New Ice Age

Forum rules
The rules for this board are in the Charter of Moderation. Sand Pit is for having fun. Guest posting is allowed here.

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
:rain :yak yak :zzzz :roll :bgrin :bike :purple :yellow :jump :beer :OMG :huh :WTF :Hi :mad :buddy :tweed :? :emb :wub :oops :stop :gsp :stay :rofl :sad :grn :thumb :yahoo :S :hush :B :h :gup :c :giggle :clap :rose :smitten :hot :hlo :meet :nah :read :scare :smack :b :PC :slap
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review

Expand view Topic review: New Ice Age

Re: New Ice Age

by johnsmith » 02 Jun 2020, 16:52

is goober still pretending we're in an iceage?

:rofl :rofl :rofl

BOM data for autumn is in and Australia has come out looking warm

It might be hard to believe, considering how cold it has been in recent weeks, but autumn temperatures were actually slightly above average for Australia as a whole. ... e/12311566

Re: New Ice Age

by HBS Guy » 30 May 2020, 16:05

Anthropogenic aerosols over the historical period have decreased SW energy accumulation (directly) and decreased the longwave energy increase to space (indirectly by offsetting temperature increase).

The timescale over which OLR returns to its unperturbed value, and whether it increases or decreases with time in general (i.e., whether the CO2 forcing or temperature increase is “winning” the tug of war), thus depends very much on the magnitude of shortwave feedbacks, and also details of ocean heat uptake efficiency. See some details from this blog post by Isaac Held.
The original paper starting this:

Also: ... 09GL037527

This is what real science looks like. Deniers (mostly) have no idea. (Are deniers paid to deny, a few real scientists disagree with AGW science.)

Re: New Ice Age

by HBS Guy » 30 May 2020, 16:04


So from AnThenTheresPhysics (https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress. ... radiation/
A particularly persistent climate “skeptic” has, on a number of occasions, promoted the figure on the right, which is from this paper. Because it shows a larger increase in OLR than would be expected if global warming simply involved the OLR recovering, it has been suggested that this disproves anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
ATTP directed me to: ... ent-718690
Michael Hammer and responses,

In the traditional view of the enhanced greenhouse effect, raising CO2 decreases the outgoing radiative flux (OLR) to space, while the increased temperature increases the OLR to space. The equilibriated climate is a tug of war between these things.

In reality, OLR typically increases (relative to the unperturbed value) in CMIP5 models, which can be viewed as a cooling of the system.

The reduction in OLR associated with GHG forcing is wiped away only within a few decades, and the subsequent energy accumulation (increasing ocean heat content and sustaining global warming) is caused by enhanced absorbed shortwave radiation. Thus, viewed from the lens of shortwave and longwave flux values relative to the initial climate, in a time-integrated sense global warming is caused by enhanced shortwave absorption, not reduced OLR.

This is similar to what would happen for increased solar irradiance experiments, in which the energy accumulated as a function of time is the difference between the SW energy accumulation and the longwave increase (which cools the system)- see this figure from Donohoe et al. (2014) which articulated this argument, as well as Trenberth and Fasullo, 2009, “Global warming due to increasing absorbed solar radiation.” The integrated planetary warming due the forcing + longwave feedback is near zero in most models before the end of the century.

Re: New Ice Age

by HBS Guy » 30 May 2020, 16:02

It seems that increasing CO2 has an effect besides absorbing OLR (outgoing longwave radiation (IR)) it also absorbs incoming shortwave radiation.

You know I don’t think much of most blogs—non peer reviewed, mostly run by charlatans (Cap Allen, would-be playwright, zero scientific training or knowledge, runs Electroverse blog that deniers quote lots—utterly worthless blog, worse than worthless, might turn the head of someone looking for unbiased info.) That is too big a part of blogs on the web. There are blogs by scientists for scientists, much better—still not peer reviewed tho!)

Re: New Ice Age

by HBS Guy » 29 May 2020, 20:16

Warming is what is in store for us: 0.2°C per decade (range of terrestrial and satellite values 0.18–0.21°C/decade.

So by 2070, 5 decades time, it will be 1°C warmer. If there is a GSM then it will be 0.8°C warmer, that is the extent of cooling from a GSM. So what?

1. Continued acceleration of sea level rise:

We know that Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers (the main ones, others too) are sliding into the sea at ever-faster rates. Volcanoes under the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) melt some of the ice at the bottom of the glaciers, lubricating their movement to the sea. Warm winds and ocean currents are doing the melting.

2. Accelerated warming of the Arctic and disappearance of summer Arctic sea ice. Sunlight then increasingly hits dark open ocean, warming it. So warm ocean, warming the air above it, evaporating much moisture—shit, I would not like to live too close to the Arctic! Move to Finland? Me? No way!

The Arctic is warming twice as fast as any other place on the planet:
2.1. AGW plus decreasing albedo

2.2. The Jet Stream is weakened by the Arctic warming more rapidly than other places. The weak Jet Stream hits an obstacle like the Greenland Plateau and forms bows and waves. The waves guide warm air into the Arctic and the bows guide Arctic air out. This causes cold and snow etc in the midwest of the US, northwestern Europe etc. These places get cold, the Arctic warms—it is an effect of AGW tho grifters spin these local weather reports as signs of the GSM, new Little Ice Age etc. Tosh.

2.3. High latitude areas will experience uncomfortably long, very hot summer days. This will impact people, animals and plants—agriculture.

Re: New Ice Age

by HBS Guy » 29 May 2020, 06:42

To address the nonsense of the Ice Age now:

1. The Little Ice Age formed late 1300s—early 1400s. The Maunder Minimum started 1650. That means the Maunder did not start the LIA so why would a GSM now (15–25% chance of a GSM soon) start a Little Ice Age now? Not a single moron arguing “deepening ice age” etc has been able to answer that, it blows their silly little fantasy away.

Look at this graph—paleoclimate derived from proxies, ice cores etc:
Temperatures last 2000 years.png
Notice where temperatures are now, first of all, then look at cooling MWP to LIA and cooling from Maunder. Each change but a few tenths of a degree centigrade. A combination of events that caused the LIA AND a Maunder Minimum would NOT cause an ice age now!
Thus, a new Grand Solar Minimum would only serve to offset a few years of warming caused by human activities.
What does this mean? The warming caused by the greenhouse gas emissions from the human burning of fossil fuels is six times greater than the possible decades-long cooling from a prolonged Grand Solar Minimum. ... i-ice-age/

If not an ice age what is in store for us?

Re: New Ice Age

by HBS Guy » 28 May 2020, 20:12

There is one character that is very interesting. Guy Calendar, a top steam engineer and son of a top steam engineer. He realised what increasing CO2 emissions from burning coal etc was doing to the atmosphere. He tried to get the top UK meteorologists interested but no dice. In the late 1940s Guy was alive to see his theory of AGW vindicated—in Cold War studies for the US Navy and Air Force.

The air force had two problems: bombsights for the massive strategic bomber force which could fly much higher than WWII planes did not work properly. Heat seeking missiles also did not work as they were designed to. The problem turned out to be the IR emitted by the surface that would cool the surface if the IR could reach space. Studies into this validated the AGW theory. So do studies using satellite observations of the globe.

From 1940 to the late 1970s there was some mild cooling. This was sulphite/sulphate (SO2/SO3) emissions by industry. These aerosols reflected away some of the sunlight hitting the atmosphere. These emissions also caused acid rain (SO2 + H2O —> H2SO3, sulphurous acid while SO3 + H2O —> H2SO4, sulphuric acid.) Clean Air Acts stopped the increase in the emissions and started them declining. CO2 emissions were still rising and so AGW resumed warming the globe (had been doing that but the sulph-ite-ate emissions were masking this warming.) To show that climate scientists did not believe in the MSM (fake news indeed) hysteria I cite the first modern radiative-convective numerical model developed by Manabe and Wetherald in1968 when scientists, according to idiots ( :Hi Booby) were convinced we were headed for an ice age.

Nah, AGW validated in the late 1940s climatologists worked on AGW.

There are a couple of stupidities I come across all the time;

1. Mankind’s emissions are small and can’t make any difference. Mankind’s emissions currently are 36Gtons CO2 a year, nature’s more like 567Gtons—but natural emissions are reabsorbed in spring as plants start growing and putting on leaf—this is the carbon cycle. Less than 50% of anthropogenic emissions are absorbed by plants and oceans, the >50% that are left increase the total amount of atmospheric CO2. Anthropogenic CO2 currently is a tad over 30% and rising.

2. The other form of this is “CO2 is a trace gas and can’t make any difference.” These silly deniers do not want to drink a glass of water with “just” 0.04% (418ppm) of strychnine so their denial is not all that genuine :rofl

From Twitter, a perfect rebuttal (sorry, did not note the Tweet address so no link!)
How do people believe this nonsense?
An excited CO2 molecule at sea level, will on average, collide with another air molecule 6,000,000,000 times a second.
After the first hundred thousand it will have lost all absorbed energy and be ready for the next absorption.
Settles that!

3. Seas are outgassing CO2. A statement made in ignorance. Yes, the seas are warming, a tiny amount compared to air but seas are much more massive and water has a high specific heat. What else is happening? CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere so the partial pressure of CO2 (written as pCO2) is increasing and it is increasing faster than the warming of the seas acts to outgas CO2.

Think of ocean acidification. While some CO2 is held as non-dissolved CO2 most mixes with the water: CO2 + H2O —> H2CO3 and this dissociates into H+ ions or HCO3+ ions. An increase in H+ concentration (or as HCO3+) is acidification and we know the oceans are acidifying.

Oh so much boring crap debate on Twitter “The oceans are alkaline and will stay alkaline” etc. An increase In H+ ions is acidification regardless of the actual pH of ocean waters. pH—the power of hydrogen ion.

Re: New Ice Age

by HBS Guy » 28 May 2020, 19:17

Said nasty idiot won’t read this or be able to understand it if he actually tried to read it. It is the history of the discovery of the science of AGW and it is a very gentle introduction to the science:

Re: New Ice Age

by HBS Guy » 27 May 2020, 17:00

A nasty idiot.

Re: New Ice Age

by johnsmith » 27 May 2020, 12:00

HBS Guy wrote:
27 May 2020, 07:40
Booby tried to tempt JohnSmith into posting in Environment tho he is banned from there. Nasty.
goobers an idiot :c

Re: New Ice Age

by HBS Guy » 27 May 2020, 07:40

Booby tried to tempt JohnSmith into posting in Environment tho he is banned from there. Nasty.

Re: New Ice Age

by pinkeye » 27 May 2020, 03:04

Such is life.

Re: New Ice Age

by HBS Guy » 25 May 2020, 09:41

That fatuous booby wants me to apologise for the weather again! This is lunacy!

Reason? Parts of SE Queensland are a bit cool. The moron is STILL using local weather to support his idiotic idea we are heading into an ice age! No brains, no education! He has, of course, not looked into what caused the cold snap, that is beyond his feeble intelligence.

Re: New Ice Age

by pinkeye » 23 May 2020, 00:08

OK I get it.

(second attempt at short reply ) above.

Re: New Ice Age

by HBS Guy » 23 May 2020, 00:01

I don’t argue with the fatuous idiot.

Re: New Ice Age

by pinkeye » 22 May 2020, 23:16

Umm glad to see you two are still enjoying yourselves, arguing over an issue which is largely irrelevant . :thumb

Re: New Ice Age

by HBS Guy » 22 May 2020, 20:58

Hehehehehe notice how “6 years at Uni” Booby is not entering the Capt Nemo/Robot/Lee stoush? He does not have a clue. Nor does Lee but he pretends it does.

If “the sensitive models” run a bit hot does that mean ALL the models do, Lee? Geez. Lee obviously did not read the article he quoted.

So funny to read his surprise at the link Robot put up that was in the article Lee posted. A doofus!

Re: New Ice Age

by HBS Guy » 05 May 2020, 18:15

Aaaand in other news it seems Body Odor has cried and lamented long and loud to Vic about a thread Aussie had in his MRB and Vic deleted said thread then made up a bullshit reason posted in Feedback. Nah, BO asked him to remove the thread just like Booby passed my personal details to Dubyne who passed them on to someone else. Nobody can seriously imagine Booby not passing on the details if Dubyne asked for them.

Re: New Ice Age

by HBS Guy » 05 May 2020, 07:52

The Moronic chimes in, apparently Melbourne has been a bit wet.

What do we know of rain? It is condensed water vapor.

Where does the water vapor come from?

The water vapor is evaporated from oceans

The oceans are warming meaning we get more evaporation. The air is warming and can hold more water vapor.

Warm, moist air moves over cooler land > condensation, precipitation.

This is not even junior HS science, it is primary school general science for fucks sake. How can supposed adults not know this?

Re: New Ice Age

by HBS Guy » 03 May 2020, 21:12

If Booby could understand the simplest science. . .

Snow ... me-snow-us

Re: New Ice Age

by HBS Guy » 03 May 2020, 15:54

Coldest in 60 years, no 40, years no, not that cold at all really.


Re: New Ice Age

by HBS Guy » 03 May 2020, 03:46

Booby is such an idiot. He quoted Fox (idiot accuses me of “being fooled by the MSM”)

“Heavy snow, freezing temperatures, heavy rain and storms continue as a polar outbreak hits Australia's southeast.”

Why do we get more polar outbreaks? Don’t ask Booby he just wouldn’t know, thinks publishing a local weather report “proves” the GSM/New Ice Age. As simplistic, as wrong as that.

That “60 year record” is now 40 years—hardly any cold records go past 1980, not that Booby has the brains to notice that.

Re: New Ice Age

by HBS Guy » 02 May 2020, 16:22

The moron Jasin dribbled:
I wonder when it was since the last big Antarctic Blast came far into Australia so early like this?
It's like a Rogue Wave from the Southern Gyre.
A few years ago, snow up to southern Qld.

How soon they forget.

No, Booby, local weather is not a sign of an ice age.

Re: New Ice Age

by HBS Guy » 01 May 2020, 18:46

Oh dear, it wasn’t the coldest for 60 years.

Of course Booby has hardly even HS science but anyone interested would SURELY read up on what is causing the weather? Like I said, was it all the way from Antarctica and if so—how?

Cold snap—Ice Age! is so fucking boring! So many dweebs on Twitter come out with the same crap.

Have you looked—of course you haven’t, that would involve thinking and possibly seeing data you don’t like—at the NH winter Dec 2019–Feb 2020? Was pretty warm for a winter!

Just shows getting excited by weather in one place is bloody stupid behavior yet it is ALL you got in that Ice Age thread. Boring!

Re: New Ice Age

by HBS Guy » 01 May 2020, 18:46

Oh dear, it wasn’t the coldest for 60 years.

Of course Booby has hardly even HS science but anyone interested would SURELY read up on what is causing the weather? Like I said, was it all the way from Antarctica and if so—how?

Cold snap—Ice Age is so fucking boring! So many dweebs on Twitter come out with the same crap.