Are we in a global cooling period?

a reply to: toysforadults

No.

The Little Ice Age was not during the Medieval Period.

The Maunder Minimum did not 'cause' the Little Ice Age. It's vaguely correlated with it. The Maunder Minimum lasted from 1645 to 1715. There is no consensus as to when the Little Ice Age began, nor is there a singular period for when it happened. There were cold periods starting in 1650, in 1770, and 1850 - only the first period sort of aligns with the Maunder Minimum.

The whole idea that the Maunder Minimum is what caused the Little Ice Age is extremely speculative.

Also, increased moisture and warmth can cause snow - see for example lake effect snow.

originally posted by: gort51
Yes the 100 years we have been keeping temperature readings, sort of pale into insignificance, with the time frames that we should be dealing with.

Also to mention the Warming period of 2000+ years ago...Egyptians, Sumerians, all the ancient ME civilisations, the Greeks, the Roman expansion, and the warming period of 1000 years ago, the exploring of the Vikings with North American contact, Greenland, the Mongol expansion, Polynesian expansion in the Pacific, Incas, Aztecs, Chinese etc etc.

The Medieval Warm Period is thought to be cooler than the last few years.

The Roman Warm Period is thought to be similar in temperature to today.

It's going to keep getting warmer, though.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: musicismagic

Last winter here in the UK started off quite mild, before we got the Beast from the East - subzero temperatures for a week, which went away and then came back again. April saw odd temperature swings a touch of the Beast again and then sun and high temperatures. May was warm and it's looking like the last half of June is going to be scorching.
In the meantime Antarctic ice is melting faster than ever whilst in the Arctic 2018 is seeing record lows in terms of ice coverage.
Cooling? What freaking cooling?

It is unfortunate for public opinion that heat pushes the cold Arctic bubble down into populated latitudes to cause localized cooling. It keeps happening in North America, and then the shortsighted GOP in the U.S. crows about snow and cold.

To be fair, it is likely already too late for modern civilization. We have degrees of warming baked in - the oceans warm very slowly, and are a tremendous heat sink. The fact that our cooling pollutants like coal emissions have been reducing the impact is masking how bad things are to some extent.

We will be adding to the CO2 emissions with our pit-BBQ of said goat... So sue me.......

a reply to: toysforadults

No.

cci-reanalyzer.org...

Chilly +0.3°C globally for today, but the Antarctic looks really "promising" with it's +1.8°C...

No.

Nasa.gov

There have been many arguments as to whether or not the eleven-year sunspot cycle affects our weather and climate. With our increased ability to monitor the sun, we are now aware that there is a small change in the total solar irradiance accompanying shifts from solar maximum conditions (with many sunspots) to solar minimum (with, basically, none). There is also a more substantial change in the ultraviolet (UV) portion of the solar spectrum, with direct impacts primarily in the stratosphere (above ~10km).


The effect of these changes on our temperature record has been noted by some researchers, and, like the change in solar irradiance, it too appears to be small. But there is little agreement on just how that change arises. Furthermore, there are claims that the sunspot cycle is associated with changes in storm tracks and rainfall. How could this happen with so little change in total energy?

I will just leave this here. Have a guess what comes next. Easy as!



P

a reply to: pheonix358

Have a guess what comes next.

It continues to warm because CO2 concentrations continue to increase?

That chart is a bit dated. It's from 1999.. CO2 levels are above 400 ppmv now and temperatures are higher too. There's more recent data though, it goes back 800,000 years. Never in that time have CO2 levels approached what we've done.


But you've studied up. You know why those cycles are there. Right?
www.indiana.edu...

a reply to: Phage

That chart is a bit dated.

Yes it is.

It also hasn't been polluted by the likes of Al Gore and his getting richer cronies.

That is why I use it.

It should be obvious to anyone except those who wish to be devious.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

It says the same thing as the longer term record. The one that goes back 800,000 years. That CO2 levels are higher than they have been for that entire period of time.

But stick with your confirmation bias. Ignore anything that conflicts with your world view. If it makes you happy.
cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov...

a reply to: Phage


NASA

A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

Oh hmmm. So contrary to popular belief apparently higher c02 has led to a greener earth, amazing. it's leading to more life

Green leaves use energy from sunlight through photosynthesis to chemically combine carbon dioxide drawn in from the air with water and nutrients tapped from the ground to produce sugars, which are the main source of food, fiber and fuel for life on Earth. Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth.

so we are fueling earths biodiversity and growth?? ehhh sounds weird I thought we were destroying the planet??

a reply to: toysforadults

So contrary to popular belief apparently higher c02 has led to a greener earth, amazing. it's leading to more life

Popular belief is that CO2 doesn't help plants grow?

so we are fueling earths biodiversity and growth?

Biodiversity? Your source doesn't say that. But it does say this:

The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

But never mind other effects of global warming. More plants! It's all good! More fertilizer because the plants are displaying wild growth and depleting the soil faster! More pesticides! Because weeds like CO2 too!

a reply to: Phage

may be limited

here let me clear that up for ya

a reply to: toysforadults

“Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

Quite clear. Actually.

a reply to: Phage

Hmmmm, interesting

livescience

Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, researchers say, and new techniques for estimating the amount of carbon dioxide on prehistoric Earth may help scientists predict how Earth's climate may change in the future.

so uhhh, there were plants back then right? so which plants are talking about above??? seems like even not only was plant and animal flourishing it was larger than ever!! pun intended

think it was the volcanic activity that put all the c02 in the atmosphere?

a reply to: toysforadults

think it was the volcanic activity that put all the c02 in the atmosphere?

That's what your source says.

The aim has been to demonstrate how variations in plate tectonics have led to variations in CO2 emissions from volcanoes 250 million years ago.

And the deeper the imaging equipment goes, the farther back in time scientists can see — as far back as 250 million years, said van der Meer. "Essentially, we can see the breakup of the supercontinent Pangaea, and the opening and closing of oceans," he said.

But that's not what's happening now. Volcanic activity hasn't increased noticiably in the past 100 years or so. And there's this: www.abovetopsecret.com... It's us that's putting all that CO2 back into the atmosphere. It was in the ground for a very long time.


And, of course, there weren't any humans with cities and stuff around 250 million years ago either.

On the bright side there will be less shootings in Florida if the ice caps melt. Sea life might be happier with higher sea levels. Although CO2 levels are so high I read our oceans have become acidic. It will cause trillions in property damage if the oceans rise over 100 feet.

I was really hoping the increases in co2 would not cause massive warming and it was just a correlation not a cause. I'm really disappointed. 94 degrees today with heat index around 100 and it's not even summer yet. I see no evidence of global cooling.

It read the extra co2 causes plants to grow faster. I have some trees in my back yard that grew really big in less than 15 years.

a reply to: Phage

what you said has nothing to do with anything

a reply to: orionthehunter

Scientific American?

A Scientist Explains the Mystery of Recent Sea-Level Drop

hm weird, guess it goes against doctrine.. better not challenge it