Russian Scientist: World Facing ‘Mini-Ice Age,’ starting early next year

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: WeAre0ne

Simply, your explanation of "basic science" is oversimplistic and incorrect. I have provided tons of links to scientific papers in this thread, as well as other recent threads on the subject of global warming/climate change.
I am a semi-retired geologist and most of my links are research papers and most of my text is related to geological aspects of climate change.

If you wish to put down other people's understanding of science you will have to discuss it at levels that exceed 4th grade science. Frankly, I am not even sure that your explanation of weather even meets that criteria.

If you must know, my post was aimed at charles1952's post when he said "You can't be taken seriously if you say that cooling is proof of warming.". Right before that he said, "I am not a scientist, so I wish to approach this as the generally ignorant man in the street.". Hence why I gave a 4th grade explanation on basic weather, which was a starting point to explaining the changes in the jet stream (which I was going to save for later).

And no, I was not incorrect.

Good for you and your scientific papers. It seems again you are trying to appear intelligent by telling everyone you used scientific papers for sources, and you are semi-retired geologist... but you still haven't refuted anything specific that I stated so you fail yet again.

I am talking about weather, because we will notice weather changes before we notice climate changes. It's basic science.

originally posted by: bbracken677
I have provided tons of links to scientific papers in this thread, as well as other recent threads on the subject of global warming/climate change.

That is interesting... Since you are now in my spotlight, I figured I would read all your posts on this thread. So I clicked the little green man silhouette on your mini-profile, and clicked "posts in thread", and read all 7 of your posts up to this point.... You have not linked one single scientific paper in this thread.... I have no choice but to not trust a single thing you say from this point on.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Then check out the other current threads on climate change. I can assure you that you will find much to learn.

If you are interested in learning you will find them, they are there. I am not going to hold your hand though.

a reply to: bbracken677

There is not much left for me to learn on this subject. But thanks anyway.

Global warming is a fact. You can't just pump CO2 into the air in excessive amounts and not expect additional radiative forcing.

Come back when you know more about physics.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

We notice weather anomolies. Anomolies the become a trend over a period of time becomes climate change.

Sorry I ruffled your feathers. The data is there, if you wish to learn.

The truth is the truth, bud.

The incorrect parts of your statement, for starters, are these:


"Cold air is denser, and heavier" Which, no doubt, explains why the higher in the atmosphere you get the warmer it is...oh, wait. No it isn't. It's colder and less dense.

"This battle between hot and cold will cause temporary cooling until there is no such thing as cold air, and warm air will win the battle. Global warming. "

According to the above, there would never be glacial periods. Overly simplistic and incorrect.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

LOL

You do realize that you are mouthing a mantra, right?

You do realize that 95% of the Greenhouse Effect (GHE) is due to water vapor, right? That all other GHGs account for the remaining 5%. Of which co2 is the major component. Of which only 3% (of the co2, which is less than 5% of GHE) is attributed to man, correct? Do the math, bud.

You do realize that when these climate change hysterics discuss man's contribution they are ignoring water vapor because that absolutely minimizes the perception of man's contribution. Whereas if co2 is the only component discussed then man's contribution appears to be much more significant.


www.personal.kent.edu...

a reply to: bbracken677
Well the guy in the link seems to think it will start sometime next year. Thought by start I assume that generally sometimes when your kids kids are going to school and you are not around anymore there will be a noticeable difference in the weather and the world that anybody can point to it and say...Hmm things really are changing. I seriously doubt if and when there is a change it will be that fast, I mean in terms of these sort of thing a few generations may be considered fast and noticeable change in worldwide weather.

Oh and we may be and have been going through a sort of golden age on this planet in terms of that, for...Well pretty much all of human history and prehistory things have been nice and cozy, but even that will likely change one day. Thought the term were to be expecting is little ice ages, and even those our ancestors were living in caves or hunting and gathering or fishing by the seaside villages when the last big little ice age hit, and even that was not on a planetary scale. Though you would not want to be living here in the westcoast of north America if you were around during those times, considering a lot of it was under sheets of ice, some even hundreds of miles high. But in south America and other places around the world, I do not believe they would have even noticed they were in a ice age.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

You are pretty much correct. However what we will see for starters (I doubt it will be next year) will be cooling trends.

The complication is that it appears that we may be entering a cooling phase of the oceanic multi decadel cycle. This could mean that we are in for another 13ish years of cooler and or cooling trends before warming kicks in again.

icecap.us...

The question would be,if we see continued cooling (see global temps last 4 years) for 13 years or even as much as 20, would we be seeing global cooling as a result of the ending of the current interglacial, or would we be seeing cooling due to the oceanic multi decadel cycle?

We could not possibly know the answer to that for 20-30 years or so. Of course, that is assuming that global warming does not kick in immediately this next year.

You will note in the graph above, of the most recent glacial/interglacial periods that the end of each interglacial is marked by a peak of high temperatures. In all but one the peaks were several degrees centigrage higher than what we are currently seeing. Which means it is quite possible that we have more heating in store before the cooling kicks in. Too many factors to be sure.

Of course, we could always just listen to what the IPCC says their model predicts. I might add that every one of their predictions to date have been failures. They failed to predict the last 17 years, they failed to predict growing sea ice in antactica, failed to predict the most recent growth in arctic ice.

Their models are focused on GHGs as drivers, and yet there is much evidence in the geologic record that indicates, like water vapor, co2 increases are a result of global warming, not a cause.

Indeed, our current ice age began with co2 levels at multiples (in the order of 14x) of today's co2 levels. It is suggested by many that the GHE is vastly overstated and not supported by simple observation.

Not to mention that from ice cores in antarctica it is seen that co2 rises at the end of glaciation (the beginning of interglacial periods) actually lag behind temperature increases by roughly 800-1000 years. There is recent research that drops that lag down to about 200 years, but that is very recent and not confirmed.

One myth that people seem to believe is that our climate was in balance and man has "unbalanced" it. The climate is never "balanced" and is ALWAYS in the process of change.

Another myth: The temperature variation we see from, say 4000 feet altitude and the surface of the earth is mostly due to GHE. Unfortunately the application of gas law formulas account for the temperature difference regardless of the presence of co2, methane or water vapor.

Also funny is the fact that temperatures seen in our solar system on other planets with significant atmosphere are a direct result of gas under pressure. Makes no difference that the atmosphere is mainly co2 or methane. Interesting, no?

I am not saying that man has not contibuted to climate change. I AM saying that the climate change hysterics are trying their damndest to blame man for the lion share which is simply not true.

Given the IPCC's rate of failure to predict anything, given the agenda's involved, I refuse to prostrate myself at the feet of Alarmists.

99.99% of doom porn is just that: doom porn. In the last 20 years, has any of the doom porn been true? Does the presentation of much of the global warming/climate change not smack of doom porn?

originally posted by: bbracken677
"Cold air is denser, and heavier" Which, no doubt, explains why the higher in the atmosphere you get the warmer it is...oh, wait. No it isn't. It's colder and less dense.

Thank you for proving you don't even know basic science.

Air expands when heated, and contracts when cooled. So naturally, cold air is more dense because it is contracted, and there is more air per cubic inch which makes it heavier. Warm air is expanded, making it less dense and lighter. When cold air and warm air collide in a cold front, the cold air wedges under the warm air because it is heavier, and pushes the warm air up. The cold air replaces the warm air. It also causes significant wind.

Also, we all know warm air rises.Why? Because it is less dense than cold air, and cold air pushes warm air above it. You know, that's how hot air balloons work...

With that said, air pressure decreases as you gain altitude because there is less air above you pushing down and creating pressure (again basic science). The warm air that rises above cold air ends up expanding into the lower pressure at high altitude (because there is less air) and that expansion causes that warm air to cool down (basic Gas Law). The reason it is colder at high altitude is because there is less air, and lower pressure.

The fact you are trying to disagree with these basic laws of physics tells me much about your level of understanding, or lack thereof.

originally posted by: bbracken677

Thanks for that graph. It sure does prove that not only can CO2 lag behind temerpature (because increased temperature causes the ocean to release CO2 and other greenhouses gases), but also shows temperature lags behind CO2 (because CO2 increase warms the planet). That graph is a perfect example of climate feedback.

originally posted by: bbracken677
You do realize that you are mouthing a mantra, right?

You do realize the mantra is the truth (a fact), right?

originally posted by: bbracken677
You do realize that 95% of the Greenhouse Effect (GHE) is due to water vapor, right? That all other GHGs account for the remaining 5%. Of which co2 is the major component. Of which only 3% (of the co2, which is less than 5% of GHE) is attributed to man, correct? Do the math, bud.

Yes. You are stating more facts already know about... Yes I know water vapor makes up most of our atmosphere.

You do realize that CO2 is a more effective greenhouse gas than water vapor at equal quantities right?

You do also realize that any increase in any of the greenhouses gases increases radiative forcing right? It doesn't matter which greenhouse gas you increase, you will increase radiative forcing....

So what is your point???

originally posted by: bbracken677
You do realize that when these climate change hysterics discuss man's contribution they are ignoring water vapor because that absolutely minimizes the perception of man's contribution. Whereas if co2 is the only component discussed then man's contribution appears to be much more significant.

Sorry, but nobody is ignoring water vapor. All greenhouse gases are taken into account.

If you increase any of the greenhouse gases, you increases radiative forcing. Man is significantly increasing CO2, which will result in increased radiative forcing.

These are facts.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Air expands when heated, and contracts when cooled. So naturally, cold air is more dense because it is contracted, and there is more air per cubic inch which makes it heavier. Warm air is expanded, making it less dense and lighter. When cold air and warm air collide in a cold front, the cold air wedges under the warm air because it is heavier, and pushes the warm air up. The cold air replaces the warm air. It also causes significant wind.

I fully understand how gas laws work and I can quote the various gas laws to you.

The fact is, that the higher in the atmosphere you go, the colder it is and the less dense it is. This actually fits in perfectly with gas law. Would you like me to quote the equations and demonstrate why our atmosphere is colder at higher altitudes where it is less dense? I mean, seriously, this is shown by simple observation of the phenomena in nature. By your definition the colder air would be closer to the earth. Not so, batman.

Challenge me. I dare you to.

You are, indeed, correct in your description of convection. In a pot, or in a contained volume of gas, your description is absolutely correct. Often in nature, your description is correct. In the atmosphere, convection accounts for much of the circulation, but it does not even come close to describing the atmospheric temperatures by altitude as experienced. Let me point out, that in general, deep ocean depths are characterized by colder water, but not always. There are conditions whereby the cooler water rises to the top and the warmer water moves deeper...As I said before....you oversimplify.

Challenge me.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Ok...so you say no one ignores water vapor. I can show you any number of papers, articles and opinion pieces whereby water vapor is not mentioned in the least. All the percentages are presented as if water vapor does not exist. Tomorrow I will dig up some of those and link them here.

Regarding man's contribution, you are making my point for me (the oft repeated mantra). Tell me how much man is contributing to co2 "forcing" for example and how you arrived at that figure.

For once it makes me glad that I live in Arizona. The coldest winters I've seen were around 30 and it's hot as hell right now. However, I knew a global cooling would happen. Just another part of Earth's cycle.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

You know what? I am not going to wait for a challenge. I am going to show you simple physics.

What is the average sea level pressure? Around 1013 mbar.
If you live at a higher altitude, the pressure is less, no?
The baraometer at 100 meters asl will read about 12 mbar less.
Pressure is a direct measurement of how much atmospheric mass is above your head per square meter.

The ideal gas law (from which all others are derived) can be written as PV=RT where P is pressure (Pascal), V is volume (meters cubed) and R is the gas constant (Joule/K) and T is the average termperature over time.

Hence, T = P/R. T is proportional to P, and P is known from observation to decrease with increasing altitude. It follows that the average T has to decrease with altitude. Temperature will increase the closer to the surface you are.

In other words, in the real world, as described by gas law and observation: The atmosphere is denser and warmer at teh surface, cooler and less dense at altitude.

Want some more physics? I am using an iPad, so complex equations are .. a challenge. Luckily this one could be stated simply.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Your remark about co2 being a more effective GHG at equal quantities.

Imaterial, since, as I stated water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse EFFECT!

If this 3.5% of the greenhouse effect is so...damning! and man contributes 3% of the 3.$% then ...help me here, what does that represent as man's contribution to the greenhouse effect? How's that work? .03 x .035 = ?

I like the way you use radiative forcing. It's kinda like "thinking outside the box" or "synergy". I like that stuff...very catchy!

I also liked how you referred to climate feedback. So..using radiative forcing and cimate feedback in a sentence perhaps you can describe how co2 is such a driver that at 14 times the current levels the ice age began?

Oh, please claim that astronomic conditions were different. I would love to illustrate exactly how much bs that is. Remember..geologist, study of earth in the past and present. Remember Milankovich cycles. Cycles that actually were were almost identical at that point in time as today. In fact, if you look at the chart you claim illustrates "climate feedback" you would note temperature drops when co2 levels are high, temperature increases when co2 levels are low (beginning and end of glacial growth periods)

This is also known as "co2 aint the driver of climate". Not as catchy as radiative forcing, or climate feedback, but hey...you cant have everything!

There is interesting video on youtube about abrupt climate change which has reoccurred many times in human history. The issue is not so much oil but food. Its estimated that a cooler world may only be able to provide enough food for 2 billion people, so 5 billion could starve.

Bound to happen sooner or later.
Personally as someone who has lived his entire life near the arctic circle,
i welcome our new glacial overlords.

a reply to: bbracken677

99.99% of doom porn is just that: doom porn. In the last 20 years, has any of the doom porn been true? Does the presentation of much of the global warming/climate change not smack of doom porn?

Depends, some have turned out to be sort of true or they could have happened. But in this case even if it is a case of doom, its not likely to happen overnight and it just may be a long time before you could point to the sky or any significant changes in data or things to really say that its changing to a degree were it definitely effects everything. It just may take 20years to say with any definite certainty that there is a global cooling going on, or anything else of that nature.

Generally unlike the movies depict such things do not happen in the span of a few days, and even in the past when it happened it was a generational thing, and all in a time when they did not keep track of such things but in stories and myths passed on mouth to mouth over a campfire at night. Even in medieval Europe when they got hit by the little ice age, they merely forgot that in that part of the world it happens every so often, every so often being up to thousands of years intervals.

But hey if things get all ice agey. I think I will legally change my last name to stark, and my moto will be..."Winter is coming" Which off course will only mean that I will be the first one to die off.

a reply to: LionOfGOD
Thats the spirit bro. Look on the bright side, at least we will have plenty of snow and ice to make cool snow angels. I mean sure everything else may have the potential to really suck, but we wont be knowing that because we would be left dealing with daily things which will take up all our time and effort, why even getting food may take as much as a months planing and working. We wont even need TV, why would you need such things, when we could be entertained by the prospect of a snowstorm and other such things, and all in there brilliant white settings, it would be a practical winter wonderland.

It may take some adjusting I believe, and considering that every year at least here were I live, everytime there is as much as an inch of snow on the ground, people crash everywhere, and the highways are littered with cars on the side with people wondering how they got there, and every year there surprised. I do believe it would not be that much of a change in the scenery of people on the side of the highways with cellphones out kicking snow, and people would adjust to it just fine, or at least well enough.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

So what doom porn in the last 20 years has turned out sort of true, or "could have happened"?

Regarding the cooling...precisely what I have stated. We will not know immediately if a cooling trend (should one come) be a part of a shorter cycle or the actual end of our current interglacial period. I am pretty sure that there will be the doom porners jumping on the "ice age" or even "man made ice age" band wagon LOL.

Wonder if they will be wanting more co2 pumped then, or less?

Loved your Game of Thrones reference I am a fan from way back...still waiting for the next book. Have thoroughly enjoyed the HBO series as well!! It has been well, and faithfully done.