species born without a fur coat want to remain living in an Ice Age?

speak for yourself I'm Celtic by blood I have a rather nice fur coat .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

First, speak for yourself. Tomorrow it's homemade soup; Friday it will be, er, pizza. Yeah.



Second... that's why we employ specialists, and why some of us favour the opinion of specialists over, say, some guys in a sailing forum.

I should have said don't think not can't think beyond tomorrow's dinner.

Second you mean like the ones that made a serious mathematical error that got caught by a layperson.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Would those “specialists” be the same “specialists” jetting back and forth in their private plans from conference to conference trying to find costly ways to save the rest of us from ourselves?

Or maybe these "specialists" who, as the article Newhaul cited from the Curry blog pointed out, got it wrong about their level of "certainty" -- i.e. margin of error -- over measuring ocean warming. But as least they copped to it -- only after their obvious errors were exposed that is. No doubt the scientist who uncovered the problem was undoubtedly a "Denier" too. (or will be deemed so now).

https://pilotonline.com/news/local/e...5bc83f5ef.html

Oh, and this one's derived from the Washington Post, and so presumably therefore "acceptable" to the media censors amongst us.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

I like this graph because it fits what I believe.

Not much of a basis for deciding what's true and what's false but that's what everyone apart from a small hand full of people are doing........

This is well above my pay grade so I would be very happy to be put straight.

It seems to come from a credible source and there is a hundred edited versions around to try to enhance a particular point of view but they show roughly the same thing so I'll assume it is in the ball park.

If I was to figure out how the world is doing based on this very long term information I'd say we are doing pretty well, nothing to worry about, we were in an upward cycle which seems to have reversed slightly in the last 10,000 years and we are running very close to the world's last 800,000 year average.

As far as short term future, it seems in a state of flux that could go either way 60/40 to decline.

While 'belief' is an option; in things scientific, it is the worst option, if one wants their conclusions of the world to match most closely to reality, though you couldn't tell it from many of the one-line-opinions on display here.

The problem with your graph is that it is (I think) at least 19 years old (the '0' position on the graph is likely 1950, which is the standard geological time reference for 'now') and doesn't reflect the current situation, because the situation is changing more rapidly than has been ever seen, in either the proxy record or the actual, empirical one.

The two graphs below are both from European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA).







Here's a slightly more current one (2004), showing methane, CO2, temperature and solar insolation at 65N (I assume for all practical purposes it is the same at a given latitude north or south). Note that methane and CO2 are literally off the chart, whilst the insolation is declining and the temp is slightly increasing. The entire 'cooling' which Newhaul is on about is contained in one of those little jogs to the far right, and is totally meaningless. The interesting thing in this graph is that the temps have not gone up more, and this is a cause for debate among actual climate scientists, for a variety of reasons; it is known that in this situation that temperature lags greenhouse gas drivers (sometimes it is the reverse), so one of the big questions is what is the delay, and, more ominously, how large and fast the increase will be...

That, and many other predictive indices and signals, are what has virtually all of the scientists closely associated with monitoring this developing situation very concerned indeed. The general public hasn't a clue.

So you can bet on either the guys who together figured out and basically made possible (for better or worse) the entire modern world, the scientists, or a motley crew of variously-vested groups and individuals with 'beliefs'.

My take-home default mode is to believe what I have to, not what I want to...


Oh, and short of a Toba-scale eruption or a kilometer-or-more sized bolide impact, contrary to the title of this thread, a glacial episode in the current ice age ain't happening soon.



420,000 years of ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica research station. Current period is at right. From bottom to top: * Solar variation at 65°N due to en:Milankovitch cycles (connected to 18O). * 18O isotope of oxygen. * Levels of methane (CH4). * Relative temperature. * Levels of carbon dioxide (CO2). From top to bottom: * Levels of carbon dioxide (CO2). * Relative temperature. * Levels of methane (CH4). * 18O isotope of oxygen. * Solar variation at 65°N due to en:Milankovitch cycles (connected to 18O). Wikimedia Commons.

[sailorboy1]

all I really get out of these treads is ........................... pretty lines

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Would those “specialists” be the same “specialists” jetting back and forth in their private plans from conference to conference trying to find costly ways to save the rest of us from ourselves?

Yes? (a few of them anyway) And they have planes that run even in the rain.

And yes I would also take diet advice from a fat person, if they were a nutritionist. See how this works?

Originally Posted by newhaul

... you mean like the ones that made a serious mathematical error that got caught by a layperson.

Sure, we need a bedtime story. Tell us about "A Serious Mathematical Error That Got Caught By A Layperson".

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yes? (a few of them anyway) And they have planes that run even in the rain.

And yes I would also take diet advice from a fat person, if they were a nutritionist. See how this works?

Sure, we need a bedtime story. Tell us about "A Serious Mathematical Error That Got Caught By A Layperson".

how about the recent article in nature magazine that incorrectly listed the amount of heat uptake for the ocean.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/14/w...ing-study-is-w

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Come again?


Quoting from the paper:

I think that most people would translate that as "the ocean is not warming as quickly as the critiqued paper claims (specifically - rates of 0.88 vs 1.16, or 10.1 vs 13.3)" and not "utterly destroys it".

Further, Curry asserts that there is a wider degree of uncertainty than the paper claims. Which means it could be not as high as feared. Or it could be worse (higher).


Of course newhaul still thinks that same, much-maligned graph shows a long-term cooling trend , so maybe innumeracy is wider-spread than we think.

It destroys the underlining argument because the revised and correct math would predict a warming below the number warmists are telling us will result in the end of the earth if exceeded - 1.5 degrees over the next 100 years. Setting aside how silly it is to assert that average temperatures the planet has experienced many times in the past with no ill effects is the end of life as we know it, what this paper demonstrates is that Nature is willing to publish a paper with obvious math errors. Given the warmist track record in past assertions that have proven absurd, this isn't surprising to those with open minds who have observed data fiddling like this many times before. To their credit, the authors have acknowledged that their math was wrong.

On a broader scale, this is just another nail in the coffin of an idea that the people calling themselves climate scientists have an accurate number for climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2. If you think differently, kindly locate the required tropical hot spot that current climate sensitivity values tell us has to be there, but isn't.