The Trend is your Friend–Global Cooling

_{July 6, 2022

Climate change, Global Warming

1}_{Categories
Climate change
Global Warming}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In today’s Phys.Org, we find an article giving the latest results from Deep Ocean temperature measurements of the North Atlantic. These measurements feature a new method of obtaining both temperature and CO2 levels.

What is the long term trend telling us about our future? What about the dramatic shifts in deep ocean temperatures? Were they man-made?

Just look at it and then you’ll know just how hysterical global warming–now known as “climate change,” really is.

A picture is, indeed, worth a thousand words.

Comments

Jerry, 34: someone forgets urban heat island effects. KFkairosfocus_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

JHolo#17: You've included a quote that describes a convection current. Is this all we need to know? Certainly this tells us that warm water rises and cold water sinks; but, is this enough information? Well, the surface temperature of the sun is around 10,000 degrees F. So, too, is the temperature of the earth's core, also around 10,000 degrees F. Now, ocean water is caught between two sources of temperature. However, 30 miles above the surface of the oceans, the temperature of the "air" is at least -100 degrees F. The temperature of the mantle 30 miles beneath the ocean bottom is around 400 degrees F. Now, heat rises. This means that the heat in the oceans depth has to find its way to the outer atmosphere. This means that the convection current being described must take the heat emanating from the core and deliver it to the surface of the oceans and then, ultimately, the true heat sink in all of this, outer space. Now, in particular, 3 million years ago was the beginning of the Quaternary glaciation, of which the last ice age is part. Look at the graph above. The temperature of the ocean waters was 2 degrees warmer than now. So, now we're NOT in an Ice Age, yet the water at ocean's depth is colder than when the last glaciation period began. If the premise is that surface temperatures warm up ocean depths, then this does not compute. (If you invoke some kind of delay, well, firstly, this must be some kind of delay, and secondly, this renders what happens on the surface as moot--including fossil fuel emissions.) And, again, please tell me if you see a direct correlation between CO2 and ocean temperature and if you see the overall trend in both as decidedly down. Do you see this? What does this then mean?PaV_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

FH at 39, I grew up in a house where the only air conditioning was a small metal fan by my bed, open windows with screens and a side door with a screen. Opening doors at night and a stove in the basement where it was cooler. Things have not gotten modern. The guy at the local corner store would get out a tool to lower a shade on the sunny side of his store.relatd_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

FH at 38, It's already an unbalanced idea. First, you tell everyone 'we're going to die unless we do XYZ' and then you add Confusion to the mix: "This scientist said this, this scientist said that." Then, someone claiming the Final Say tells us that XYZ must get done or else - we ALL die. Nonsense. By the way, could I interest you in some carbon credits? This is a patently obvious scheme where I sell my carbon to you in exchange for keeping my foreign factories open so they can belch reactive gases and I can make a profit. Of course, once you buy those gases from me, they will only circulate in your general area :)relatd_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Evidence we are doomed? My wife deciding this year, after twenty years saying aircon is wasteful and destructive and passive methods (shades, shutters, overnight airing, high levels of insulation) are enough, demanding I install aircon in our home.Fred Hickson_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

@ Relatd For balance Restoring kelp beds not silver bulletFred Hickson_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

FH at 33, Why tell anybody then? Why bother? I was reading that it was 'too late' years ago. Years ago... Scam, hoax. 'reseeding kelp forests'? ??? Not on my to-do list...relatd_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

CD at 27, "It’s all just an atheist, Marxist, materialist, evo-devo hoax, right?" Exactly right. Man, that's TWO things I have to write down and archive today. Or to put it another way - YES !!! Trillions of dollars are involved! Trillions! Whew - that was tiring...relatd_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

Fred h & J holo - Apart from the IPCC and the climate activists constantly telling us we are all doomed how do you guys actually know we are all doomed, please show me the evidence , not just so and so says so. Supposedly the planet has warmed by 1.5 deg C , but we are better off and safer then we ever were. Look up real climate science .com - Tony Heller. you just may get an education. And by the way in case you were not aware its a SCAM a money making SCAM.Marfin_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Repeated but relevant. https://img.99memes.co/images/34b353094a965ce38e06d3de98f8984f51a4b89a8b20b9a05f60ae7442237369_1.jpg
All you have to do is go to any large city in the world to see the effects of CO2 buildup
Still batting almost zero. Air quality has nothing to do with CO2. You cannot see CO2 in the air. Chuckdarwin, How much is Barry paying you to comment? Nobody could be as consistently wrong unless on purpose. Seversky also could not be as wrong as he is unless it was also on purpose. Both of you are the best promoters of ID here. Aside: the CO2 levels inside the masks you wear are much higher than what is in the air in Beijing.jerry_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

At my most pessimistic, I fear this discussion is about as effective as rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. It's too late now, whatever we do. At my most optimistic, I hope that projects such as one my daughter is heavily involved in (reseeding kelp forests) can still have enough of an effect to reduce the current trend.Fred Hickson_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

ET at 31, GHG contributor. I see. So we'll all be dead soon OR some people will make over a trillion dollars and live to spend it. It's a SCAM.relatd_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Only fools think that CO2 can cause global warming. Physics says there isn't any way that CO2 can do that. CO2 is an insignificant GHG contributorET_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

JHOLO , According to our climate scientist friends the average global temp has risen by 1.5deg c in the last 150 years , so in your opinion would you prefer to live now or 150 years ago. All this carbon dioxide in the atmosphere , and now we live longer, are better fed , healthier, richer better educated and deaths by climate disasters have fallen by 95% so please tell me whats the problem.Marfin_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

"super-hot greenhouse climates" What did I tell you about hype? Right on cue. Andrewasauber_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

"Climate Change is a product. It’s being marketed as a product." Relatd, Yes, 97% percent of scientists who believe in Global Warming think it's an issue. ;) Andrewasauber_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

This from the actual article:
Scientists say the new data, spanning the last 60 million years, show the huge impact of higher CO2 levels in the geological past, and stress the urgent need to avoid continued CO2 rise in the future.... Dr. Rae said: "These ancient greenhouse climates may seem a long way removed from today, but they are critical in helping us understand the impact of CO2 on climate change... Although these super-hot greenhouse climates occurred a long time ago, they are critical in helping us understand the impact of CO2 on climate change in the future... CO2 has transformed the face of our planet before, and unless we limit emissions as soon as possible, it will do it again."
Sounds consistent with predictions re CO2 emissions that we've known for decades. All you have to do is go to any large city in the world to see the effects of CO2 buildup. Thank my lucky stars that I live out in the sticks where the sky is still blue. But, hey--It's all just an atheist, Marxist, materialist, evo-devo hoax, right?chuckdarwin_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

Andrew at 25, Climate Change is a product. It's being marketed as a product. It represents trillions of dollars in revenue. Meanwhile, could you buy some carbon credits from me? That way I can keep my factories in foreign countries belching smoke while the rest of the world suffers - allegedly. S-C-A-Mrelatd_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

"isn’t it extremely embarrassing" Martin_r, It should be, but Climate Change Fanatics aren't known for their ability to assess reality. They love the hype, though. Weird. Andrewasauber_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Asauber, anyway, isn't it extremely embarrassing, when a Princeton University's team infests all pop-sci media with their 'conclusions', and then AN AMATEUR scientist finds serious flaws in statistical methodology ? A whole team of Princeton scientists and nobody noticed (not to mention NATURE's peer-reviewer ... not to mention it took almost 1 year to retract this paper) ?martin_r_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Martin_r @ 22 This is what happens when you assume your conclusion. Andrewasauber_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

Major Climate Paper Withdrawn By Nature Retraction exposes lack of statistical expertise in climate science A major scientific paper, which claimed to have found rapid warming in the oceans as a result of manmade global warming, has been withdrawn after an amateur climate scientist found major errors in its statistical methodology. The paper, from a team led by Laure Resplandy of Princeton University, had received widespread uncritical publicity in the mainstream media when it was published because of its apparently alarming implications for the planet. However, within days of its publication in October 2018, independent scientist Nic Lewis found several serious flaws. Yesterday, after nearly a year’s delay, the paper was officially withdrawn. Nic Lewis said
This is just the latest example of climate scientists letting themselves down by using incorrect statistics. The climate field needs to get professional statisticians involved up front if it is going to avoid this kind of embarrassment in future”.
Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Forum, said
Climatology is littered with examples of bad statistics, going back to the infamous Hockey Stick graph and beyond. Peer review is failing and it is falling to amateurs to find the errors. Scientists in the field should be embarrassed

https://www.netzerowatch.com/major-climate-paper-withdrawn-by-nature/ or here at RetractionWatch.com https://retractionwatch.com/2019/09/25/nature-paper-on-ocean-warming-retracted/
martin_r_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

The focus should be shifted away from such nebulous terms such as climate change and global warming to facts. There are a bunch of facts that are relevant besides CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. One is energy usage. Another is energy availability. Another is results from energy use in the last 200 years. Epstein’s book does a fantastic job on the last, documenting what energy availability has done for human flourishing. The results are not debatable. So the argument should be on what can provide the energy? Not arbitrarily getting rid of it. There’s nothing wrong with wind and solar per se except they don’t work very well and have extreme adverse effects which are conveniently hidden from any discussion. Currently the only reliable source for energy is fossil fuels, essentially dead trees and animals from long ago. The energy from the sun was transferred to these entities and then left encapsulated in their remains. Two reliable alternatives are nuclear and falling water levels. At the moment people are scared of nuclear and using water is limited by environmentalists. So the thinking has to change or else the future will indeed be bleak for all or billions will have to go so a few can live in luxury. It’s this latter that is behind the climate change scare. Essentially the climate change scare is an anti human philosophy that will favor the few over the many. Epstein lays it all out but the left’s useful idiots all dutifully line up with their anti human attitudes and flawed reasons. Not knowing that they too will be expendable. Besides Epstein, I highly recommend Francis Menton who is a retired lawyer who reads a lot and has an extremely logical mind. Here are two recent analysis of energy issues. https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-6-29-and-the-winner-is-germany https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-6-5-more-on-energy-fantasy-versus-reality-in-woke-land There are several other articles by Menton. For some here, being smart, reading a lot, logical and honest are not enough. In that way the origins of life and the universe are remarkably similar to discussions on energy and climate. (And the virus, race, gender, economics, history etc.)jerry_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

"Global warming causes climate change." Excuse me, JH, but wouldn't Global Warming be a type of Climate Change? Yes or No. Andrewasauber_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

Any time I want information on highly technical scientific subjects, I always search out people with a Bachelor of Arts degree
An endorsement of Epstein. When the so called climate experts are consistently wrong, what is one to do? Find someone who has studied the topic for years and has correct/verified information. Epstein’s an expert on logic. He also has the facts. His book is all facts and logic. Someone here said facts are important. Aside: if one wants to learn about the energy issues, read Epstein. The discussion will change dramatically. He has to be right since he has been so demonized by the left. The Washington Post tried to suppress his book by calling him a racist. Ironic since he is an advocate for poor African people getting the same material advantages as white liberals in Western nations.jerry_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

90 million years ago there was no ice. That is why there are dinosaur fossils that are found in Antarctica. Earth was between ice ages. The last Great Ice Age is still occurring, which is why there is ice in places that did not have ice 90 million years ago. Ice ages come and go. CO2 is not a green house gas on Earth, but it is on Venus due to a denser atmosphere. There are only trace elements in the atmosphere due to the weight of CO2 compared to the other elements. Being heavy is a good thing, since it is plant food. Remove CO2 and plants do not do very well. There is no such thing as fossil fuels. Fossils are, in essence, dead rock that contain no energy. You cannot get energy from something that has no energy. Energy must exist to get energy from it, since energy cannot be created or destroyed, it must be transferred from already existing energy.BobRyan_{July 7, 2022
July
07
Jul
7
07
2022
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}

PaV: Does that mean you’re over 50
I’m 74.
Seems to me that just as temperatures in the ocean depths have nothing to do with surface temperatures, but are directly related to the earth’s core
Actually, the temperatures in the ocean depths are directly the result of surface temperatures. The following is a simple explanation:
In the North Atlantic, water heated near the equator travels north at the surface of the ocean into cold, high latitudes where it becomes cooler. As it cools, it becomes more dense and, because cold water is more dense than warm water, it sinks to the deep ocean where it travels south again. More warm surface water flows in to take its place, cools, sinks, and the pattern continues.
It all has to do with the fact that the maximum density of water occurs at 4C.JHolo_{July 6, 2022
July
07
Jul
6
06
2022
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

Yes, CO2 increases are real and necessary. Greenhouse gasses delay the onset of equilibrium. And as such influence the low daily temperature average. As of the end of June 2022, the global temperature was just 0.06C above the arbitrary zero line. All warming is gone. It's only in El Nino years do we see any rise is global temperature. It's our misuse of the land that is the problem.ET_{July 6, 2022
July
07
Jul
6
06
2022
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

At Relatd #7 Yes there is in fact some minor relationship to CO2's massive increase in the last 85 years and humans. However, the failure is associating the two to actual cause and effect. It appears that most the climate alarmists (IPCC included) tend to lean that 100% of the CO2 spike is due to humans.... most of the more rational science disagrees with this. Yes there is indeed a massive spike in C02 and yes humans have been a part of that ... clearly. but so have natural causes too. C02 is not a poison ..it is a natural item that actually helps plants grow (which is why they pump so much C02 into greenhouses to help growth). C02 levels have been massively higher in our atmosphere many many times in the earths history and the spikes have had nothing to do with humans what so ever. What folks don't agree on is just what amount of C02 (the climate alarmists boogieman under the bed) is actually caused by humans - hence they can then point blame and tax and dictate.....can't really do those things to naturally thawing tundra...or naturally warming oceans....eh?Trumper_{July 6, 2022
July
07
Jul
6
06
2022
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

JHolo: Does that mean you're over 50 and were in your late teens when global warming was the newest scare? If so, I've got you by twenty years. The Title of this Thread is, "The Trend is your Friend." Do you not see the downward trends in both deep ocean temperature AND CO2? Do you see how both track in parallel? That is, as Deep Ocean temperatures go up, so does atmospheric CO2; and when they go down, they go down in tandem. Seems to me that just as temperatures in the ocean depths have nothing to do with surface temperatures, but are directly related to the earth's core, so, too, does CO2 correlated with what is happening in the earth's core. There's a lesson here. These results are not in accordance with previous ones using other methods. These new results require a new view of how both climate models and climate scientists see the temperature history of the ocean depths. The authors were surprised to find out that the temperature of the deep ocean was once as hot as the depths of the Mediterranean Sea. So, what caused the cooling off? And is it still cooling? Well, yes, according to the graph, it's still trending in the cooling direction.PaV_{July 6, 2022
July
07
Jul
6
06
2022
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply