Talk:Global cooling

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global cooling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051123101326/http://www.bbm.me.uk/portsdown/PH_061_History_a.htm to http://www.bbm.me.uk/portsdown/PH_061_History_a.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope13/foreword.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope27/preface.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Mini-Ice age

The report on the "mini-ice age" prediction has been deleted because it is garbage:

1. In the original paper [1], the author does not make predictions on Earth weather, but on sunspots.
2. Sunspots themselves, in terms of the magnitude of their radiant-energy deficit, have a weak effect on terrestrial climate.[2]
3. The reporter from ScienceDaily indulged in fantasy and POV when writing about an impending mini-ice age, completely unsupported by the research paper.

-BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

cross reference to Quaternary_glaciation#Next_glacial_period

The disproportionate coverage in the 1970s isn't well-explained at Quaternary_glaciation#Next_glacial_period. Eds here may want to look at that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Conjecture?

I just want to say that global cooling IS backed with evidence. (Sources: https://charleseisenstein.org/essays/why-i-am-afraid-of-global-cooling/ and http://notrickszone.com/2018/07/07/against-the-forecasts-sea-ice-grows-surface-temperatures-fall-troposphere-cools-polar-regions-stable/ ) You can even see it is happening now (ice caps are growing, polar vortexes, NH surface temperatures are dropping exponentially, ect) even during the 1970's Chris Roe234 (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

At first I just wanted to reply "what planet are you posting from?" but then caught myself.

Charles Eisenstein is a layman. His site is not a reliable source on climatology. He should try to get his stuff published in a peer-reviewed journal first. Then he has to convince the scientific community that he has a point (not even that he is right), and then we can quote him. So, please be patient until that happens. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree that's a nonRS source. Moroever, this article is not about the scientific workings of the climate system. Nor is it about the climate system's internal cooling feedbacks or cooling examples of external forcings. Those are covered in Climate change, Climate change feedback among other places. This article is about the attention in the public eye given to the minority side a scientific discussion that had its public crescendo in about the 1970s. It's about the public talking about one side of scientific discourse. If you want the science itself, see our main articles on Climate change and the various sub articles NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

What was 100% put forward as science is retconned into "conjecture" by those who support the current era's assertions on climate science. Should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:141A:E537:1998:1855:2E27:E309 (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The science. Since this is a talk page I will mention sources, but not exact references:

Source is, of course, scientists: Dr Drew Schindell, Duke University, formerly head of global climatic modeling, NASA Goddard.

"polar vortexes..." Whom ever wrote these words knows *nothing* about the climatology, modeling, theorizing or measuring of that particular polar phenomenon. It was suspected by Shindell et al, that the stability of polar vortexes contributed to the destruction of ozone, and later proved and verified by scientists in Europe. Just to further the discussion, Dr Shindell found that the stability of the polar vortex, the temps dropped, and ozone was destroyed faster. The temps at 23,000 feet are not the surface temps, but about 4.5 miles. The correlation is left as the work of PhDs and serious scientists, not a few mis-quoting cherry picking theorists.

i.e. NewsAndEventsGuy is just reporting on the current state of the art, not speculating on pseudo-science.

and just to pour salt in the wound...shall I google that for you? 170.75.140.124 (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop removing claims by the Boston Globe and the Guardian that an ice was was coming

I added the following content to the "1970s awareness" section:

On April 16, 1970, the Boston Globe published an article titled, "Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century."

On January 29, 1974, the Guardian published an article titled, "Space satellites show new ice age coming fast."

User:William M. Connolley removed the content and commented, "this isn't supposed to be a laundry-list of things." I think this content is relevant to the article. What do others here think? Walessoups (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

References

I agree with User:William M. Connolley, we already have a few examples illustrating the few press reports speculating about cooling. Adding a couple more doesn't really add anything to what is already there. --McSly (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with WMC also. The goal is to describe the gist and import of what happened, not to provide a bibliography nor index of every example NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh look! Those cites aren't to the named news organisations, they're to cei.org – now what interest does the Competitive Enterprise Institute have in this? How would a libertarian think tank known for climate change denial want to skew this topic? Just wondering, tho think WMC et al. have it about right. . . . dave souza, talk 20:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Is article title sufficiently specific?

When I Google or Google scholar this term, I get a lot of results of real global cooling that took place in Earth's history. As such, I wonder if the title is sufficiently precise. Any objections to me opening a RM to have this renamed global cooling hypothesis or global cooling conjecture? First one has slightly more google hits. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

That there is some (not that much) confusion on Wikipedia as well, can be judged by wrong links to this article from Year Without A Summer, Piculet, Winter (?) and Dinosaurs (TV Series).. With global cooling being mostly linked via template, I cannot put a percentage on it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Support either suggested more precise title NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, FFS William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for latest TTC NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)