Interesting global cooling story.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doug_Kiesling
  • Start date Start date

Doug_Kiesling

Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age

Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, February 25, 2008

Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.
The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."

The rest of the story is here
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
 
Nice, but can't agree with the conclusion, not the least of which is because the temperature data pertain to the U.S., not the entire world (US temps != global temps)... ONE month's data cannot be used as evidence of global climate change. The same goes for a particular month's "record warmth" or record drought, despite what some media and politicians report. Many warmer-than-average months + a few cooler-than-average months may still well yield warmer-than-avg conditions.

All that said, some of the winter snow totals are quite impressive in areas near the Great Lakes... For example, I think Madison WI is somewhere near 225% of their normal snowfall for the winter (86.7" vs. avg of 38.3"). Considerably more snow in places in MI, too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's interesting. I have family in Michigan, and I remember that last year the big news was how late the first snowfall came and how generally small the snowfall totals were.

I tend to not want to get very involved in discussions about global warming, but it is always frustrating when one event gets attributed to warming or is used to prove there is no warming.

Still interesting it has been such a snowy winter, though. I wonder how that will impact the recent evidence of the rapidly receding ice sheets and record low snow up over the far north?
 
Waaal. We'll see.... But keep in mind that the short-term hemispheric effects of any solar-induced GW or GC phenomenon should be least apparent in the winter season. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if there's somewhat of an annual amplified cycle where later water freeze-over leads to more early winter snow cover and somewhat greater continental radiational cooling. Then the summer sun rather quickly melts everything and the basic trend continues. The key is, I would think, perennial ice and snow as the indicator.
 
I say we surely need to clean up the environment because we are trashing it badly but global warming and cooling happens in a cycle regardless. It is going to happen until GOD shuts the world down, lol.

No amount of political BS and election year rhetoric about global warming or cooling is going to change it one bit.
 
This is more of a rant than anything else but I AM right. I am quite unhappy about how climate change and global warming have been treated recently. Those arguing against global warming only look at areas and timeframes in which cooling is taking place. Those arguing for global warming just look at the areas that are seeing warming. THE ENTIRE PICTURE MUST BE ANALYZED. I recommend reading the most recent IPCC technical summary (4th assessment) as they look at the overall picture really well. They are generally quite conservative when it comes to global warming but they still are very confident in their overall projections with regard to the global mean temperature increase.

By the same logic this article uses I could say precipitation is actually increasing a LOT because parts of the S. Plains received record rainfall last year. Parts of Arkansas, and Missouri are receiving record rainfall this year. Now try telling this to the people who live in the southeast. Yea, doesn't work so well.
 
I think we're basically on the "same side", Kenny. But I think it's legit to focus on the areas that are more extreme. While it may be that the mean global goes up, say, 2C, if the Arctic and the Amazon basin go up 5C, etc., then that's huge.

A lot of scientists now are taking a very close look at what's happening to the Arctic Ocean ice and are becoming quite concerned. Open water has an albedo of less than .10, and even thin, melting sea ice is relatively absorptive. This is potentially a huge positive feedback to global warming. Whatever its cause there are enough challenges without chaotic discontinuities in the picture.
 
David leads onto the other issue... the ocean currents.,specifically the thermohaline circulation is poorly understood. Perhaps the oceanographers out there can correct me, but my impression is we're pretty clueless when it comes to the variability of deep currents and how they would change in a warming or cooling world (there has been work done with Younger Dryas and current reversal).
 
A few things for consideration in the man made global warming scenario:

Piri Reis Map:

(Man made global warming didn't exist baxk then)

The Piri Reis map shows the western coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America, and the northern coast of Antarctica. The northern coastline of Antarctica is perfectly detailed. The most puzzling however is not so much how Piri Reis managed to draw such an accurate map of the Antarctic region 300 years before it was discovered, but that the map shows the coastline under the ice. Geological evidence confirms that the latest date Queen Maud Land could have been charted in an ice-free state is 4000 BC.

Global Warming, the Sun and the Apocalypse

((Don't knock the religious aspects of the article just note the facts in "Fire, or Ice?" This is not posted for a religious argument just the history of climate))

Our own planetary history demonstrates this principle with extreme clarity. Not so long ago, in the nineteen-sixties and seventies, scientists were actually predicting a new ice age in the not-too-distant future. Their observations drew much from the past, since the northern hemisphere was once covered by glaciers that reached as far south as the central regions of today’s America.

Furthermore, recent history reinforced their cooling hypothesis. Climatologists refer to a "Little Ice Age," which was observed in Europe between the 13th and mid-19th centuries. As late as 1816, the famous "year without a summer," witnessed freezing temperatures and frozen crops in Europe, Newfoundland and Canada. Midsummer ice on rivers and lakes, with accompanying blizzards, were recorded as far south as Pennsylvania.

It is hardly a surprise that the common factor in this climatic aberration seems to have been the Sun. It is well known that this period was marked by the virtual absence of turbulent solar storms. At times, sunspots were simply absent. Most of the time, they appeared with extreme rarity. Sunspots, by the way, are among the most well documented events in the history of astronomical observation. Literally centuries of observations are available.

Well known to astronomers is the so-called "Maunder Minimum." It marks the period from 1645 to 1715, when solar observers counted few, if any sunspots. In the year 1670, not a single one was seen. The three decades at the heart of this historical epoch produced only about 50 sunspots, as opposed to the normal 40 to 50 thousand for a similar period!

This situation, lasting about five centuries, brought the northern hemisphere much cooler temperatures than normal, in exact synchronization with diminished solar activity. More sunspots brought more heat, and vice versa. Certainly, human endeavors were in no way connected with the changes, since they happened long before the Industrial Revolution.

Interestingly, the years just prior to the Little Ice Age are referred to as "The Medieval Warm Period." During this period, explorers from Iceland were led westward from Iceland across the northern Atlantic by the famed explorer Erik the Red, whose forbearers had originally come from Norway. Around A.D. 982, they came to a lush new territory, so rich and green that they immediately colonized it. Because its southern regions were covered with lush vegetation, they promptly named it Greenland. Crops and vines flourished. Trade routes were established. Even an archdiocese from the Norwegian church was established there!

Needless to say, Greenland isn’t green anymore. After about four and a half centuries, rapid cooling quickly covered Greenland with ice. The Norwegians retreated back to their homeland. The fifteenth century brought Greenland a "Little Ice Age." From that day to this, the territory is still encrusted with ice that continues to accumulate, sometimes hundreds of feet deep, where crops used to grow and villages thrived.

These notable climatic changes all took place prior to man’s use of carbon-based fuels. There is little doubt that they are tied to solar activity, rather than the by-products of human activity, as is currently taught. If there is one Bible truth, it is that God, not man, controls the weather. The Bible asserts that He regulates the output of the Sun, and therefore, the level of heat energy throughout our planetary system.

Again, no religious argument, just discuss how we had these previous weather changes if the world doesn't change climates over time by itself.

Castle Rock Fossil Rainforest

The Denver CO area used to be a tropical rain forest.

A desert in Nebraska?

Nebraska used to be a desert and had desert dwellers roaming on it.

I know we need to get control of pollution and maybe we do affect it a little but I think overall it is a normal climate change.
 
Jim,
I have to agree with you. When one looks at all of the different weather eras and the climate changes the world has gone through over the ages, I can not help but view the changes as just the normal world climate change processes. I am sure the human race plays some extremely small role in this, but that does not explain all the others changes that have occurred in the past ages.
 
My simple answer is no one (reasonably minded) argues that natural climate change didn't occur. Variations in our orbit, the sun's output, and items such as volcanoes (which are another hypothesis for the little ice age) all cause natural climate change. The issue is the rate of change in temp. and the amount we've warmed. Changes in solar intensity (and volcanoes) aren't enough to account for this.

So we are left with a few possibilities:
A) our numerous temperature records/reconstructions are whack
B) There are climate forgings we are unaware of
C) We know the forcing (greenhouses gasses) and we're the cause
D) We know the forcing (greenhouses gasses) and we're NOT the cause
 
Aaron,
As this whole thing is far from my area of expertise, I have some questions.
While I will agree that the humans may contribute to some of the changes currently occurring, are not the theories and hypothesis of past events, exactly that? Guess and beliefs in something that is not totally understood. From my viewpoint, man is only arbitrarily assuming that something occurred in a certain manner eons ago based on what they speculate, based on current knowledge. In example, when someone ages a bone and says it is between 25 - 26 million years old or 20-25 thousand years old, this leaves a huge margin of error to deal with. This same thought applies to different geological era spans which cover different times. Nothing is factually known that it occurred from one year to the next, but has errors of thousands or millions of years variances. To me, this same process could be assumed in trying to rationalize what is causing the so-called global warming and what will happen in 20 years, 100 years, or 1000 years.
 
Back
Top