Mini-Ice Age Coming?

[movieplay]

I dont know where the he's getting that 40,000 year figure, never heard of that see this film at about 35seconds, that's always the cycle we were taught in geology 101.. this film is one of the 'ice age scare' that was all over the media in the 70s and 80's, notice the culprit was the same and we were supposed to be all frozen by now.. we're at the end of a 10,000 year interglacial, also see my temp chart on page 1. The fear of sudden glacial, only 20years, younger dryas.. dennis quaid movie took it to 2 weeks..

Edited August 27, 2015 by movieplay

[steven100]

So should I start building my ultra modern fully insulated home in Thailand now ?

[movieplay]

no it always be hot here

[NomadJoe]

Im off to burn some more fossil fuels to cancel out this ice age, I dont believe mans impact on global warming is anything more than hot air coming out of politicians and some scientists <deleted>

Hmm..Your position on climate change can not be reconciled with your avatar.

[NomadJoe]

Climate change is normal. Even Mars is warming. Politicians who use their power to tell you otherwise (ahem..Al Gore..Obama) are fear mongering profiteers. Google it. Al Gore created hysteria and owns a carbon credit company and his wealth is soaring to the tune of $200,000,000-$300,000,000. Thats the same as me lighting your house on fire and then selling you a fire extinguisher. This is a not get rich quick scheme. It's a get SUPER rich quick scheme. Get informed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sFy5iuqDao

[NomadJoe]

I remember some greedy businessman, named Al Gore, spreading an "Inconvenient Lie"... over a decade ago. Will he be held responsible? Will he ever be questioned about the 20 or so air-conditioning units in his luxurious villa??? No, because the majority of us humans are stupid, lazy and ignorant sheeple who won't deserve better than being lied at. We basically beg all those opportunist f__ks to lie to us, we love it!

I think if you use the word "sheeple" in a forum debate, you automatically lose that debate. I think it's a sub section of Godwins law.

Well anyway, here's some more "lies": The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations ofgreenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Sorry MJ, the debate is actually over.

[NomadJoe]

I dont know where the he's getting that 40,000 year figure, never heard of that see this film at about 35seconds, that's always the cycle we were taught in geology 101.. this film is one of the 'ice age scare' that was all over the media in the 70s and 80's, notice the culprit was the same and we were supposed to be all frozen by now.. we're at the end of a 10,000 year interglacial, also see my temp chart on page 1. The fear of sudden glacial, only 20years, younger dryas.. dennis quaid movie took it to 2 weeks..

Yeah this is used a lot by climate change deniers. I don't think there was anywhere near a consensus on this theory. The narrator uses the very ambiguous term "some scientists..." Here is a popular meme for them:

[movieplay]

The video I posted of the Senate hearings PROVES there is no 'scientific consensus' on man made global warming.. half of them are saying global cooling now or just 'climate change'

thats what the guy above says now it's 'climate change deniers' oh i see 'climate change' ..apparently there are people who deny that the climate changes, he doesn't even say man made climate change, just 'climate change'

Edited August 27, 2015 by movieplay

[opalred]

i have been thinking about buying a new frezzer but will wait now save money

[canuckamuck]

It will be ironic when people start to consider CO2 as green. When people wish we had made more of this beneficial gas while we still had the chance . Perhaps there will be government incentives to produce more CO2.

[up2u2]

So if scientists don't agree with your agenda, their idiots, even when their briefing the senate from the ipcc. They clearly contradict what you said about these extreme weather events becoming worse and more often and it was presented as a mainstream view.. their are alot and an increasing number of scientists that have fell off the man made global warming bandwagon as it gets colder, and in fact the mainstream rarely uses the word global warming now, now it's always 'climate change', and their are scientists that have their own set of charts and data that show cooling since after 2000, like this researcher:

but no need to go into all that, I don't care about averages or means 1' hotter here, 1' colder there .. fact is we're seeing these cold events just about the time you would expect to see more cold after 2 below average solarcycles, and then your suddenly saying itwas the manmade global warming that did it? why didn't it do it 10 years ago when the global warming industry was telling us man made warming was out of control? The getting hotter so its getting colder thing just happens to take place exactly when we expect to start seeing the cooling effects of the solar minimums.

Saying we're not going to have these cold events as we get deeper into this era of solar minimums is illogical because then your saying that because we polluted the air with co2 (which is bad?) we actually 'tamed' the environment with this minor greenhouse gas, that's ridiculous, it's absurd to think that man can control the environment.

Roy Spencer is no longer involved in science or scientific research.

The video is cherry picking various t arrive at incorrect conclusions.

It snowed in Antarctica today. It has no effect on GLOBAL Warming. Solar activity has been decreasing yet the planet is warming. There is absolutely no evidence that earth is moving into a Ice Age. The Earth is not getting colder it is getting hotter.

[kannot]

So if we quit using plastic bags we'll be okay, correct?

of course and if not we can just tie them tightly round our heads, thatll stop global warming on a personal level

[movieplay]

up2u2, I referred to the other guys testimony before the Senate, not roy spencers, RS was just sitting there, but whatever i guess you dont like RS.. there are enough 'graphs' to go around, im not gonna post the 50 graphs that show global cooling, there are enough of these professors with their cooling graphs.. I'm not a scientist so i'm not going to throw up graphs from the noaa and analyze them, there are enough scientists with phds on you tube to do graph analysis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqVE-uiHs7w

and then there's the adapt2030 youtube channel (i posted yesterday) where these guys constantly put out data showing cooling, record breaking lows, etc. I don't wanna get into that endless debate on whether it's getting a little cooler by 1' here and hotter by 1.5' here, the 'hockey stick' graphs have been called out as misleading and exaggerated, etc. In that video Dr. Easterbrook talks about how these ipcc predictions of radical warming turned out to be way off.. and scientists do not know how, why, or when the PDO index shifts between cold and hot, the whole reason there was this ice age scare in the 70's and 80's was because it had been blowing cold since 1940 and decade after decade it seemed to be getting colder, then it shifted to warm and by the 90's it was global warming and now it's climate change or 'erratic extreme' weather conditions..

If scientists still don't know how or when the PDO shifts and many other aspects of nature, how do they create these computerized climate models? They create them very inaccurately, that's how. and another thing is you guys always call the scientists that don't agree with the global warming industry position a 'fraud' or an 'idiot' etc. or you accuse them of working for the fossil fuels industry.

but all that aside, the point I'm making in this thread that even if man made global warming exists and that it's not superficial (eg: heat islands), IT'S NOT going to stop these increasingly cold winter conditions like that 2014 polar vortex, these things will continue and as we get closer to 2030 and into 2030-2060 and then a decade after that, these very cold conditions will persist and we'll have the same conditions that existed during the last MIA, frozen rivers, increased food prices due to crop failures, snow and frozen waters in texas and florida and even a frozen north sea(europe) Natural climate change cannot be stopped by some co2 pollution. and i keep saying this: the position of the 'warmists' seems to be that co2 is 'bad' but it has 'tamed' the environment so we don't have to worry about these cold anomaly's, but it's 'bad'-ridiculous.

btw I don't like air pollution my self, I prefer less co2 emission from a conservation point of view, i even have an e85 car! (the govt here subsidizes it tx to the global warming industry so i get cheap gas if i use it.) and you can see what the guys on this thread are saying "oh lets go out and pollute so we don't have an ice age" This silly perspective was discussed in the 70's, polluting to to prevent the ice age.. they talk about it in the TGGWS film:

Edited August 28, 2015 by movieplay

[mogandave]

I assume the Earth could well be warming (or cooling) and that we could well be contributing (or not contributing) to the change.

What I don't get is all the (seeming) idiocy regarding what we can do about it.

It's a band-aid on lung-cancer.

The only thing that could make a significant dent is atomic energy, and it seems the same people concerned about climate-change are against nuclear power.

Who is ready to give up vehicular transportation and electricity? I am not.

[movieplay]

Exactly, check out this vid where JS puts up the numbers on just how much the us(and other countries arnt that much different) continues to use fossil fuels..and now they've taken nuclear power away, the one co2 less energy source that actually worked.

[up2u2]

up2u2, I referred to the other guys testimony before the Senate, not roy spencers, RS was just sitting there, but whatever i guess you dont like RS.. there are enough 'graphs' to go around, im not gonna post the 50 graphs that show global cooling, there are enough of these professors with their cooling graphs.. I'm not a scientist so i'm not going to throw up graphs from the noaa and analyze them, there are enough scientists with phds on you tube to do graph analysis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqVE-uiHs7w

and then there's the adapt2030 youtube channel (i posted yesterday) where these guys constantly put out data showing cooling, record breaking lows, etc. I don't wanna get into that endless debate on whether it's getting a little cooler by 1' here and hotter by 1.5' here, the 'hockey stick' graphs have been called out as misleading and exaggerated, etc. In that video Dr. Easterbrook talks about how these ipcc predictions of radical warming turned out to be way off.. and scientists do not know how, why, or when the PDO index shifts between cold and hot, the whole reason there was this ice age scare in the 70's and 80's was because it had been blowing cold since 1940 and decade after decade it seemed to be getting colder, then it shifted to warm and by the 90's it was global warming and now it's climate change or 'erratic extreme' weather conditions..

If scientists still don't know how or when the PDO shifts and many other aspects of nature, how do they create these computerized climate models? They create them very inaccurately, that's how. and another thing is you guys always call the scientists that don't agree with the global warming industry position a 'fraud' or an 'idiot' etc. or you accuse them of working for the fossil fuels industry.

but all that aside, the point I'm making in this thread that even if man made global warming exists and that it's not superficial (eg: heat islands), IT'S NOT going to stop these increasingly cold winter conditions like that 2014 polar vortex, these things will continue and as we get closer to 2030 and into 2030-2060 and then a decade after that, these very cold conditions will persist and we'll have the same conditions that existed during the last MIA, frozen rivers, increased food prices due to crop failures, snow and frozen waters in texas and florida and even a frozen north sea(europe) Natural climate change cannot be stopped by some co2 pollution. and i keep saying this: the position of the 'warmists' seems to be that co2 is 'bad' but it has 'tamed' the environment so we don't have to worry about these cold anomaly's, but it's 'bad'-ridiculous.

btw I don't like air pollution my self, I prefer less co2 emission from a conservation point of view, i even have an e85 car! (the govt here subsidizes it tx to the global warming industry so i get cheap gas if i use it.) and you can see what the guys on this thread are saying "oh lets go out and pollute so we don't have an ice age" This silly perspective was discussed in the 70's, polluting to to prevent the ice age.. they talk about it in the TGGWS film:

Do I use the US Senate Committee on Climate Change to form my view on GW / CC. Very short answer: NO! It would be like deferring to Fox News to form a balanced understanding of US politics. You would have to be out of your mind.

NASA / Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NAOO) National Climatic Data Center , UK Met Office / Hadcrut4 data sets and analysis, Japanese Meteorological Society and Berkeley Earth.

You are welcome to post as many graphs you like showing Global Cooling. Here is NASA / GISS up to date Land Ocean Surface Temperature Anomaly:

There is also a brilliant 'visualisation' of Global Temperatures on the link.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

What Dr. Easterbrook needs to do and it is very simple is to submit his research and data as to where errors in an IPCC report have occurred and the Committee responds and will make corrections if substantiated. In IPCC (AR4) - Working Group Two - there was in fact an error on page 938 that was found in the draft report. Fortunately it was picked up quickly and did not appear in the Final Report it included a projection that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

That caused a bit of a stir at the time. Climate Deniers lost their minds lol.

Mann is currently taking legal action on the 'Hockey Stick' controversy.

"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

The 70's Ice Age discussion:

A little 'froth and bubble' I wouldn't pay any attention to it.

You are under the misapprehension that if it snows somewhere on Earth then we are heading for an Ice Age / Glaciation there is NO scientific body that is forecasting such an event. Not even the Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University presented results for a new model of the Sun's interior dynamo in a talk at the Astronomical Society that your OP refers agrees with that view.

[mogandave]

up2u2, I referred to the other guys testimony before the Senate, not roy spencers, RS was just sitting there, but whatever i guess you dont like RS.. there are enough 'graphs' to go around, im not gonna post the 50 graphs that show global cooling, there are enough of these professors with their cooling graphs.. I'm not a scientist so i'm not going to throw up graphs from the noaa and analyze them, there are enough scientists with phds on you tube to do graph analysis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqVE-uiHs7w

and then there's the adapt2030 youtube channel (i posted yesterday) where these guys constantly put out data showing cooling, record breaking lows, etc. I don't wanna get into that endless debate on whether it's getting a little cooler by 1' here and hotter by 1.5' here, the 'hockey stick' graphs have been called out as misleading and exaggerated, etc. In that video Dr. Easterbrook talks about how these ipcc predictions of radical warming turned out to be way off.. and scientists do not know how, why, or when the PDO index shifts between cold and hot, the whole reason there was this ice age scare in the 70's and 80's was because it had been blowing cold since 1940 and decade after decade it seemed to be getting colder, then it shifted to warm and by the 90's it was global warming and now it's climate change or 'erratic extreme' weather conditions..

If scientists still don't know how or when the PDO shifts and many other aspects of nature, how do they create these computerized climate models? They create them very inaccurately, that's how. and another thing is you guys always call the scientists that don't agree with the global warming industry position a 'fraud' or an 'idiot' etc. or you accuse them of working for the fossil fuels industry.

but all that aside, the point I'm making in this thread that even if man made global warming exists and that it's not superficial (eg: heat islands), IT'S NOT going to stop these increasingly cold winter conditions like that 2014 polar vortex, these things will continue and as we get closer to 2030 and into 2030-2060 and then a decade after that, these very cold conditions will persist and we'll have the same conditions that existed during the last MIA, frozen rivers, increased food prices due to crop failures, snow and frozen waters in texas and florida and even a frozen north sea(europe) Natural climate change cannot be stopped by some co2 pollution. and i keep saying this: the position of the 'warmists' seems to be that co2 is 'bad' but it has 'tamed' the environment so we don't have to worry about these cold anomaly's, but it's 'bad'-ridiculous.

btw I don't like air pollution my self, I prefer less co2 emission from a conservation point of view, i even have an e85 car! (the govt here subsidizes it tx to the global warming industry so i get cheap gas if i use it.) and you can see what the guys on this thread are saying "oh lets go out and pollute so we don't have an ice age" This silly perspective was discussed in the 70's, polluting to to prevent the ice age.. they talk about it in the TGGWS film:

Do I use the US Senate Committee on Climate Change to form my view on GW / CC. Very short answer: NO! It would be like deferring to Fox News to form a balanced understanding of US politics. You would have to be out of your mind.

NASA / Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NAOO) National Climatic Data Center , UK Met Office / Hadcrut4 data sets and analysis, Japanese Meteorological Society and Berkeley Earth.

You are welcome to post as many graphs you like showing Global Cooling. Here is NASA / GISS up to date Land Ocean Surface Temperature Anomaly:

A_A_GISSTemp.jpg

There is also a brilliant 'visualisation' of Global Temperatures on the link.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

What Dr. Easterbrook needs to do and it is very simple is to submit his research and data as to where errors in an IPCC report have occurred and the Committee responds and will make corrections if substantiated. In IPCC (AR4) - Working Group Two - there was in fact an error on page 938 that was found in the draft report. Fortunately it was picked up quickly and did not appear in the Final Report it included a projection that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

That caused a bit of a stir at the time. Climate Deniers lost their minds lol.

Mann is currently taking legal action on the 'Hockey Stick' controversy.

"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

The 70's Ice Age discussion:

A_A_70sIceAge.jpg

A little 'froth and bubble' I wouldn't pay any attention to it.

You are under the misapprehension that if it snows somewhere on Earth then we are heading for an Ice Age / Glaciation there is NO scientific body that is forecasting such an event. Not even the Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University presented results for a new model of the Sun's interior dynamo in a talk at the Astronomical Society that your OP refers agrees with that view.

So assuming global warming is real, and that man is causing it, what can be done to reverse or significantly slow the rate of increase?

[ausbeat999]

We have been fed lies throughout history, if you want the truth look up the prehistory of the world and make up your mind from there, there are cycles and events that are not discussed in main stream media or main stream academics.

[up2u2]

So assuming global warming is real, and that man is causing it, what can be done to reverse or significantly slow the rate of increase?

It is to late to reverse GW / CC. Only 3% of GW heat enters the Earth's atmosphere the other 97% goes into the Oceans. That is why we are seeing rising sea levels and oceans becoming more acidic / less alkaline. It will take many tens of thousands of years for that heat to dissipate.

To address that question you have to turn to the Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The natural background level of atmospheric CO₂ is estimated at 300ppm. Currently Earth just passed 400ppm CO₂ concentration. To be exact 400.84ppm as at July 2015. The thinking is if Globally the level of CO₂ can be reduced to say around 350ppm that would hopefully keep Global temperature increase to 2^OC over the next 30-50 years. Currently the temperature increase is at +0.68^OC as at January 2015.The disruption to Climates and extreme weather events, sea level rises and ocean acidification should be manageable.

A slow and gradual transition from Fossil Fuels to clean energy. Wind, Solar, Wave, Nuclear are currently all part of the mix to effect that transition. The sooner you start the slower that transition can be developed over the next 30 years.

In a couple of months will be the Paris Conference where countries will lock in their targets to hopefully meet the required reduction of CO₂ to limit the temperature increase to 2^OC. Nothing will happen there. The Climate Denier blogasphere funded by the fossil fuel industries still control the debate at the moment and I don't see that changing. They will ramp up soon to destabilise the Paris Conference and ensure nothing is done. The current generation is bogged down in misinformation the next generation may act but it may be too late.

Unfortunately you get 'tipping points'. Currently East Antarctica is past the point of no return. The Glaciers are collapsing. First modelling estimated 300 years but recent data is projecting 100 years. That is currently being mapped every 3 days by NASA's new SMAP satellite launched in March I think, so hopefully it will come back with some better data and lift that 100 years up. A lot of cities are in the firing line on that one. Including Beach Road. It will e relocated to Sukhumvit lol.

[mogandave]

The only viable alternative energy at this point is nuclear, and again, the same people up in arms about GW/CC will not stand for nuclear power.

Wind and solar can fill small niches here and there, but they are mostly just lining the pockets of politically well connected companies at the expense of the tax payer.

[up2u2]

The only viable alternative energy at this point is nuclear, and again, the same people up in arms about GW/CC will not stand for nuclear power.

Wind and solar can fill small niches here and there, but they are mostly just lining the pockets of politically well connected companies at the expense of the tax payer.

I don't agree with that. You are aligning a small minority of hard line environmentalists with the vast majority of open minded environmentalists, green movement and people who share a concern of GW / CC that perfectly understand a balance should always be the sensible starting point.

There seems to be a misapprehension that coal fired power stations and electricity grids just instantaneously sprung up out of the ether. It took decades of research and trillions upon trillions of dollars in taxpayer funding to develop and build them. There isn't a coal mine on the planet that isn't taxpayer funded and subsidised to attract the investment and jobs. I know of one coal mine that will pay no royalties in the first years of operation and tax incentives including a purpose built rail track from mine to Port in the billions of dollars taxpayer funded no contribution from the private consortium.

At present Norway in one day produced 140% of their power requirements and was shipping over capacity of wind power to neighbouring countries. Pretty big 'niche market'. Battery storage is just a matter of investment and research. Crack that nut and it's game on. The start up phase of new technologies cost a bomb but once in place tick over relatively inexpensively.

[mogandave]

The only viable alternative energy at this point is nuclear, and again, the same people up in arms about GW/CC will not stand for nuclear power.

Wind and solar can fill small niches here and there, but they are mostly just lining the pockets of politically well connected companies at the expense of the tax payer.

I don't agree with that. You are aligning a small minority of hard line environmentalists with the vast majority of open minded environmentalists, green movement and people who share a concern of GW / CC that perfectly understand a balance should always be the sensible starting point.

There seems to be a misapprehension that coal fired power stations and electricity grids just instantaneously sprung up out of the ether. It took decades of research and trillions upon trillions of dollars in taxpayer funding to develop and build them. There isn't a coal mine on the planet that isn't taxpayer funded and subsidised to attract the investment and jobs. I know of one coal mine that will pay no royalties in the first years of operation and tax incentives including a purpose built rail track from mine to Port in the billions of dollars taxpayer funded no contribution from the private consortium.

At present Norway in one day produced 140% of their power requirements and was shipping over capacity of wind power to neighbouring countries. Pretty big 'niche market'. Battery storage is just a matter of investment and research. Crack that nut and it's game on. The start up phase of new technologies cost a bomb but once in place tick over relatively inexpensively.

How many air conditioners did they have running?

Without a significant breakthrough in super-conductor technology we're stuck with conventional energy.

If solar were truly viable, there'd be panels on virtually every roof in the world.

What coal mine are you talking about?

[thaibeachlovers]

I look forward to all the GW pundits being embarrased.

[canuckamuck]

I was thinking it is about time people started to get some lawsuits started over the massive misuse of tax dollars in foolish and misguided attempts to control the climate

[movieplay]

Lemme get a rundown of where we are..

First you posted on the thread a common distortion put forward by many 'warming' pundits that I had already pointed out in the OP (that the MIA occurred before the MM, ignoring the SM that occurred before that!) but you used a different source for the distortion, when I responded again that this is misleading, you posted the same distortion again, from the same source, when I responded to it for the 3rd time, you posted "well ok I'll throw in the Sporer Minimum."

...

Then you wrote this:

Global Warming = Climate Change = Extreme Weather Events including but not limited to Unprecedented Flooding, Record breaking Snow and Ice, record breaking Heat Waves, Super Hurricanes, Super record 1000 year droughts. As the Earth warms these weather events will become more extreme.

So I responded with IPCC Senate testimony that clearly calls this out as bullshit, it is NOT the position of the IPCC or '97% of scientists' that anything like this is going on, there has been NO increase in these extreme weather events due to human created global warming. There has been NO recent increase in extreme weather events compared to earlier times. NOW your saying that IPCC Senate testimony is the "same thing as fox news" But it appears you have 'thrown' that one in as well.. so the question is again open-What is causing the increasing cold if its not the solar minimums? The its getting colder because its getting hotter line is dead on this thread..

Now you have put up another graph that shows a warming of less than 1' in the time frame from 1880-2010.. even though 2 other TVrs have already posted about how this is not an unusual or significant amount in such a long period of time, bt this is 2015 and you only have to watch the adapt2030 youtube channel to see the increasing cold and more graphs.. and of course it's now that we are starting to get the colder winters, just about the time you would expect sun cycle 23,and 24 which were both below average, to be registering here on earth..

I didn't say we're heading into a glaciation, I said we are in the beginning stages of a mini-ice age, the last time we had solar minimums and volcanoes it was the MIA, these same conditions will create the same MIA, co2 pollution is NOT going to prevent the onset of colder winters due to the solar minimums.

Also I DID post a graph (see post#5) that shows 2 things 1. it was hotter previously in the current interglacial period, considerably hotter, AND this graph illustrates how we are at the END of the current 10,000 year inter-glacial, which means from here on end it gets COLDER, not warmer, you can see what it was like more than 10,000 years ago and where we are headed, so the 'warming fear' is totally illogical, if anything there should be a fear of cooling like what that film from the 1980s talks about.. but then you said something about an ice age in '40,000 years' i don't know what that is and you didn't explain it.

Also if you say no scientific body is predicting a 'Mini-Ice Age' MIA is a vague term, it was used in historical retrospect to describe a time when frozen rivers and other extreme cold events were happening much more often.. These 'bodys' are NOT GUARANTEEING that we will not be having unusually cold winters and cold weather events as we have already had 1 and we are still early into these solar minimums, their just not using the phrase 'mini-ice age' because they know the phrase is vague and they don't want to be alarmist.

no one can deny that we just had the 2014 polar vortex and the other cold records broken last year.

Also Professor Zharkova was just studing the sun, not the climate, she was putting forward a study that confirms that we will in fact begin a MM starting around 2030, this was previously reported by other scientists but her model confirms it more accurately and leaves little doubt. She was not taking a position on climate change, but since being pressed on the issue she did say that her opinion is that the MM will create cooler conditions she just doesn't know to what extent. BTW this professor is a mathematician, not a climatologist.

Do I use the US Senate Committee on Climate Change to form my view on GW / CC. Very short answer: NO! It would be like deferring to Fox News to form a balanced understanding of US politics. You would have to be out of your mind.

NASA / Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NAOO) National Climatic Data Center , UK Met Office / Hadcrut4 data sets and analysis, Japanese Meteorological Society and Berkeley Earth.

You are welcome to post as many graphs you like showing Global Cooling. Here is NASA / GISS up to date Land Ocean Surface Temperature Anomaly:

A_A_GISSTemp.jpg

There is also a brilliant 'visualisation' of Global Temperatures on the link.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

What Dr. Easterbrook needs to do and it is very simple is to submit his research and data as to where errors in an IPCC report have occurred and the Committee responds and will make corrections if substantiated. In IPCC (AR4) - Working Group Two - there was in fact an error on page 938 that was found in the draft report. Fortunately it was picked up quickly and did not appear in the Final Report it included a projection that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

That caused a bit of a stir at the time. Climate Deniers lost their minds lol.

Mann is currently taking legal action on the 'Hockey Stick' controversy.

"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

The 70's Ice Age discussion:

A_A_70sIceAge.jpg

A little 'froth and bubble' I wouldn't pay any attention to it.

You are under the misapprehension that if it snows somewhere on Earth then we are heading for an Ice Age / Glaciation there is NO scientific body that is forecasting such an event. Not even the Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University presented results for a new model of the Sun's interior dynamo in a talk at the Astronomical Society that your OP refers agrees with that view.

Edited August 29, 2015 by movieplay

[mogandave]

I would like to know how many, how frequently and how carefully data around the world are measured, and how they have changed over the last 100 years.

Clearly the accuracy of test equipment has improved significantly while the cost has come down.

A lot of people making a good living (some getting rich) off climate change, so information coming from that industry should be just as suspect as data from other industries.

I can remember when 99% of tobacco experts claimed smoking had no negative effects on health.

[movieplay]

Anthropogenic global warming skeptics like Dr. Easterbrook, if you watch that long presentation he makes (video posted earlier) he claims that only '15%' of the data collection instruments met the IPCC standards *that what i think i remember hearing when i watched it* (but you'll have to look it up on the video or contact one of these skeptic scientists for more info on that.. but skeptics often question the 'heat island' effect, the fact that many of these weather stations that had been taking temperature readings have seen urban sprawl so that the increased heat is superficial.

example, if you were at the thonglo, ekkamai area of bangkok say 1970, it was mostly brush, firelds, swamp.. now it's all concrete and highrise buildings, so if there was a temperature reading at that specific location of cource its going to get hotter at that specific point..im sure we have all heard that..but i think over the next few years heading into the 2020's it is going to become irrelevant as the global cooling will be impossible to deny.

[Somtamme]

Chilling new evidence from the Atlantic Ocean is raising fears that western Europe could soon be gripped by a mini ice age.

Global warming is slowing down the ocean current that carries warm waters from the tropics to the North Atlantic, scientists say.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1130_051130_ice_age.html

This is just another example, of reading one article and using it incorrectly.

Prof. Harry Bryden's research showed at the time a possible slowing of the North Atlantic ocean current. It was a very important article, but the time frame over which his estimates were based was thought to wide.

However, I tend to remember it prompted a response from the Met Office, to say that this slowing or impact was not reflected in Northern European temperatures. But one thing this research by the UK's National Oceanography Centre started was further studies to look into the seasonal variations of this overturning circulation. Given its global importance, it is a joint project and has partners in the U.S. The further studies since Prof, Bryden's report is summarised on the NOC website; http://noc.ac.uk/news/amoc-amok-0.

The current up to date information, notes that AMOC or the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, 'had a significant role in the sudden sea level rise along the northeast coast of the US, as well as the extreme European winter of 2009/10. Another unexpected finding was that AMOC varies greatly in strength from year-to-year. This discovery may help improve the accuracy of seasonal weather forecasts. In addition, the observations show a reduction in the strength of the AMOC by 30% over the last decade, which also has implications for the UK climate'.

Co-author of this more up to date research (Professor Harry Bryden, from the University of Southampton) adds on the NOC website, that “There has been a widespread view that the atmosphere drives all changes in the ocean. The RAPID results demonstrate that the ocean played an important role in the extreme European winters of 2009/10 and 2010/11. Over seasonal to inter-annual time scales we now have evidence that the ocean can drive changes in the atmosphere.”

It may be that previous modelling of climate, may have underestimated the impacts from these ocean currents, and that the predicted forcing of climate may be offset to a degree by the cooling effects of this important ocean current.

But if you follow the argument, that the slowing of an ocean current is from freshwater melt, then it may follow also, that sea-level rise may actually be greater than what is currently predicted.

[ausbeat999]

I can remember when I was living in a smallish country town in western NSW , it always was at the top of the charts state wise with temperature , and back in those days the weather was measured by the post office staff at its little weather outpost . it wasn't until a meteorologist arrived in the early 80's I think it was, and stated that the outpost can't be in the position that it is. so they moved it to a place to conform with industry standards. Then the weather was much cooler "I could feel It" LOL. and it never topped the charts since. my point is how is the accuracy.

the other thing is we are all duped on hydrogen technology for cars etc. even in the 1800's they're were cars running on hydrogen, the only reason they are introducing it now is because of the fuel cell. It is their way of making you pay again at the bowser. They are pushing it hard now because they have introduced the infrastructure i.e.:bowsers to the public. Electric cars and hydrogen cars were there before petrol cars or gas cars as the Americans say, if you don't believe me look it up for yourself and it is easy to do I know from personal experience.. its all about money money money .

[up2u2]

Upu2 I would love to comment on your post but you seem to be all over the place.

Where is the evidence that the little Ice age was a northern phenomenon? I am not saying it wasn't but I would like to see that described somewhere.

When you say the forcings attributed to the LIA are low solar activity, heightened volcanic activity, climate variability, decreases in human population. Are you saying that these things are causes of the cooling or results of the cooling? I can see volcanic activity and low solar activity as causal but not a decrease in human population; that must have been a product of the cooling. As for climate variability? isn't the LIA an example of climate variability?

The global glaciation you have predicted in 40,000 years. What will be the cause of that?

It does get confusing. Firstly the 'Little Ice Age' is not actually what you think. In geological scientific terms an Ice Age is actually referred to as a Glaciation or warmer periods called Inter Glacial's. Earth is currently in an Inter Glacial. The 'Little Ice Age' was not a Glaciation nor was it an Inter Glacial. It was simply a brief regional cooling period restricted mainly to Europe and North America unfortunately named the 'Little Ice Age'. There are thousands of websites that will confirm that the LIA was restricted mainly to Europe and North America. If you want to follow it up just put 'regions affected by the little ice age' in Google and 17 million hits will confirm it. I chose Environmental History Resources website:

http://www.eh-resources.org/little-ice-age/

"During this coldest phase of the Little Ice Age there are indications that average winter temperatures in Europe and North America......"

Okay so lets get a little 'all over the place' and get confused. What is thought to have triggered the LIA? The best peer reviewed scientific research is Miller et al 2012 published in American Geophysical Union (AGU) / Geophysical Letters. 60 citations connected to this research.

Abstract:

[1] Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures over the past 8000 years have been paced by the slow decrease in summer insolation resulting from the precession of the equinoxes. However, the causes of superposed century-scale cold summer anomalies, of which the Little Ice Age (LIA) is the most extreme, remain debated, largely because the natural forcings are either weak or, in the case of volcanism, short lived. Here we present precisely dated records of ice-cap growth from Arctic Canada and Iceland showing that LIA summer cold and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300 AD, followed by a substantial intensification 1430–1455 AD. Intervals of sudden ice growth coincide with two of the most volcanically perturbed half centuries of the past millennium. A transient climate model simulation shows that explosive volcanism produces abrupt summer cooling at these times, and that cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed. Our results suggest that the onset of the LIA can be linked to an unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg. The persistence of cold summers is best explained by consequent sea-ice/ocean feedbacks during a hemispheric summer insolation minimum; large changes in solar irradiance are not required.

This research addresses the question that Volcanic Activity is short lived so how does it affect a region over such a long period and draws from a number of lines of evidence from various regions to explain how it managed to sustain its impact. From Africa and Australia no less.

So even though Solar Cycles occurred during the LIA they are not what triggered it. The LIA began around 1275 which overlaps with the Medieval Maxima Solar Cycle so if Solar Activity causes heating it should have knocked the beginning of the LIA out but it didn't and the reason why is because Solar Cycles are too weak to impact not only on Global Temperatures but cannot impact on regional cooling caused by Volcanic Activity.

The LIA was all over the place. It had cold periods and warm periods and Frost Fairs but if you look at the Solar Activity it is easy to see there is something else going on. In fact the first recorded Frost Fair occurred well AFTER the Sporer Minimum and well BEFORE the Maunder Minimum. Also there was a Warm Period DURING the Solar Low of the Sporer Minimum.

The LIA is an example of Climate Variability not in respect of Solar Activity but because it occurred at all, due to Volcanic Activity and Miller et al 2012 explains how the Climate Variability sustained the LIA.

The Glaciation in 40,000 years is based on the Milankovitch Cycle.