Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Are we heading into a new Ice Age?

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.

Climate Myth...

We're heading into an ice age
"One day you'll wake up - or you won't wake up, rather - buried beneath nine stories of snow. It's all part of a dependable, predictable cycle, a natural cycle that returns like clockwork every 11,500 years.  And since the last ice age ended almost exactly 11,500 years ago…" (Ice Age Now)

According to ice cores from Antarctica, the past 400,000 years have been dominated by glacials, also known as ice ages, that last about 100,000. These glacials have been punctuated by interglacials, short warm periods which typically last 11,500 years. Figure 1 below shows how temperatures in Antarctica changed over this period. Because our current interglacial (the Holocene) has already lasted approximately 12,000 years, it has led some to claim that a new ice age is imminent. Is this a valid claim?

Figure 1: Temperature change at Vostok, Antarctica (Petit 2000). The timing of warmer interglacials is highlighted in green; our current interglacial, the Holocene, is the one on the far right of the graph.

To answer this question, it is necessary to understand what has caused the shifts between ice ages and interglacials during this period. The cycle appears to be a response to changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt, which affect the amount of summer sunlight reaching the northern hemisphere. When this amount declines, the rate of summer melt declines and the ice sheets begin to grow. In turn, this increases the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, increasing (or amplifying) the cooling trend. Eventually a new ice age emerges and lasts for about 100,000 years.

So what are today’s conditions like? Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. However, two reasons explain why an ice age is unlikely:

  1. These two factors, orbit and tilt, are weak and are not acting within the same timescale – they are out of phase by about 10,000 years. This means that their combined effect would probably be too weak to trigger an ice age. You have to go back 430,000 years to find an interglacial with similar conditions, and this interglacial lasted about 30,000 years.
  2. The warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors. Without human interference, the Earth’s orbit and tilt, a slight decline in solar output since the 1950s and volcanic activity would have led to global cooling. Yet global temperatures are definitely on the rise.

It can therefore be concluded that with CO2 concentrations set to continue to rise, a return to ice age conditions seems very unlikely. Instead, temperatures are increasing and this increase may come at a considerable cost with few or no benefits.

Last updated on 1 September 2010 by Anne-Marie Blackburn.

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Further reading

Tamino discusses predictions of future solar activity in Solar Cycle 24.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Sami Solanki for his invaluable advice and feedback as well as John Cross for his very helpful comments.

Comments

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Comments 151 to 200 out of 258:

  1. This article is quite interesting as well. It explains ice sheet/bedrock dynamics, and explains the rapid deglaciation. He also contends that ice sheet/earth crust dynamics are enough to explain the 100,000 year cycle. He contends that raised bedrock and low summer insolation are enough to start the next glaciation cycle.

    http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/phys/2007-0730-200322/oerlemans_80_modelexperiments100000yr.pdf

    Chris Shaker
  2. #150: "poor ability to predict the glacial cycle using models"

    You are aware that the Oerlemans paper you refer to bases its explanation on a model study?

    Experiments with a Northern Hemisphere ice-sheet model show that the 100,000-yr cycle and its sawtooth shape may be explained by ice sheet/bedrock dynamics alone. This cycle seems to be an internally generated feature and is not forced by variations in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit.

    Too bad just about everybody else goes with the orbital variations.
  3. Muoncounter: yes, and they talked about tweaking the model to get it to reflect the 100,000 year cycles. I found the whole idea of the ice-sheet bedrock uplift fascinating.

    I have not yet found newer studies which attempt to model and predict the glacial cycle. Is it still an active area of research?

    Chris Shaker
  4. cjshaker - Note that 100,000 year cycle isnt the main player in glacial cycle - are you seriously suggesting that you dont think the Milankovich cycles are the primary forcing?

    Modelling of ice age on the whole is fairly crude - running models that are used for predicting the next 100 years over a million years isnt feasible with current computer power, so yes, its still active research. You have competing explanations for the relative importance of various feedbacks in reproducing the cycle and so far no clear winner. For discussion of research and pointers to the papers on the models, then you cant go past Chp 6 of IPCC WG1.
  5. scaddenp: I'm not suggesting it. The author of that paper was suggesting it is possible. The idea was fascinating to me.

    Been obsessed with reading about the ice age cycle lately. I have read Barney Oliver's analysis of the energy difference due to the Milankovich cycles. Such an elegant and sparse argument he made. Was a brilliant man.

    Chris Shaker
  6. Mostly, I've been able to find temperature proxy data from the ice cores. I've read about temperature proxy records from tree rings. Any good pointers to background on other temperature proxy data? How do we get temperature proxy data from the tropics?

    Thank you,
    Chris Shaker
  7. I am curious as to how we study the impact of the 100,000 year glacial cycles in the tropics, ie - what temperature proxy data do we use?

    The wiki on the temperature record offers some information on other proxy data. It appears that coral growth rates are used to estimate temperatures in tropical regions?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

    I assume that they are measuring coral growth rates based on calcium carbonate deposits, which will slow down as CO2 increases, and will slow down as the temperature changes, up or down. Even changes in salinity will affect their growth rate. Seems like it would be hard to get high quality temperature proxy data from coral growth rates.

    Given how fragile coral is, I'm amazed that they survive at all.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral

    "Seaweed/Algae can destroy a coral reef. In the Caribbean and tropical Pacific, direct contact between ~40 to 70% of common seaweeds and coral cause bleaching and death to the coral via transfer of lipid–soluble metabolites.[26] Seaweed and algae proliferate given adequate nutrients and limited grazing by herbivores. Coral die if surrounding water temperature changes by more than a degree or two beyond their normal range or if water salinity drops."

    Chris Shaker
  8. Temperature proxies for tropics - isotope data from forams in sediment core for ocean temps. (Used everywhere). Stalactites from cave systems. Lake productivity from sediment core. All proxies have problems of one sort of other usually with both temperature and age calibration so need to understand proxies in terms of constraining possible models.

    As coral - killing coral is easy but the carbonate skeleton is preserved. And you assume wrong about how they work. The method is based on oxygen isotopes and Sr/Ca ratios. Use google scholar for detail.
  9. Regarding lines 127-136 (sorry for the delayed response - life got in the way)

    To JMurphy in particular, I appreciate the time you spent providing all of those links. And, I have to apologize, as it appears that I may have been unclear in the main points of my previous post.

    My points were only:

    1. to questioning the quality of the scientists and 2. questioning CO2 impact on temperature

    Your links to the hockey stick issue don't change the fact that two different sets of data were concatenated. AGW promoters find this acceptable, the rest of us do not. I'd like to discuss the urban heat effect, but fear we would just talk past each other.

    Daniel stated that GHG effect of CO2 is "not seriously questioned by any competent scientist anywhere". The only purpose in sending the link to the Petition Project was to show that over 31,000 scientists - surely some of whom must be "competent scientist" somewhere - provided a detailed explanation for their disagreement with AGW.

    I also took issue with his definition of "competent scientist" and provided links to support my position. It wasn't my intention to open a direct discussion on the petition project or climategate, but to offer those issues as causing legitimate doubt.

    JMurphy - most of your links regarding the IPCC back up what I said - the IPCC either lied or "misread" data. Furthermore, that happened because their reports were NOT peer viewed. Further promoting my point that they are not an entirely reliable source.

    That IPCC link represents meager 831 scientists. Additionally, my concerns remain about the quality of the scientists behind the IPCC. The IPCC states that their procedures provide for the InterAcademy Council to "assemble an international panel of experts". Now, you may trust that their basis of selection is unbiased and only considers the credentials of those selected, but I do not. Item 7 of this report gives me pause for concern on that topic as well.
  10. My second main point was questioning whether CO2 leads or follows global warming. To this point, Rob and Daniel were direct: CO2 leads global warming because it's basic physics.

    Okay - lets talk "physics".

    Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are about 30 Gtons per year . Total CO2 emissions are about 250 Gtons per year (for this, I estimated a consistent 2% per year increase) - making man responsible for about 12% of all CO2 emissions world wide (this includes CO2 sink effects). The impact CO2 has on GHE is, at its upper limit, about 26%.

    That means that anthropogenic CO2 emissions - WORLD WIDE - have, at most, a 3.12% impact on the green house effect.

    And for that, I should be hysterical?

    The problem here is that the most influential GHG is water vapor (since you all seem to trust the IPCC implicitly, please see their First Assessment Report by Working Group I).

    By the logic of suppressing GHGs, should we stop cooking and boiling water?

    Sound ridiculous?

    That is how I feel about CO2 emissions causing globe disasters.

    I've stated my reasons. I've tried to give reasonable supporting documents to the reasons for my doubts about AGW.

    We may have to just agree to disagree.
    Response: The point about human CO2 emissions being a small percentage of the total is addressed here.
    The point about CO2 lagging temperature is addressed here.
    The point about water vapor being the most dominant GHG is addressed here.

    In the future, please review the List of Skeptic Arguments before posting and place your individual arguments in the appropriate thread (ideally after reading what the post has to say). This will ensure that your points will be readily available to anyone reviewing the discussion of the relevant subject.

    Per the comment policy of this site, any future off-topic posts will be deleted.
  11. To Rob (127) - I have to ask: did you even read Doran's 2009 document? Exactly 75 climatologist agreed - NOT with your Orwellian claim that climate scientists believe that "climate change is real", what fool ever said it isn't? - but, that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures". (do you understand the distinction?) Since you are the master of percentages, just what percentage of ALL climatologist would this be?
  12. Muoncounter (132): If "Artic sea ice falls to third-lowest extent", that means there were at least two extents that were greater. Here is the chart from the link that you sent - please notice that 2007 is the lowest point and 2008 - 2010 show a greater sea ice extent. While I stand corrected on one point: the increase has been for only two of the last three years; the main point remains: if accumulated CO2 is causing the globe to warm, then - by the AWG logic - 2008 through 2010 would be below 2007.
  13. NQoA

    Do you mean that you think that global warming means that every year should show a progressive increase or decrease in each indicator?

    And that any indicator not showing such a response in any year shows that the globe is not warming?
  14. NQoA @162, it is very easy to look up Doran's paper and see that it was 75 of 77 climatologists actively publishing in climatology that answered yes. So that would be 97.4% of that restricted sample.

    Or are you, perhaps trying to suggest it was only 75 out of the surveyed climatolotists that answered yes? That is certainly what you asserted, but it is false. In fact, of around 157 climatologists surveyed, around 138, or 88% answered yes to that question. Further, 2580 of all respondants (82%) answered yes to question 2.

    Even if we inflate the figures from the Oregon petition to allow for the effect of responce rates, we still have 97% of scientist who actually know the science of climate change support the basic veracity of the IPCC reports, while apparently, around 0.3% are very ill informed.
  15. NQoA wrote: "if accumulated CO2 is causing the globe to warm, then - by the AWG logic - 2008 through 2010 would be below 2007."

    That's not any 'AGW logic' I've ever heard of.

    First, sea ice extent is a measure of ice area and how spread out the ice is. The 2007 value was noted at the time to have been in part caused by wind conditions causing the ice to mass up in a small area (which 'skeptics' took as an excuse to ignore it). Now we've had three subsequent years where we haven't seen winds pack the ice into such a small area but the extent has been nearly as low in two of them, because there is now less ice... as we can see from looking at ice volume values, which have continued to drop each year since 2007.

    Second, there is something called weather which can cause large fluctuations in all kinds of climate readings. The Arctic winds contributing to the low extent in 2007 are one example. In this case the volume (aka 'actual amount') of Arctic sea ice has declined each of the past few years... but if it were to tick up for a few years that wouldn't be contrary to AGW in any way. Just expected natural variation.
  16. NQuestofApollo wrote : "Your links to the hockey stick issue don't change the fact that two different sets of data were concatenated. AGW promoters find this acceptable, the rest of us do not. I'd like to discuss the urban heat effect, but fear we would just talk past each other."


    The facts are stated in the links I gave previously, so you should comment on one of those threads if you want to outline any objections that aren't answered there.

    You can discuss Urban Heat here, here or here.



    NQuestofApollo wrote : "The only purpose in sending the link to the Petition Project was to show that over 31,000 scientists - surely some of whom must be "competent scientist" somewhere - provided a detailed explanation for their disagreement with AGW."


    No, that "detailed explanation" was provided by Robinson, Robinson and Soon, with such gems as a first graph which purports to show the MWP much, much warmer than now (using the Sargasso Sea as the world, and projecting world temperature from that from 1975 to 2006 - but you find that acceptable, supposedly ?); and mentioning the "colonization of Greenland" - again, acceptable 'facts' for you ?



    NQuestofApollo wrote : "I also took issue with his definition of "competent scientist" and provided links to support my position."


    Couldn't find the links you are referring to, which "support your position". Could you point them out, please ?



    NQuestofApollo wrote : "most of your links regarding the IPCC back up what I said - the IPCC either lied or "misread" data. Furthermore, that happened because their reports were NOT peer viewed. Further promoting my point that they are not an entirely reliable source."


    Again, you will have to point out the bits that made you decide to believe that the "IPCC either lied or 'misread' data".
    As for the IPCC itself, I suggest you have a look at the WIKIPEDIA description :

    The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change. Implementation of the UNFCCC led eventually to the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature.

    If you need to link to Monckton's website to get your information, I would suggest you are limiting your understanding a great deal.
  17. Re: NQ/A (159)

    I have replied to your comment over here in order to not be a further distraction to this thread.

    The Yooper
  18. To CBDunkerson (165) - following are three examples that support (in my opinion) the AGW promoters logic that accumulated CO2 would cause the sea ice extent to continue to decline:

    IPCC TAR 2001
    The systematic decrease in spring and summer Arctic sea-ice extent in recent decades is broadly consistent with increases of temperature over most of the adjacent land and ocean.

    NASA 2003
    "Researchers have suspected loss of Arctic sea ice may be caused by changing atmospheric pressure patterns over the Arctic that move sea ice around, and by warming Arctic temperatures that result from greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere.

    Warming trends like those found in these studies could greatly affect ocean processes, which, in turn, impact Arctic and global climate…As the oceans warm and ice thins, more solar energy is absorbed by the water, creating positive feedbacks that lead to further melting."

    And my favorite headline:
    Argentine glacier advances despite global warming June 2009

    'We're not sure why this happens,' said Andres Rivera, a glacialist with the Center for Scientific Studies in Valdivia, Chile. 'But not all glaciers respond equally to climate change.'

    It is interesting to see AGW promoters suddenly embrace the "expected natural variation" explanation. That's pretty much what the "Climate Change Deniers" have been saying all along.
  19. To Tom Curtis (164) - I was responding directly to post #127. If you are so inclined, please read #127 then read #161. If you still don't understand the point of my post, I will attempt to provide a better explanation.
  20. NQuest @168, I have responded to your comment here so as not to distract from the topic of this thread.
  21. NQoA, so... the IPCC noting that Arctic sea ice extent has shown consistent declines over the past few decades translates in your mind to them claiming that it will show consistent declines every year going forward?

    I'm afraid that's a disconnect between your brain and reality. If you look at the past data you will see that it did not go down every single year then either. However, if you take the trend line for each decade it did indeed decline consistently each decade. Including the decade 2000-2009. The 2010-2019 decade has just started, but you'd have to be a fool to bet that it isn't going to show another decline below 2000-2009.

    The difference between the 'natural variability' which has always been part of AGW theory and that promoted by the 'skeptics' is that the variability considered in AGW scenarios actually exists... there are past precedents for it. The variability promoted by 'skeptics' exceeds all past experience and any possible explanation consistent with the laws of physics.
  22. #168: "Argentine glacier advances... "

    Missed this little tidbit from the lead paragraphs of the article:

    Argentina's Perito Moreno glacier is one of only a few ice fields worldwide that have withstood rising global temperatures.

    Nourished by Andean snowmelt, the glacier constantly grows even as it spawns icebergs the size of apartment buildings into a frigid lake, maintaining a nearly perfect equilibrium since measurements began more than a century ago.
    -- emphasis added

    So to say that a glacier "advances" when it is merely maintaining equilibrium is a tad disingenuous.

    However, since NQoA has such definite opinions in the context of this thread, it would be interesting to see how he lines up on the question of 'are we heading into a new ice age?' Especially interesting if he could provide some actual substantiation (beyond a mis-read of a news clip) for what must be very strongly-held opinions. Because that would provide him some credibility; without credibility, opinions are ... just opinions.
  23. @NQoA: "That's pretty much what the "Climate Change Deniers" have been saying all along."

    Actually, that isn't true. There are still many deniers/politically-motivated skeptics who still dispute we are in a warming trend.

    Indeed, many of those who have been trying to prop up the failed manufactured Climategate scandal (which has now been thoroughly eclipsed by Cablegate) are saying just that.

    The fact that you seem to believe warming should be linear is also a sign you are gravely mistaken: complex systems do not react in linear fashion. Look at the Stock Market if you don't believe me...
  24. CBDunkerson (171) - would you be kind enough to send me a couple of links to examples, pre 2005, were the IPCC or friends specifically stated that they expected the sea ice extent to increase, glaciers to increase or record cold temperature to occur post 2005. Not some vague statement that could be interpreted any which way - but, an explicit statement along the lines of: regardless of the current warming trend, we fully expect glaciers to occasionally expand and record cold temperatures to occur.

    muoncounter (172) - I didn't miss anything, I was pointing out that the AGW team - up until recently, promoted the expectation that the ice sheets and glaciers would continue to recede; as evidenced by the statement: 'We're not sure why this happens'..

    On the question of "are we heading into a new ice age?" - that only matters if one presupposes that human activity in some way affects the temperature of the Earth. You, obviously, presuppose that we do.

    archiesteel (173) - I'm not the one expecting that warming should be linear.
    Response: Well, you could start with this post: It’s freaking cold!
  25. #174: "I didn't miss anything,"
    Right. Your 'favorite headline' cherrypick stated this glacier was advancing; you tried to make something of the legitimate statement made by a knowledgeable scientist that he couldn't explain everything. As if that's some kind of weakness in the whole picture. And you missed the whole bit about the glacier being in equilibrium -- or else you wouldn't have used that poor an example to illustrate your 'point'.

    Here's a glaciar nearby that's not in equilibrium: Upsala Glacier, Argentina, 1928


    Same spot, 2004:



    This is not how an ice age is supposed to look. Any questions?
    Response: {Daniel Bailey} Topical of you to bring this glacier up. Check this out:
  26. muoncounter - I'm just wondering, what do you think my point was?
  27. @NQoA: I think your point is that you're going to disbelieve the science, whatever it says, as long as it does not conform to your preconceived notions about the reality of AGW.

    "I'm not the one expecting that warming should be linear."

    Nor is anyone who understands the science, despite what you seem to be insinuating. Stop trying to set up that strawman argument, no one's buying it.

    "I didn't miss anything, I was pointing out that the AGW team - up until recently, promoted the expectation that the ice sheets and glaciers would continue to recede"

    They have, when you look at it globally. Of course, when you engage in such cherry-picking as you've demonstrated, that doesn't really matter, does it?

    Is that what skeptics have been reduced to? I remember when we had quality opponents, such as BP - not amateurs such as NQoA who still try to say it's not warming...
  28. #174: "I'm not the one expecting that warming should be linear."

    Great! That means you admit there is warming going on, which promotes you out of the 'four legs good, two legs bad' 'no, its not' crowd.

    "if one presupposes that human activity in some way affects the temperature of the Earth."

    I'll go out on a limb and guess that you don't. There are many threads that more appropriate; you should look at them and see how well your opinion holds up. I'll continue this comment here.
  29. Re: muoncounter (175)

    Check out the video I linked in your comment.

    The Yooper
  30. #179: I would say cool, but somehow that doesn't seem right. Did you notice they have an 'Ice Museum'? As in a place where someday children will go to see pictures of ice?
  31. Re: 180

    Right next to the pictures of farmland and skyscrapers...

  32. NQoA writes: "would you be kind enough to send me a couple of links to examples, pre 2005, were the IPCC or friends specifically stated that they expected the sea ice extent to increase, glaciers to increase or record cold temperature to occur post 2005."

    Wow are you ever dwelling in a fictional reality. How can you look at the frequent up and down short term variations of the data and believe that anyone was ever claiming that would suddenly switch to unidirectional changes... rather than saying that the long term trends would continue to be in the same direction? It's a ridiculous interpretation on its face.

    That said, there are countless examples of statements about continued variability. Since I don't know exactly who you consider to be 'friends' of the IPCC, let's go directly to the boogeyman in question;

    "Changes in ice sheets and polar glaciers: Increased melting is expected on Arctic glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, and they will retreat and thin close to their margins. Most of the Antarctic ice sheet is likely to thicken as a result of increased precipitation." IPCC TAR WG II Chapter 16 overview

    "Whether the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean will shrink depends on changes in the overall ice and salinity budget, the rate of sea-ice production, the rate of melt, and advection of sea ice into and out of the Arctic Basin. The most important exit route is through Fram Strait (Vinje et al., 1998). The mean annual export of sea ice through Fram Strait was ~2,850 km3 for the period 1990-1996, but there is high interannual variability caused by atmospheric forcing and, to a lesser degree, ice thickness variations." IPCC TAR WG II Chapter 16.2.4.1

    "Features of projected changes in extreme weather and climate events in the 21st century include more frequent heat waves, less frequent cold spells (barring so-called singular events)" IPCC TAR WG II Chapter 1.4.3.4

    So there are the three specific things you wanted to see from before 2005... all in the IPPC Third Assessment Report released in 2001.
  33. Game, set, match: CBDunkerson.
  34. Coldest December in England's history: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339149/Big-freeze-Temperatures-plummet-10C-bringing-travel-chaos-Britain.html
  35. @Tom Loeber: worthless anecdotal evidence. Try again.
  36. #185 First ever recorded summer snow in Australia. Things are starting to get interesting now!
  37. @186 I think you'll find that snow on Mt Wellington is hardly a Christmas novelty.
  38. @kdfv #186

    Yes. Summer snow in Australia first ever recorded in:

    a) 2012
    b) 1921
    c) 1856
    d) 1884

    Guess!! (A hint: think about what you need to record summer snow)

    The Bureau of Meteorology of Australia has information about. For example, a page with recommendation for buildings in the cool temperate region states: "The cool temperate climate has mild to warm summers and cold winters. In the higher parts of the Snowy Mountains, snow can fall at any time of the year. In Tasmania, summer snow has been reported at elevations as low as 300 m."

    @archiesteel #185

    The blunder in Tom Löber's link is announcing that in the middle of December. The same way I'll soon be able to report that last two weeks of December were hot record here in Buenos Aires, possibly some 3 or 4°C above the previous hot record for December. The link in 184 only claimed a similar period to be some tenths of degree below the "previous" record.
  39. @kdfv: November 2010 is the hottest on record.



    Which is more significant? Summer snow in a La Niña year, or the hottest November in one of the hottest (if not *the* hottest) year?
  40. #188 Are these the only years, because they have a big significance. The first three were a long time ago.
  41. #189 The significance is that the record cold in the uk is happening with vastly increased CO2. This seems to go against the trend.
    Response: Nope. Use the Search field to find the post It's Freaking Cold.
  42. For the future of human kind I hope I am 100% wrong to what follows :
    1.The earth , as shape , is not one PERFECT sphere , therefor every minor change of axis would result in a change of the solar radiation absorbed .
    2.One such change of 1,5 degrees took place in 2010 .
    3.The result was indeed a more vertical positioning of the equator towards the sun which leads to a temperature raise for the sea water in the equators .
    4.By that the amounts of vapors has raised together with warm air streams that makes vapor clouds to lift higher so when they are above europe or north america they freeze spontaneusly due to the contact of lower atmospheric temperatures (in the atmosphere higher= colder )giving them heavy snowings we observe lately.
    As a result of all the above we may consider the ice age has started this winter ,the sky will keep on showering snow untill everything will be covered by it and when I am talking covering I mean 300 metres of ice throughout the northen hemisphere above longitude 40 .

    This was the short resume of my thoughts on the actuall climate problem.What frightens me the most is the fact that glacial periods apear with a strict periodicity , so the argument of one astronomical event taking place as a regulator of their appearance and disappearance is not to be discussed !!!! And apparently this took place this year .....
    Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please be so kind as to provide linked references for those (ahem) "unusual" claims. Or be taken for a troll-bot. Thanks!
  43. Don't worry. You are one hundred percent wrong. Please read up on Milankovitch cycles and solar variability, and how the increased heat retention from enhancing the greenhouse effect overwhelms it.

    Do you have a reference for the orbital tilt claim?
  44. There are lots of scientists who study and monitor the shape of the earth. Here is an example: http://geodesy.unr.edu/ There is no mention by them of any sudden changes in 2010.
  45. #192: Perhaps this is a reference to the Chile earthquake? If so, the numbers are way out of any realm of possibility. Of course, there have been lots of large earthquakes in recent history; no ice age yet.

    Here's one that explains why such an axis shift did not, nay, cannot happen.
  46. Re: muoncounter (195)

    Sounds like another variant of Hapgood's crustal displacement mythos.
  47. Hey, those crystals might just align one day. Since you're the one 'in pharmaceuticals', party on, dude!
  48. The historical record indicates that we are now in a repeat Dalton like minimum (called Landscheidt).

    This is expected to last through solar cycle 25. However, around 2015 or so, its expected that the solar gauss will fall below 1500. Then the sunspots may wink out completely.

    It is further predicted that a new Maunder like minimum will then begin. So, global cooling has, in fact,begun and will last most likely for the next 70 or 80 years.

    See this site: http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/61

    Also, I checked the worlds annual mean temperature charts. Not much of a visual upward slant in temperatures everywhere I looked world wide for the last 50 years. The urban site temps were not used as they are unreliable. So upward and downward wiggles appear all but natural variations. Look for yourself and you be the judge!

    See this site:http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.html

    In Greenland, eight WW2 bombers from the "lost squadron" were found in 1986 under 267 feet of ice. How's that for melting glaciers? I didn't take the rest of the article seriously.

    See this site: http://www.2012online.org/2012research/iceage/

    For the new little ice age that's emerging now:
    see this site:

    mail.google.com/mail/hl=en&shva=1#inbox/12d1de941be48ea3
  49. Henry,

    Try reading the entry you are replying to, including the intermediate version.

    The increased heat retention from the enhanced greenhouse effect is an order of magnitude larger than the decreased heat from a return to Maunder minimum levels of solar activity.

    As for "urban records are unreliable", refer to argument #6 which is linked at the top of the left column.
  50. @Henry: too bad your theory isn's supported by observation, which means it's likely bunk.

    Oh, and you don't get to choose which temperature records you want to use, and which ones you don't. That's called cherry-picking, and though it might be the contrarian's favorite activity, it doesn't hold much weight in a scientific discussion.

    The "2012online" site is a joke, while your last link is to a gmail message. Fail.

    Simply put, there is no indication that a new ice age is emerging. You should spend less time on pseudoscience site and more time reading the articles here. You'll learn a lot.

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page



The Consensus Project Website

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2014 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us