The Next Great Extinction Event Will Not Be Global Warming – It Will Be Global Cooling

I find something very interesting in the graph provided in this paper. Note that for all 3 cycles the lower temperature ending the iceage was about -8C compared to the present. Note also the temperature is not asymptoting, it is a close to linear decrease which ends abruptly at -8C. Similarly the trigger starting the next iceage is about +2C above present in all 3 cases. Is it simply time related, unrelated to temperature? Possibly but the 3 time intervals between warm periods is not the same for all 3. The first is about 90,000Y the second more like 120,000Y and the third around 140,000Y. That’s quite a variation yet the temperature point for all 3 is almost exactly the same (less than 1C difference as far as I can tell). OK, 3 events is a very small data set, it could very well be a co-incidence of no significance but it is suggestive.

It makes wonder, is there some mechanism which triggers warming at 280K (-8C from present)? Similarly, is there something about a temperature of 290K (+2C from present) which triggers cooling but why is the cooling gradual after a small initial drop of about 2C whereas the warming is abrupt?

If only people would stop with the hysteria long enough to look at the data and so some real science we might actually get somewhere.

There are comments above that interglacial periods end gradually. That is an urban legend.

The observations do not support that assertion.

We have no idea what is the large powerful physical cause of the cyclic glacial/interglacial cycle which is likely the same cause as the large cyclic abrupt climate changes, such as the Younger Dryas.

The discovery of cyclic abrupt climate change in the Greenland ice sheet, twenty years ago, was not expected. The specialists drilled another Greenland ice sheet core, at the top of a ridge where there was no ice flow, to confirm the cyclic abrupt climate change found in the proxy record ice data was real and not caused somehow by ice sheet flow.

The invention of the climate super amplification theory was an attempt to explain cyclic abrupt climate change. The recent finding that there is no CO2 warming of the tropical troposphere at 8 km and almost no warming of the tropical region, shows there is negative feedback and no amplification.

I agree that sudden abrupt cooling, is a greater threat than warming. There are a dozen observations and analysis results that support that the assertion that is almost no measurable AGW and hence no CAGW. The problem is that line of analysis did change minds.

What we need to do is re-look at the key observations which have been ignored up to this point, in an organized thoughtful manner, looking for logical connection between observations.

The geological observations are the place to start as it (geology) is a logical, simple constrained field (odd that is no summary of the physical constraints and problem overview in geological textbooks or geological papers) and there are dozens of geological observational paradoxes that should not exist and that can be explained to a general audience.

No math. Almost no graphs. And a logical subject with mature observations.

I am working away to make a formal presentation with pictures that would be interesting for a general audience.

Here are a couple of the key observational paradoxes to give you an idea of the path. Obviously the observations appear to be linked. There is an observation that requires a powerful force that can change almost in real time. There must be mechanism to create the force. There needs to be evidence of that mechanism. There is.

These are observational paradoxes, that correlate with the recent temperature change, that we do not discuss because there is no physical explanation and/or it the observation itself obviously disproves/threatens to disprove CAGW.

It is fact that there has been a 300% increase in the frequency of earthquakes (no increase in the magnitude, just an increase in the number of earthquakes per year which correlates linearly with the amount of energy that is required to cause the earthquakes and move the ocean plates) that occur at the edges of mid-ocean ridges, near where the ridge where ocean plates are pushed apart, all over the planet.

Oddly, the frequency of mid-ocean ridge earthquakes increases two years before the El Nino events.

What is interesting is geology does not have an explanation as to what generates the force to move the tectonic plates, before the observation that the frequency of mid-ocean earth quakes increased by 300% average for 20 years.

The lack of a forcing mechanism explains why the theory of plate tectonics took so long to be accepted. Sure the plates move, the problem is there is no force to move the plates.

Why would there be any tectonic plate movement? The mantel is just rock that gradually becomes less viscous with depth, that ends with a molten core.

http://www.davidpratt.info/tecto.htm

Nitecki et al. (1978) reported that in 1961 only 27% of western geologists accepted plate tectonics, but that during the mid-1960s a “chain reaction” took place, and by 1977 it was embraced by as many as 87%.

Some proponents of plate tectonics have admitted that a bandwagon atmosphere developed and that data that did not fit into the model were not given sufficient consideration (e.g., Wyllie, 1976), resulting in “a somewhat disturbing dogmatism” (Dott and Batten, 198 1, p. 15 1). McGeary and Plummer (1 998, p. 97) acknowledge that “geologists, like other people, are susceptible to fads.”

The driving force of plate movements was initially claimed to be mantle deep convection currents welling up beneath midocean ridges, with downwelling occurring beneath ocean trenches. Since the existence of layering in the mantle was considered to render whole-mantle convection unlikely, two layer convection models were also proposed.

Jeffreys (1974) argued that convection cannot take place because it is a self-damping process, as described by the Lomnitz law.

Plate tectonicists expected seismic tomography to provide clear evidence of a well-organized convection-cell pattern, but it has actually provided strong evidence against the existence of large, plate-propelling convection cells in the upper mantle (Anderson, Tanimoto, and Zhang, 1992).

Many geologists now think that mantle convection is a result of plate motion rather than its cause and that it is shallow rather than mantle deep (McGeary and Plummer, 1998).

There is no mechanism in the current geological paradigm to explain the sudden simultaneous increase in force at each ridge to cause the increase in mid-ocean ridge spreading.

In separate review papers, it has noted that there is evidence of massive concentrated compressive forces at the mid-ocean ridges that is roughly two orders of magnitude greater than the standard geological tectonic plate force paradigm can generate and more importantly requires something physical to be pumped into the location, to cause the compression fracturing.

Compression fracturing is the same mechanism as fracturing rock for petroleum and gas extraction. Compression fracturing requires a pump, a liquid that is pressurized by the pump, and something that functions as a pipe to transmit the force and the liquid to the end of the pipe which is where the fracturing would occur.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/have-global-temperatures-reached-a-tipping-point-2573-458X-1000149.pdf

Namely, increased seismic activity in the HGFA (i.e., the mid-ocean’s spreading zones) serves as a proxy indicator of higher geothermal flux in these regions. The HGFA include the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the East Pacific Rise, the West Chile Rise, the Ridges of the Indian Ocean, and the Ridges of the Antarctic/Southern Ocean. This additional mid-ocean heating causes an acceleration of oceanic overturning and thermobaric convection, resulting in higher ocean temperatures and greater heat transport into the Arctic [2,3]. This manifests itself as an anomaly known as the “Arctic Amplification,” where the Arctic warms to a much greater degree than the rest of the globe (Table 1) [4,5]

Roughly two years ago geologist discovered tubes in the mantel that connect to the crust and appear to connect to the core of the planet. It has known for sometime that there were unexplained reflection of seismic waves travelling through the earth. New computer analysis techniques of multiple seismic waves determined that reflections where from tube/pipe like structures in the mantel.

What is need is an explanation as to what created the tubes in the mantel.

So we have the tubes, what is need is a pump and a liquid that is pumped by the pump.

The pump, is the core of the planet as it crystallizes. The liquid is liquid methane that is extruded from the core of the earth when it crystallizes.

The heavy elements in the core bond with methane which explains why the core is saturated with methane and explains why the same group of heavy elements is found concentrated in liquid petroleum with the amount of heavy metals increasing with crude viscosity.

The three super heavy Alberta ‘heavy’ oil deposits, 1.5 trillion barrels (roughly the amount of all ‘conventional, oil on the planet, 60 to 80 meters thick covers an area roughly the size of the UK, have super concentrations of the same suite of metals.

This also explains why there is helium in oil and gas reservoirs. The heavy metals are dropped out below the oil and gas reservoirs. The uranium and thorium decay creating helium, the continued flow of methane provides a path for the helium to travel into the oil reserve.

What is interesting is what is causing the core of the planet to crystallize.

Challenging core belief: Have we misunderstood how Earth’s solid center formed?
Scientists question long-held understanding in new paper

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180207151842.htm

Summary:
Researchers are posing an important question about the formation of planet Earth’s inner core, arguing that it’s time to consider the nucleation paradox at the heart of the issue.

It is widely accepted that the Earth’s inner core formed about a billion years ago when a solid, super-hot iron nugget spontaneously began to crystallize inside a 4,200-mile-wide ball of liquid metal at the planet’s center.
One problem: That’s not possible-or, at least, has never been easily explained-according to a new paper published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters from a team of scientists at Case Western Reserve University.

The research team-composed of post-doctoral student Ludovic Huguet; Earth, Environmental, and Planetary Sciences professors James Van Orman and Steven Hauck II; and Materials Science and Engineering Professor Matthew Willard-refer to this enigma as the “inner-core nucleation paradox.”

That paradox goes like this: Scientists have known for more than 80 years that a crystallized inner core exists. But the Case Western Reserve team asserts that this widely accepted idea neglects one critical point-one that, once added, would suggest the inner core shouldn’t exist.

“C3 crop photosynthesis, the source of almost all our foods, will be barely sustainable.”

If there’s a good and bad in climate, warm with lots of CO2 is good, and cool without CO2 is unequivocally bad.

I am just really glad the global cooling scare turned into a global warming scare … because there is absolutely nothing at all to worry about in terms of warming, so it’s a total no brainer that the alarmists are stark raving bonkers.

It’s my belief that what we’re actually seeing has almost nothing to do with the climate. Instead it is the dying days of the old fake media as the internet wins over. This old fake media is desperately increasing and increasing the fake news alarmist shrill content to try to manufacture a story to try to stave off economic collapse of their old fake news platforms. Global warming was just a convenient fake news scare story for them to be pushing in their dying days.

Note the very strong wind fields at 10 hPa, and the area they are impacting. The SSW event is slowing down a bit. As the top wind speeds have dropped from a peak around 330 mph down to 275 mph today. Wind speeds in the smaller rotation have picked up quite a bit though as can be seen on the right side of earthnull. … https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-313.87,-89.47,481/loc=-167.627,-74.150

Is it the speed of that wind interacting with the nearby counter rotation which caused that region of the atmosphere to warm?