Global Cooling is On the Way!

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, it's WUWT, so let the arrows fly!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/...g-predictions/

Are Scientists Preparing for a FlipFlop Back to Global Cooling Predictions?

[seer]

Yeah, it's WUWT, so let the arrows fly!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/...g-predictions/

Are Scientists Preparing for a FlipFlop Back to Global Cooling Predictions?

Interesting, what I could understand of it.

[KingsGambit]

I really do hope the global warming skeptics are right. We had a record June here. There was one brutal day where I got dehydrated at work and global cooling would have sounded just fine to me as I sat in my office with a wet rag on my forehead.

[Leonhard]

Are Scientists Preparing for a FlipFlop Back to Global Cooling Predictions?

Since the scientific community has always predominately leaned towards anthropogenic warming theories even back in the seventies, it wouldn't have been a flipflop back to that position, nor is this a repudiation of the standard theory of Global Warming (at least from my short cursory understanding - I'm still diving into it). Outside of popular magazines, and scifi authors like Arthur C. Clarke (I recall one of his short stories with a Global Cooling premise), there wasn't much of it.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/...2008BAMS2370.1

Source: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales

© Copyright Original Source

As for the rest it looks pretty interesting, just skimming it now. Basically though it would only be a decade wide drop in temperature.

It wouldn't stop Global Warming though, which is to be expected as the atmosphere is currently absorbing more heat than its giving away. There's no way for heat to magically disappear out of the Earth. The only way for it to get into space is by radiative transfer, and that's not hard to calculate. The energy input is gotten from the sun, which is almost constant. So we got a good grasp on how much energy is flowing in and how much is going out. These physical facts have been well understood since the thirties.

This heat has to go somewhere, heating up the troposphere, the ocean, melting ice, etc... That's where the real complexity lies; where the heat goes, and its effect there. One of the simple global effects is more water getting added to the atmosphere, resulting in even more global warming. This is called the positive water-vapor feedback.

I'll have to read that article more thoroughly tomorrow. It looks interesting, I bet the scientific-blogosphere will have some neat insights into it.

As for Watts comments that it makes AGW unfalsifiable, give me a break. Its already been thoroughly demonstrated by the all the hockey stick reconstructions, and nothing is changing the core model here.

[Leonhard]

I really do hope the global warming skeptics are right. We had a record June here. There was one brutal day where I got dehydrated at work and global cooling would have sounded just fine to me as I sat in my office with a wet rag on my forehead.

I keep telling people that I'd love it if we suddenly found out that there's a magical hole at the bottom of the ocean where all the heat was escapting into, and this hole would go on forever. That way the temperatures might eventually settle down again. Though even then I still think it would be wise for us to think about transitioning away from fossil fuels as they're finite resources, albeit we wouldn't have as short a deadline or as severe consequences.

Also isn't this an El Nino years? These produce huge spikes of temperature, which are the reason some global warming contrarians argue that there's been a pause since 1996, since some temperature proxies if you start at the huge El Nino spike there, can be made to look relatively flat, though if you look at the bigger picture, its clear that there's still an ongoing temperature increase.

[Leonhard]

It should be noted that if Hansen is right, then his proposed run away melting of the arctic poles would result in the worst case (the 5-year doubling scenario he shows) a multi meter ocean level rise in a span of a few decades, which would submerge huge tracts of lands and cause untold amounts of destruction. The current conservative estimate of ice melting had pinned as taking on the order of a thousand years for something like that to happen.

Not sure 2050 with a 10 meter increase in water level, but a -2 decrease in global temperature is preferable to the one where its 2 degrees warmer on average but the water level has only increase a foot.

[Catholicity]

It IS indeed an El Nino (warming) year. However they are tracking La Nina, which is going to cool temperatures. Never underestimate the combo factors. Nature, then humans.

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, it's WUWT, so let the arrows fly!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/...g-predictions/

Are Scientists Preparing for a FlipFlop Back to Global Cooling Predictions?

I do not believe this scenario included the problem of the record increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and the long term effects of this as is documented in the recent and geologic past in relation to global temperatures. This remains the elephant in the room ignored by global warming skeptics.

[Cow Poke]

I do not believe this scenario included the problem of the record increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and the long term effects of this as is documented in the recent and geologic past in relation to global temperatures. This remains the elephant in the room ignored by global warming skeptics.

I'm an agnostic, not a skeptic.

[Sparko]

obviously the only hope of mankind is to cause as much global warming as we can to counteract the ice-age. start burning fossil fuels! use flourocarbons!! elect more politicians (to generate more hot air)

[shunyadragon]

I'm an agnostic, not a skeptic.

I was referring to the article, not you.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah, it's WUWT, so let the arrows fly!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/...g-predictions/

Are Scientists Preparing for a FlipFlop Back to Global Cooling Predictions?

I think they need to stick with "climate change" since it's the most accurate description, even though liberals are almost 100% wrong about why the earth's climate is changing.

[Mountain Man]

I really do hope the global warming skeptics are right. We had a record June here. There was one brutal day where I got dehydrated at work and global cooling would have sounded just fine to me as I sat in my office with a wet rag on my forehead.

Meanwhile, the weather in my neck of the woods has been trending cooler compared to last year. The weather does what the weather does, and there's not a whole lot humans can do to change it.

[stfoskey15]

Meanwhile, the weather in my neck of the woods has been trending cooler compared to last year. The weather does what the weather does, and there's not a whole lot humans can do to change it.

The effects of global warming is not found in about year-to-year variations, but in long-term trends.
Also, what makes you think humans can't change weather or climate?
Have you ever heard of nuclear winter? You can read about the possible effects of one here. Even a mid-scale nuclear exchange could cause temperatures colder than they were in the Little Ice Age.
What about weather modification? It may never be practical for widespread use, but it's possible. Cloud seeding has been done since the 1950s.

[Mountain Man]

The effects of global warming is not found in about year-to-year variations, but in long-term trends.
Also, what makes you think humans can't change weather or climate?
Have you ever heard of nuclear winter? You can read about the possible effects of one here. Even a mid-scale nuclear exchange could cause temperatures colder than they were in the Little Ice Age.
What about weather modification? It may never be practical for widespread use, but it's possible. Cloud seeding has been done since the 1950s.

OK, fair enough, extreme catastrophes like dozens of nuclear bombs detonating in short span of time can affect the earth's climate, but that's not what liberals are referring to when they talk about "climate change".

As for long-term trends, there hasn't been any global warming for nearly two-decades now. But the biggest problem with this debate, I think, is trying to filter out the real data from the "adjusted" data and straight up fabrications that are being fed to us by a number of agencies that depend on the government and liberal politicians for their funding.