When will Earth's energy imbalance, turns from warming to cooling?

[Lord of Planar]

Current Warming Is Unparalleled in the Past 2,000 Years

<snip>

But longer yet than 2,000 years, it was warmer.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Current Warming Is Unparalleled in the Past 2,000 Years
Today’s climate change is unique in its global scale compared to other historical periods

Skeptics of human-caused climate change have often relied on a favorite argument involving the planet’s natural climate cycles. Earth experienced plenty of natural warming and cooling phases long before humans ever began pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, they’ve suggested—so the present-day warming isn’t necessarily dangerous or even that unusual.

Scientists have debunked this argument over and over again. Studies demonstrate that carbon dioxide concentrations are currently higher than they’ve been at any point in human history, global temperatures are rising at unprecedented rates, and warming is poised to surpass anything the planet has experienced in millions of years.

Now, scientists have discovered that it’s not just the temperatures themselves that are so unusual. That they’re rising all over the world is also unique in at least the past 2,000 years.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/current-warming-is-unparalleled-in-the-past-2-000-years/

Why are you guys so lazy? You rely on journalists to tell you what the science says instead of the scientists through their papers. What about the Mid-Holocene Warm Period? Why did they limit it to the last 2,000 years instead of the entire interglacial period?

That article at least refers to two papers:

Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era - Nature Geoscience

Multidecadal global-mean temperature fluctuations over the past 2,000 years are consistent in comprehensive climate reconstructions and model simulations, and volcanic eruptions had the most important influence at that timescale between 1300 and 1800 CE.

www.nature.com

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era - Nature

Warm and cold periods over the past 2,000 years have not occurred at the same time in all geographical locations, with the exception of the twentieth century, during which warming has occurred almost everywhere.

www.nature.com

If you read them, you see that are doing the same controversial combinations of proxy data and thermometer data. I'll lay odds that 200 years from now, the proxy data of today will not show it was warm as out thermometers across the world do.

Why you ask? Because none of the meteorologic stations are immune for the growing heat of land change uses nearby. There is no proper way to correct for them. And on top of that, there is data that shows we were warmer about

Keep in mind, as the ice on Greenland is receding, we are finding villages that have been covered. Are we to believe that it wasn't warmer when they were farming the land, that is now under ice?

 

[watsup]

I see nothing unprecedented about the warming we have.

The sun slowly increased in output value since 1713 until 1958, with a lag of several decades. We could easily still see warming from the 1958 peak.

Celestial mechanics dictates the annual TSI seen at the TOA, and this heat content will increase for the next 26,000 years, under the conditions that the suns output remained constant.

CO2 is rising, and likely has an effect. But to ignore these other two other factors, ignoring their contribution to the global warming, is being a denier of science.

Contributions from CO2 could even have a net cooling effect when considering the extra evaporation it causes, causing a greater percentage of cloud cover, and reflecting more sunlight. It likely does have a small warming effect, but that is not certain. You have to remember that we only know added CO2 would warm the earth if all other variables remained the same.

Climate scientists who have done research and assembled data do not agree with you.

 

[watsup]

Why are you guys so lazy? You rely on journalists to tell you what the science says instead of the scientists through their papers. What about the Mid-Holocene Warm Period? Why did they limit it to the last 2,000 years instead of the entire interglacial period?

That article at least refers to two papers:

Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era - Nature Geoscience

Multidecadal global-mean temperature fluctuations over the past 2,000 years are consistent in comprehensive climate reconstructions and model simulations, and volcanic eruptions had the most important influence at that timescale between 1300 and 1800 CE.

www.nature.com

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era - Nature

Warm and cold periods over the past 2,000 years have not occurred at the same time in all geographical locations, with the exception of the twentieth century, during which warming has occurred almost everywhere.

www.nature.com

If you read them, you see that are doing the same controversial combinations of proxy data and thermometer data. I'll lay odds that 200 years from now, the proxy data of today will not show it was warm as out thermometers across the world do.

Why you ask? Because none of the meteorologic stations are immune for the growing heat of land change uses nearby. There is no proper way to correct for them. And on top of that, there is data that shows we were warmer about

Keep in mind, as the ice on Greenland is receding, we are finding villages that have been covered. Are we to believe that it wasn't warmer when they were farming the land, that is now under ice?

What do scientists with their papers say about the effects of human-produced CO2 on the atmosphere and oceans?

 

[watsup]

Why are you guys so lazy? You rely on journalists to tell you what the science says instead of the scientists through their papers. What about the Mid-Holocene Warm Period? Why did they limit it to the last 2,000 years instead of the entire interglacial period?

That article at least refers to two papers:

Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era - Nature Geoscience

Multidecadal global-mean temperature fluctuations over the past 2,000 years are consistent in comprehensive climate reconstructions and model simulations, and volcanic eruptions had the most important influence at that timescale between 1300 and 1800 CE.

www.nature.com

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era - Nature

Warm and cold periods over the past 2,000 years have not occurred at the same time in all geographical locations, with the exception of the twentieth century, during which warming has occurred almost everywhere.

www.nature.com

If you read them, you see that are doing the same controversial combinations of proxy data and thermometer data. I'll lay odds that 200 years from now, the proxy data of today will not show it was warm as out thermometers across the world do.

Why you ask? Because none of the meteorologic stations are immune for the growing heat of land change uses nearby. There is no proper way to correct for them. And on top of that, there is data that shows we were warmer about

Keep in mind, as the ice on Greenland is receding, we are finding villages that have been covered. Are we to believe that it wasn't warmer when they were farming the land, that is now under ice?

Do you even read the articles that you cite?????? Per example:

“By contrast, we find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the twentieth century for more than 98 per cent of the globe. This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures5, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years.”

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era - Nature

Warm and cold periods over the past 2,000 years have not occurred at the same time in all geographical locations, with the exception of the twentieth century, during which warming has occurred almost everywhere.

www.nature.com

And:

“The largest warming trends at timescales of 20  years and longer occur during the second half of the twentieth century, highlighting the unusual character of the warming in recent decades.”

Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era - Nature Geoscience

Multidecadal global-mean temperature fluctuations over the past 2,000 years are consistent in comprehensive climate reconstructions and model simulations, and volcanic eruptions had the most important influence at that timescale between 1300 and 1800 CE.

www.nature.com

In both cases, they cite the recent global warming g trend as clearly DIFFERENT from multidecadal variability in global temperatures over the past 2000 years.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Climate scientists who have done research and assembled data do not agree with you.

Show me the papers that explicitly say that. I know that's what the lying pundits claim, but find that in the actual papers.

Can you show me a paper that disagrees with the TSI changes I claimed from 1713 to 1758?

Can you find a paper that says there is no multidecadal lag of warming from the solar changes?

Can you show me a paper that claims increased CO2 does not make more clouds?

Please., By all means. Show us, instead of denying the science.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Do you even read the articles that you cite?????? Per example:

“By contrast, we find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the twentieth century for more than 98 per cent of the globe. This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures5, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years.”

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era - Nature

Warm and cold periods over the past 2,000 years have not occurred at the same time in all geographical locations, with the exception of the twentieth century, during which warming has occurred almost everywhere.

www.nature.com

And:

“The largest warming trends at timescales of 20  years and longer occur during the second half of the twentieth century, highlighting the unusual character of the warming in recent decades.”

Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era - Nature Geoscience

Multidecadal global-mean temperature fluctuations over the past 2,000 years are consistent in comprehensive climate reconstructions and model simulations, and volcanic eruptions had the most important influence at that timescale between 1300 and 1800 CE.

www.nature.com

In both cases, they cite the recent global warming g trend as clearly DIFFERENT from multidecadal variability in global temperatures over the past 2000 years.

Yes, I did. You obviously didn't read what I said. True to form, you ignore what you don't like. You deny the science.

What is the point of linking the same two papers I linked?

Does that make you feel smart?

I will ask again. What about the Mid-Holocene Warm Period? Why did they limit it to the last 2,000 years instead of the entire interglacial period?

 

[watsup]

Show me the papers that say that. I know that's what the lying pundits claim, but find that in the actual papers.

Can you show ma a paper that disagrees with the TSI I claimed from 1713 to 1758?

Can you find a paper that says there is no lag of warming from the solar changes?

Can you show ma a paper that claims increased CO2 does not make more clouds?

Please., By all means. Show us, instead of denying the science.

I showed you the abstract summary of the articles that YOU cited and that they differ from the conclusions that’s you had offered. Do you ever tire of the dishonest tactics of giving false interpretations of articles that you cite?

 

[Lord of Planar]

I showed you the abstract summary of the articles that YOU cited and that they differ from the conclusions that’s you had offered. Do you ever tire of the dishonest tactics of giving false interpretations of articles that you cite?

The abstract, and both papers, only go back the last 2,000 years. The Holocene is more like 12,000 years.

Why do you deny the science, and allow a cherry picked sample? How does less than 20% of the time period mean we are at the warmest time, when it was warmer something like 6,000 to 8,000 years ago?

 

[watsup]

Yes, I did. You obviously didn't read what I said. True to form, you ignore what you don't like. You deny the science.

What is the point of linking the same two papers I linked?

Does that make you feel smart?

I will ask again. What about the Mid-Holocene Warm Period? Why did they limit it to the last 2,000 years instead of the entire interglacial period?

“Over the past 150 years, global warming has more than undone the global cooling that occurred over the past six millennia, according to a major study published June 30 in Nature Research's Scientific Data, "Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach." The findings show that the millennial-scale global cooling began approximately 6,500 years ago when the long-term average global temperature topped out at around 0.7°C warmer than the mid-19th century. Since then, accelerating greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to global average temperatures that are now surpassing 1°C above the mid-19th century.”

Major new paleoclimatology study shows global warming has upended 6,500 years of cooling

Over the past 150 years, global warming has more than undone the global cooling that occurred over the past six millennia, according to a major new study.

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[istodolez]

This is why this subforum is garbage. People are so busy dealing with conspiracy theorists, climate denialists, that they can't be bothered to learn something. They can't see actual scientific claims because everything is presumed to be some idiotic bs spewed from the mouth of an inbred trailer park educated neck.

Jesus ****ing Christ

Global warming will cause an Ice Age - eventually - when the Circumpolar Current stops because of global warming.

Now, let's get something straight here: I will readily agree that the shutdown or reorganization of the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic (The NADW) will likely cause Western Europe to get very much colder and that is a likely outcome from the continued warming and melting of the Greenland ice sheet dumping tons of fresh water into the upper arch of the THC, but I had not heard it linked that dramatically to changes in the circumpolar circulation on the South Pole. Could you possibly provide a reference?

Also: again, I'm not disagreeing that global warming-induced shutdown of the NADW will lead to much cooler temps in western Europe, I have not heard anyone suggest it will lead to another continental glaciation event. Care to provide a reference for that?

(And please, don't insult people you don't really know. I'm willing to bet my education in this area is equal to or moreso than yours. Thanks!)

 

[istodolez]

How many times have I corrected you on this now?

None, yet. You've expressed your OPINION based on your reading of the literature but that's not the same as "correcting" someone.

 

[istodolez]

Are you claiming I am wrong?

No, I'm claiming you said something that was effectively MEANINGLESS. How many times do I have to explain it to you?

Yes, it does. So how accurate of a result can you pinpoint say 100,000 years ago, if the proxy gives you a 500 year error range? You want to take a second one from the same time to coordinate when an cause and event, and this second proxy has a similar error range. How well can you resolve the time?

Tsk tsk tsk...next thing you know you're going to have a go at radiometric dating. That's the gateway to Young Earth Creationism! Get on it!

Wow. It's pretty bad when you have to constantly compare someone using sound deductive techniques and logic, and comparing that with creationists.

BECAUSE YOU DO.

Am I to assume that maybe creationists are right?

I wouldn't put it past you.

I mean, if they are using sound logic and reasoning, then maybe we should listen to them. I know that isn't what you mean, but damn. They have damaged you deeply somehow. You just cannot get them out of your head.

Here's another way to look at it: YOU might be so VERY BAD at all of this that your debates wind up looking indifferentiable from Young Earth Creationists! LOL.

But that would be damaging to your ego so I'm sure you will avoid that. It must be me, right?

 

[istodolez]

How many times have I corrected you on this now? What you say here is utter nonsense. The Milankovich Cycle only deals with the insolation at 65N, and only looks at the northern ice. It ignores the global effects.

So you disagree with NASA and the majority of the earth's geologists? OK.

(Sounds like you are really amping up to get a cush post with The Discovery Institute!)

 

[ecofarm]

I'm willing to bet my education in this area is equal to or moreso than yours. Thanks!)

My MSc in International Environmental Science is from Sweden and my PhD(c) in Interdisciplinary Ecology is from the University of Florida. My thesis and dissertation research is a longitudinal study of developing world agriculture from the field. I lived in rural Africa for months in '03 and '06 and for two years '10-'12.

What you got.

 

[istodolez]

My MSc in International Environmental Science is from Sweden and my PhD(c) in Interdisciplinary Ecology is from the University of Florida. My thesis and dissertation research is a longitudinal study of developing world agriculture (Africa) from the field. I lived in rural Africa for months in '03 and '06 and for two years '10-'12.

What you got.

BS Geology
MS Geology
PhD Geology (focus on organic geochemistry)
2 Chemistry postdocs
25 years experience in R&D chemistry

17 patents
12 Peer reviewed publications in chemistry and geology
11 Presentations/Abstracts for national and international conferences (ACS, TSOP, AOC, etc.)

 

[longview]

Why do you dislike science so much? Science is nothing without appreciation for uncertainty. Just waving your hands at "uncertainty" and then acting as if you've made a valid point is not what you think it is.

Show me how DREADFUL the paleoclimate proxies are that you must toss out the entire field.

You may not appreciate it but paleoclimatology is a pretty well established science. Just because you don't know anything specific about it doesn't change the fact that it is real.

Well since you claim to know so much about the topic
what was the average temperature, say for the decade surrounding 3000 BCE?
The problem is that even if you have some proxies
the number would only likely be +or -1C, with a temporal resolution of a century or so.

 

[ecofarm]

BS Geology
MS Geology
PhD Geology (focus on organic geochemistry)
2 Chemistry postdocs
25 years experience in R&D chemistry

17 patents
12 Peer reviewed publications in chemistry and geology
11 Presentations/Abstracts for national and international conferences (ACS, TSOP, AOC, etc.)

And you've never heard of the interruption of the Circumpolar Current. So you're out of your field.

 

[istodolez]

And you've never heard of the interruption of the Circumpolar Current. So you're out of your field.

Did you not read my post? I am well aware of the impacts of global warming related to the NADW, but I had not seen any reference that brings in the South Pole (even though I understand there is a connection through the boundary current), so I was just asking you for a reference on this. Specifically references showing how the impact on the NADW will cause a shutdown of the Circumpolar Circulation AND a reference in which these are thought to lead to another glaciation event like the last glacial advance in the Cenozoic.

Just please try to stop insulting and actually answer the question. You are CLEARLY more than adequately familiar with how references and citations work.

 

[ecofarm]

Did you not read my post?

What starts the next Ice Age?

 

[istodolez]

Well since you claim to know so much about the topic
what was the average temperature, say for the decade surrounding 3000 BCE?
The problem is that even if you have some proxies
the number would only likely be +or -1C, with a temporal resolution of a century or so.

You are not getting the point here. I will have to repeat it again to you. Maybe I can find the right words so you'll understand:

I'm not saying paleoclimate data isn't without error bars or uncertainty. Just that that is how ALL OF SCIENCE IS. If you have a specific dataset you are tossing out then you can EASILY provide your reasoning based on the uncertainty. But you CANNOT simply dismiss all of paleoclimatology because you know something is uncertain.

Does that make sense yet? This is how science is done. ALL SCIENCE HAS UNCERTAINTY.

 

[istodolez]

What starts the next Ice Age?

Already answered. I'm just curious for all your degrees, how did you make it through with being able to support your claims with a citation?

 

[ecofarm]

Already answered. I'm just curious for all your degrees, how did you make it through with being able to support your claims with a citation?

You can use wiki. I provided the answer to the question in the title. You've never heard of it, but wiki has. Have at it.

 

[longview]

You are not getting the point here. I will have to repeat it again to you. Maybe I can find the right words so you'll understand:

I'm not saying paleoclimate data isn't without error bars or uncertainty. Just that that is how ALL OF SCIENCE IS. If you have a specific dataset you are tossing out then you can EASILY provide your reasoning based on the uncertainty. But you CANNOT simply dismiss all of paleoclimatology because you know something is uncertain.

Does that make sense yet? This is how science is done. ALL SCIENCE HAS UNCERTAINTY.

And at some point the size of the uncertainty renders any interpretation based on the data almost useless.

 

[istodolez]

You can use wiki. I provided the answer to the question in the title. You've never heard of it, but wiki has. Have at it.

Sorry, I thought you had advanced degrees. My bad.