Global Cooling. The sky is falling.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

To add some factual information to the thread, I've attached a chart of the Mean (hourly) temperatures for the month of June for the center of the Netherlands (as measured at station 260, De Bilt), from 1951 to 2018. Note, the data does not yet include the last 2 days of this month, which are expected to raise the mean for June 2018 a little more with above average temperatures for the time of year and for the month to date.

The red line is the 11-year average, which allows to eliminate the effect of the solar cycles and thus produces a more steady line than the annual data. That makes it clear that since the last 30 years there is a marked increase in the average temperatures, and the trend is upwards in my country (as it is in neighboring countries).

So over the last 68 years, the June mean temperature has risen by more than 1.1 degrees Celsius. The month also sets a record for low amounts of precipitation, which endangers food crop production, and has almost reached the point of having to ration the use of water. We can only hope that the next 2-3 months (the hottest of the year) will compensate for the lack of precipitation by a surplus of it, to restore a balance. Because of the increased amount of water vapor in the atmosphere some flooding is possible if it all comes down at the same time. Stay tuned ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... So over the last 68 years...

Wow! That long?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Wow! That long?

I would have given you data since 1880 if only it was as reliable and available as the data I used for this specific location location (measurements started in 1901). But if you prefer, you can use the hemispherical means in this chart:



The trend is similar despite it showing annual averages.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

If you want to go back further than 1880, this might be an interesting read...

https://www.sciencealert.com/why-4-5-million-years-of-fluctuating-global-temperatures-can-t-explain-climate-change-today

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

If you want to go back further than 1880, this might be an interesting read...

https://www.sciencealert.com/why-4-5-million-years-of-fluctuating-global-temperatures-can-t-explain-climate-change-today

Cheers,
Bart

  The chart is deceiving.  It starts at the middle of the last ice age when it was the coldest.  It doesn't show what the highest temperatures were previous to that when the previous ice age ended.  It may be no warmer now than at that time.  That's the period you want to compare too.  Do you have a chart?

Another assumption is that CO2 is what's causing it and people.  Maybe the studies have missed another factor unknown at this point.  The fact the population and CO2 is going up at the same time that temperature is rising may be coincidental, not causative. 


Finally, even if temperatures are going up, for whatever reason, we may find that  a few extra degrees are actually beneficial for mankind and most species.  The reason we've done so well has been attributed to a warming climate. It's allowed us to plant and grow more food leading to higher populations.   So any extra couple of degrees would be more beneficial.   

I'd like to comment on populations.  It's interesting that those who support the negativity of higher temperature due to climate change are also protectors of the environment where species have declined.  They base their assessment on the number of a particular species as the guideline of whether it is endangered.  Yet, when it comes to man, they ignore populations.  If human population is increasing, than we should say our species is benefiting as well, regardless of what the climate is doing.  You can't have it both ways.  Sure, specific areas and people may be hurt by rising sea levels for example.  But if generally, the overall population is increasing, then you to credit warming as having a beneficial effect for our general good. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

  The chart is deceiving.  It starts at the middle of the last ice age when it was the coldest.  It doesn't show what the highest temperatures were previous to that when the previous ice age ended.  It may be no warmer now than at that time.  That's the period you want to compare too.  Do you have a chart?

Another assumption is that CO2 is what's causing it and people.  Maybe the studies have missed another factor unknown at this point.  The fact the population and CO2 is going up at the same time that temperature is rising may be coincidental, not causative.

Don't be silly. 

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. Attached 800000 years of temperature anomalies.

[degrub]

hmmm.
Looks like we are headed for the "great cooling" based on that plot.

[Alan Klein]

Don't be silly. 

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. Attached 800000 years of temperature anomalies.

The chart you posted answers my question I asked in my last post. What was the highest temperature prior to the last ice age.  Your chart proved my point.  That 120,000 years ago, before the peak of the last ice age around 100,000, the temperature was higher than any other time. I don't believe we were burning fossils fuels 120,000 years ago.    Who's silly now?

[Tim Lookingbill]

It seems many are straying off topic here and engaging in 'tit for tat' personal comments, so I'll post the following link which is directly on topic.

Published on June 29, 2018, 'The Coldest Place On Earth Is Even Colder Than Scientists Thought.'
https://principia-scientific.org/the-coldest-place-on-earth-is-even-colder-than-scientists-thought/

Hope this good news will help to alleviate the terrible stress that climate-change alarmists must be experiencing. 

At least it explains how we still get below zero temps in the Northern US from those cold fronts when we're complaining how hot it is in Texas in December and then the next day we get snow all of sudden. WTF?!

Still no one can predict what the jet stream will do to high and low pressure that my weather man says each day is the only mechanism that triggers rain from the warm humid Gulf air hitting upper level cold air. I wish they could trace that back and connect the dots with hard evidence that CO2 levels controls/affects all this.

[Ray]

In 2016, there were 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals challenging “consensus” climate science.

In 2017 there were 400 scientific papers published which favour skepticism on Climate Alarm.

So far in 2018 there have been 254 new papers that support Climate Change Skepticism.

https://principia-scientific.org/2018-254-new-papers-support-climate-change-skepticism/

When you've read them all, get back to me. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

In 2016, there were 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals challenging “consensus” climate science.

So what? That's how science works, scientists challenging scientists in a process of peer review.

For an explanation how that works (and apparently still necessary to explain) see my earlier post here, and in particular the link to :
https://youtu.be/udeF6EFUzkk?t=252
until about 5:20, unless you want to watch the entire video (which is recommended).

In 2017 there were 400 scientific papers published which favour skepticism on Climate Alarm.

That doesn't sound like a scientific observation, but more of an opinion. Which is not a surprise coming from a source that's labeled as a biased source (conspiracy-pseudoscience), and I'm not talking about you, but about the website you like to link to (see attachment).

A fine example of the (lack of) credibility of your source is where they need strawman's arguments to build something of a case:

These 254 new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.

DUH, of course climate science isn't settled, nobody claimed that anyway (so why invoke a strawman's argument?). In fact, science will never be settled but it will evolve with new insights based on better data.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

"Barents Sea seems to have crossed a climate tipping point
This is probably what a climate tipping point looks like—and we're past it."

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/barents-sea-seems-to-have-crossed-a-climate-tipping-point/

QUOTE "Many of the threats we know are associated with climate change are slow moving. Gradually rising seas, a steady uptick in extreme weather events, and more all mean that change will come gradually to much of the globe. But we also recognize that there can be tipping points, where certain aspects of our climate system shift suddenly to new behaviors.

The challenge with tipping points is that they're often easiest to identify in retrospect. We have some indications that our climate has experienced them in the past, but reconstructing how quickly a system tipped over or the forces that drove the change can be difficult. Now, a team of Norwegian scientists is suggesting it has watched the climate reach a tipping point: the loss of Arctic sea ice has flipped the Barents Sea from acting as a buffer between the Atlantic and Arctic oceans to something closer to an arm of the Atlantic."

If indeed irreversible, then it will lead to changes in the weather patterns, and ultimately the (local?) climate.

Cheers,
Bart

[Ray]

So what? That's how science works, scientists challenging scientists in a process of peer review.

Looks like it was necessary for me to have mentioned that this number of papers would suggest that the often claimed 97% consensus, that AGW is a serious threat, is bogus. I didn't mention it because I thought that would have been obvious.

DUH, of course climate science isn't settled, nobody claimed that anyway (so why invoke a strawman's argument?).

A previous president of the United States, Barack Obama, is noted for his statement that 'the science is settled', in relation to anthropogenic climate change. Didn't you know that, Bart?

Also the frequent claims of a 95% confidence, from the IPCC and other authorities, that the main cause of the current warming is anthropogenic would also suggest that the science is settled, or at least very close to being settled.

That doesn't sound like a scientific observation, but more of an opinion. Which is not a surprise coming from a source that's labeled as a biased source (conspiracy-pseudoscience), and I'm not talking about you, but about the website you like to link to (see attachment).

Of course, all websites that express an opinion you disagree with, can be described as conspiracy-pseudoscience. I try to look at both sides of the argument and form my own judgement as to which argument is more reasonable.

Considering the very complex and chaotic nature of weather patterns and climate changes, I would say that any organization that expresses a 95% confidence that minuscule percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere are the main cause of the current warming, and that such warming is bad, is engaging in pseudoscience.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Looks like it was necessary for me to have mentioned that this number of papers would suggest that the often claimed 97% consensus, that AGW is a serious threat, is bogus. I didn't mention it because I thought that would have been obvious.

I'm kind of amazed that, after it has been explained to the deniers multiple times, they prefer to deny the obvious. The consensus is about the observations that global warming is man-made, and it's mainly caused by burning of fossil fuel (and land-use).

Companies like Shell and Exxon already knew it (and published about it) in the '90s. It's settled, done. The results are in, the earth is not flat, and humans are the main cause of global warming (by burning of fossil fuel and from land-use). Not the sun as it was before earlier glaciations, humans are causing it.

The discussion should be what to do about it! Unless one prefers to troll instead.

A previous president of the United States, Barack Obama, is noted for his statement that 'the science is settled', in relation to anthropogenic climate change. Didn't you know that, Bart?

Who cares? But then, you're just trolling, I suppose?

Also the frequent claims of a 95% confidence, from the IPCC and other authorities, that the main cause of the current warming is anthropogenic would also suggest that the science is settled, or at least very close to being settled.

Are you questioning the main cause of current global warming? It's basic chemistry ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PrrTk6DqzE&t=13s
Sorry if that doesn't jive with your preference for conspiracy theories, it's a pretty basic example of KISS.

Or are you still not understanding the distinction between confidence levels (= data quality) and likelihood (= probability). I'll explain it once more below.

Of course, all websites that express an opinion you disagree with, can be described as conspiracy-pseudoscience. I try to look at both sides of the argument and form my own judgement as to which argument is more reasonable.

So your judgment is that Science is wrong, and you are right? I rest my case...

Considering the very complex and chaotic nature of weather patterns and climate changes, I would say that any organization that expresses a 95% confidence that minuscule percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere are the main cause of the current warming, and that such warming is bad, is engaging in pseudoscience.

Same old lack of understanding. I'll explain it one more time, confidence levels are about the quality of the data that leads to the consensus about that data. The data is not wrong, how could it when basically everybody observes the same thing under comparable circumstances? It has little to do with probability of future events.

It's useless to seriously discuss probabilities with people who can't even accept consensus about observations, if it weren't for the other people reading along.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Goldhammer]

I'm kind of amazed that, after it has been explained to the deniers multiple times, they prefer to deny the obvious. The consensus is about the observations that global warming is man-made, and it's mainly caused by burning of fossil fuel (and land-use).

Companies like Shell and Exxon already knew it (and published about it) in the '90s. It's settled, done. The results are in, the earth is not flat, and humans are the main cause of global warming (by burning of fossil fuel and from land-use). Not the sun as it was before earlier glaciations, humans are causing it.

Also of importance is several large petrochemical companies are spending a lot of money developing renewable fuels

The discussion should be what to do about it! Unless one prefers to troll instead.

An impossibility on this forum because many of the commenters have little understanding of the science or the scientific method.

Same old lack of understanding. I'll explain it one more time, confidence levels are about the quality of the data that leads to the consensus about that data. The data is not wrong, how could it when basically everybody observes the same thing under comparable circumstances? It has little to do with probability of future events.

Counting "scientific" papers with no understanding of the underlying quality is a fools errand

It's useless to seriously discuss probabilities with people who can't even accept consensus about observations, if it weren't for the other people reading along.

+1

[RSL]

Companies like Shell and Exxon already knew it (and published about it) in the '90s. It's settled, done. The results are in, the earth is not flat, and humans are the main cause of global warming (by burning of fossil fuel and from land-use). Not the sun as it was before earlier glaciations, humans are causing it.

The discussion should be what to do about it!

Well, it's obvious there's only one thing to do about it: Run! Run for your life! Then hide. Hide under the bed.

[digitaldog]

Well, it's obvious there's only one thing to do about it: Run! Run for your life! Then hide. Hide under the bed.

- minus 1: FUD, fact/science denial. 

[Alan Klein]

Let's assume it's warming up and it's caused by man.  Let's assume the worse as to effect -only bad, nothing good.  What are you going to do about it?  China, India and America are meeting no promised Paris reduction goals.  They create over 50% of the CO2 in the entire world.  Even Europe for the most part is not meeting its promises in Paris.  Worse still, China still has 3/4 of their population in poverty and they want to enter the middle class with all the additional carbon burning that will have to go on like the other 1/4 of their population.  So they have a billion people, equal to three times the US, who want to be like us.  That doesn't include India.  All these people schmutzing up the atmosphere.

Switching to renewables wil help, but only in a small way.  The population is the main culprit.  So what can be done, realistically?

[degrub]

epidemic disease is usually one of the more common effective means.
War is usually too limited to be effective on that scale and keep the planet habitable.
extended, large volcanic eruption with consequent food supply loss
large asteroid hit.

so basically, something over which we have little or no influence.

[digitaldog]

Let's assume it's warming up and it's caused by man.  Let's assume the worse as to effect -only bad, nothing good.  What are you going to do about it?

You don't bury your head in the sand (or your own bubble), you reduce your own carbon footprint, you do embrace renewables, you do not go the path of Trump and build up coal or lie that there's such a thing as 'clean coal', you don't reduce restrictions of carbon among other nasties, or reduce requirements for gas mileage, you support financially those industries that are clean(er), tax those that are not etc. But the most important thing you do about it is get involved, educated and ignore FUD and science deniers who's agenda is solely to make money (meaning, when you hear reducing coal means job losses in a rather tiny sector, or hear the cost of gas may go up X cents, you don't cry foul that it's costing some a bit of money, today).   
There's far more you can do but this is a start. Can YOU do or support ANY of the above? Some of us can and do. Personally, I send MORE electricity to the grid than I use thanks in large part to: