Catastrophic Global Cooling

[AngusF1]

In light of the vigourous discussion on the topic of impending catastrophic global warming in the thread, "UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040", I would like to raise the topic of impending Catastrophic Global Cooling (CGC).

A reputable graph of the historical temperature of the earth is shown below. It is used on the Wikipedia page, "Geologic Temperature Record", found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_ ... ure_record



The graph clearly shows an ice age spanning approximately the last three million years, with ever-colder glacial periods featuring average temperatures two to four degrees colder than present. The glacial periods are interspersed with short interglacial periods with temperatures similar to the present. The short interglacials are typically followed by a catastrophic sharp cooling period reducing the temerature by anywhere from four to seven degrees.

Without intervention, it is nearly certain that Catastrophic Global Cooling (CGC) will occur again. Consequences of the cooling will include:

• Canada, Scotland, Scandanavia and Northern Russia will be completely obliterated under an ice sheet.

• The world's major crop growing regions will be turned into tundra, collapsing food production.

• Africa, India and South-East Asia will face severe security challanges as billions of climate refugees seek warmer climes.

• Countless thousands of species will become extinct.

• Catastrophic sea level falls of about 100m will strand the world's premier cities miles from the coast, severely impacting trade and fishing.

• The UK will become connected to Europe and Papua New Guinea to Australia, presenting all parties with challenging border crises .

• Low-lying islands will be stranded atop towering cliffs.

• The value of precious seaside real-estate will collapse, causing a world-wide recession as borrowers land in negative equity. Glittering jewels of the world elite such as Sydney Harbour will be ruined, turned into stinking swamps and river-drains.

Is this catastrophic cooling likely? When will it occur? What should be done?

Your thoughts and comments, please!

[Maritimer]

We are due for an ice age by most accounts, the issue being that we've set ourselves up such that heating or cooling will be catastrophic either way though. Neither option is ideal for humanity.

[Jolle]

This was a hypothesis during the early seventies why the climate was changing. But when they discovered that indeed it was greenhouse gasses and not a coming interglacial periode (we don’t expect one for more then half a billion years), this global cooling was put in the bin, only taken out sometimes by pseudoscience and conspiracy theorists.

[Sieper]

We are burning up the sunlight that has hit earth over millions of years (plant residu, oil) in one hundred year.

When has that ever happened ?

For a natural phenomena I would be more worried for a super volcana eruption (ashes in upper atmosphere blocking out sunlight). That can happen at Any time.

[Big Tea]

We are burning up the sunlight that has hit earth over millions of years (plant residu, oil) in one hundred year.

When has that ever happened ?

For a natural phenomena I would be more worried for a super volcana eruption (ashes in upper atmosphere blocking out sunlight). That can happen at Any time.

Or one large rock from the millions we know are up there...

[ubuysa]

The climate changes naturally due to variations in the orbit of the Earth around the Sun and due to a wobble in the angle of inclination. These serve to vary the amount if sunlight reaching the Earth and thus the global temperature.

In addition the Earth is slowly cooling. The paleo temperature over the last 65 million years has been in a general decline, with a fairly rapid cooling over the last 5 million years.

Is human activity warming the planet? Certainly. But is it likely that the planet will continue to cool generally on a geologic scale and that global temperatures will continue to go up and down? Definitely.

An asteroid impact, even a small one, or a major volcanic eruption could trigger a kind of nuclear winter. When the Yosemite caldera erupts, as it surely will in the not too distant future, all bets on the climate are off. There will be a major nuclear winter and major global cooling.

Whilst modern global warming is a fact, it's a mistake to assume the climate would be in a steady state were it not for humans. It wouldn't, the climate changes constantly on geological timescales.

Sent using Tapatalk

[Big Tea]

What we need to do is get some of us living off earth. Far easier to rebuild when the inevitable happens.
I really believe we are one lifetime from having city size space habitats.

[strad]

I have said that IF there is GW it is simply part of the recovery from the last ice age and part of a cycle and not cows farting or CO2 emissions.
Everybody forgets that the same scientists that are now claiming we're all gonna die from global warming were the ones predicting the UK being covered in ice by now.
I would wish more people would be more skeptical of what they receive from the media.

[roon]

I would wish more people would be more skeptical of what they receive from the media.

Well, we all have our wishes.

For example, I wish you would include talk radio in your definition of "the media."

I wish you would curtail your Bernays-ian methods of dismissive and diminishing terms. You know, the guy you lectured everyone about in the other thread? Whom you act like. For example, call methane by its name.

I wish you would stop assuming you are more skeptical than others because you found something to read that intrigues you.

[strad]

Ahhh Does cows farting offend your delicate sensibilities?
With your rude attacks you can't expect me to take you seriously.

[roon]

There was nothing rude in my previous post. You keep pulling the victim card in these threads whenever your premises are challenged and whenever your hubris & hypocricy is highlighted. You are perturbed by how I compare you, accurately, to your "them," your purported opposites and enemies. You dislike being reminded of how similar you are to your bogeyman-of-the-week Bernays.

To reduce aspects of the topic at hand, such as infrared-opaque chemicals present in atmosphere, to joking or perjorative terms indicates that you are not willing to argue in good faith, which is something you remind others to do e.g. to be unbiased, skeptical, and rational. Yet you often fail to practice this yourself.

The media that you consume is telling you that you are a rational skeptic. However, in practice, you are not.

[nzjrs]

To reduce aspects of the topic at hand, such as infrared-opaque chemicals present in atmosphere, to joking or perjorative terms indicates that you are not willing to argue in good faith, which is something you remind others to do e.g. to be unbiased, skeptical, and rational. Yet you often fail to practice this yourself.

Perfectly said.

[nzjrs]

I've been following this phenomenon online for about 20 years. Along the way I've observed a familiar progression of certain types of people. They have more or less all followed, and I believe they all will continue to follow, the following sequence of beliefs (examples drawn from memory, errors expected)

A history of the climate wars, told by me, an injured and honorably discharged veteran. Gather around the old CRT fire and listen up.

The first skirmishes, and the location of the first trenches;

1. It's not happening (this was early 2000's climate denial). Highlights of this period were 'OMG the scientists are calibrating/adjusting the historical temperature sensors!!!', 'Models, what are they?', 'Pft, how can we even measure the temperature of the ocean with too few buoys. have you seen old ships!?', 'here is a picture of a weather station in the car park', etc etc. My personal favorite was, 'It hasn't warmed since 1998' - boy, that didn't age well.

When that position became indefensible, the 'Skeptics' retreated without pause to another fort (2)

2. It's not our fault. This was ~2008-2010 denial I guess. Highlights of this period were 'I learned about IR absorption spectral look at this plot!' and 'Mars (the planet, not the delicious chocolate bar), look how warm it is!' and 'Its all cycles man (cue hippy music)'. As models multiplied like rabits, skeptics came to see value in them 'look this model actually shows it's not our fault'. Personally, I liked the its-all-cycles-man meme because this meant the bad ice-core data that was garbage in point #1, was cool again!

Some people are still stuck in this phase, but as their encampments become overrun, the more mobile skepticals pull up their weapons and make a partial retreat to a nearby hillock (3)

3. It wont be bad. This is more or less the modern presentation. With the long climate war taking it's toll on the lowly 'net soldiers, they are making a final stand around 'it wont be bad'. Industrious souls, they can re-use some of the old hardware (cycles, models, etc) in the fight. Highlights of this phase are 'In the middle ages England grew delicious wine', 'Models are still bad, even worse than before!', 'Who want's to take a lovely holiday to greeeeennnn-land where it was green', 'plants and animals can adapt, have you seen my tomatoes bro?'. I smile a little when I realise that most people make this arguments do so using models and sensors they spent the last battle fighting. Oh well.

I'm not sure how much longer the rations will last at (3). I expect within the next 5 years there will be an unacknowledged surrender as the wary soldiers skip immediately to (4)

4. We cant do anything about it anyway.

I've learned that if you are talking with someone about this topic, you can pretty quickly see if they are an exhausted soldier. If you sense they have retreated from one of the above listed positions to another and kept fighting, just give up and dont spend any effort talking with them. Wait until they get to point 4, and then note privately only to yourself, they have fought a worthless war and wasted their life for a pointless cause.

The ones you need to reach are the new soldiers that are re-deployed and parachute in from other online battles. They could land on any hill, 'Antarctica is gaining ice', 'There is no consensus', 'Those rich scientists', basically anywhere. The internet has made everyone angry and insane. Try to help these people if you can, but you should probably just delete your social media, go home and kiss your spouse and children, and teach them that the modern internet is a deadly and poisonous mind virus where millions of homeless drifters can scream toilet wall obscenities at you, while in the same twitter feed you can see the opinion of experts. Proximity gives legitimacy to insanity.

Professionally, I'm investing in climate engineering companies or other ventures that understand human nature (nice example here viewtopic.php?p=854664#p854664) People don't give a damn, they would rather ride a JetSki off into the sunset screaming 'I EARNED THIS, GET SOME!!!'. That's cool, but just own your choices bro, don't try to hide behind 'skepticism'.

[mzivtins]

Sigh, I was boon 500million years too late. It looks like a wild ride back then

[Andres125sx]

This was a hypothesis during the early seventies why the climate was changing. But when they discovered that indeed it was greenhouse gasses and not a coming interglacial periode (we don’t expect one for more then half a billion years), this global cooling was put in the bin, only taken out sometimes by pseudoscience and conspiracy theorists.

This. Using changes in millions years periods to justify changes in few decades is simply too absurd from any point of view, but provide some valid aura

We must keep in mind there are very big governments and very big companies who will always manipulate as much as possible with half valid data (so it looks true) to keep their leading position. They´ve been doing it for decades, and they will continue while they have any power. It´s far from new

EV1 didn´t become massive because petrol and/or car companies destroyed it for their own benefit even when their customers were extremelly happy with it and had the intention to purchase it (it was a renting), otherwise electric vehicles would be massive for decades now.

That was just a known example, but obvously they didn´t stop there. Negating CC was their next step so they can keep polluting (and earning money) while it´s normal people who defend that untenable postion


It´s surprising some people keep falling into this old game and use their time to defend those who can´t defend theirselves without embarrassing theirselves publicly .