Global Cooling Is Under Way

[Deuce]

As in: That's tough. Deal with it.

Deal with... what? That you have a personal outlook? Yeah I'm ok with that man. Relax. You're not offending anyone here.

 

[marke]

... by looking at global temperature data?

Using thermometers? Measuring atmospheric temperatures as well as ocean and land temperatures at hundreds of elevations and depths? How many sensors, 1,000? 1 million? 100,000 million? What about the effects of sun flares, volcanoes, solar storms, or hundreds of other possible factors which might affect temperatures differently at thousands of data collection points?

 

[Deuce]

Using thermometers? Measuring atmospheric temperatures as well as ocean and land temperatures at hundreds of elevations and depths? How many sensors, 1,000? 1 million? 100,000 million? What about the effects of sun flares, volcanoes, solar storms, or hundreds of other possible factors which might affect temperatures differently at thousands of data collection points?

Err. I think you're confused. The point of the thermometers is to measure the temperature. That is how you determine whether temperature rises or falls. The thermometer doesn't know what caused the change in temperature. That is not its purpose.

 

[Jack Hays]

Deal with... what? That you have a personal outlook? Yeah I'm ok with that man. Relax. You're not offending anyone here.

As you wish.

 

[late]

Tight supply will boost prices, and increased production will follow. The magic of the market.

There is no magic. Because markets are a human construct, they discount the future because we do. Like what you do, right here, every day.

Biological systems have hard limits.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ogallala-aquifer/

The Tragedy of the Commons can hurt us in a hundred different ways.

 

[late]

Correct. But the conversation was about datasets and whether or not a year or two of data is sufficient to identify a trend.

Your personal outlook is that the world is getting cooler. A year or two of data does not mathematically identify a statistically useful cooling trend.

If you are addicted to excuses, any excuse will do.

 

[Jack Hays]

There is no magic. Because markets are a human construct, they discount the future because we do. Like what you do, right here, every day.

Biological systems have hard limits.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ogallala-aquifer/

The Tragedy of the Commons can hurt us in a hundred different ways.

If we need more we'll grow more.

 

[late]

If we need more we'll grow more.

That depends on things largely out of your control.

When this gets serious, what we will likely do is kill that idiotic ethanol program. That will free up a significant amount of arable land for domestic grain production.

Want to know what's funny? We've known from the start that heat could impact crops. Now it's actually started, and you're still trying to wish it away.

Ain't that easy.

 

[Jack Hays]

That depends on things largely out of your control.

When this gets serious, what we will likely do is kill that idiotic ethanol program. That will free up a significant amount of arable land for domestic grain production.

Want to know what's funny? We've known from the start that heat could impact crops. Now it's actually started, and you're still trying to wish it away.

Ain't that easy.

We'll be fine. Increased CO2 will help. The market will respond.

 

[Deuce]

We'll be fine. Increased CO2 will help. The market will respond.

The "CO2 is plant food" argument is a trope based on oversimplistic thinking. The weather changes caused by increased CO2 can be unpredictable and therefore can potentially decrease crop yields. Crops aren't grown in labs, there's never just one variable you change. "Increased CO2 will help" is another one of those personal outlooks of yours.

We could irradiate half the world's farmland and the market would "respond" but translating that into "there's no ill effects" is foolish, obviously.

 

[Jack Hays]

The "CO2 is plant food" argument is a trope based on oversimplistic thinking. The weather changes caused by increased CO2 can be unpredictable and therefore can potentially decrease crop yields. Crops aren't grown in labs, there's never just one variable you change. "Increased CO2 will help" is another one of those personal outlooks of yours.

We could irradiate half the world's farmland and the market would "respond" but translating that into "there's no ill effects" is foolish, obviously.

Good news! Climate study finds human CO2 fingerprint in Northern Hemisphere greening

From DOE/OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY OAK RIDGE, Tenn., June 29, 2016 — A multinational team led by the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory Climate Change Science Institute has found the first positive correlation between human activity and enhanced vegetation growth. The research team, led by Jiafu Mao of the Ecosystem Simulation Science group…

[COLOR=#999999 !important]Advertisements[/COLOR]​

​

June 29, 2016in Positive effects of CO2.
Inconvenient Study: CO2 fertilization greening the earth

International team reports CO2 fertilization prompted plants and trees to sprout extra green leaves equivalent in area to two times the continental USA, or nearly 4.4 billion General Shermans (largest giant Sequoia tree) Thirteen Years of Greening from SeaWiFS – image from NASA Earth Observatory- not part of article below, for illustration only From BOSTON…

 

[Deuce]

Good news! Climate study finds human CO2 fingerprint in Northern Hemisphere greening

From DOE/OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY OAK RIDGE, Tenn., June 29, 2016 — A multinational team led by the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory Climate Change Science Institute has found the first positive correlation between human activity and enhanced vegetation growth. The research team, led by Jiafu Mao of the Ecosystem Simulation Science group…

[COLOR=#999999 !important]Advertisements[/COLOR]​

​

June 29, 2016in Positive effects of CO2.
Inconvenient Study: CO2 fertilization greening the earth

International team reports CO2 fertilization prompted plants and trees to sprout extra green leaves equivalent in area to two times the continental USA, or nearly 4.4 billion General Shermans (largest giant Sequoia tree) Thirteen Years of Greening from SeaWiFS – image from NASA Earth Observatory- not part of article below, for illustration only From BOSTON…

Glad to see you're accepting mathematical models again, but we don't actually eat... trees.

 

[Jack Hays]

Glad to see you're accepting mathematical models again, but we don't actually eat... trees.

It's the principle that's important, or would be, if warming were to continue.

 

[Deuce]

It's the principle that's important, or would be, if warming were to continue.

No. You should read up more on the effects of temperature on crops. "Warmer=better" is definitely not universally true.

 

[Jack Hays]

No. You should read up more on the effects of temperature on crops. "Warmer=better" is definitely not universally true.

I'll take my chances, thanks. In any case, I anticipate cooling in coming decades, not warming.

 

[Deuce]

I'll take my chances, thanks. In any case, I anticipate cooling in coming decades, not warming.

Based on which causal factor(s)?

 

[Jack Hays]

Based on which causal factor(s)?

Please see the OP of this thread.

 

[Deuce]

Please see the OP of this thread.

You never quantified anything, so :shrug:

 

[Jack Hays]

You never quantified anything, so :shrug:

Not sure what you would expect to be quantified. If you believe as I do that rising temperature was largely misattributed to GHGs and was instead more closely tied to solar activity and the solar/GCR flux then a sharp change as the sun approaches minimum is not only unsurprising, but expected. At a minimum I expect warming to cease; most likely I expect a substantial period of cooling.

 

[Threegoofs]

Not sure what you would expect to be quantified. If you believe as I do that rising temperature was largely misattributed to GHGs and was instead more closely tied to solar activity and the solar/GCR flux then a sharp change as the sun approaches minimum is not only unsurprising, but expected. At a minimum I expect warming to cease; most likely I expect a substantial period of cooling.

Yes. I remember that in that theory, cooling was starting in....2009.

 

[Deuce]

Not sure what you would expect to be quantified. If you believe as I do that rising temperature was largely misattributed to GHGs and was instead more closely tied to solar activity and the solar/GCR flux then a sharp change as the sun approaches minimum is not only unsurprising, but expected. At a minimum I expect warming to cease; most likely I expect a substantial period of cooling.

Solar activity stopped rising like 50 years ago

 

[Jack Hays]

Solar activity stopped rising like 50 years ago

Simply not true.

• Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?

[FONT=&quot]. . . Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually [/FONT]quantify empirically[FONT=&quot] the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Fig. 6: The flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth, as measured by ion chambers. Red line - annual averages, Blue line - 11 yr moving average. Note that ion chambers are sensitive to particles at relatively high energy (several 10's of GeV, which is higher than the energies responsible for the atmospheric ionization [~10 GeV], and much higher than the energies responsible for the 10Be production [~1 GeV]). Plot redrawn using data from Ahluwalia (1997). Moreover, the decrease in high energy cosmic rays since the 1970's is less pronounced in low energy proxies of solar activity, implying that cosmogenic isotopes (such as 10Be) or direct solar activity proxies (e.g., sun spots, aa index, etc) are less accurate in quantifying the solar → cosmic ray → climate link and its contribution to 20thcentury global warming.
[/FONT]

 

[Threegoofs]

Simply not true.

• Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?

[FONT=&quot]. . . Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually [/FONT]quantify empirically[FONT=&quot] the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Fig. 6: The flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth, as measured by ion chambers. Red line - annual averages, Blue line - 11 yr moving average. Note that ion chambers are sensitive to particles at relatively high energy (several 10's of GeV, which is higher than the energies responsible for the atmospheric ionization [~10 GeV], and much higher than the energies responsible for the 10Be production [~1 GeV]). Plot redrawn using data from Ahluwalia (1997). Moreover, the decrease in high energy cosmic rays since the 1970's is less pronounced in low energy proxies of solar activity, implying that cosmogenic isotopes (such as 10Be) or direct solar activity proxies (e.g., sun spots, aa index, etc) are less accurate in quantifying the solar → cosmic ray → climate link and its contribution to 20thcentury global warming.
[/FONT]

Yes, Shaviv explained the mechanism for the cooling world that was starting to peak back at this conference in 2012-

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

Just after that, the world reeled off 6 straight years of warmer temps than ever...in the graph below, it shows that talk happened right about the point where that red line goes asymptotic.

Deniers have been declaring we are in or at the cusp of s cooling trend since...Hansen presented his findings to Congress in 1988.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, Shaviv explained the mechanism for the cooling world that was starting to peak back at this conference in 2012-

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

Just after that, the world reeled off 6 straight years of warmer temps than ever...in the graph below, it shows that talk happened right about the point where that red line goes asymptotic.

Deniers have been declaring we are in or at the cusp of s cooling trend since...Hansen presented his findings to Congress in 1988.

As you can see, warming since 2012 was mostly El Nino-driven. Point for Shaviv.

 

[Deuce]

For some reason Jack Hays posted an image whose data stopped nearly 30 years ago, and the other with an X-axis too condensed to readily see.