Mini-Ice Age Coming?

[movieplay]

yea but the fossil fuels industry vs. global warming industry aside, what about the broken models, i mean even your panicked video game developer is rambling on about 'pollution' screwed up my model..like he's desperately grabbing for straws the models showed endless warming but now that warming is crapping out so they were wrong..you post that graph again that once corrected showed climate following solar cycle not really heading in opposite directions and it only goes to 2010 whereas at this point i think the hump is now and that's why your industry is changing over to Climate Change and the erratic weather theory.

Edited September 8, 2015 by movieplay

[up2u2]

yea but the fossil fuels industry vs. global warming industry aside, what about the broken models, i mean even your panicked video game developer is rambling on about 'pollution' screwed up my model..like he's desperately grabbing for straws the models showed endless warming but now that warming is crapping out so they were wrong..you post that graph again that once corrected showed climate following solar cycle not really heading in opposite directions and it only goes to 2010 whereas at this point i think the hump is now and that's why your industry is changing over to Climate Change and the erratic weather theory.

It's just one embarrassing disaster after another for you 'movieplay' now your rambling. What on earth are you talking about?

[thaibeachlovers]

Reduce the population, reduce man's impact- seems simple to me.

Are you offering? Do you have a short list of family members you would like 'reduced' to lessen the impact on the global environment?

Are you saying that I should kill my family?

I haven't had any children and my sister hasn't had any children. My wife hasn't any children. I think I and my family are doing our bit to reduce the population.

Cultures that believe it is OK to have 7 or more children per woman need to be educated that it's not a good thing to do anymore.

So if the world stopped having kids.... What would happen then? A world full of senile geriatrics who can't get their heads round even the most basic science...... Where have I experienced that model? Oh yes! On this thread!

Who's saying NO children? However, below replacement level is necessary if our way of life is to survive. If humans don't do it voluntarily, Gaia will, and millions will die unhappily. We are already seeing the result of overbreeding with the "refugee" farce going on now.

[up2u2]

You post that chart so much it just blends onto the background. But this is not the point when you switched to speak of localized climate change. That came after you denied that solar activity can effect temperature and climate.

Clearly you want the discussion to turn to semantics because you are unwilling to answer clear questions.

Lets face it canuck ALL the science on GW / CC blends onto the background for you. The Article answers your question. The science answers your question. Will small regional conditions or slight changes in Climate effect the overall heating on Earth - Global Warming. Answer No. Will the IPCC include this research in their modelling: Yes. will it make any substantial difference to that modelling NO.

I believe that science, honest science with no agenda will eventually discover the complex relationships between the issues. Of solar activity and climate. You on the other have no answers but your prepared parroted responses. I ask you some clear questions and all you did was deflect and evade.

Not even slightly deflecting I have made it quite clear and have presented scientific evidence that supports my view. Is 'honest science' the science that you think supports your Ice Age view even when it says no such thing? Global Cooling due to Low Solar Radiation Minimums, preposterous.

[up2u2]

Will the IPCC include this research in their modelling: Yes. will it make any substantial difference to that modelling NO.

If it did make a substantial difference would the IPCC change there position and start advocating CO2 production?

Again, in your opinion, and as a percentage, how much of a reduction in CO2 has to be made to reverse, stop or significantly slow MMGW?

There is absolutely NOTHING they can do, anything they try will result in world war 3.

Good grief Charlie Brown!!! I had not thought of that. May have to look at the IPCC recommendation. Hold on, before I settle into some detailed analysis of the IPCC report what actual analysis / research do you have that shows this outcome and why?

[up2u2]

Who's saying NO children? However, below replacement level is necessary if our way of life is to survive. If humans don't do it voluntarily, Gaia will, and millions will die unhappily. We are already seeing the result of overbreeding with the "refugee" farce going on now.

Well there goes the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory. Back to banging rocks together I suppose. You do know that the clap of Thunder is not actually the Mythological Greek God Thor and we do have much better theories of how the Earth and Universe was formed as opposed to given birth to by the mythological Greek Mother Goddess Gaia?

Should we sacrifice a Goat or something to appease the Mother Goddess Gaia?

Give me strength.

Edited September 8, 2015 by up2u2

[kannot]

Will the IPCC include this research in their modelling: Yes. will it make any substantial difference to that modelling NO.

If it did make a substantial difference would the IPCC change there position and start advocating CO2 production?

Again, in your opinion, and as a percentage, how much of a reduction in CO2 has to be made to reverse, stop or significantly slow MMGW?

There is absolutely NOTHING they can do, anything they try will result in world war 3.

Good grief Charlie Brown!!! I had not thought of that. May have to look at the IPCC recommendation. Hold on, before I settle into some detailed analysis of the IPCC report what actual analysis / research do you have that shows this outcome and why?

Human nature, I dont need a report, greed will take care of that.

[up2u2]

There is absolutely NOTHING they can do, anything they try will result in world war 3.

Good grief Charlie Brown!!! I had not thought of that. May have to look at the IPCC recommendation. Hold on, before I settle into some detailed analysis of the IPCC report what actual analysis / research do you have that shows this outcome and why?

Human nature, I dont need a report, greed will take care of that.

Okay so just another thought bubble. So basically your contribution is just to trot out some tired old meaningless clichés.

[kannot]

There is absolutely NOTHING they can do, anything they try will result in world war 3.

Good grief Charlie Brown!!! I had not thought of that. May have to look at the IPCC recommendation. Hold on, before I settle into some detailed analysis of the IPCC report what actual analysis / research do you have that shows this outcome and why?

Human nature, I dont need a report, greed will take care of that.

Okay so just another thought bubble. So basically your contribution is just to trot out some tired old meaningless clichés.

If u like, unfortunately neither you or I will be here in another 100 years when the temps will probably have risen another 0.8c, just like the last century

[puukao]

The hottest year will be : 5028 A.D.

The coldest year will be: 8723

The most snow in Thailand: 9823

The most rain in Thailand: 7230

It's gonna be crazy!!!!!

[up2u2]

Okay so just another thought bubble. So basically your contribution is just to trot out some tired old meaningless clichés.

If u like, unfortunately neither you or I will be here in another 100 years when the temps will probably have risen another 0.8c, just like the last century

Probably best stick with the tired old meaningless clichés kannot. Doesn't look like you know much about the issue of GW / CC.

[movieplay]

Well, I posted a link that, regardless of it's source, the article was from the Financial Times, shows that the ipcc modles based on co2 'net forcing' are failing on post #357 (also notice how i refer back to previous posts without posting the same graphs or video's over and over again) you attacked the source but not the fact that the models are failing. On the video on post#297 your own computer nerd(im assuming your from skepticalscience or similar lobby group as you seem to be 'trained' to argue this issue) seems to be in a panic regarding the 'warming slowdown' at the end he throws up this notion that 'pollution' is creating 'cooling' that sounds really desperate to me. I think this video game developer is learning that the Earth is not something that can simulated with a computer.

You say the models have been reliable, but the only time they were reliable was during a warm pdo index and healthy solar maximums, how easy is it to predict a steady increase when you have those factors behind your model.. now that we are starting to feel the effects of the previous weak solar maximums and a cold pdo (that can shift between cold and hot anytime, breaking any climate model everytime) the models are failing, gee who would have thought.. I didn't see anything about the pdo index on the ss site, which shows that they leave out 'inconvenient truths'

Also you attacked Lawrence Soloman as a 'denier'or 'misinformer' but you stopped short of calling the Scientists at the University of Berne 'Frauds' like you do every other scientist, seems like your 'enemies list' is growing.

Now an increasing number of scientists are swinging back to the thinking of the 1960s and 1970s. The global cooling hypothesis may have been right after all, they say. Earth may be entering a new Little Ice Age......

Scientists at the Climate and Environmental Physics and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Berne in Switzerland back up theories that support the Sun’s importance in determining the climate on Earth. In a paper published this month by the American Meteorological Society, the authors demolish the claims by IPCC scientists that the Sun couldn’t be responsible for major shifts in climate. In a post on her website this month, Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, all-but mocked the IPCC assertions that solar variations don’t matter. Among the many studies and authorities she cited: the National Research Council’s recent report, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” and NASA, former home of global warming guru James Hansen........

As NASA highlighted in a press release in January of this year, in citing the NRC report on solar variations: “There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate.” To bolster the argument that solar activity could explain the Little Ice Age as well as lesser changes, NASA then listed some dozen authorities, including Dan Lubin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, whose research on other sun-like stars in the Milky Way suggest that “the Sun’s influence could be overpowering.”

In the last two years, the scientific community’s openness to examining the role of the Sun in climate change – as opposed to the role of man – has exploded. Scientists are now rediscovering earlier works by scientists at the Danish National Space Center who as early as the 1990s published peer-reviewed articles demonstrating the Sun’s role in climate change. And by scientists at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Pulkovo Observatory, whose predictions in the last decade that global cooling would start in this decade are looking especially prescient.

AND after I posted my *partial* list of recent cold weather extremes and heavy snows, you post a graph that shows that it is getting warmer, upto 2010, but this is 2015 and even your graphs (once corrected) seem to show this precious amount of warming that we have had since 1980 (when the pdo index shifted to warm) to be going over a hump. The partial list again:

* 2014 Polar Vortex hits US for the first time since 1985, where as the one in 1985 only centered on Maine, 2014 was stronger and plowed right thou to the central US.
* 2014 ALL US states below freezing RARE
* 92% ice cover on the great lakes US
* cold records broken in NZ

SNOW RECORDS BROKEN AND HEAVY SNOWS:
(snow fall records are as or more significant than temperature because solar minimums increase cloud seeding.)

* 2014,15 heavy snow in atlanta and houston RARE
* 2015 Cappricotta Italy one day snow record
* 300 year snow record in hokkaido japan
* 2015 snow fall record broke in nova scota
* Hallifax snow 18X higher than normal
* 2015 Boston 270 snow record broke
* Buffalo new york ALLTIME snow record
* PICT Snow in Huntington Beach ca RARE
* 2015 great lake usa ice cover lasting until june, months longer than normal
* 2015 Heavy Snows in Syria & Libya + many other ME countries, very RARE especially so widespread
* Snow last 2 years in vietnam RARE
* Snow in July in Hawaii at 10,000 feet RARE
* Snow in August in Calgary Canada RARE
* Snow in August in SOUTHERN china RARE

At the beginning of the thread you tried to make this 'global warming causes extreme weather' argument, but that was bursted by IPCC Senate hearings, I(AS IN ME) on post #275 then linked to a recent bloomberg article about a new 'study' that is bringing this discredited argument back to life.. To me that shows how this global warming climate change agenda works, even if the average and median temp data starts to go south, you just come up with a new gimick as you phase out the old argument, to this end groups like SS seem to be trailing behind, to me ss seems to have gone from bad science to something that is more of a cult, and that's why there is this extremism, any scientist that disaggrees with the co2 net forcing psudo science is this 'bad' person.. like they can't say "as layman, as hobbyist scientists and environmentalist activists, we strongly disagree with what Dr. PHD with years of experience is saying about co2 not playing a role in climate change." instead they have to call the opposing scientists frauds while they desperately try to intimidate other scientists from speaking out.

ALSO on the skepticalscience page they try to say that cloud seeding due to solar minimums 'is not as much as previously thought' but these record breaking snows are showing that the traditional view was correct. You haven't presented an alternative view as to what is causing these extreme winters and summer snows, only pointing to a graph and then just dismissing it as 'just weather'.

yea but the fossil fuels industry vs. global warming industry aside, what about the broken models, i mean even your panicked video game developer is rambling on about 'pollution' screwed up my model..like he's desperately grabbing for straws the models showed endless warming but now that warming is crapping out so they were wrong..you post that graph again that once corrected showed climate following solar cycle not really heading in opposite directions and it only goes to 2010 whereas at this point i think the hump is now and that's why your industry is changing over to Climate Change and the erratic weather theory.

It's just one embarrassing disaster after another for you 'movieplay' now your rambling. What on earth are you talking about?

[up2u2]

Well, I posted a link that, regardless of it's source, the article was from the Financial Times, shows that the ipcc modles based on co2 'net forcing' are failing on post #357 (also notice how i refer back to previous posts without posting the same graphs or video's over and over again) you attacked the source but not the fact that the models are failing. On the video on post#297 your own computer nerd(im assuming your from skepticalscience or similar lobby group as you seem to be 'trained' to argue this issue) seems to be in a panic regarding the 'warming slowdown' at the end he throws up this notion that 'pollution' is creating 'cooling' that sounds really desperate to me. I think this video game developer is learning that the Earth is not something that can simulated with a computer.

You say the models have been reliable, but the only time they were reliable was during a warm pdo index and healthy solar maximums, how easy is it to predict a steady increase when you have those factors behind your model.. now that we are starting to feel the effects of the previous weak solar maximums and a cold pdo (that can shift between cold and hot anytime, breaking any climate model everytime) the models are failing, gee who would have thought.. I didn't see anything about the pdo index on the ss site, which shows that they leave out 'inconvenient truths'

Well you should have checked your source. Then you would have known the graphic that was used by McKitrik was leaked from the IPCC AR5 Draft Report 1.4. It was a 'placeholder graphic' prior to the detailed and properly baselined AR5 Final Draft. Surface Temperature Anomaly's do not use raw temperature data nor do they have a singular baseline point of 1990. The correct Surface Temperature Anomaly showed 215 Surface Temperature Anomaly modelling with a baseline anomaly taken from the average Surface Temperature between 1961 - 1990.

If you had the first clue on GW you would have picked this graphic up straight away.

Credibility ZERO movieplay.

The scientific literature and graphs are shown over and over again because they demonstrate why you are fundamentally incorrect. They show conclusively why you are wrong.

IPCC Models are absolutely accurate. If anything they underestimate the amount of warming.

[up2u2]

Also you attacked Lawrence Soloman as a 'denier'or 'misinformer' but you stopped short of calling the Scientists at the University of Berne 'Frauds' like you do every other scientist, seems like your 'enemies list' is growing.

Nothing to do with me all to do with the actual science:

Climate Misinformer: Lawrence Solomon:

"The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth."

Cosmic rays show no trend over the last 30 years & have had little impact on recent global warming!!!!!!

The man's a fool.

It is very simple for these Climate Deniers to fool you 'movieplay' becuase you simply do not have even a basic knowledge of the actual science on GW / CC. These people can punk you any second of the day.

[up2u2]

Now an increasing number of scientists are swinging back to the thinking of the 1960s and 1970s. The global cooling hypothesis may have been right after all, they say. Earth may be entering a new Little Ice Age......

Scientists at the Climate and Environmental Physics and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Berne in Switzerland back up theories that support the Sun’s importance in determining the climate on Earth. In a paper published this month by the American Meteorological Society, the authors demolish the claims by IPCC scientists that the Sun couldn’t be responsible for major shifts in climate. In a post on her website this month, Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, all-but mocked the IPCC assertions that solar variations don’t matter. Among the many studies and authorities she cited: the National Research Council’s recent report, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” and NASA, former home of global warming guru James Hansen........

As NASA highlighted in a press release in January of this year, in citing the NRC report on solar variations: “There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate.” To bolster the argument that solar activity could explain the Little Ice Age as well as lesser changes, NASA then listed some dozen authorities, including Dan Lubin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, whose research on other sun-like stars in the Milky Way suggest that “the Sun’s influence could be overpowering.”

In the last two years, the scientific community’s openness to examining the role of the Sun in climate change – as opposed to the role of man – has exploded. Scientists are now rediscovering earlier works by scientists at the Danish National Space Center who as early as the 1990s published peer-reviewed articles demonstrating the Sun’s role in climate change. And by scientists at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Pulkovo Observatory, whose predictions in the last decade that global cooling would start in this decade are looking especially prescient.

lmao Judith Curry All rubbish 'movieplay' All debunked in it's entirety. May as well quote Mickey Mouse if you are going to pay the slightest attention to Judith Curry. She runs a Climate Denier bloggsite. Nothing to do with science.

[up2u2]

The partial list again:

* 2014 Polar Vortex hits US for the first time since 1985, where as the one in 1985 only centered on Maine, 2014 was stronger and plowed right thou to the central US.

* 2014 ALL US states below freezing RARE

* 92% ice cover on the great lakes US

* cold records broken in NZ

SNOW RECORDS BROKEN AND HEAVY SNOWS:

(snow fall records are as or more significant than temperature because solar minimums increase cloud seeding.)

* 2014,15 heavy snow in atlanta and houston RARE

* 2015 Cappricotta Italy one day snow record

* 300 year snow record in hokkaido japan

* 2015 snow fall record broke in nova scota

* Hallifax snow 18X higher than normal

* 2015 Boston 270 snow record broke

* Buffalo new york ALLTIME snow record

* PICT Snow in Huntington Beach ca RARE

* 2015 great lake usa ice cover lasting until june, months longer than normal

* 2015 Heavy Snows in Syria & Libya + many other ME countries, very RARE especially so widespread

* Snow last 2 years in vietnam RARE

* Snow in July in Hawaii at 10,000 feet RARE

* Snow in August in Calgary Canada RARE

* Snow in August in SOUTHERN china RARE

Oh lord back to the list of where it snowed on Earth. Now list all the heat events and average out the mean homogenised temperatures then calculate the Surface Temperature Anomaly you will find it looks very much like this:

It is going UP not down

[up2u2]

At the beginning of the thread you tried to make this 'global warming causes extreme weather' argument, but that was bursted by IPCC Senate hearings, I(AS IN ME) on post #275 then linked to a recent bloomberg article about a new 'study' that is bringing this discredited argument back to life.. To me that shows how this global warming climate change agenda works, even if the average and median temp data starts to go south, you just come up with a new gimick as you phase out the old argument, to this end groups like SS seem to be trailing behind, to me ss seems to have gone from bad science to something that is more of a cult, and that's why there is this extremism, any scientist that disaggrees with the co2 net forcing psudo science is this 'bad' person.. like they can't say "as layman, as hobbyist scientists and environmentalist activists, we strongly disagree with what Dr. PHD with years of experience is saying about co2 not playing a role in climate change." instead they have to call the opposing scientists frauds while they desperately try to intimidate other scientists from speaking out.

Senate Hearings? lmao I've never seen a room full of so many people who have absolutely no knowledge on GW / CC anywhere. If I want to get an understanding of GW / CC the US Senate Hearings is the very LAST place I would go. These are the same fools who throw snowballs around the Congress. Not a clue to the very last one of them. They should listen to Climate Deniers but they should realise they are not involved in Science they are just Climate Denier bloggers. Like Judith Curry. She does not publish peer reviewed scientific Papers she is a Climate Denier blogger.

[movieplay]

and we're ending with another graph that goes to 2010, so we'll just see what the future holds, I take charts and corrected charts with a grain of salt as i can see so many people flipping charts, the ipcc especially since it is a UN body dedicated to receiving largess and has faced acrimony, climategate, etc. W/O getting into all that, they won't be able to bullshit much longer and that's why your seeing the writing on the wall, temps are peaking or have peaked and are on their way down and when that happens there goes lobbyist sites like ss only to be replaced by a new racket (anthropogenic erratic weather). these climatologists change their story as time goes o, like when Gore predicted in 200x that by 2014.....

[up2u2]

ALSO on the skepticalscience page they try to say that cloud seeding due to solar minimums 'is not as much as previously thought' but these record breaking snows are showing that the traditional view was correct. You haven't presented an alternative view as to what is causing these extreme winters and summer snows, only pointing to a graph and then just dismissing it as 'just weather'.

Have no idea what you are talking about. What 'cloud seeding' due to 'solar minimums'? My BS meter is flickering. lol

Yes Snow = Weather

Show me where a Solar Minimum is linked to the Polar Vortex?

[up2u2]

and we're ending with another graph that goes to 2010, so we'll just see what the future holds, I take charts and corrected charts with a grain of salt as i can see so many people flipping charts, the ipcc especially since it is a UN body dedicated to receiving largess and has faced acrimony, climategate, etc. W/O getting into all that, they won't be able to bullshit much longer and that's why your seeing the writing on the wall, temps are peaking or have peaked and are on their way down and when that happens there goes lobbyist sites like ss only to be replaced by a new racket (anthropogenic erratic weather). these climatologists change their story as time goes o, like when Gore predicted in 200x that by 2014.....

Climategate

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[17]

Next

This is all pretty old Climate Denier drivel 'movieplayer' got anything I can really get my teeth into?

[up2u2]

but you stopped short of calling the Scientists at the University of Berne 'Frauds' like you do every other scientist, seems like your 'enemies list' is growing.

ABSOLUTELY!! I would stop VERY well short of referring to scientists at the University of Bern (correct spelling by the way) in Switzerland as frauds:

Thomas Stocker of the University of Bern in Switzerland summed up the new assessment of climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Stocker was one of the report's co-chairs.

"Human influence on the climate system is clear."

It is just one embarrassing mistake after another for you 'movieplayer'. You cuddle up to Climate Denier blogger Judith Curry and you will look like a goose every time. I'll stick with the guys like Thomas Stocker who actually oversee actual peer reviewed scientific literature.

Edited September 9, 2015 by up2u2

[up2u2]

and we're ending with another graph that goes to 2010,

'movieplayer put your glasses on NASA/GISS graph is currently plotting 2015

Currently it is on track to break the hottest year in recorded history and that includes the snow and ice list you continually throw up.

[kannot]

Okay so just another thought bubble. So basically your contribution is just to trot out some tired old meaningless clichés.

If u like, unfortunately neither you or I will be here in another 100 years when the temps will probably have risen another 0.8c, just like the last century

Probably best stick with the tired old meaningless clichés kannot. Doesn't look like you know much about the issue of GW / CC.

Neither does anyone else from what I see

[movieplay]

yea well I don't have that much confidence in UN 'committees' that say the ipcc doesn't really have an agenda in pushing global warming when their entire budget relies on this racket .. you have no idea what i'm talking about 'cloud seeding' it's on the ss site, that solar minimums allow cosmic rays to reach the earths atmosphere which in turn cause more clouds, the ss site says 'its not as much as previously thought' even though it calls the whole thing a 'myth' the fact that we're having these record snows suggests the traditional view is correct IMO and i wanna remind again we ARE ONLY about 1% into this thing that will go from now to at least 2070..

and another thing about the graphs while you have that one up for the 20th time, forget about the 'right wing' blogger but look at his collection of 70's ice age scare media, particularly the one up front and center that shows this sharp drop in temps between 1940-70, similar to what they displayed in TGGWS film.. BUT now they give us this new graph that shows very little drop like the one your using above, you can never forget, these agencies have an agenda and they control what data and how the data will be presented. but they can't go on bullshitting for much longer and i already see the writing on the wall for even the mean and average temps to start heading south..

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/

lets not forget here that a few years ago EVERYONE was insisting that iraq had WMD, and their were all these security and military professionals that swore to this, and even the democrats that were opposed to the invasion didn't dare speak out against the 'intelligence' or they would be ostracized as naive, instead they would say 'yea they have wmd but lets give the inspectors more time' turned out the whole thing was a sham because there were to many corrupt war profiteers that stood to gain financially if the war went ahead.. so why the hell would it be any different with this? same goal, get the government money, you gotta scare people, a deluge of incriminating data will follow. the only question now is will this scandal blow up in the political establishments face like that did or will they be able to parley this into an 'erratic weather' thing.

[movieplay]

yea well I don't have that much confidence in UN 'committees' that say the ipcc doesn't really have an agenda in pushing global warming when their entire budget relies on this racket .. you have no idea what i'm talking about 'cloud seeding' it's on the ss site, that solar minimums allow cosmic rays to reach the earths atmosphere which in turn cause more clouds, the ss site says 'its not as much as previously thought' even though it calls the whole thing a 'myth' the fact that we're having these record snows suggests the traditional view is correct IMO and i wanna remind again we ARE ONLY about 1% into this thing that will go from now to at least 2070..

and another thing about the graphs while you have that one up for the 20th time, forget about the 'right wing' blogger but look at his collection of 70's ice age scare media, particularly the one up front and center that shows this sharp drop in temps between 1940-70, similar to what they displayed in TGGWS film.. BUT now they give us this new graph that shows very little drop like the one your using above, you can never forget, these agencies have an agenda and they control what data and how the data will be presented. but they can't go on bullshitting for much longer and i already see the writing on the wall for even the mean and average temps to start heading south..

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/

lets not forget here that a few years ago EVERYONE was insisting that iraq had WMD, and their were all these security and military professionals that swore to this, and even the democrats that were opposed to the invasion didn't dare speak out against the 'intelligence' or they would be ostracized as naive, instead they would say 'yea they have wmd but lets give the inspectors more time' turned out the whole thing was a sham because there were to many corrupt war profiteers that stood to gain financially if the war went ahead.. so why the hell would it be any different with this? same goal, get the government money, you gotta scare people, a deluge of incriminating data will follow. the only question now is will this scandal blow up in the political establishments face like that did or will they be able to parley this into an 'erratic weather' thing.

[up2u2]

If u like, unfortunately neither you or I will be here in another 100 years when the temps will probably have risen another 0.8c, just like the last century

Probably best stick with the tired old meaningless clichés kannot. Doesn't look like you know much about the issue of GW / CC.

Neither does anyone else from what I see

Well from your demonstrated lack of knowledge of GW that would be a pretty low bar.

"another 100 years when the temps will probably have risen another 0.8c" isn't within a Bulls Roar of IPCC projections.

Try +5.0^OC (+/- 1.0^OC) to end of this century which is 85 years not 100 years. To be honest I haven't seen anyone get it that far wrong accept for canuck who put his hand up straight away and quickly corrected his accidental typo.

At +6.0^OC GW subterranean Arctic Methane Ice Slurry (Methane Hydrates) would begin to be released. That would be 'game over'.

As you say even though your generation caused the damage you wont be around so not to worry right? I expect GW / CC only really effects people who have a moral and ethical conscience.

[kannot]

you see I read stuff like this and wonder.......... and this is from a pro warming site

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#t2508n1346

"It has been about 10,000 years since the last glacial period ended. All else being equal, another glacial period would be expected to arrive in the next several tens of thousands of years. However, the exact process is not fully understood, so we don’t know exactly when this will occur."

[kannot]

If u like, unfortunately neither you or I will be here in another 100 years when the temps will probably have risen another 0.8c, just like the last century

Probably best stick with the tired old meaningless clichés kannot. Doesn't look like you know much about the issue of GW / CC.

Neither does anyone else from what I see

Well from your demonstrated lack of knowledge of GW that would be a pretty low bar.

"another 100 years when the temps will probably have risen another 0.8c" isn't within a Bulls Roar of IPCC projections.

Try +5.0^OC (+/- 1.0^OC) to end of this century which is 85 years not 100 years. To be honest I haven't seen anyone get it that far wrong accept for canuck who put his hand up straight away and quickly corrected his accidental typo.

At +6.0^OC GW subterranean Arctic Methane Ice Slurry (Methane Hydrates) would begin to be released. That would be 'game over'.

As you say even though your generation caused the damage you wont be around so not to worry right? I expect GW / CC only really effects people who have a moral and ethical conscience.

Alarmist, well done, "my generation eh"

I also dont think "we" are of any significance in the grand scale of things, one day we'll be extinct, nothing wont notice.

Edited September 9, 2015 by kannot

[kannot]

If u like, unfortunately neither you or I will be here in another 100 years when the temps will probably have risen another 0.8c, just like the last century

Probably best stick with the tired old meaningless clichés kannot. Doesn't look like you know much about the issue of GW / CC.

Neither does anyone else from what I see

Well from your demonstrated lack of knowledge of GW that would be a pretty low bar.

"another 100 years when the temps will probably have risen another 0.8c" isn't within a Bulls Roar of IPCC projections.

Try +5.0^OC (+/- 1.0^OC) to end of this century which is 85 years not 100 years. To be honest I haven't seen anyone get it that far wrong accept for canuck who put his hand up straight away and quickly corrected his accidental typo.

At +6.0^OC GW subterranean Arctic Methane Ice Slurry (Methane Hydrates) would begin to be released. That would be 'game over'.

As you say even though your generation caused the damage you wont be around so not to worry right? I expect GW / CC only really effects people who have a moral and ethical conscience.

Should I also worry about meteor strikes as well? I mean its going to happen and no one can predict when, they missed one recently didnt they?

[up2u2]

yea well I don't have that much confidence in UN 'committees' that say the ipcc doesn't really have an agenda in pushing global warming when their entire budget relies on this racket .. you have no idea what i'm talking about 'cloud seeding' it's on the ss site, that solar minimums allow cosmic rays to reach the earths atmosphere which in turn cause more clouds, the ss site says 'its not as much as previously thought' even though it calls the whole thing a 'myth' the fact that we're having these record snows suggests the traditional view is correct IMO and i wanna remind again we ARE ONLY about 1% into this thing that will go from now to at least 2070..

and another thing about the graphs while you have that one up for the 20th time, forget about the 'right wing' blogger but look at his collection of 70's ice age scare media, particularly the one up front and center that shows this sharp drop in temps between 1940-70, similar to what they displayed in TGGWS film.. BUT now they give us this new graph that shows very little drop like the one your using above, you can never forget, these agencies have an agenda and they control what data and how the data will be presented. but they can't go on bullshitting for much longer and i already see the writing on the wall for even the mean and average temps to start heading south..

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/

lets not forget here that a few years ago EVERYONE was insisting that iraq had WMD, and their were all these security and military professionals that swore to this, and even the democrats that were opposed to the invasion didn't dare speak out against the 'intelligence' or they would be ostracized as naive, instead they would say 'yea they have wmd but lets give the inspectors more time' turned out the whole thing was a sham because there were to many corrupt war profiteers that stood to gain financially if the war went ahead.. so why the hell would it be any different with this? same goal, get the government money, you gotta scare people, a deluge of incriminating data will follow. the only question now is will this scandal blow up in the political establishments face like that did or will they be able to parley this into an 'erratic weather' thing.

Could you give me a link to Steven Goddard's published peer reviewed scientific research and the Scientific Journal it was published in.

Goddard et al (20XX) and the Scientific Journal

I would be interested in reading it.