Global Climate Status Report


babe

Well-Known Member
La Nina currently underway, with a strong Hudson Bay low established, is giving us the prospect of a continued severe drought in the US Southwest, maybe even into the US Northwest margins perhaps.

In my theory, this setup has the potential of years length, with above average Gult of Mexico/Caribbean and mid-Atlantic surface temps, which we've seen this year as capable of supporting a lot of moisture being fed up the Mississippi valley. This is some of the scenario I've been trying to describe as feeding the development of a huge ice sheet around the Hudson Bay, and the start of a new Ice Age.

Only, imo, the seas aren't really warm enough to sustain it very long.....

Along with the huge ice sheets in the Great Lakes/Hudson Bay region, the last Ice Age supprted lakes filling all the Western USA basins. Lake Lahontan/Lake Bonneville, and even lakes in the Mohave Desert region, as we term it today, which some believed were host to significant human cultures.
 


Eenie-Meenie

Well-Known Member
La Nina currently underway, with a strong Hudson Bay low established, is giving us the prospect of a continued severe drought in the US Southwest, maybe even into the US Northwest margins perhaps.

In my theory, this setup has the potential of years length, with above average Gult of Mexico/Caribbean and mid-Atlantic surface temps, which we've seen this year as capable of supporting a lot of moisture being fed up the Mississippi valley. This is some of the scenario I've been trying to describe as feeding the development of a huge ice sheet around the Hudson Bay, and the start of a new Ice Age.

Only, imo, the seas aren't really warm enough to sustain it very long.....

Along with the huge ice sheets in the Great Lakes/Hudson Bay region, the last Ice Age supprted lakes filling all the Western USA basins. Lake Lahontan/Lake Bonneville, and even lakes in the Mohave Desert region, as we term it today, which some believed were host to significant human cultures.
My friend......

If you will look twice at this graph, you will see that in the range of years shown, there is virtually no change in the solar radiance, perhaps a 0.1 C decline, with a large rise in the decades around the 1950s, which were historically a serious drought in the Western USA..... a rise of perhaps 0.2 C above "normal". The solar cycle swings are known to have some effects on weather so we could just say even a 0.1C rise or fall will have some correlation with shifts in weather patterns.

If you will review my comments on sea surface temps in these forums, you will see that I have been saying for at least a couple of years that SSTs appear to be about 1C above what we believe to be "average" over the pastr 150 years, which is exactly what this graph claims.

Nevertheless, we are still within the IceAge/Interglacial Warm cycle range. I believe you will find scientific reports estimating, from some data believed to be capable of estimating the temps of ages long gone, which show that near the beginning of each Ice Age there is a short-term "spike" in temps...... whether derived from data of geologically embedded pollen, or isotopes entrapped in ice bubbles in ice formed during some long-gone epoch, or whatever other method. The short term rise in temps is less than 50 years, typically estimated at 20 or 15 years. I believe those spikes are necessary to trigger the advent of an ice age. And our current departures from long-range "normals" are still less than those estimated rises in the pre=Ice spikes.

Human use of steam or internal combustion engines, coupled with increased open fires, is not demonstrated to be greater than the natural fires we can see as cyclical in some areas, nor than volcanic emissions which vary on some scale, sometimes much greater than human outputs at least short term.

Another factor I'm looking at is estimates of geological nuclear fission/fusion reactions occurring inside the earth. We have recently had pretty good reports that support the idea that deuterium fusion is occurring within a zone of the inner core where iron exists under heat and pressure in a solid form, and that crystal lattice supports a catalytic nuclear fusion of deuterium which is believed to be present in that environment. This nuclear process is "recent" because until the core cooled to the point where it is now..... estimated to be around 1-2 billion years ago..... that environment had not formed yet.

Other recent science reports have increased the heat being released to the surface from 42 TW to 47 TW. Such a trend, rationally speculated to be correlated with an oncoming "volcanic age", would mean likely that our deep ocean temps may be warming.....0.1 C or so in the 200 or so years correlated to the Industrial Age.

I can't "blame" anyone for believing CO2 from human activities might be significant. But a natural cycle that impacts ocean temps a tenth of a degree would figure, by ocean solubility of CO2 considerations, would produce more of an increase in atmospheric CO2 than our burning.

The fact is, scientifically, that there are other factors that we have poorly measured or understood, and it is by no means proven that our activities are the most important cause of what we are seeing now. The "Science" popularly claimed today is more like "Speculation" and "Extrapolation".

Of course I don't know everything. I am quite enthusiastic with the research being done.

But I am looking for a SST (Sea Surface Temp" rise on the order of 2 C to 3C, sustained by a correlated rise in the whole ocean temp profile having a rise of 1C, which I think is competent to set off a new ice age.

All that ice has to come from the Oceans. It has to evaporate and get transported to higher lattitudes. You can't have an Ice Age without warm oceans at the outset.

Later in the ice age cycle, cold melt water feeds into the oceans on a scale that cools the oceans, and slows the evaporation, and slowly ends the ice age.
I guess we read graphs differently. Look at the graph over the last 40 years. They are moving very quickly in opposite directions. And what about the rising temperatures of the oceans? All that ice you talk about is melting at both poles. And this all correlates with the rapid rise in CO2 emissions. But you are saying that is just a coincidence. Seriously, everything you attribute the Global Warming to is pure speculation. What is your source for: "a natural cycle that impacts ocean temps a tenth of a degree would figure, by ocean solubility of CO2 considerations, would produce more of an increase in atmospheric CO2 than our burning"?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which gathers up evidence from scientists worldwide, periodically summarizes the state of knowledge about the planet’s present and future. It then offers a reassessment based on a consensus of the world's scientists about the state of the planet's oceans and ice. This is from its most recent report (I believe in 2019):

Climate change’s impacts, the report says, are already readily visible from the top of the highest mountain to the very bottom of the ocean—and tangible for every human on the planet.

The problems aren’t theoretical, the report stresses: Science shows that they are here, now. And the oceans, polar ice caps, and high mountain glaciers have already absorbed so much extra heat from human-caused global warming that the very systems human existence depends on are already at stake.

In 2015, world leaders gathered in Paris at a climate-focused meeting, where they agreed to try to limit planetary warming to an average of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial temperatures—and to aim for a more ambitious goal of keeping warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).

At the time, 2 degrees Celsius was considered a “safe” target. Keeping the planet’s average temperature below that, world leaders said, would still result in great stresses on the economy, social systems, and natural environments, but would stave off the most devastating impacts.

Since then, two things have happened: First, science has made clear that the planet has already warmed about 1 degree Celsius, on average, while some regions, like the Arctic, have overshot that warming by at least four times. Second, thousands of scientists have diligently catalogued evidence that even 1.5 degrees of warming could push parts of the climate system in ways that would have devastating environmental, social, and economic impacts.
 

Eenie-Meenie

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the latest, Red. I haven't read them yet. Not very interesting from the title being obviously biased.

The simplest fact is the picture of some Russians in Siberia, out on the melting permafrost waters, pulling woolly mammoth tusks into their little boats.

Those big critters are like cows, they eat grass and green stuff. The fact that they were there ten thousand years ago is the fact that the Arctic melted off then, too, and then froze up again, within the current interglacial warm. About 2 to 4 C degrees up and down several times in the past twenty thousand years.

Anyone who wants to interpret this as somehow proof of a crisis now is just pushing the facts further than the science really goes.
I have seen a good number of those videos of the melting permafrost in Greenland and Siberia made by scientists, not politicians. With all your technical bluster, you have failed to provide any links or even quotes from scientists or scientific organizations to bolster your poopycock.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
I have seen a good number of those videos of the melting permafrost in Greenland and Siberia made by scientists, not politicians. With all your technical bluster, you have failed to provide any links or even quotes from scientists or scientific organizations to bolster your poopycock.

It's a time issue, really.

Did you notice in those videos from Siberia the ones I did mention about people out there on the meltwaters pulling up the tusks from the woolley mammoths of some thousands of years ago.

The mammoth is extinct now. There is one report from an early American explorer in Skull Valley, on the southwest arm of the Great Salt Lake, where there are some springs. The Indians in the 1840s told the story about a severe winter where even the valleys were packed up with perhaps ten feet of snow. They almost starved, they said, but the mammoths froze there, and the Indians survived by eating the frozen meat.

Mammoths were grazing animals, like cows or Buffalo, but larger. Their bones are found around the shores of the ancient Lake Bonneville in Utah, and likely elsewhere in the basin and range geological area, where there were once lakes, and a climate with much more rainfall or snowfall. Coincident with the end of the last ice age those lakes dried up, and it proved the end of the mammoths here.

In the Arctic, their bones or tusks are proof that the Arctic Ice...... low elevation polar locatation, melted off completely near the beginning of this interglacial warm era. Other interglacial warms are believed to have achieved similar or even higher temps.

You are, or should be, more interested in looking for this information in your own searches, and more willing to question politically-motivated propaganda sorts of distortions of the evidence.
 

Red

Well-Known Member
I live in southern New England, with an obvious temperate climate. But, 300 million years ago, when the supercontinent Pangea existed, where I now live was located much closer to the equator, and the plant fossils I find here lived in a tropical swamp. Earlier, 525 million years ago, southeastern New England was part of a volcanic island arc in a proto-Atlantic ocean. The trilobite species found in our rocks are also found in the Mid Cambrian rocks of Wales, Norway, the Bohemia section of the Czech Republic, Spain, Morocco, Newfoundland and other areas. All these disparate regions were a part of that ancient island arc, known as Avalonia, named after the Avalon peninsula of Newfoundland. This island arc was pushed into proto-North America when Pangea formed, and that part of Avalonia that remained attached to North America when Pangea broke apart includes what is now southeastern New England. All areas of the Earth that were once part of this ancient volcanic island arc have the same trilobite fossils, allowing us to identify the widely scattered pieces of Avalonia.

I just mention all this to point out how different the configuration of continents has been throughout time, and that too determines what past climate was like. It is not simply the waxing and waning of continental ice sheets, which was the major climate dynamic during the most recent Pleistocene Period, but the movement of plates is such that lands now located in northern latitudes may have been equatorial at other times.

Anyway, mammoths were obviously adopted to cold climates. They were not Wooly Mammoths for nothing. And a small population survived until only about 4000 years ago, about 7000 years later then when most mammoths experienced extinction.

 
Last edited:

Eenie-Meenie

Well-Known Member
It's a time issue, really.

Did you notice in those videos from Siberia the ones I did mention about people out there on the meltwaters pulling up the tusks from the woolley mammoths of some thousands of years ago.

The mammoth is extinct now. There is one report from an early American explorer in Skull Valley, on the southwest arm of the Great Salt Lake, where there are some springs. The Indians in the 1840s told the story about a severe winter where even the valleys were packed up with perhaps ten feet of snow. They almost starved, they said, but the mammoths froze there, and the Indians survived by eating the frozen meat.

Mammoths were grazing animals, like cows or Buffalo, but larger. Their bones are found around the shores of the ancient Lake Bonneville in Utah, and likely elsewhere in the basin and range geological area, where there were once lakes, and a climate with much more rainfall or snowfall. Coincident with the end of the last ice age those lakes dried up, and it proved the end of the mammoths here.

In the Arctic, their bones or tusks are proof that the Arctic Ice...... low elevation polar locatation, melted off completely near the beginning of this interglacial warm era. Other interglacial warms are believed to have achieved similar or even higher temps.

You are, or should be, more interested in looking for this information in your own searches, and more willing to question politically-motivated propaganda sorts of distortions of the evidence.
The video I saw were of the melting permafrost that revealed these fossils. Not only that but the scientist describing what the area was like in earlier years he had visited. There are so many video of glaciers melting in the Antarctica and ice core readings that can show the temperature of the earth based on their chemical composition from well before the existence of humans. It's prima facie proof that Global Warming is occurring because of human activity. I can't seem to recall off hand the source but the temperatures of the oceans are the highest in several million years and the increase in recent decades has gone way up like that graph I posted, which by the way is from NASA, which is all about science and not politics.
 

Red

Well-Known Member
So anyway, we humans are the last remaining species of the genus Homo. It has always fascinated me that one does not have to go back that far in time to a time when other varieties of Homo sapiens lived with us. Neanderthals. Denisovans. We bred with those now lost humans. Whenever I think of these earlier humans, a question many would consider foolish crops up: did they have souls? I know, not something science can answer, and not a question an atheist would ask.

An interesting new study suggests earlier separate species of Homo may have gone extinct due to the inability to adopt to changing climate:


 

Red

Well-Known Member
It's a time issue, really.

Did you notice in those videos from Siberia the ones I did mention about people out there on the meltwaters pulling up the tusks from the woolley mammoths of some thousands of years ago.

The mammoth is extinct now. There is one report from an early American explorer in Skull Valley, on the southwest arm of the Great Salt Lake, where there are some springs. The Indians in the 1840s told the story about a severe winter where even the valleys were packed up with perhaps ten feet of snow. They almost starved, they said, but the mammoths froze there, and the Indians survived by eating the frozen meat.

Mammoths were grazing animals, like cows or Buffalo, but larger. Their bones are found around the shores of the ancient Lake Bonneville in Utah, and likely elsewhere in the basin and range geological area, where there were once lakes, and a climate with much more rainfall or snowfall. Coincident with the end of the last ice age those lakes dried up, and it proved the end of the mammoths here.

In the Arctic, their bones or tusks are proof that the Arctic Ice...... low elevation polar locatation, melted off completely near the beginning of this interglacial warm era. Other interglacial warms are believed to have achieved similar or even higher temps.

You are, or should be, more interested in looking for this information in your own searches, and more willing to question politically-motivated propaganda sorts of distortions of the evidence.

Speaking of humans, and mammoths, in the Americas, check out this just published amazing discovery. Unlike most fossils, which preserve the remains of dead plants and animals, so-called trace fossils preserve moments in time, and the activity of living animals. In this case, from White Sands, NM, the footprints of a woman and child, intermingled, at the same moment in time, with mammoths and giant ground sloths:


Full paper:https://sci-hub.se/downloads/2020-1...Ohw7YWP0HYsmrrclvtSoMZEtb5dOvRaKWwejRh4Gib7x0

212E3F21-BCCE-4CDE-81F1-F94AEF420981.jpeg

BBAB4037-F3F5-46DE-84B6-F04CC951D6EA.jpeg
 

babe

Well-Known Member
The video I saw were of the melting permafrost that revealed these fossils. Not only that but the scientist describing what the area was like in earlier years he had visited. There are so many video of glaciers melting in the Antarctica and ice core readings that can show the temperature of the earth based on their chemical composition from well before the existence of humans. It's prima facie proof that Global Warming is occurring because of human activity. I can't seem to recall off hand the source but the temperatures of the oceans are the highest in several million years and the increase in recent decades has gone way up like that graph I posted, which by the way is from NASA, which is all about science and not politics.

OK. This is a better level of discussion than sheer political rhetoric.

Please notice that, I believe, my thesis is not exactly ever stated as humans causing global cooling, or not having some impact. It's about other possible factors and the distribution of relative possible impacts.

I was studying this issue when the political thrust was all about how we faced an impending Ice Age and we had to do something about that.l 1960s, 70s, clear into the 80s. The hole in the Ozone, and the catastrophic depletion of our last oil resources in the next few years. All that.

Used to be some cutting edge scientific peer reviewed articles that, based on I think pollen layered in the muck, supported estimates of temperatures almost on the decade level of precision. Said there was a short term spike in temps immediately preceeding several ice ages, on the scale of about 6C.

Also, please bear in mind that these temp estimates/correlations gave lower ocean temps during the Ice Ages of around 8-10C.

Such possible swings in SST or related changes in depth/temp profiles would rationally explain a significant swing in ambient CO2 resulting from shifting eqjuilibria with temp changes.

I just see a lot of the rhetoric in this area pretty wild compared to the scientific support given by actual data.

Before accepting the claim that we have something going on that exceeds the records of the last several million years, I note that I've seen quite the opposite claims or extrapolations of data as well. I'd want to look at the methods and the reports generally first hand.

In any event, please understand that the climate accords are significantly political, tremendously globalist and huge power grabs by governance in general, with little rational connection to the problem.

CO2 is not fixed by socialism. I don't think it's the right way to go to just shut down improvements in living conditions like refrigeration, electricity, or transportation.

I think the need we face requires better and more technology, not less. More efficient use of resources, more recycling. And the development of safe nuclear power generation and economical use of alternatives. The best use of solar and wind power would be connected to on-site generation, not powering the huge grid. Lots of ideas like that.

I don't believe oil is unlimited, and I think it's a good idea to reserve use of it, as well as coal etc., where it can be economical or efficiently done.

The Climate Accords need to be scrapped as wholly unacceptable, and something that effectively addresses all the possible changes we may face set up in place. It can be done without giving away the planet to the John. D. Rockefeller's clan.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
Update time.

I see some really good recruitment/indoctrination sites online offering "talking point" help in promoting the fake climate crisis..

JFC wannabees should go there and drag stuff back here.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
My short-term forecast for this winter started out being close. Deep polar vortex over the Hudson Bay/Great lakes. But recently it has shifted west.

La Nina is pretty strong, and wind patterns supporting it. Deep water supporting it. The one thing that is not in line is the strength of the polarjet. I mean, lack of strength. Some pretty good storms sliding by in the southern tier where it's supposed to be dry.

Overall, the global SST continue 1-1.5C above the "recent" average that's expected, with no evidence to support the false claim that it is in any sense a real norm.

alarmists have totally ignored the evidence that artic melt offs have been happening with some regulariy during all interglacial warm periods and have occurred before in this one. They want to believe the lie that we have a crisis.

Climate is a long term consideration, and it does normal natural excursions from the norm for more reasons than one. And socialism/statism just does nothing to change that.

A practical response to a sustained change would be to make necessary adjustments. Move if you have to. You'd do better making those decisions yourself.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
My expectation that we are going to have an new Ice Age is not progressing any better than the fake crisis. We need the oceans to get warmer before it could sustain the development of a new Ice Age.

At the moment, we are having a rather unsupportive solar output for either thesis, and the earth/solar system/galactic "headwinds" of particles/molecules is weak Let's call it a weak Van Allen Crisis, and take advantage of the opportunity to set into space somewhere.

However recent publications are upgrading the heat flux emanating from our core, with theories about how it is deuterium fusion that is increasing and expected to increase. Now, this started 1.5 Billion years ago, and requires a zone of solid iron under great heat and great pressure, and that zone is getting larger, but it will continue on a greater than 1 Billion year one-time phenomena. That alone will raise the surface temp more than 2C, well maybe about 0.01C per year for 200 years and then sorta plateau as a new norm, before starting to fall off 1 B years from now.

I have no doubts that central planners will use this to justify their edicts and political manipulations, but there's nothing we can do about it.

Well, don't build near volcanos, expect more earthquakes, and do stuff about farming and housing we should just do anyway.

More CO2 would help, because we need to grow more forests and corn, and whatever we can inject into our atmosphere will reward us with just that much more green, in dollars and crops. But we really can't just burn enough stuff to make that difference, no matter what policies central planners could contrive, not even burning our whole damn North Woods.

In the long run, we will need to retrieve CO2 from the rocks to use in green house facilities to grow our food, fiber, and forests. Because while storage of C in reduced forms is limited, the process of carbonate rock formation is unlimited.

We have a generation of miseducated people indoctrinated in fake science driven by political motives of essentially malevolent sociopaths who have formed a little elite piracy enterprise, but the programs are as unsustainable as they are uninformed. The truth will eventually be the remedy.

As the great socialist/humorist Ambrose Bierce quipped.

"When lost in the night and fog, mired neck deep in an unwholesome bog, experience, like the rising of the dawn, reveals the path we should not have gone.

Well, I'm losing interest in entertaining humorless ignoramuses...... gotta move along.
 

Top