Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
The Earth is presently in an interglacial period—a period between ice ages. Since the end of the last ice age, Earth’s surface temperatures have been above the temperature needed to maintain ice sheets and glaciers, which covered much of the land masses at mid-to-high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. As a result, those ice sheets and glaciers have been melting for tens of thousands of years and sea levels have risen…and will continue to rise until the start of the next ice age.
Many of us are old enough to remember the scare stories from the 1970s, a time when climate scientists were warning that Earth was returning to an ice age.
For fun, imagine the multidecadal uptick in global surface temperatures didn’t happen from the 1970s to present—that global surfaces actually cooled a comparable amount, that sea levels were dropping, that glaciers and ice sheets were gaining mass.
Would mankind still be blamed? What would be different?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Of course it will be our fault, silly. If a tree falls in a forest, and no liberal is near to hear it, it will still be our fault. You know that.
Please don’t use the word “liberal” to refer to people that do not have the beginning of a clue as to what the word “liberal” actually means.
Just like utilization of the term “Climate Change”, the nefarious hide behind an intended façade of deception. As long as the gullible public isn’t willing to do sufficient research to determine the truth, the nefarious will be successful. The actual meaning of any label isn’t the issue.
The current meaning of “liberal” (lower case “l”) is one aligned with the Progressive movement that originally had to change their labeling back in the early part of the last century (due to immense unpopularity) and the Socialist/Marxist part of the population… along with their useful idiots. They chose the term “liberal” in an effort to hide their agenda and to confuse the population who might mistake them for classical Liberals (upper case “L”) a political bent today more aligned with small government Conservatives and Libertarian political spectra. The lower case version has been an accepted usage for almost a century.
Since “liberal” is really starting to get its well deserved bad rap, despite the support of the “news” media, they are going back to the Progressive label since the extremely poor historical educations (through policy driven by liberal politicians and “educators”) no one equates that movement with the horrors it supported and supports today.
Thank you for the highly informative post.
In today’s world it does not matter whether we enter another Little Ice Age, a glacial advance, ice age, more global warming, slight cooling or continued surface temperature standstill – it would be blamed on man. It no longer matters how you swing this cat.
Here you go. Something else to worry about, and note that the near record extents of Antarctica sea ice has already been blamed on man-made global warming. When will it end????
[ H/t The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley ]
I’m going out for a beer. I can’t take anymore of this.
It is simply the core of the ruling eco-religion that all evil things which happen in the universe are the righteous punishments for OUR sins against mother nature…
Why is this crazy belief so dominant in our “enlightened” societies?
a) There is some truth in it since many eco-problems are really caused by mankind and its overpopulation.
b) The religious sentiment that our sins will lead to punishments in form of calamities of all kinds is a very ancient archetype in the human psychology.
No, some wag would probably say it’s Bush’s fault….
Imagine all of the whiny scare stories we now endure, but in reverse. This should be fun.
Overrun by polar bears. That have migrated south to NYC.
Record hot summers blamed on the coming ice age. (Currently the record cold winters are blamed on global warming).
It’s about social engineering, money and power and it has been like this for at least 5.000 years.
Mike’s alternate Nature trick would be a different twist on the hockey stick.
Sea levels falling. Boat docks will have to be moved. The stink of low tide will be constant. The coral reefs will die. Sea life in danger. Penquins and walruses oh my.
Ahh, you don’t like the smell of puff mud? I love it. It tells me it is time to get out the shrimp nets.
Cats and dogs, living together. Mass hysteria.
Headline: “Global cooling enthusiasts predict new La Nina will end the Cooling Pause by sucking all remaining heat from the Earth.”
“What would be different?”
Mann wouldn’t have to worry about the Tiljander data, for one thing.
Glad I wasn’t drinking coffee, H.R. Thanks.
“What would be different?”
The world would be richer, but algore would not be,
Phil,
No, you are incorrect – algore (son of Igore, I think) would still be rich, but off a different notion – that humans are responsible for catastrophic global cooling! Once a dishonest opportunist, always a dishonest opportunist.
Imagine someone new to these topics encountering the word “Mann” and the word “Tiljander” without any context. A first thought– “Man has landed on Titan and no longer needs lander data.” I don’t mean for anyone to take this comment as a criticism, rather that there is a lot of stuff about “climate science” that has taken many hours of reading to acquire and anyone new to the topic is way behind.
You are entirely correct, John. However, it was a tchotchke for the cognoscenti. Hope you liked it.
John, Google is the newbie’s friend. I entered “Tiljander data” and “Mann Tiljander” into Google and at the top of the result lists were a number of articles from various blogs, including Climate Audit and WUWT.
Except that didn’t happen
What didn’t happen?
And does bill2 know what didn’t happen?
I know exactly what didn’t happen…
Just having a bit of a time proving it.
In the remake of “The Graduate”, dredging would replace plastics as the “one word”.
I like fracking as the one word.
What would be different? Speaking of the UN-IPPC and green groups, not much. Their agenda has nothing to do with Earth’s dynamic systems and all to do with redistribution doctrine. A few word changes here and there and they go on as they now do.
From the viewpoint of those actually interested in Earth systems a new “glacial epoch” ** would be spectacularly interesting. It would be almost the same as space explorers visiting a new earth-like planet. To boldly go – and all that. Tough times, though.
**
http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/11/24/ice-ages-and-glacial-epochs-whats-the-difference/
And should harsh cooling actually statt in the next few years observe the seamless volte face and demands for carbon taxes to stop the cooling that they will have claimed to have forecast all along, after all it is the IPCC not the IPGW.
We are still in an ice age that started about 3 million years ago. We are very fortunate to be in one of the interglacial warm periods with temperatures near our modern “normal” for about the last 12,000 years. Based on the duration of the previous four interglacial periods, there is about a 75% chance that a gradual descent into the next intensely cold glacial period could start any time within the next couple thousand years and, if we are lucky, there is a 25% chance it might last another 10,000 years like the one that started about 418,000 years ago and lasted about 25,000 years. I posted more here: Interglacial Comparisons.
Here’s the interglacial period comparison graph that serves as a crude climate “persistence” forecast:
The difference in interglacial times is likely due to eccentricity. The eccentricity similarities of now and 400,000 years ago makes a good bet that we will endure an interglacial of approximately the same length as then.
Bob.. One of the arguments I have used with alarmist is that that much more of the northern hemisphere was covered with ice around 12000 years ago. Then something caused a warm up and melt much of it away. I don’t think it was the campfires of people. What do you think caused the warm up?
Obliquity moving towards 24.5 degrees with NH summer moving towards perihelion.
If that is the cause, why does the period seem so unpredictable?
Eccentricity is the other variable that appears to help determine the length of interglacials. Plus when speaking in such long term periods a couple of thousand years one way or the other is not a big deal.
“They” would still be blaming big oil and coal and demanding that we reduce our standard of living since settled science and 97% of the scientists agree that CO2 emissions causes cooling of the earth.
And, “We must act now,” Catcracking.
Can you imagine the industrial northern countries trying to re locate south because of global cooling and the onset of ice sheets? It would be horrendous , 3rd world,war territory
I believe the american govt has already made plans to relocate some of its people looking to the sth americas and aus I heard..
they might like to plan to ASK nicely first;-/
I don’t think Gitmo counts.
We’ll be sure to ask, just like the Mexicans crossing our common border and all the tourist visa holders (who fly in and never go back) get permission first… So how many does that make, about 12-20 million?
Seriously, I hope we never do that to our friend Australia… But Central/South America? Payback’s a bitch!
DaveMCT, if it comes down to inconveniencing 23 million Aussies or allowing hundreds of millions of your own countrymen to die, there will be no discussion. Sucks for us, but that’s the reality of realpolitiks. I’m sure that both your Diplomatic and Defence Depts have it worked out as to what threats and equipment to use to invade and colonize us. No foul, that’s their job. 😉
IF real science showed that serious cooling is beginning, then I expect we would welcome many of our US and European friends. It would need a crash programme to build power plants and desal plants. Also to move hundred of millions of tonnes of good growing dirt would be helpful too. Once done we can easily support a population of a billion or so.
Assuming a sane and sensible human race – oh wait…
Historians will likely argue that WW 3 was the “Cold War” and the Global War on Terrorism we’re in now is WW 4. The “Cold War” was pretty warm from the perspective of someone on the receiving end of Soviet attentions…
Is there anything CO2 can’t do?
CO2 does not burn. Not a good fuel.
Excellent fuel if you can convert it into shares.
As I recall, global cooling was blamed on industry — sulfur and soot in particular.
Don’t forget “nuclear winter”.
yup, so you sold off your manufacturing plants to asia..and your jobs were lost.
and now asias profited but got the filthy air water etc.
Selling off old tech and industry might not be so bad if we were educating our people better and building new industries faster. The dirty secret of the National Education Association is an agent of social change, meaning the US as we knew it had to be weakened in order to replace it with a socialist utopia. Key elements in the process were disconnecting people from their beliefs and values, and the destruction of institutions we used to build the nation. History, religion, community, family are all under attack. People don’t trust each other and still think they need more government. Our leaders are driving us by omission and commission toward a police state, a tremendously weakened economy, and possibly even civil war. None of these things is necessary. Our problems are man-made, largely a result of bloated regulation and over-reaching law. An uneducated public can’t identify lies and manipulation.
What would be different is that the public would be all in a tizzy demanding that the government do something about it, and every science funding proposal would include some words about fighting climate change.
This question relates to the article by Dr. Tim Ball on WUWT November 23rd. Setting aside the unfortunate Mein Kampf reference, that article made some interesting hypotheses about the motivation behind the Global Warming rhetoric. Like Dr. Ball, I suspect that the underlying motive for global warming was not science but rather a perceived (and perhaps well-intentioned) desire to check the unchecked expansion of global human development.
Thus if the Earth had been exhibiting a cooling trend, presumably the originators (including non-scientist Al Gore) would have come up with a scary story such as: “water vapour from our cars and coal plants is increasing cloud cover and thus increasing Earthy’s effective albedo and thus leading to an Ice Age.”
If the radical greens had their way the ” mein Kampf” reference would be an understatement and an insult to Hitler.
Lack of heat is a horrific idea. People are afraid of global warming? Cooling is far more devastating.
I think the idea of hell would scare more people if the bible described it as a frozen wasteland with no way to build a fire.
Isn’t that the old Norse version of Hell
The proverb to use here: ‘cold as Russian hell’
Frankly I don’t know which one is worse. Technically it is easier to survive in space (3K) than inside a star (1e7K). Lets still say it is a draw.
Without doubt there would be frantic calls for “MORE CO2!” Imagine what it would be like if this bunch were around back when the atmospheric O2 level dropped from around 30% to just over 20%. “More CO2 to grow more trees to make more O2 or we’re all gonna suffocate in ten years!”
Remember the “lungs of the earth” argument with regard to the rain forest?
Been there, done that There was a global COOLING scare back when poor Jimmy Carter was President. I used to go shooting at a range that was on the glide path to Dulles. We occasionally watched the Concorde SST come in for a landing. Poor Jimmy issued an executive order banning the SST. Because it’s con trails at that altitude (note to moderator: That’s CON not CHEM) would reflect sun light and cause global COOLING. What a putz. (I learned that on the East Coast, also)
One big problem Bob T. The sealevel 9000 years ago, long after the glaciars and ice sheet had started to melt after the last Ice Age, was more than 54 meters HIGHER than today. Well actually that’s a correct figure, not a corrected one, but still an illusion……. the reason was Archimedes principle True today as always.
Oh one other reason – while land that have had ice/glaciers or large inland lakes filled with water starts rising at the same time there exist landsinking…. that’s due to Natural forces – if a landmass “tip” that might be due to Archimedes princip in other parts of same part of land and/or same tectonic plate. A landrise starts the moment land above is rising above sealevel. – that’s an retarding movement thus land in for example Northern Sweden still rises with “higher” speed than land in south (Skåne) where land is sinking.
From my C-essay Vattenvägarna in mot Roxen i äldre tider, Historia Linköpings Universitet 1993. English title would be: Waterways towards Lake Roxen:
Omkring 7.700 f.Kr avskiljdes Vättern från Yoldiahavet. Strandlinjen i Motala låg då 4 m under nuvarande strand-linje. Nordliga strandkanten av Vättern låg 12 m över samt södra strandkanten 43 m under Vätterns nuvarande strandlinje. En snabbare landhöjning i norr än i söder ledde till en ännu pågående tippning av Vättern som omkring 5.700 f.Kr resulterade i bildandet av Motala Ström(note 33)
English text:
Approximately 7700 BC Lake Vättern was separated from the Yoldia Sea. The shoreline in Motala at that point was 4 m below the present shore line. Northern shore of Lake Vättern was 12 m above and the southern shore 43 m below Vätterns current shoreline. A more rapid uplift in the north than in the south caused a still ongoing tipping the Vättern which around 5700 BC resulted in the formation of Motala stream [IEJ: a river floating eastward to the Baltic Sea which the name of Yoldia’s “descendent” is called today] (not 33)
Note 33: Håkansson Lars, Ahl Thorsten; SNV PM740 NLU Rapport 88 , Uppsala 1976, sid 12 ff [SNV= Sweden’s NaturvårdsVerk]
There are other reasons for sealevel changes: Erosion, movements of Tectonic Plates and so on. As for Erosion there exist three main types: Wind-; Water- and Temperature Erosion.
One example if the land under or close to sealevel is of granite type water and winderosion causes less problems and landsinking than if the land under or close to sealevel is of lime/chalk type. But that I guess you all know deep in your heart.
“The sealevel 9000 years ago, long after the glaciars and ice sheet had started to melt after the last Ice Age, was more than 54 meters HIGHER than today”
In Stockholm at least. In Bering strait the situation was different.
Answer
Glad you noticed the need to first find the sealevels in open sea in order to establish the sealevels from peak of last Ice Age over for example Yoldia Sea to today’s Baltic Sea. (Those of you who aren’t familiar with land rise = land uplift after Ice above melted, please read Archimes principle once again)
Land uplift/Land rise is a retarding movement. From it starts the speed goes down not up. The need to know what type of ground/land under ice and/or water is thus very important. Around today’s Baltic Sea in Scandinavia you in major parts have gneiss and granite on mainland. Which of course due to erosion, temperature and water mainly, have caused dichotomy, split and fissures in landscape.
That’s why I had to use my systemprogrammer skill as well as all knowledge I had gained working two summers in my youth for a Geologic dept at Viak in Linköping and of course the need to use all knowledge not only from their archives but from working a year at Östergötlands Museum as well as what was (and still is) known regarding upliftning north of a line going from today’s Uddevalla, swedish westcoast, over to south Nyköping, swedish eastcoast on over to the Baltic eastwards towards Moskow and further east.
I am not sure if you know the full sequense before and after the Yoldia Sea? If you do, you know that land north of that line had a form of status que for a long period, in other words melting in spring and summer almost was equal to the frizing area in autumn and winter,(we are talking about Sweden and most of Norway – not the coast of Norway where there at this time was open sea up to north Troms.
Stockholm is an interesting place to describe in the Baltic Sea situation. All of you probably knows that Lake Maelaren is a fissure/dichotomic landscape. One thing is important to remember – land north of Lake Maelaren was under water longer after last Ice Age than land in south. Thus the uplift still is more noticeable the far north in Swedish coast up to Haparanda/Torneå you go.
As for Stockholm the sea level of what’s today is the Baltic Sea has had dramatic periods. One was when the so called Götafall opened, a waterfall from the inland sea (more sea than any lake) over land so the waterways were open out to today’s Atlantic. Then again when land had tipped to a certain point causing other reactions in the tectonic plate part of the so called Skandern. Also please note that you never can start from known highest sealevel going on to today. You have to be skilled in math to go for correct, not corrected, figure of each period b a c k w a r d s, before you check for known facts comparing your new curves (you need one curve for each 100 meter from Skåne up to Haparanda/Torneå.
In Stockholm case you also need to know exactly when the Ice over for example Södertälje melted as well as on today’s archipelago of Stockholm. One need to be a skilled systemprogrammer to write good program, not model but correct information to be within Tjebychev’s teorems margin. At least you have to be able to prove from geologic information that each single GPS-point is at least within 50 meter from the curve’s estimated one. On ground not up or down level but what we call “fågelvägen” the way a bird fly.
As for Berents Straith you do have a problem. While the estimated sealevel 9000 years ago is within the margin of error. In other words at that time up and/or down 6,5 (six meter 50 cm). Due to tectonic and vulcanic activity southwards along coasts where streams float northward same occured 14000 BP and as late as 3500 BP. But I guess you know that.
In order to present correct levels of “yesterday” compare the results with known facts form archaelogic excavations’ biologic and geologic data for each period, one need at least 43 different parameters. That’s easy to handle in computer if you skilled mathematician and systemprogrammer. What’s not that easy to come by is the simple fact that sealevel in year X might be completely different in three places within 10 kilometer from each other along same coast. But never mind. That was a problem. An even bigger problem having access to known data from geologic studies in each area around world. But as always – I am a fastreader even faster thinking and registred all data. I had computers do the work before I checked for empiric facts to compare my result with.
Not much would be different. I’m picturing a hockey stick in the opposite direction accompanied by alarmism. Same ol same ol.
Oh and of course it would all be our fault.
If the earth were cooling instead of warming, they would simply adapt the “science” to point to the extra anthropo-CO2 as causing global cooling. The rational would be that all that extra CO2 in the upper troposphere radiating to space was causing global cooling.
We’d definitely be blamed – the pop scientists of the day were blaming aerosols for global cooling. They’re still keeping that “explanation” dusted off, ready to throw in the mix when its needed – look at all the fuss about how the “pause” was due to Chinese particulates.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/04/global-warming-china-air-pollution_n_889897.html
Someone would have to step up and save the planet. Maybe this guy?
https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608032413028585130&pid=15.1&w=188&h=123&p=0
Hell, maybe places like africa would be better off, with all the northern europeans bringing in better infastructure, quality of life and improved farming as well as industry. At least they wouldnt be forced to cook on indoor fires anymore, it alone killing 300k/y, or denied cheap electricity by the IMF.
Weren’t you paying attention in school when they taught about what happened last time they started that.
White racists taking over and enslaving the poor blacks.
They’re still trying to remove all those extra whites from there.
They would still have their small army of PhD govt-grant lifers. And they would still have some social control (which they would still crave).
eg: govt agencies worldwide could increase their budgets, while making everyone on Earth “care” about every single cold-threatened species, forced to insulate their houses .. you name it.
The main everyday difference, I guess, is that they would not have a tax on energy, and not be able to flog solar/wind turbines and so on. Which would mean economies would be not be as crippled as they are now. It would mean more people would prosper, than currently are. In that respect some of the warmists (not all) would be disappointed, since there is a Luddite strain involved in the current nonsense.
But something else would be going on. CAGW is not just about a political agenda, I would almost call it anthropological. And at that deep level, I am pretty sure a cold scare would not satisfy them like the warm scare does. I have not made up my mind about this. It may partly involve Hunter/gatherer vs agricultural. alpha male vs beta males, some deep struggle like that.
I’m old enough to remember the 70s and yes humans were to blame for the cooling. But don’t worry if we get too full we’ll just tip over 😉
Look out down under here we all come!!! Put the extra beer in the fridge