Will A Shutdown of The Northern Conveyor Belt Cause Eventually Global Cooling?

To make the thread smaller, and make it easier for all members to read the thread I am condensing this thread, and only giving a few links.

For years we have been drilled by the AGW camp on how the shutting down of the North Conveyor Belt will eventually cause Global Cooling, but is this true?

We all know how the Arctic has been warming up, although the evidence suggest this warming is occurring first in the oceans, which would point to the fact that it is probably the Earth's core that has been warming the Arctic and other oceans, hence icebergs have been breaking up.

Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming
GILBERT P. COMPO
PRASHANT D. SARDESHMUKH
Climate Diagnostics Center,
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
University of Colorado, and
Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
325 Broadway R/PSD1
Boulder CO 80305-3328
[email protected]
(303) 497-6115
(303) 497-6449

Citation:
Compo, G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2008: Oceanic influences on recent continental warming. Climate
Dynamics, doi: 10.1007/s00382-008-0448-9.
This article is published by Springer-Verlag. This author-created version is distributed courtesy of Springer-Verlag.
The original publication is available from www.springerlink.com at
www.springerlink.com...

Abstract
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.

Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.

www.cdc.noaa.gov...

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

In the above research work the "evidence" says and I quote:

recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land

The fact that also the areas which have been warming the most are very remote locations very far away from sources of anthropogenic pollution, including anthropogenic CO2, this evidence also suggests that some other mechanism, and not CO2 has been the cause of the warming.

...
Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

But even if we were to ignore these facts and some others, such as the fact that Earth has not been the only planet undergoing dramatic Climate Changes in the form of warming, but all planets, and even moons with a dense enough atmosphere have been experiencing warming at about the same time Earth has. Even if we were to ignore these facts, let me make the argument of how it is not possible for the shut down of the North Atlantic Conveyor Belt to cause eventual global cooling.

Imagine the ocean around the Artic is the water in a glass of water, and that all the ice at the Arctic is the ice you use to keep your water, or other liquid, cooler for longer.

We all know that because the liquid/water is warmer than the ice, the ice starts melting until there is nothing in the glass but liquid.

Now, whatever mechanism is the cause for the melting in the Arctic, and Antarctic, it is strong enough to melt large chunks of icebergs, and even Perennial ice/snow found at the poles.

It is speculated that once the ice is all melted, this new influx of fresh water will desalinate the oceans, and this in turn will stop the North Atlantic Conveyor Belt, which is the current that sends warm water from the equator up to the northern hemisphere and cause the northern hemisphere to go into an Ice Age. But I have to question this line of reasoning because if this "unknown mechanism" is able to melt the ice at the poles now, how would it be unable to maintain the oceans fairly warm?

We do know that right now, as the poles are supposedly slowly being melted temperatures have "supposedly" gone up, even though there have also been record colds, but let's not derail the thread.

So, I let me ask this and reiterate my argument, if whatever strong enough mechanism is behind the melting of the glaciers and the Perennial ice/snow at the poles, why wouldn't it be strong enough to maintain the northern and southern hemisphere warm?

Just like the melted ice in the glass of water, the water/liquid will remain melted.

Yes I know that there are natural mechanisms that should freeze at least some of that water back up during winter, such as the tilt of the Earth's axis which gives us the 4 seasons, etc, but the AGW scientists, and even governments have been claiming that eventually the poles will be virtually free of ice "because of the evil atmospheric CO2"...

But, if this mechanism is strong enough to make the poles virtually free of ice, why would the northern hemisphere go into an Ice Age?

It simply can't, unless some other mechanism causes an Ice Age to Earth.

So, what makes certain scientists, and governments, so certain that in the not so distant future eventually at least the northern hemisphere will go into what will essentially be an Ice Age?

What if something else will be the cause of this, and not "the evil atmospheric CO2" but for whatever reason those in power don't want to say what it is?


(To be continued)

(continued)

Nature 261, 32 - 34 (06 May 1976); doi:10.1038/261032a0


Glaciations and dense interstellar clouds

BRIAN DENNISON† & V. N. MANSFIELD*‡


†Center for Radiophysics and Space Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853
‡Department of Physics and Astronomy, Colgate University, Hamilton, New York 13346
*Present address: The National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853.


McCREA has revived the idea that the Earth's ice ages may have been caused by the interaction of the Sun with dense interstellar clouds1. In this theory, originally formulated by Hoyle and Lyttleton2, the solar luminosity is temporarily increased by the accretion of gas on to the Sun when the Solar System passes through a dense interstellar cloud. The increased insolation is assumed to cause an increase in precipitation and ice accumulation. McCrea suggests that the recurrence and duration of ice epochs can be attributed to the passage of the Solar System through compression lanes in the spiral arms. Relative velocities between the Solar System and the clouds range from 5–20 km s−1, but cloud densities of 105–107 hydrogen molecules per cm3 are called for by the model. A study of the character and grain size distribution of texturally mature lunar soils supports this model3. Here we examine several consequences of the passage of a dense cloud through the Solar System and find severe problems for this glaciation mechanism.

www.nature.com...

Many of you are aware of my other threads where I have posted evidence that our Solar System is in fact entering a new region of the Local Fluff, and we are in fact slowly entering an interstellar cloud that is denser than the one in which we have been for thousands of years.

Some of those threads include the following.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Scientists have known that our Solar System was approaching this interstellar cloud since at least 1978, and for a while it was thought that it would tkae us 10,000 - 50,000 years to reach this interstellar cloud, but new evidence has pointed out to our scientists that in fact their calculations were wrong, and we will be entirely within this interstellar cloud within 100 years or so.

Ribbon at Edge of Our Solar System: Will the Sun Enter a Million-Degree Cloud of Interstellar Gas?
ScienceDaily (May 24, 2010) — Is the Sun going to enter a million-degree galactic cloud of interstellar gas soon?

Scientists from the Space Research Centre of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Southwest Research Institute, and Boston University suggest that the ribbon of enhanced emissions of energetic neutral atoms, discovered last year by the NASA Small Explorer satellite IBEX, could be explained by a geometric effect coming up because of the approach of the Sun to the boundary between the Local Cloud of interstellar gas and another cloud of a very hot gas called the Local Bubble. If this hypothesis is correct, IBEX is catching matter from a hot neighboring interstellar cloud, which the Sun might enter in a hundred years.
...

www.sciencedaily.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/63ffeeb144dd.jpg[/atsimg]

The Sun traveling through the Galaxy happens to cross at the present time a blob of gas about ten light-years across, with a temperature of 6-7 thousand degrees kelvin. This so-called Local Interstellar Cloud is immersed in a much larger expanse of a million-degree hot gas, named the Local Bubble. The energetic neutral atoms (ENA) are generated by charge exchange at the interface between the two gaseous media. ENA can be observed provided the Sun is close enough to the interface. The apparent Ribbon of ENA discovered by the IBEX satellite can be explained by a geometric effect: one observes many more ENA by looking along a line-of-sight almost tangent to the interface than by looking in the perpendicular direction. (Credit: SRC/Tentaris,ACh/Maciej Frolow)

www.sciencedaily.com...


(to be continued)

Now, the good news is that supposedly this interstellar cloud is not very dense, but read the following paper from 1996 when they thought it was farther away.

Our solar system may be headed for an encounter with a dense cloud of interstellar matter
Our solar system may be headed for an encounter with a dense cloud of interstellar matter–gas and dust–that could have substantial implications for our solar systems interplanetary environment, according to University of Chicago astrophysicist Priscilla Frisch. The good news is that it probably won’t happen for 50,000 years. Frisch presented the results of her research Monday, June 10, at the meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Madison, Wisc.

Frisch has been investigating the interstellar gas in the local neighborhood of our solar system, which is called the Local Interstellar Medium (LISM). This interstellar gas is within 100 light years of the Sun. The Sun has a trajectory through space, and for most of the last five million years, said Frisch, it has been moving through a region of space between the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy that is almost devoid of matter. Only recently, within the last few thousand years, she estimates, the Sun has been traveling through a relatively low-density interstellar cloud.

“This cloud, although low density on average, has a tremendous amount of structure to it,” Frisch said. “And it is not inconsistent with our data that the Sun may eventually encounter a portion of the cloud that is a million times denser than what we’re in now.”

Frisch believes the interstellar cloud through which we’re traveling is a relatively narrow band of dust and gas that lies in a superbubble shell expanding outward from an active star-formation region called the Scorpius-Centaurus Association. “When this superbubble expanded around these stars, it expanded much farther into the region of our galaxy between the spiral arms, where our sun lies, because the density is very low,” Frisch said. “It didn’t expand very far in the direction parallel to the spiral arms because it ran into very dense molecular clouds.”
...

www-news.uchicago.edu...

“This cloud, although low density on average, has a tremendous amount of structure to it,” Frisch said. “And it is not inconsistent with our data that the Sun may eventually encounter a portion of the cloud that is a million times denser than what we’re in now.”

Even thou so far what we have been measuring tells us that the interstellar cloud is not too dense, further inside this cloud it could be, and should be denser, and this could in turn cause an Ice Age on Earth.

But why have certain scientists and governments been lying and claiming "mankind is to blame for this" so they have come up with new taxes and new ways to squeeze us of our hard earned money? We can only speculate on this question. But is it possible they are building bunkers for them, or for their families for when this, or some other similar event occurs in the near future?

I'm not sure what your actual point is in this thread. It is full of contradiction and misinterpretation of data. Here are a few things 'amongst many' that caught my eye...

We all know how the Arctic has been warming up, although the evidence suggest this warming is occurring first in the oceans, which would point to the fact that it is probably the Earth's core that has been warming the Arctic and other oceans, hence icebergs have been breaking up.

Oceans are warming from the top down, not the bottom up. How can the earth's core heat the surface of the worlds oceans and bypass the deep ocean...?

The fact that also the areas which have been warming the most are very remote locations very far away from sources of anthropogenic pollution, including anthropogenic CO2,

The earth's oceans cover 72% of its surface. Ocean and atmospheric warming are not limited to industialized areas 'gas and heat disperse or is absorbed'. So it makes perfect sense that the most remote areas of the world would show the first signs of change due to warming (they are made of ice after all).

But even if we were to ignore these facts and some others, such as the fact that Earth has not been the only planet undergoing dramatic Climate Changes in the form of warming, but all planets, and even moons with a dense enough atmosphere have been experiencing warming at about the same time Earth has.

This is simply not true at all. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest solar system wide warming, the claim has been proven false many times.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


As with any climate change denial thread, this is just chock full of fail. Let's dive in and see what mess we have here, shall we?

Yes, the Arctic has been warming, but no it isn't occurring first in the oceans, it's occurring also in the oceans. Which doesn't point to any sort of "fact" that the planets core is heating the oceans. That "fact" would logically show that the deep ocean (closest to the core) would be very warm, when in fact it's still the frigid 30-36 degrees one would expect. So no icebergs melting because of core temperatures.

In the quote you bolded the first sentence of the abstract as if it proves that anthropogenic and GHG sources have nothing to do with climate change. It only speaks to the study itself and the relation between ocean and land. Since 70% of the world is covered by water and the oceans function as an enormous heat-sink, this conclusion that when 70% of the area is heated the other 30% sees an increase seems pretty damn obvious. In the second paragraph of the introduction they say what we already know when they state:

For the planet as a whole, there is little doubt that the inhibition of outgoing longwave radiation by such increases leads to radiative heating of the surface (i.e. the greenhouse effect), with the warming subsequently modified by water vapor and other feedbacks (Houghton et al. 2001).

They then state in "2 - Observational and atmospheric modeling data":

These simulations had the same specified time-varying boundary conditions as the NCAR/CAM3 integrations, but also specified anthropogenic and natural radiative forcings as in Meehl et al. (2006). The forcings included time-varying solar irradiance and volcanic aerosols, anthropogenic sulfate aerosols, tropospheric and stratospheric ozone, well-mixed GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O), halocarbons, and black carbon aerosols.

Showing that they used the available data of anthropogenic GHGs (and natural) to come to the conclusion their modeling shows.

Then you link to an article just over 6 years old pointing out that higher latitudes have the biggest changes. All true. Let us suppose Room A has a temperature of 50 degrees and Room B has a temperature of 30 degrees. Now let's turn on a heater to 55 degrees. Which of these two rooms will have the largest change in temperature? If you said the cooler room, Room B, then congratulations we've passed Common Sense 101. The fact that it says "it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas" isn't the same as "OMG! No man-made global warming!", it's just stating the obvious. There aren't populated areas large enough to put high levels of pollutants in the air in those regions. To be clear it doesn't show what you attempt to frame it as. My car here in Chicago puts pollution into the air. The same air that circulates the globe, even in the Arctic.

The glass of ice water analogy is simply wrong. In a glass of ice water the ice cubes keep the water cool. However, icebergs do not keep the oceans cool. There isn't an "unknown mechanism" melting the Arctic ice sheets, it's f'ing rising temperatures! Land, air and ocean.

The North Atlantic Conveyer shutting down and causing a sudden cooling of northern latitudes is a working hypothesis with loads of evidence piling up yearly as scientists in a number fields continue research, field work and modelling. Let us go back to our rooms again, but this time we have a window to outside in Room A. Let's suppose Room A is warmer than Room B because the window has been open all this time and it's warmer outside than inside. Now close that window. What will happen? If you said "Room A will start to cool to the temperature of Room B", congratulations! We've passed Common Sense 102!

Yes, there have been cold records, we should definitely throw this in here at this point no matter how irrelevant it is. Climate change effects the entire planet as a whole and is measured at a planetary scale, not a regional one. Your body temperature is likely 98.6 degrees even though certain parts like, say, your toes, may be cooler. Obviously that shows that your body isn't at 98.6 degrees, right? But let's not derail the thread.

You point out the tilt of the Earth's axis in one sentence showing an understanding of the concept, yet feign ignorance of its effects 2 sentences earlier. The equator receives the highest rate of solar radiation, something covered in most schools round-about 3rd or 4th grade (at least when I was in school). Since the NAC moves the warmer surface waters north from the equator, if it stops then the warm water stops! Easy-peasy. As pointed out, the oceans warm the continents, so no warm oceans, no warm continents.

And now it's time to sleep. I'll tackle more later.

To get back to where the OP starts, never mind the rest. If the NCB, or north Atlantic drift does shut down, the effect is estimated to be temperatures 6°F to perhaps 10°F lower than average in northern Europe. That is in effect, what did happen in 2010 and the ensuing prolonged winter, and it was predicted here,

www.associazionegeofisica.it...

by Italian physicist, Dr. Gianluigi Zangari in June 2010. The PDF shows the maps Zangari used at the time and from April that year. He was much maligned at the time although he proved to be correct as to the outcome. The maps may be crucial as shown on the PDF since there was concern that the archives now show a different set of maps for the times concerned. The gist of it all was the Gulf of Mexico oil-spill interfered with the Gulf stream and disrupted the flow. Zangari's university verified the maps at the time. So in the short term at least, there will be cooling to what extent is hard to know, although it is difficult to see how the gulf stream and so on, can stop completely, that would depend on how much the global waters become cooler.

Originally posted by Atzil321
I'm not sure what your actual point is in this thread. It is full of contradiction and misinterpretation of data. Here are a few things 'amongst many' that caught my eye...

Really? let's look at your claims that I made contradictions shall we?

Originally posted by Atzil321
Oceans are warming from the top down, not the bottom up. How can the earth's core heat the surface of the worlds oceans and bypass the deep ocean...?

Care to actually present PROOF of your claim?... the peer-reviewed article I presented CLEARLY says and I quote AGAIN...

Abstract
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.

Now, let's continue...

The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.

www.cdc.noaa.gov...

First, do notice how the fact that the oceans have been warming THE AIR over land, and this in turn has increased the downward longwave radiation at the surface.

The first two sentences they mention as a fact, meanwhile the last sentence seems to be an opinion because they mention the ocean MAY have warmed by a combination of natural and anthropogenic sources. They don't give any evidence to their last sentence, it is just an opinion.

Originally posted by Atzil321The earth's oceans cover 72% of its surface. Ocean and atmospheric warming are not limited to industialized areas 'gas and heat disperse or is absorbed'. So it makes perfect sense that the most remote areas of the world would show the first signs of change due to warming (they are made of ice after all).

WRONG, what you are claiming is like claiming that the farther away you get to a fire, the warmer it should be because of the fire... IT MAKES NO SENSE...

Originally posted by Atzil321
This is simply not true at all. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest solar system wide warming, the claim has been proven false many times.

Really?... by whom?...

Mars may be going through a period of climate change, new findings from NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter suggest.

Odyssey has been mapping the distribution of materials on and near Mars' surface since early 2002, nearly a full annual cycle on Mars. Besides tracking seasonal changes, such as the advance and retreat of polar dry ice, the orbiter is returning evidence useful for learning about longer-term dynamics.

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Martian Ice Shrinking Dramatically

New gullies that did not exist in mid-2002 have appeared on a Martian sand dune.

That's just one of the surprising discoveries that have resulted from the extended life of NASA's Mars Global Surveyor, which this month began its ninth year in orbit around Mars. Boulders tumbling down a Martian slope left tracks that weren't there two years ago. New impact craters formed since the 1970s suggest changes to age-estimating models. And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous years size, suggesting a climate change in progress.

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter
Philip S. Marcus

Jupiter's atmosphere, as observed in the 1979 Voyager space craft images, is characterized by 12 zonal jet streams and about 80 vortices, the largest of which are the Great Red Spot and three White Ovals that had formed1 in the 1930s. The Great Red Spot has been observed2 continuously since 1665 and, given the dynamical similarities between the Great Red Spot and the White Ovals, the disappearance3, 4 of two White Ovals in 1997−2000 was unexpected. Their longevity and sudden demise has been explained5 however, by the trapping of anticyclonic vortices in the troughs of Rossby waves, forcing them to merge.

www.nature.com...

Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find
October 9, 2002

BIRMINGHAM, Ala.--Pluto is undergoing global warming, as evidenced by a three-fold increase in the planet's atmospheric pressure during the past 14 years, a team of astronomers from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Williams College, the University of Hawaii, Lowell Observatory and Cornell University announced in a press conference today at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society's (AAS) Division for Planetary Sciences in Birmingham, AL.

web.mit.edu...


That's a 300% increase in atmospheric pressure in Pluto, which is the highest increase in any planet in the Solar system, and it is increasing as Pluto orbits away from the Sun. If the Sun is the cause for global warming in the solar system, as some scientists say, why is it that Pluto, the planet that is the farthest away from the Sun, experiencing the most severe effects, and it is getting worse and worse as it orbits away from the sun?

Pluto thought to be warming up
Astronomers at the University of Tasmania have found that the solar system's smallest planet is not getting colder as first thought and it probably does not have rings.

Dr John Greenhill has collected observations from last month's event when Pluto passed in front of a bright star, making it easier to study.

French scientists have shared the measurements they took in Tasmania that night, which indicate that the planet is unlikely to have rings.

Dr Greenhill says the results are surprising because they show Pluto is warming up.

www.abc.net.au...

The following is a site which was made by several scientists who have no links with any government, or corporation, their findings are very interresting and give a different picture as to what is causing global warming. I can't quote any excerpts as there is a copyright issue, but I will post the link. Anyone interested in that information should read that site.

biocab.org...

biocab.org...

There is more where the above came from, YOU have provided NOTHING but false claims and lies.

You should set aside your RELIGION of AGW and start trying to think clearly and using real common sense...

MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune's largest moon

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- We're not the only ones experiencing global warming. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology researcher has reported that observations obtained by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and ground-based instruments reveal that Neptune's largest moon, Triton, seems to have heated up significantly since the Voyager space probe visited it in 1989. The warming trend is causing part of Triton's surface of frozen nitrogen to turn into gas, thus making its thin atmosphere denser.

While no one is likely to plan a summer vacation on Triton, this report in the June 25 issue of the journal Nature by MIT astronomer James L. Elliot and his colleagues from MIT, Lowell Observatory and Williams College says that the moon is approaching an unusually warm summer season that only happens once every few hundred years. Elliot and his colleagues believe that Triton's warming trend could be driven by seasonal changes in the absorption of solar energy by its polar ice caps.
...

web.mit.edu...

Despite the lies from the AGW camp tyring to revive their dead realigion which is AGW, the truth is that Earth is not the only planet experiencing dramatic Climate Changes in the form of warming at the same time Earth has.

THis goes without saying the fact that another lie being told by the AGW camp keeps being spread like a wildfire, but it is nothing but another LIE.

The AGW camp CLAIM that the Sun's activity had stopped increasing, some say since the 1950s, other say since the 1980s. They can't even agree amongts themselves. But the fact is quite the contrary.

posted 03/20/03

Researcher Finds Solar Trend That Can Warm Climate
Ends debate over whether sun can play a role in climate change


Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits during times of quiet sunspot activity has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to the study. “This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” said Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Earth Institute at Columbia University, and lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

“Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century,” says Willson. “If a trend comparable the one found in this study persisted during the 20th century it would have provided a significant component of the global warming that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report claims to have occurred over the last 100 years.”

Willson found errors in previous satellite data that had obscured the trend. The new analysis, Willson says, should put an end to a debate in the field over whether solar irradiance variability can play a significant role in climate change.

The solar cycle occurs approximately every 11 years when the sun undergoes a period of increased magnetic and sunspot activity called the "solar maximum," followed by a quiet period called the "solar minimum." A trend in the average solar radiation level over many solar magnetic cycles would contribute to climate change in a major way. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have now obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.
...

www.earth.columbia.edu...

Wilson is the Principal Investigator of NASA's ACRIM experiments, and the most knowledgeable person on this topic, and he says that quite contrary to the lies being told by the AGW camp, the Sun's activity has been increasing at least until the last year of his research in 2002-2003.

In other threads I have shown how the magnetic storms on the Sun have increased in strength since before the 1900s, and this trend has continued until at least the end of 2005 beginning of 2006, and then the Sun's activity dropped, and so did the world's temperatures.

Don't worry, despite the fact that the AGW advocates/believers do nothing but repeat lies and present no evidence, I will present this evidence as soon as I find it...

Originally posted by LuckyLucian

As with any climate change denial thread, this is just chock full of fail. Let's dive in and see what mess we have here, shall we?

Really?... like all other AGW advocates you show no evidence and give nothing but a lot of hot air...

Originally posted by LuckyLucian
Yes, the Arctic has been warming, but no it isn't occurring first in the oceans, it's occurring also in the oceans. Which doesn't point to any sort of "fact" that the planets core is heating the oceans. That "fact" would logically show that the deep ocean (closest to the core) would be very warm, when in fact it's still the frigid 30-36 degrees one would expect. So no icebergs melting because of core temperatures.

Are you taking temperatures from deep in the oceans?... i would say NO, hence you are making FALSE CLAIMS...

A mysterious phenomenon is causing four major glaciers in the Antarctic to shrink in unison, causing a significant increase in sea levels, scientists have found.

The rise in atmospheric temperatures caused by global warming cannot account for the relatively rapid movement of the glaciers into the sea, but scientists suspect that warmer oceans may be playing a role.

"There is a possibility that heat from the ocean is somehow flowing in underneath these glaciers, but it is not related to global warming," said glaciologist Duncan Wingham of University College London. "Something has changed that is causing these glaciers to shrink.

"At this rate the glaciers will all be afloat in 150 years or so."
.....................
However, it would take about 200 years for extra heat from the ocean to reach the underside of the glaciers, which makes it difficult to believe that the present shrinkage is due to global warming, Dr Wingham said.

news.independent.co.uk...

In that article Prof. Wingham is saying that "anthropogenic CO2", which is blamed by some scientists to have cause Global Warming, is not the cause for the melting of these glaciers.

At least one of the reasons for this melting is the following.

The Arctic shelf is currently undergoing dramatic thermal changes caused by the continued warming associated with Holocene sea level rise. During this transgression, comparatively warm waters have flooded over cold permafrost areas of the Arctic Shelf. A thermal pulse of more than 10°C is still propagating down into the submerged sediment and may be decomposing gas hydrate as well as permafrost.

www.agu.org...

The warming has been linked to be caused by the Holocene warming, or the overall warming the Earth has been undergoing since the last Ice Age.

Those two links prove that both the Arctic and Antarctic oceans are undergoing warming caused since the last Ice Age, during the Holocene period.

Originally posted by LuckyLucian

In the quote you bolded the first sentence of the abstract as if it proves that anthropogenic and GHG sources have nothing to do with climate change. It only speaks to the study itself and the relation between ocean and land. Since 70% of the world is covered by water and the oceans function as an enormous heat-sink, this conclusion that when 70% of the area is heated the other 30% sees an increase seems pretty damn obvious. In the second paragraph of the introduction they say what we already know when they state:

Except that MOST OF THE WARMING is occurring in REMOTE AREAS far away from sources of anthropogenic CO2...hence anthropogenic CO2 IS NOT the source of that warming...

I have shown in the past, you are a new member, the fact that the Sun's activity had been increasing despite the AGW camp claiming the contrary. I have shown how underwater volcanic and magmatic activity has been increasing. There are far more volcanoes in the deep of our oceans than in land in case you didn't know.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


No evidence?!? I showed the evidence within the studies you linked to and quoted from! Your total lack of understanding is the problem, not a "lack" of evidence. You prove it when posting things that don't even show what you claim they do. You conveniently didn't respond to any of the other information I showed from the study. You're a typical denier, cherry picking quotes even within studies showing that it's happening.

I guess we'll try again.

Oh, good. Dead end link. I guess I'll find the source myself. Let's see, blogs about Vulcan, some site that is... an Egyptian sun worship site? Yeah, that's about it. No actual study or data, just conjecture... from a professor who has stated a few times that he does believe and agree with climate change models. But let's stick to what little of an "article" this is:

"There is a possibility that heat from the ocean is somehow flowing in underneath these glaciers, but it is not related to global warming... (s)omething has changed that is causing these glaciers to shrink."

Satellite measurements have shown that the Antarctic glaciers are retreating in a uniform manner, suggesting a common cause.

So many qualifiers. I wonder why? Maybe it's because he's a glaciologist and is grasping for reasons outside his field and doesn't know? Two things, correlation does not equal causation, and saying "possibly, somehow" over and over means you cannot possibly make a justifiable determination. Apparently his answer is a shrug of the shoulders and a sheepish "I dunno..." Please find a better study.

Then you state:

In that article Prof. Wingham is saying that "anthropogenic CO2", which is blamed by some scientists to have cause Global Warming, is not the cause for the melting of these glaciers.

Really? Point out to me where he said anything about CO2, let alone anthropogenic. Don't stress yourself looking for it, it isn't there. He says it's not global warming, it's warm ocean water. Uh huh. Waters warmed by global warming. It's okay. I don't expect a glaciologist to understand all the complicated details of oceanic thermodynamics. All he said was that the retreat "somehow, maybe, possibly" isn't caused by climate change. Well, in the 5 years since this non-study they've had actual studies, real articles and reports. Please enjoy:

RICE
ScienceDaily - BAS
NSIDC

Let's take a look at this other linky... Hmm. Geophysical Research Letters from the American Geophysical Union. Can't read the full article since I don't have a subscription. I kind of have a sneaking suspicion you don't either because you cherry picked again. Here, let me give you the important bit of the Editors Synopsis. I'll bold relevant parts:

More than 8000 years ago, parts of the Arctic Shelf were an unglaciated coastal plain covered with thick permafrost. As sea levels rose, this permafrost became submerged and is currently inundated by relatively warm seawater. Permafrost is known to contain gas hydrates, a solid phase composed of water and gases that formed under low-temperature, high-pressure conditions. Because disturbances to permafrost may outgas methane, a potent greenhouse gas, Paull et al. (2007) sought to determine whether venting was occurring on the Arctic's submerged Beaufort Sea Shelf. They focused on underwater features similar in shape to terrestrial pingos, which are conical, ice-cored hills.

Pretty clearly not stating "warming has been linked to be caused by the Holocene warming"(sic). In either case. Damn, you went 0-for again.

What else... then you start yelling about most of the warming being in remote areas. Sigh. The NASA link you used is quite clearly stating that the largest increases are in northern latitudes. Which I explained in a very simple way why that is. But I'll go again. If the entire global average temperature is, say, 55 degrees with polar temperatures at 20, then if the average goes up to 60 globally the polar areas will have the largest temperature change. Amusingly, that's what has happened. The NASA article also doesn't mention CO2. Yet you go on and on about it when discussing it's implications.

I may be a new member but that has nothing to do with anything, so... what's your point? We're discussing this thread, not some other one. You're again fabricating things whole cloth with that statement about the "AGW camp" and solar activity. It's effects are in question and open for debate and have been for decades. The terrestrial cause and effect of our climate and its change is quite well understood.

Originally posted by LuckyLucian

No evidence?!? I showed the evidence within the studies you linked to and quoted from! Your total lack of understanding is the problem, not a "lack" of evidence. You prove it when posting things that don't even show what you claim they do. You conveniently didn't respond to any of the other information I showed from the study. You're a typical denier, cherry picking quotes even within studies showing that it's happening.

So you are basing your argument on Global Climate Models?... obviously you don't know they have been found to be WRONG time and again...

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
Journal Climate Dynamics
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0930-7575 (Print) 1432-0894 (Online)
Issue Volume 24, Numbers 7-8 / June, 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00382-005-0020-9
Pages 771-780
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, May 02, 2005


PDF (702.7 KB)HTMLFree Preview

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
S. M. Dean1 , B. N. Lawrence2, R. G. Grainger1 and D. N. Heuff3

(1) Atmospheric Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
(2) British Atmospheric Data Centre, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK
(3) Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Received: 13 September 2004 Accepted: 25 February 2005 Published online: 27 April 2005

Abstract Observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatalogy Project (ISCCP) are used to demonstrate that the 19-level HadAM3 version of the United Kingdom Met Office Unified Model does not simulate sufficient high cloud over land. By using low-altitude winds, from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) Re-Analysis from 1979 to 1994 (ERA-15) to predict the areas of maximum likelihood of orographic wave generation, it is shown that much of the deficiency is likely to be due to the lack of a representation of the orographic cirrus generated by sub-grid scale orography. It is probable that this is a problem in most GCMs.

www.springerlink.com...


Another of the many flaws of GCMs..

The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

That was not what he expected to find.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

www.uah.edu...


There is a lot more evidence that GCMs are flawed, and their models should not be seen as any "prediction" simply because they are flawed, don't take in consideration many natural factors, and as any computer program will do, if you "assume" a certain value for CO2, and tell the computer program that with more CO2 temperatures will increase more, that is exactly what the model will do, and more so, if you do not input all natural factors that affect the climate on Earth.

Here is another example of why GCMs are unreliable.

Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides, On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008.

[doc_id=864]

[English]

Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.

www.itia.ntua.gr...


You can't prove your claim based on GCMs which are known to be COMPLETELY unreliable, to the point that AGW scientists have to change their predictions over and over. Not to mention that they ahve to make up lies, plant false information and use any underhanded tactic to keep people from knowing the facts.

Originally posted by LuckyLucian

I guess we'll try again.

Oh, good. Dead end link. I guess I'll find the source myself. Let's see, blogs about Vulcan, some site that is... an Egyptian sun worship site? Yeah, that's about it. No actual study or data, just conjecture... from a professor who has stated a few times that he does believe and agree with climate change models. But let's stick to what little of an "article" this is:

Actually, care to discuss the arguments presented? or is that too much for you?...

Originally posted by LuckyLucian

So many qualifiers. I wonder why? Maybe it's because he's a glaciologist and is grasping for reasons outside his field and doesn't know? Two things, correlation does not equal causation, and saying "possibly, somehow" over and over means you cannot possibly make a justifiable determination. Apparently his answer is a shrug of the shoulders and a sheepish "I dunno..." Please find a better study.

So you are attacking his argument, and him because he is a glacialogist?... I am sorry, and what exactly is your expertise on?...

And BTW, don't put words on people's mouth, you seem to be good at trying to do so...

The only one shrugging, cherry picking and using nothing but outdated lies is you.

Originally posted by LuckyLucian
...

Pretty clearly not stating "warming has been linked to be caused by the Holocene warming"(sic). In either case. Damn, you went 0-for again.

i linked directly from the abstract of the research paper, and it says exactly what I pointed out. Nice try, but the only one failing is you...

Originally posted by LuckyLucianWhat else... then you start yelling about most of the warming being in remote areas. Sigh. The NASA link you used is quite clearly stating that the largest increases are in northern latitudes. Which I explained in a very simple way why that is. But I'll go again. If the entire global average temperature is, say, 55 degrees with polar temperatures at 20, then if the average goes up to 60 globally the polar areas will have the largest temperature change. Amusingly, that's what has happened. The NASA article also doesn't mention CO2. Yet you go on and on about it when discussing it's implications.

The article mentions POLLUTION, and according to the AGW camp CO2 is a pollutant... Not to mention that anyone with any intellingence would immediately know that CO2 is a byproduct from large cities... Since CO2 has been labeled a pollutant, and since it is a known byproduct from large cities it is clear their statement INCLUDES anthropogenic CO2...

You FAIL again...



I may be a new member but that has nothing to do with anything, so... what's your point? We're discussing this thread, not some other one. You're again fabricating things whole cloth with that statement about the "AGW camp" and solar activity. It's effects are in question and open for debate and have been for decades. The terrestrial

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Here's a tidbit I thought you might be interested in reading:

Mega-Flood Triggered Cooling 13,000 Years Ago: Scientists
www.abovetopsecret.com...
by this_is_who_we_are
started on 3/31/2010 @ 06:34 PM

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are

Mega-Flood Triggered Cooling 13,000 Years Ago: Scientists

abcnews.go.com

By David Fogarty, Climate Change Correspondent, Asia
March 31, 2010

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Scientists say they have found the trigger of a sharp cooling 13,000 years ago that plunged Europe into a mini ice age.

Mark Bateman from the University of Sheffield in England said a catastrophic flood unleashed from a giant North American lake dumped large amounts of freshwater into the Arctic Ocean.

This led to the shutting down of the Gulf Stream ocean circulation pattern that brings warmth t"

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.physorg.com

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are

Mega-Flood Triggered Cooling 13,000 Years Ago: Scientists

abcnews.go.com

By David Fogarty, Climate Change Correspondent, Asia
March 31, 2010

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Scientists say they have found the trigger of a sharp cooling 13,000 years ago that plunged Europe into a mini ice age.

Mark Bateman from the University of Sheffield in England said a catastrophic flood unleashed from a giant North American lake dumped large amounts of freshwater into the Arctic Ocean.

This led to the shutting down of the Gulf Stream ocean circulation pattern that brings warmth t"

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.physorg.com

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Atzil321
Oceans are warming from the top down, not the bottom up. How can the earth's core heat the surface of the worlds oceans and bypass the deep ocean...?

BTW, Perhaps you are not aware that borehole temperatures show that global warming has been occurring since the early 1600s deep in the earht's crust even when the Earth was still experiencing the LIA...

Borehole temperatures show that during the time when the Earth's surface was COOLING due to the LIA, temperatures from deep under the Earth show a constant INCREASE in temperatures even during the LIA...

This is clear indication that warming has been occurring from the processes of the Earht's core, processes that we do not know much about.

Worldwide borehole temperatures, temperatures taken from deep underground, have shown an increase in warming since the 1600s deep in the Earth's crust for the past 500 years.




www.earth.lsa.umich.edu...

[double post]