It is terribly unfortunate and aggravating when people of limited or complete lack of understanding work done through literally years of research and study, take pieces out of context to represent the author and work as something differing or opposite of the actual data and conclusions. It feels akin to making an amazing meal to watch someone slather it in ketchup....distasteful and insulting.
Without the need for personal attacks, a true sign of weakness,Did anyone see "The Day After Tomorrow" . The plot is about an ice age initiated by a shut down of the oceanic thermal conveyors by fresh water. This theory is taken pretty seriously, ain't it? I know nothing of the claim the scientist's work was misused. Anyone got a reference or just a "claim"? I do see quotes attributed to him in the article. I Searched "Global Cooling" for a recent reference and found the above. And truly, we have not discussed initiating an ice age by the shut down of the oceanic thermal conveyors due to excessive ice melt fresh water due to global warming. Have "we"? A modest suggestion to those who get upset and personal on this thread. Don't check in and stay calmer. Moi
Today's Global Cooling article. From a former NOAA scientist. Is he misinterpreted too? https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...to-ice-age-drastic-global-cool-down-predicted 27, December 2017 From Nice Age to Ice Age: Drastic Global Cool-down Predicted . . . . . One of these scientists is David Dilley, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) meteorologist who is currently CEO of Global Weather Oscillations, Inc. As the Daily Star, which interviewed Dilley, writes: In the coming years, David Dilley ... believes winters will only become “more intense” in the UK due to a combination of “dangerous” climate factors. His research shows that by 2019, Earth will enter a natural 120-year cooling cycle that happens roughly every 230 years, bucking the warming trend. Predictions of low solar activity for 33 years between 2020 and 2053 are also predicted to send thermometers plummeting, according to his research. ... [Dilley] argues that Earth is “coming off” a 230-year global warming cycle and moving on to a 120-year cooling period. These global warming and cooling cycles are determined by the gravitational forces of the Earth, moon and sun, he said, citing evidence “well documented in science.” In other words, as Earth swings closer to the sun global warming is observed, while cooling is observed as Earth swings away. . . . . Seems reasonable. Yes? Moi, BSc (Magna Cum Laude) Biology. M.D. Make Pay Its' Fair Share!
At least it's a testable hypothesis so we'll know soon enough. I will say he doesn't have a very good track record on predictions. From his free ebook here here predicts phase I of the cooling to begin in 2008. Phase II to begin in 2020 [page 19] or is it 2023 [page 18]? Maybe it's 2019 (the article you posted)? I don't know. He also predicts that the Arctic will be frozen solid by 2020. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/611671/ice-age-britain-freeze-climate-change-weather Seeing as we warmed by 0.5C since 2008 his phase I prediction turned out to be dead wrong so I'm not going to hold my breath on 2019, 2020, 2023, or whatever either. Seeing as the Arctic sea ice extents were at record lows during the peak of the winter freeze in March 2018 I'm not going to hold my breath on that prediction either. I'm also confused as to how he chose 2019, 2020, 2023, or whatever year this phase II cooling is supposed to start because he describes his lunisolar theory has having 9 year pulses. So wouldn't 2008 + 9 equal 2017 and then 2026? And lastly, none of his "predictions" have been formerly published. Yet, his GWO website lists his research as "cutting edge". So, I don't know, you tell me. Should we throw our lot in with this one guy? Do his predictions sound reasonable to you?
@iamanonman Thank you. for the civil and informative reply 2020 coming up. The orbital cool down along with the fresh water effect on the oceanic thermal conveyors should make quite a convergence, or not. Add the decrease in solar activity effects. Is it time to move south and buy a warmer coat? Minimally I hope it is time to consider food production and distribution should a cool down occur. America's bread basket may move or disappear with associated regional drought if not the cold. Best Wishes Winter Is Coming.
No one knows for certain, but based on the abundance of evidence considering all known factors that might effect the climate we can say with confidence that the answer is no. There's always the possibility that an as-yet unknown tipping point could activate that could counteract the GHG warming effect and slingshot us back into a cooling regime, but confidence in such a scenario is very low.
A scenario can be given for cooling due to ocean current changes, but the cooling would be felt mostly in Europe and Americas would be mostly unaffected by the chill. We would instead deal with extreme weather as seasonal variation went into overdrive.
I really don't understand why so many people on here can't understand the concept that it can cool in some limited parts of the world while the global mean temperature still increases. It's not that much different conceptually if you closed the door and air register in one room of your house while turning up the thermostat. The mean temperature of your house will rise despite the cooling of one small area of your home. This makes heads explode for some reason.
We've been cooling for roughly 40M years esp the last 3-4M. The last 'glacial' period lasted from 110K years ago until 15000 years ago. I think the average interstadial is 20-50,000 years but someone needs to check that figure. It 'sounds' too long to me. We're 15,000 years into this period so another 5-35K years is probably right.
Also keep in mind that over the last 4 or 5 ice ages the temperature range that typifies a cycle is about 6C (perhaps slightly more if you consider those short lived peaks/troughs). The IPCC prediction for 2100 is about +3C since 1960. That's not small potatoes especially considering how fast it is happening. This interglacial is probably running more towards the high end of the scale in terms of duration. So if our paleoclimate records are of consideration then a decent into secular cooling would more likely happen sooner rather than later all other things being equal. But, all other things aren't equal because humans are pumping a lot of aerosols and GHGs into the atmosphere on this particular cycle.
Assessments based on past instances will be skewed because up until a couple hundred years ago, there wasn't a steadily increasing supply of pollutants being added to the atmosphere IN ADDITION TO the regular and varied natural occurrences that may affect climate. We have a new variable here that did not exist before mankind developed the means to greatly affect our environment.
Then again, the Yellowstone Super Volcano may just blow. The Cool Down is coming. https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/c5a45c...fb933e86/ss_part-of-grand-teton-national.html Part of Grand Teton National Park near Yellowstone supervolcano closed after massive fissure opens Expanding cracks and fissures at Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming have prompted officials to close certain areas to tourists. Hidden Falls and Inspiration Point are now closed to tourists due to a possible safety hazard and park rangers are initiating a risk assessment, according to a statement from the National Park Service. Superintendent David Vela said, “Human safety is our number one priority, and with an abundance of caution we are temporarily closing this area until we can properly assess the situation.” Although it’s unclear how the cracks appeared, it could be due to seismic activity or . . . people jumping up and down in unison. "Although it's unclear " Winter is coming! Moi Cool down is covered with a small fee added to Apocalypse insurance. Message/Conversation Moi for details. 100% guaranteed security. Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
If Yellowstone erupted then that would almost certainly cause cooling for several years and possibly decades if it were a VEI 8 eruption.
Besides Hawai'i, the volcano in Guatemala is acting up too. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/official-guatemala-volcano-death-toll-revised-up-to-121 The death toll from the violent eruption of Guatemala's Fuego volcano on June 3 has risen to 121, after the identification of five cadavers recovered from the devastated zone, a forensics institute said Wednesday. Are we experience a swarm of volcanic activity ? Are you prepared for the cool down? Moi Look what did to Barbie! Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
So, let's review: The overwhelming percentage of scientific agree on man-made climate change. But the OP doesn't trust them, because scientists cannot be trusted. The op them proceeds to refute them by presenting the opinions of 2 scientists, completely misrepresented and mangled, as absolute fact. If your brains hurt, that makes you normal.
Don'tchya just accepted Science by majority, "they say". Like they say eating cholesterol is bad for you, yet Atkins patients' cholesterol plummets. Meanwhile, https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/la...her-forecast-global-freeze-ice-age-earth-2019 His (David Dilley) research shows that by 2019, Earth will enter a natural 120-year cooling cycle that happens roughly every 230 years, bucking the warming trend. Predictions of low solar activity for 33 years between 2020 and 2053 are also predicted to send thermometers plummeting, according to his research. Just another nut job? Seen any sun spots lately? More here https://www.sott.net/article/366034...e-Dates-for-the-Onset-of-Major-Global-Cooling Moi The Solar Minimum is coming (think GoT)
This is basically the same post as #278. It's a prediction from the same person; just a different article.
Science has changed since its inception. Recognizing that is not something some of us want to do, when we have a pet belief that this time the science will not change on this issue. Have you read about the history of science? And how it has moved, many times, at the pace of tombstones, as scientists invested in a particular science, had to die in order for their beliefs to see change? Yes, scientists are first human, and just as fallible, as others are. Science is hardly ever settled, and any real scientist, one with some humility, will admit as much.
Perhaps the brain hurts because of it's inability to understand the nuances of the conversation. The original assertion is that anthropogenic warming is the main reason for the marginal increase in global mean temps. This marginal change is ~.9C. Yes, .9C of <1.7 F. Meaning that the average temp has increased from something like 45F to 46.5 F.. Terrifying really. Now, that is a hypothesis. Namely, that the cause of this warming is ONLY associable to the efforts of mankind. Of course, no natural method has been considered here, no natural trending identified, even though we know, intrinsically that the trend far predates sufficient human interaction in the climate. So, the credibility issue aside, we're simply assuming that all of that .9C is because we found things like cars, trains, planes, industrialization, etc. and nothing that is naturally occurring either added to or otherwise assisted in this increase in global temps. Now, there is an entirely different conversation about the validity and the veracity of data being produced by scientists today. As in, the methodology of or the execution of programming that currently produces the data sets. Suggesting that there have been, and continue to be enormous methodology complaints about, and demonstrable failings of these methods, or models also isn't in question. There are numerous examples of this, and frankly, the scientific process is designed to demonstrate exactly these kind of inadequacies. Now, I understand that this is somewhat complicated, especially for folks who are only ever able to barely repeat things they've been told. The idea that folks might actually need to adopt their own personal deep analytical skills, well, that's just insufferable. The possibility that our climate will be effected by other levers than just human interaction is not nill. We know that natural process has, and continues to change absent our best intentions or interventions. So far, we are unable to demand that solar surface activity will not abate, and because we cannot, the expectation is that total solar output [you know, the ONLY source of actual heating we have available to us...( ok, absent tapping the molten planetary core...)] will decline. And as it declines, the natural mechanism for producing global heat will diminish with it, and the global mean temps will drop with it. That isn't hard, is it? It seems pretty straight forward.
Now it's NASA, not Mr. Dilley! https://www.investors.com/politics/...ange-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/ Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling 5/16/18 NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you'd know it, since that wasn't deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier? Now someone is going to ridicule Moi over NASA, like NASA is Moi's fault. Or exclaim that the majority of scientist . . as if they were the Vulcan Science Directorate. Moi
That may be your hypothesis, but it's certainly not one that AGW posits nor one that the IPCC (a good proxy for the consensus) espouses. AGW specifically claims in no uncertain terms that the global mean temperature changes as a result of both natural + anthroprogenic influences. In the past the net effect was dominated by natural influence, since about 1960 it is dominated by anthroprogenic influence, and in the period in between it is a mix of the two.
Having read your posts that attribute all of the warming to the efforts of man, I don't see why you're now trying to undercut your own posts and opinions. You even suggest as much in the last sentence of your post here where you once again say "since 1960..." You don't get to have it both ways.
It's not just NASA. Everyone shows this sharp cooling that occurred in the previous 24 months ending in February 2018. And for what it's worth everyone knew it was coming because that's what always happens when the ENSO cycle transitions from El Nino to La Nino. However, go back and look at the previous 48 months of data. You'll see that the temperature is still way up even when considering this La Nina phase of ENSO.
