I stumbled on a remarkable video. The presenter is a student. The organization says it is a learning resource.
We offer FREE, high-quality educational materials to educators: teachers, homeschoolers, parents, grandparents, scout troop leaders – to anyone interested in learning/teaching!
Our entertaining & educational videos come with tons of additional resources – Teachers Guides, activities, quizzes, and much more! We also offer Current Events lessons – 2 each school day with vocabulary words and discussion questions.
We’re here for you! Explore why critical thinking starts at izzit.org. Get your free account now.
It accurately and effectively lays out the case for natural solar driven climate cycles. Nothing we sceptics don’t already know, but effectively packaged and with great graphics and stock video elements. It would be a great introduction to NOT being worried (or manipulated by the warmistas) for teens and smart kids.
It looks like these folks do want to teach critical thinking skills and recognize the value of the skeptical view, of not just absorbing the babble of Authority, but asking it questions too. With that attitude this ought to be a good teaching resource for home schoolers (and as a counter to “approved propaganda” in public schools).
Has interviews with Dr. Willy Soon and Dr. David R. Legates. A well done segment on Greenland with interviews of the folk staffing a museum about it, temperature graphs including things like the Younger Dryas, Roman Warm Period, and Little Ice Age. In just 14 minutes, it makes the case for natural, solar dirven, climatecycles.
And no, I’m not praising it just because the presenter is a cute Ginger girl and my daughter is also a redhead… but it did help :-)
Very effective propaganda. But the video claims the oceans are the SOURCE of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, ignoring the fact that the oceanic concentration of carbon dioxide is INCREASING. A video is not often a good way to promote and teach real science, but it sure is a great way to mislead the easily misled.
I’ve seen zero evidence that ocean CO2 is increasing. Provide your source. (Note that we don’t have surveys of ocean CO2 concentration from top to bottom globally… and that matters a great deal as the overturning circulation has about an 800 year time lag between downwelling of ocean and later upwelling and potential outgassing in a warm tropical ocean. As 800 years ago was the LIA start, we could very well be getting upwelling of ocean that was loaded with excess CO2 from very cold rain stripping it in the Arctic / Antarctic into those downwelling currents. Basic gas laws and all..)
I have seen videos of LIQUID CO2 blobs oozing out of the side of under ocean volcanic areas (the pressure at depth keeps it liquid) and since there ar massive volcanic regions / areas under the oceans, nothing about Ocean CO2 levels changing based on atmospheric levels can be claimed. THE biggest source globally (volcanism / seeps) is a giant unknown number for the oceans.
Since we KNOW huge amounts of CO2 are emitted at mid ocean ridges and even as liquid seeps from volcanic mountains, we KNOW there’s CO2 being added to the oceans by nature. Some CO2 gets deposited as carbonate in “rocks to be”, but not all of it. The rest must go somewhere…
So, sorry, Serioso, but you simply can not ascribe changes in ocean CO2 level to humans. Then, due to the ocean / atmosphere coupling, you can’t even ascribe atmospheric changes to people. It is, IMHO, probable that we’ve caused the observed increase. It’s also just as possible that a reduction in cold rain means less CO2 stripping into the oceans. We just don’t have the data to say. (Or, if you know of a database of recorded tons of rain vs latitude / longitude vs air temperature with ocean surface temperature and whether the ocean is upwelling or downwelling at that point, let me know…)
As to video not being good for teaching: Bull Shit!
I’m a holder of a California Lifetime Teaching Credential, Data Processing & Related Technologies. To get it, I had to take a bunch of Education Theory (and units) at the State College AND have a professor observe me teaching (“student teaching” though I was already teaching on a provisional). The point being that I am, by proclamation of The State, by professional employment, and by lots of experience (both commercial teaching in companies and at the local Community College) an Education Professional.
I know that video works to teach, and works very well. It is multi-modal (both visual and auditory) and has both text and non-text visuals available. It can often be paused to ponder, or have a backup-replay to polish a given point. The presenter can put extra care into it (compared to a ‘one off live’ oration) and much more effective visual aids can be used since there’s usually a much bigger budget. It is one of THE best and fastest ways to teach. I’ve used it both as learner and as teacher, to very good effect. I STILL remember the movie “Our Mr. Sun” shown to me in the 5th grade Science Class and the lessons it taught.
To claim otherwise pretty much flags what you are saying as “for effect” and not “for truth”.
So near as I can tell, your only attempt with that comment was to slander (call it propaganda when it is only giving the “other side” and asking folks to think and evaluate – at the end where you likely did not reach… The very basis of actual science. Here’s evidence. Evaluate it and think about it. Be skeptical.)
Frankly, that you only “pop up” to slander things when they are effective is one of the largest reasons I suspect you of being a paid troll at best, or an assigned agent at worst. Were you actually here for the interesting range of content, there would be something positive from you, somewhere, sometime… But no, it’s always “poor Johnny One Note, on one topic. And a rather sour note at that.
Looks like Sky Australia has a sceptics series. I’ve found at least two (while searching for one) titled “Outsiders Weather and Ice Age Watch”.
This is the one I wanted, August 17, 2019
This is not the one I was looking for, from end August 2019:
Then a search on “youtube sky Australia outsiders weather and ice age watch” found at least 7 more. Looks like the show has a Facebook page:
Unfortunately it wants a facebook login to see their video list, and that’s not going to happen.
Perhaps more searching might find some other home page.
But at least someone is broadcasting from the sceptics POV.
Oceanic outgassing of CO2 has long been debunked, but it is the central theme of the video you posted. The soda can “explolsion” is cute but utterly misleading. See: https://skepticalscience.com/Seawater-Equilibria.html
It’s propaganda when the core thesis is contradicted by real science, i.e., the truth.
And, I’m sorry, no one pays me to provide occasional (and brief) negative commentary. If somebody wants to chip in they have my email address, I guess -:)
As far as I can tell, you post videos like this one because you agree with the theses presented and not because you know anything solid about the underlying subject matter. Your uncritical acceptance of the material belies the personal credentials you present.
BTW, although I routinely check the two boxes below to be notified of new posts and comments, that never happens.
I have no idea why WordPress does, or doesn’t do, various things. I don’t do anything to hinder any notification activity (but there may be some widget to turn it on / off somewhere I don’t know about). I’ll look through the control menus and see if anything looks relevant.
Per “debunking” CO2 venting from the ocean and knowing it is a one way street into the ocean, well, argue with these folks:
NASA (Selected qoutes for my side):
“Over decades, natural cycles in weather and ocean currents alter the rate at which the ocean soaks up and vents carbon dioxide. ”
“For eons, the world’s oceans have been sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and releasing it again in a steady inhale and exhale. ”
“As temperatures rise, carbon dioxide leaks out of the ocean like a glass of root beer going flat on a warm day. Carbonate gets used up and has to be re-stocked by upwelling of deeper waters, which are rich in carbonate dissolved from limestone and other rocks.”
So the ocean does “vent” CO2 from warmer waters, does absorb more in cold waters, and NASA thinks it fine to use the fizzy beverage analogy to illustrate the process (though uses a generic beverage instead of a brand name). The “experts” aren’t sure what all is going on as their findings were a surprise in their very short and very geographically limited sampling.
In short: Nobody really knows the CO2 cycle in the oceans over millennial scale, or even over decadal scale, but the Gas LAWS say more goes into the cold ocean in ice ages (big and Little) and more “vents” in warm periods (like the modern warming). Then we also know there is a many hundreds of years to low thousands deep ocean residency time; so upwelling water from the Little Ice Age is just now rising, and as NASA put it, venting.
BTW, you know full well the deliberately deceptively named “skepticalscience” is a hyper partisan propaganda organization for the purpose of causing confusion. I’m pretty sure they were the ones that sent me down the path to being a sceptic when they used negativity and sniditude at me for asking questions. At the time I thought “Global warming must be bad”… but when I’d point at contradictions in their claims and ask “Why?” I got derision and snark. Rather like what you do. Think about it.
One derided me as a WUWT follower. I’d never heard of it before, but followed the “pointer” to nice people who thought clearly, didn’t mind NOOB questions, and had ideas consistent with known science, like those pesky gas laws.
BTW, there’s several much more “my side” articles than that NASA one, but I’m one finger typing on the tablet, so later for them.
Nobody pays you eh? Too bad. That was my most charitable option. I believe you, even if it means you are a Trollish negative person driven to snark and insults as your fundamental character, so do it for sport. My condolences.
Then you resort to your (apparently innate) only mode. The insult to the person. I choose to ignore it dismissively. My A and A+ grades in Chemistry, Physics, Biology and my BofA award along with my known IQ (SAT qualifies me for Mensa) pretty much say you are pissing into the wind.
Checked the mgt options set. Boxes are checked to allow following.
So I’ve had it turned on, no idea why it isn’t working.
Huh… the boxes worked for me. Several months ago. Btw, that vid was good!
The follow up video is also on topic.
Serioso, do you know *anything* about chemistry? The ocean is a very *large* buffer. Henry’s Law is about the dissolution of a gas in a solvent *without* any other chemical reactions taking place. Carbon dioxide partitions into water at roughly a 50:1 ratio just from that. Add in buffering reactions plus precipitation (calcium carbonate for one, among many), you can virtually strip the air of carbon dioxide. (Hint … that’s already happened, as the white cliffs of Dover and the 300 year old marble quarry in the SE USA, among others!) Colder water does hold dissolved carbon dioxide better than warmer water, so degassing *is* a thing, Sure, biological actions modify that, in both directions. What the heck you think boiling water does to its dissolved gases? And if you want water as nearly as pure as you can get it, for a chemistry lab, you distill it then run it over a deionizing bed.
Our host has already dinged you for quoting “skepticalscience”. Keep on living in that leftist bubble of yours, believing that what you think you know is reality, when it isn’t so.
@cdquarles Actually, I have a PhD in physical chemistry. So, yes, I know the stuff you are talking about. Really.
@EMSmith: Thanks for the NASA link, which, alas, is a dozen years old. I’d love to learn more about recent studies. In any case, the article says nothing about a NET release of carbon dioxide caused by oceanic warming. In fact, they say “Global warming is expected to reduce the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2, leaving more in the atmosphere…which will lead to even higher temperatures” So says the voice of NASA. It’s too bad they used the soda-can analogy — their own paper shows it’s a poor model and doesn’t explain the observations. Yes, warm water will absorb less carbon dioxide than cold water. But the net flow of carbon is from the atmosphere to the seas.
I tried to find the difference in the mass of the earth’s oceans compared to the atmosphere, and came up with, 269 to 1. (From Quora, with equations). I’m no scientist or even particularly well-versed in science, but it makes me wonder what mechanisms are in place that such a small atmospheric number can have such an effect on the large oceanic one? I realize that sometimes science can defy logic, but that the atmosphere can have only the most minute, almost imperceptible effect on the oceans seems, well, only logical.
@Serioso: to the seas then to the carbonate deposits then to rocks that subduct then to the volcanoes and out again…. now mix in mid ocean ridges outgassing at prodigiuous rates and season with undersea volcanoes by the thousand, largely unmeasured, and sprinkle lightly with deep ocean seeps of liquid CO2 … and you want me to believe we have even half a clue what is going on AND the sizes?
Good luck with that.
The oceans and volcanic lakes can emit / store enormous amounts of CO2 which under the right circumstances like a shaken soda can the CO2 explosively changes to free gas. Human CO2 production is trivial in comparison to what volcanic systems and the oceans hold.
As deep ocean waters from the little ice age returns to the surface as part of the thermohaline circulation they give off their excess CO2 they stored centuries ago, it is not CO2 from the current surface atmosphere.
The next time an AGW advocate says the 1970’s theory of possible cooling is a lie, have them explain this.
I now understand Serioso’s attitude and stance as most of the readers of scepticalscience reflect the attitudes on there. I have come across it many times.
That skepticalscience article is a classic example of the Left’s misdirection. It has lots of “sciency” stuff about molarity solution concentrations and all that but the basic assumption is false.
It has a carefully constructed constraint that is not true in the real world.
“if the temperature of the ocean averaged over the year is the same” – “locally” and the implied constraint that the atmospheric CO2 concentration, and the dissolved concentration of CO2 is uniform as that is what it is trying to balance.
Although CO2 is considered to be a well mixed gas it in fact is only approximately well mixed. CO2 concentration peaks in May each year in the northern hemisphere and as the greening of summer occurs concentrations fall to their autumn low. Over that time period the ocean tries to keep up and exhales CO2, but this balancing only occurs at the surface and the top several hundred meters of the ocean which is mixed by wave action. Below that level CO2 concentrations vary over a time scale of hundreds or thousands of years by diffusion to balance increases or decreases in the concentration of the upper layer.
You also have advection of water that has been in the deep ocean currents for hundreds of years. It absorbed CO2 at the surface 800 – 1000 years ago for the longer current loops or just a few hundred years for the shorter current loops. Water that absorbed CO2 at the surface when it was much colder during the little ice age sank as it cooled to the deep ocean temperature of about 0-3 deg C picking up even more CO2 as it passes the volcanic vents on the sea floor,in the mid-Atlantic ridge then centuries later it gets pushed back to the surface in the warm southern latitudes (South Atlantic and South Pacific). Since the over turning processes take hundreds of years the primary assumption of that article is false, as only 1/800 to 1/1000 th of the ocean absorbs or exhales its CO2 load to the atmosphere in any given year.
Thanks for taking the time to do that. I’d been unable to bring myself do do a re-immersion in the “skepticalscience.com” crap fest of misdirection and lies. The Tidy Mind recoils in horror from the dirt…
The bit about picking up more at the bottom is very important. On the first big CO2 posting I did, I linked to a video taken at depth, showing a shrimp running into a big blob of liquid CO2. The researches stated that as it was lower density than water, the blob would rise until it turned to gas, then the gasses would continue on to either be absorbed or burst at the surface.
Nobody knows how much of that happens. Nobody.
But we do know it is happening at undersea volcanoes and we do know there are a lot of them.
Bobby Lynch, in a comment up thread that was stuck in moderation as I was busy today: https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/12/14/unstopable-solar-cycles-a-video-resource/#comment-121234
points out the relative mass of atmosphere and oceans and how oceans can not be in a practical way controlled by minuscule air.
That is exactly right. Furthermore, as the interior of the Earth is hundreds to thousands of degrees, heat flow MUST be from inside to outside. The bottom of the oceans are heated by the earth heat and it is volcanically hot at the spreading zones.
So heat flow is always outbound, and the water is by far the dominant fluid.
That’s why many people point out that the air doesn’t matter much and it is all about the water. It is known that shifting tides alone can account for 1/3 of cyclical air temperature changes.
A bit nippy in the mountains this morning. (keep in mind our coldest temps are about a month away, near Jan 24)
All time record for Colorado is -61 deg F in Maybell, Colorado (north west corner of state about 30 miles west of Craig ) on Feb. 1, 1985.
Recent storms have done good things for Colorado snowpacks.
MINUS 32 F! Just OMG I don’t want to be in that. I was once in the Kansas City Ks. airport and it was -4 F. I decided to step outside to see what it was like. Despite my jacket, it was cold that just sucked the heat out of you. Ears, nose, eyes all feeling a lot of cold instantly, then legs and arms feeling the heat leave.
I can’t imagine another 28 degrees lower than that.
Well, really, I can imagine it, but I doubt that my imaginings are right ;-)
One one trip to Chicago in a warm December, fueling up in the Midwest / West was a very unpleasant experience. This was without snow on the ground / active snow and just air in the teens to 20’s. I’ve been an active skier and done cold weather in just street clothes without too much trouble, but the wind, and minus my ski gear, it was very much not pleasant. I do admit some of it was probably the transition from warm car with heater running warm into “stand up in the wind and put your coat on”…
Maybe I need to put the coat on in the car, even if it takes some gyrations ;-)
But double digit below? Not in my repertoire…
Be well, stay warm!
It is 70 degrees warmer here in the metro suburbs right now so no biggy for me.
The high mountain valleys get really cold when they have fresh snow on the ground and clear skies. Radiant cooling to the clear sky makes the air temp drop like a rock.
Yes at the -30 F range the cold becomes a physical insult. It goes right through light clothing like just a pair of jeans, so long underwear becomes manditory to be even remotely comfortable (high activity helps too)
At -30 if you eyes water from the cold and you hold them closed a bit too long they try to freeze shut. A beard and mustache become a feature not a lack of clean grooming, although your breath freezes on them instantly so you get used to brushing the ice out of your mustache periodically.
You also learn the truth of the comment that if you’re cold put on a hat (and a neck scarf).
You also be come a fan of multiple layers of clothing.
Undershirt, loose thick shirt, a vest and an good coat is a nice place to start.
Gloves / mittens are your friend with out them your hands become useless in minutes.
If exposed to it over a period of days your body will turn up the thermostat to help keep you warm but not acclimated it smacks you in the face like a wet towel.
Yeah, our coldest temps are roughly 2 weeks to 6 weeks after the solstice, centered around Jan 21st. Flip that for the warmest ones. Keep in mind that, in any given year, when these occur depend on the actual conditions experienced.
About your description of acclimating to cold, flip that for heat. Your body greatly increases the blood flow to the skin, which helps you shed it from that and is needed for sweating. So yeah, Southerners, used to ‘hot’, do feel cold a lot quicker than Northerners; so you’ll see jackets on them when it is 50s/60s, especially if there is any wind; and multiple layers of clothes when it gets colder.
About that old saying about hat and scarf when feeling cold? The head, which contains the brain, gets high blood flow 24/7. The relatively small surface area sheds heat fast. A hat and scarf really slow that down. And again, flip that when it’s hot and you are out in the overhead/nearly overhead sun, in the summer, around noon, as a Southerner.
Like our esteemed host, the coldest I’ve ever experienced was the low minus single digits F (colder than the times I’ve visited Chicago, less the wind), and I had to change a tire in it, on a lonesome and sparsely traveled interstate in MS. The warmest was around 105F. (Yeah, equivalent to a very high fever)
I grew up where it was common to have “110 in the shade and there ain’t no shade”…
Hottest I personally remember was 117 F.
We had a “swamp cooler” and it didn’t help much, mostly just giving you humidity…
When I first moved to Silicon Valley I said they never got a summer… Took me several years to adjust to the “always cool” summers. Hottest ever here was 105 once. Usually it is closer to 80 F, but can be 50 F in San Francisco in August. I left San Jose at 105 F and hit SF Fog and 55 F… now where’s that jacket… at home… So sucked it up for the couple of hours I needed then drove back to the 100+ warmth ;–)
I realized after a while I was “hot adapted”. You just automatically relax all your muscles that are not actively in use. It’s sort of a “letting go” slump that cuts heat production. Moving slower can help too. (Or not moving at all mid-day). Your breathing and metabolism slow.
After about 6 years, the summers in Silicon Valley became “acceptable”. My spouse thinks I’m crazy and hates anything over about 80 F, but she’s a native of here ;-)
Now when I go back to hot (over 100 F) it takes a few hours to remember how to adapt… and I can feel it when it happens.
Doing the cold adaption is something I can do, especially when headed up to go skiing. I’ve walked from the parking lot into the lodge at 10 F in “normal street clothes” without a jacket and been fine. But there was no wind. And I had more hair ;-)
That’s why the experience fueling the car was such a surprise. The semi-bald head gets way cold in a hurry, and the wind was about 15 MPH and just cut right through my light dress shirt. Then by the time the jacket went on, the inner surface was cooled too. No gloves and checking the oil, it was hard to get the hood open…
SO, OK, note to self: Stock car with hat, scarf, and GOOD coat with both nice and “open the hood” gloves. Find someplace that sells long johns…
The spouse? She says “I don’t do Below.”
I experienced that heat adaptation thing when I was in Guam, froze my ass off on the upper decks watching a movie when it was 70 degrees just before Typhoon Amy came in. Came back here to the mountain west and it took a bit over a year to re-acclimate to cooler winter weather. That winter it repeatedly got down in to the -15 range and lots of snow.
In the late 1960’s we had a really hot summer (also the late 1980’s), several days when all the down town street thermometers (remember those?) were showing 104 -106 deg F official high was a couple degrees cooler. I worked in a bank at the time (suit and tie) no AC on the buses then, everyone just coped with it.
In 1962-63 we had some back to back cold winters, record low is -29 at the old Stapleton airfield, weather station, but out in the western suburbs we had -30 on a thermometer that I calibrated as accurate with an ice water bath. At the time I had a paper route so got to throw papers in deep subzero temps at 04:30 in the morning. Then in the mid 1980’s I was on a mountain rescue team and we might go looking for someone in deep sub zero temps and riding on snowmobiles to get in where they were. I learned to dress for cold then.
When I got discharged from boot camp in San Diego we drove home across the desert at about 2:00 in the afternoon. I was the only one smart enough to bring water with us. (two cars driving in caravan) we were going 90 mph in 120+ temps passing my canteen back and forth between the cars, because Mikes air cooled VW would over heat if we slowed down. Had the wing windows turned around backwards so they were like air scoops – it was like sitting in front of a blast furnace. We stopped for food at some little hole in the wall cantina cafe somewhere on I 10 about half way to Phoenix and were greatly relieved at the cool 110 deg F temp inside the cafe.
Oh God, the “crossing the Sonora in August” experience…
In about 1973? A buddy and I went on a road trip around the perimeter of the USA. There’s lots of stories here (including me being in a wedding in NY because one of the groomsmen missed a flight and I fit the suit… so the “Pictures of the wedding of the friend of the brother of my friend” have me in them… and NOBODY in the picture really knows who I am ;-)
Well, coming back (the starter had failed somewhere around Michigan and being on a budget of nearly nothing – $265 for the WHOLE trip, food included…) I decided we would just push start until we got home. I got REALLY good at spotting the slightest tilt to a parking lot and hitting the high side. Rarely did we need to actually push ;-)
So we start to cross West Texas, in August. Not TOO bad. We have an ice chest and fill it with sodas about El Paso. Then comes the Sonora and Mojave deserts. We’ve managed to arrive at the middle just about mid day. This in a 1967 VW Fastback without air conditioning. We do about 70 to 75 when possible (this during the Nixon 55 years). In cutoffs only. The routine was to reach into the ice chest, get a soda, and start drinking it. After about 20 minutes, it was gone. Reach in to the ice chest, get a soda, start drinking it…
Well, about 300 miles into this we need gas. We stop and fuel up. It was at that moment I realized nobody needed to pee. We’d been guzzling ice cold sodas for hours. It all had left through the skin. Filled the car and pressed on. Repeat a time or two…
I have no idea what the actual air temperatures were. It was hot though. I think what we were accidentally doing is what the military calls “over drink”.
Never did that again. All trips since have been With AC and / or not in summer…
Remember that it is a lot more humid here, and there’s always shade :P and/or the afternoon thundershower.
If history is anything to go by we may well be in for a 1960-70s style cool period or maybe something worse. For me the big question always is, what caused the Little Ice Age (LIA)? It doe not appears to be much to do with planetary motion, so was it all just solar influence?
One of the more prevalent ideas is told here — https://www.historicalclimatology.com/blog/what-was-the-maunder-minimum-new-perspectives-on-an-old-question
Could volcanic activity be the trigger for a dramatic cooling during this solar minimum, and would that get us to just a ~1900 (solar cycle 12) style cooling, or the more devastating Spörer, Maunder, Dalton cycle. That for me is the big unknown.
At the time it happened the El Chichon eruption was credited with significant cooling, they have since pretended that it did not have a significant impact on climate, although at the time it was widely accepted that it did modify (cool) the climate in the northern hemisphere.
The blizzard of 1982 on Christmas eve which paralyzed the front range of Colorado followed just months after the eruption and dumped snows that drifted to 4 ft in the metro area.
This eruption was also the first major volcanic eruption where scientists documented and recognized how significant sulfur aerosols are to cooling, since it had a similar impact to Mt. Pinatubo but ejected far less material but the sulfur content was higher.
I can’t remember where I read it, but one of the more worrying claims I’ve seen is that, apparently, atmospheric CO2 levels have historically increased slightly towards the end of an interglacial. CO2 levels have recently increased slightly. I hope ihe implication is mere accident …
Yes Larry Ledwick, chiefIO has covered some of this in https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/cold-coincidence-or-volcanic-coordination/
What I find fascinating is the coincidence/coordination of Icelandic volcanic eruption and their propensity to drastically affect the Northern Hemisphere’s weather/climate patterns and trends. Iceland is one of the most volcanic places on the planet with over 160 volcanoes and experiences a major volcanic eruption almost every decade. The close proximity to Europe and the prevailing western winds makes it possible for volcanic ash and gasses to reach the continent.
E.g. In the 10th Century —
The 1783-84 event.
(No doubt our fiend Serioso will again point us to some sophistry and nonsense at skepticalscience·com that masterfully proves black is the new white (again).)
Also of importance:
Iceland is one of two places on the planet where an ocean spreading zone comes on land. (The other is up the Gulf of California through Death Valley…)
IF there is any cyclical change to the ocean spreading process, then volcanic activity in just those places will cycle with it.
Historically there have been volcanoes in Southern California (thus the movie set in L.A. “Volcano” or some such) with the last one being about 9,000 years ago inland. The geothermal site at Salton Sea exploits the same ridge zone heat (and might become a volcano some day) and that same system runs up through Mammoth Lakes (aka Mammoth SuperVolcano…) and on up to Mono Lake. It is WHY Death Valley is below sea level. (Several thousand feet of rubble falling into a trench 7000 or so feet deep, so you can’t see the volcanic split, but the land is now a few hundred feet below sea level as the filling in is a race condition with the splitting).
Then the system does a “jog” out to sea and the spreading zone gets lost in the process. This sprouted the Sutter Buttes volcano about 6 million years ago, keeps The Geysers geothermal plant running north of San Francisco, and has Mount Lassen and Mount Shasta occasionally spouting lava. It may also be why the “basin and range” province ( Nevada, Utah) has spread out into a large flat uplifted area. It isn’t really clear what happens when a spreading zone gets sucked under a continent. We only have the one to look at. Does it just terminate? Or keep doing something?
BUT, the key bit: WHEN the mid ocean ridges kick up their heels, watch SoCal and Iceland… And the bit of Mexico down along the Gulf of California. They still have active volcanoes there ;-)
Flooding and severe weather in Spain,Portugal and France.
We have a huge ocean to cool and water vapor is the working fluid in the spherical heat pipe. So as we cool, of necessity it comes with floods.
Recent flooding also in the UK
Looks like Charleston Carolina also has a bit of wet going on.
Charleston rainfall breaks daily record set in 1941
All that water condensed at the top of the troposphere. All that condensing water dumped heat to space. What is the net effect of dumping all that heat to space: Global Warming or Global Cooling? Think about it….
E M , I have been saying the same thing about the Satellite tropospheric temperatures, they measure the heat leaving, not the temperature where we are on the surface.
Once it is “up there” by whatever means it is gone.
Warming in space? OMG inter-galactic globull-warming!
( Sorry, E.M. jest had a Xmas 2x Scotch.)
Hmmm interesting price signal here – costs of fertilizers are dropping due to over supply. Presumably due to flooding and other issues that kept farmers from applying the usual amounts of fertilizer products over the recent crop year.
Looks like insects are going to add insult to injury in China this year, in addition to cold weather effects and the AFS issue with pork, now army worms likely to hit the corn and other crops hard this coming year.
Yeah, they have had army worm issues all year. Big dent in their corn crop. Big part of why they signed up for the phase one deal… “requiring” them to buy our food….
So they get some minor tarrif relief in exchange for us helping with their food crisis.
China briefly bought Brazilian corn instead of US (then shipped it to the USA to their Smithfield farms which they now own). That caused Adapt2030 to breathlessly report that the USA and Brazil were importing corn, supposedly from crop failures. Really, China spiked Brazillian corn prices by suddenly dropping their USA purchase volume on them instead, so Brazil brought in some Argentine corn to make up for the extra demand. The import to the USA was so China could avoid sourcing USA grain for political reasons. Then they exported the whole hog carcasses to China to help with their pig crisis.
This is a BIG “watch this space” as China tries to fix the AFS swine herd devastation, and learns how to deal with army worms. (One wonders if Monsanto “developed” a new market for their BT Toxin GMO corn via a few stray worms….)
Looks like Alaska is going to have a major cold outbreak this week (even cold for them)
And the beat goes on. Last week was cold and wet. This week warm and not so wet. The wet is coming, though, to be followed by cold. This being the rainy season (lasts through May), wet is the norm. This being winter, being variable is the norm.
Another brisk morning in the mountains here in Colorado, and we still have 3 weeks before coldest weather arrives
Much better down here in the metro area, lows in the mid double digits on the positive side of zero.
On the other hand….
Got some sun in the yard with the dogs today. I’d guess about 70 F. The one remaining good thing about California ;-)
Mid 50’s where you are, or asking about somewhere that’s 50 F? Or the 1950s?
The numbers are in for the 2019 solar cycle.
2019 ended with 281 days without #sunspots. It’s 77% of the year without sunspots. 2019 was the deepest solar minimum of the satellite age and the deepest since 1913.