Mini-Ice Age Coming?

[up2u2]

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.

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.

Here is a 'number crunch card' from a weather station situated in Puerto Casado Paraguay. It is a data feed to NOAA in USA. It is run through ghcnm Ver.2 software via global super computer networks. It automatically adjusts for correct calibration, altitude, it will simultaneously run a comparative against neighbouring weather station data, regional data, national data, international data, global data. There is one benchmark EVERY weather station must pass on each and every data run and that is the 'Plumb Box' reading must be 0.0 or No Diff (heading last data panel) If ANY weather station data does not show a 'Plumb Box' readout of 0.0 or No Diff the data is rejected for that data run and the weather station checked.

Often weather stations are upgraded or relocated or hit by extreme weather events. What occurs when this situation happens is the weather station goes offline until ALL the historical data for that weather station is recalibrated and merged with the ongoing new data stream. The new weather station can then continue providing a seamless stream of data as if it had always been located in that position or always had that upgraded equipment fitted.

Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI)

Scientists are careful to ensure ALL UHI effect is eliminated from temperature data:

Three major studies show UHI is eliminated from temperature data sets, Jones et al, Li et al and Brohan et al 2006

Urban Heat Island effect on temperature data ZERO

Edited August 29, 2015 by up2u2

[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.

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.

Here is a 'number crunch card' from a weather station situated in Puerto Casado Paraguay. It is a data feed to NOAA in USA. It is run through ghcnm Ver.2 software via global super computer networks. It automatically adjusts for correct calibration, altitude, it will simultaneously run a comparative against neighbouring weather station data, regional data, national data, international data, global data. There is one benchmark EVERY weather station must pass on each and every data run and that is the 'Plumb Box' reading must be 0.0 or No Diff (heading last data panel) If ANY weather station data does not show a 'Plumb Box' readout of 0.0 or No Diff the data is rejected for that data run and the weather station checked.

A_Homewood_9.jpg

Often weather stations are upgraded or relocated or hit by extreme weather events. What occurs when this situation happens is the weather station goes offline until ALL the historical data for that weather station is recalibrated and merged with the ongoing new data stream. The new weather station can then continue providing a seamless stream of data as if it had always been located in that position or always had that upgraded equipment fitted.

Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI)

Scientists are careful to ensure ALL UHI effect is eliminated from temperature data:

Two major studies show UHI is eliminated from temperature data sets, Jones et al and Brohan et al 2006

A_A_FrostFair_5.jpg

Urban Heat Island effect on temperature data ZERO

Thanks, but I wsa looking fo an actaul answer, not just another cut-&-paste.

So what coal mine were you talking about?

[up2u2]

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.

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.

Here is a 'number crunch card' from a weather station situated in Puerto Casado Paraguay. It is a data feed to NOAA in USA. It is run through ghcnm Ver.2 software via global super computer networks. It automatically adjusts for correct calibration, altitude, it will simultaneously run a comparative against neighbouring weather station data, regional data, national data, international data, global data. There is one benchmark EVERY weather station must pass on each and every data run and that is the 'Plumb Box' reading must be 0.0 or No Diff (heading last data panel) If ANY weather station data does not show a 'Plumb Box' readout of 0.0 or No Diff the data is rejected for that data run and the weather station checked.

A_Homewood_9.jpg

Often weather stations are upgraded or relocated or hit by extreme weather events. What occurs when this situation happens is the weather station goes offline until ALL the historical data for that weather station is recalibrated and merged with the ongoing new data stream. The new weather station can then continue providing a seamless stream of data as if it had always been located in that position or always had that upgraded equipment fitted.

Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI)

Scientists are careful to ensure ALL UHI effect is eliminated from temperature data:

Two major studies show UHI is eliminated from temperature data sets, Jones et al and Brohan et al 2006

A_A_FrostFair_5.jpg

Urban Heat Island effect on temperature data ZERO

Thanks, but I wsa looking fo an actaul answer, not just another cut-&-paste.

So what coal mine were you talking about?

It wasn't a 'cut and paste' I typed it. I am very familiar with temperature data sets and analysis from NASA / GISS, NOAA, UK Met hadcrut4 and Berkeley Earth and the science on Urban Heat Island effect.

Adani Mine Australia.

Edited August 29, 2015 by up2u2

[movieplay]

Issue with the sporer and wolf minimum is that there was no one back then taking accurate sunspot counts,so exactly where it is is uncertain but it was definently there the reason that first graph i posted only goes back to appox 1600 and thats why it's labeled '400 years of sunspot observations' is because that's the time frame where the sunspot observations are accurate.. BUT on the sunspot graph on page 1, you will notice that the Dalton Minimum was around 1800-1820 BUT the coldest temperatures took place in the 1840s even close to 1850 before the solar maximums stabilized up until now. That's because it takes a couple decades for the earth to 'register' the cooling effects of reduced solar activity + increased cloud coverage caused by solar minimum.

That's exactly whats taking place today, it's only NOW in winter of 2014 that we're starting to feel the effects of cycle 23&24 which were 10 and 20 years ago, the problem now is that we're in a dalton minimum, FOLLOWED by the MM which will start around 2030 for more than 30 years.. so from here on it just gets colder and colder

also the date of this study your talking about 'miller et al 2012' thats what i think is so suspicious, like the one in the OP, that scientists were aware that we were heading toward minimums as far back as 2007 maybe even sooner,(its just now its been confirmed) THEN these scientists run out and do research that is supposed to de-link the solar minimums from colder weather.. that's called having an agenda and reaching a conclusion first, then conducting 'research' to support that agenda, the agenda being the global warming industry and it's thirst for government largess.. their afraid that global cooling will deep-six their funding and their subsidized 'green' technology etc.

Edited August 29, 2015 by movieplay

[movieplay]

Issue with the sporer and wolf minimum is that there was no one back then taking accurate sunspot counts,so exactly where it is is uncertain but it was definently there the reason that first graph i posted only goes back to appox 1600 and thats why it's labeled '400 years of sunspot observations' is because that's the time frame where the sunspot observations are accurate.. BUT on the sunspot graph on page 1, you will notice that the Dalton Minimum was around 1800-1820 BUT the coldest temperatures took place in the 1840s even close to 1850 before the solar maximums stabilized up until now. That's because it takes a couple decades for the earth to 'register' the cooling effects of reduced solar activity + increased cloud coverage caused by solar minimum.

That's exactly whats taking place today, it's only NOW in winter of 2014 that we're starting to feel the effects of cycle 23&24 which were 10 and 20 years ago, the problem now is that we're in a dalton minimum, FOLLOWED by the MM which will start around 2030 for more than 30 years.. so from here on it just gets colder and colder

also the date of this study your talking about 'miller et al 2012' thats what i think is so suspicious, like the one in the OP, that scientists were aware that we were heading toward minimums as far back as 2007 maybe even sooner,(its just now its been confirmed) THEN these scientists run out and do research that is supposed to de-link the solar minimums from colder weather.. that's called having an agenda and reaching a conclusion first, then conducting 'research' to support that agenda, the agenda being the global warming industry and it's thirst for government largess.. their afraid that global cooling will deep-six their funding and their subsidized 'green' technology etc.

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.

A_A_FrostFair_4.jpg

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.

[movieplay]

Also the Milankovitch cycle.. you go out of your way to contemplate things.. the graph i posted on page 1, we ARE AT THE END of the current 10,000 year inter-glacial, you can see on that graph that temps are relatively stable and warm inside the 10,000 year period, and outside of it, it gets colder and more erratic..right now we're pushing outside of it, even just a little, with a MM for the next 40 or 50 years- this ones worse then the last one in the 1600's because now we're starting to get into that colder more erratic zone.. so why worry about 'too hot' when we're headed into a cold era of transition to the next glacial period, illogical fear.

Edited August 29, 2015 by movieplay

[up2u2]

Issue with the sporer and wolf minimum is that there was no one back then taking accurate sunspot counts,so exactly where it is is uncertain but it was definently there the reason that first graph i posted only goes back to appox 1600 and thats why it's labeled '400 years of sunspot observations' is because that's the time frame where the sunspot observations are accurate.. BUT on the sunspot graph on page 1, you will notice that the Dalton Minimum was around 1800-1820 BUT the coldest temperatures took place in the 1840s even close to 1850 before the solar maximums stabilized up until now. That's because it takes a couple decades for the earth to 'register' the cooling effects of reduced solar activity + increased cloud coverage caused by solar minimum.

That's exactly whats taking place today, it's only NOW in winter of 2014 that we're starting to feel the effects of cycle 23&24 which were 10 and 20 years ago, the problem now is that we're in a dalton minimum, FOLLOWED by the MM which will start around 2030 for more than 30 years.. so from here on it just gets colder and colder

also the date of this study your talking about 'miller et al 2012' thats what i think is so suspicious, like the one in the OP, that scientists were aware that we were heading toward minimums as far back as 2007 maybe even sooner,(its just now its been confirmed) THEN these scientists run out and do research that is supposed to de-link the solar minimums from colder weather.. that's called having an agenda and reaching a conclusion first, then conducting 'research' to support that agenda, the agenda being the global warming industry and it's thirst for government largess.. their afraid that global cooling will deep-six their funding and their subsidized 'green' technology etc.

Really lol. Oh man. Not only weren't they taking accurate sunspot counts 'back then' they weren't even taking any solar activity counts of anything 'back then' they were busy skating on the Thames. It is ¹⁴ C Proxy analysis.

I told you movieplay this what occurs when a you Model a Maunder Minimum AND a Dalton Minimum creating a GRand Solar Minimum and run it under the current conditions:

At most it may provide a Global dip of 0.20^OC. Solar Cycles simply are not strong enough to have any significant effect on Global Temperatures. 50 years of 60gT Volcanic activity with Ocean assistance can have a Moderate regional effect and Solar Cycles cannot effect that ether.

There is no scientific research or theory suggesting a Solar Minimum is going to create a Glaciation or a Little Ice Age that will effect GW. None whatsoever.

The article is a beat up.

[opalred]

the wife has been at me over the years to take her to the snow

so i can save money by telling her to wait

i live in cm will that be ok?

[movieplay]

well than WHY did we just have a polar vortex in 2014, because this thing you said before:

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.

Turned out to be bullshit per the IPCC Senate hearings, keep in mind the AGW skeptics tend see the ipcc as biased, so when EVEN IT calls out this stuff as bullshit.. then its bullshit ALSO the Adapt 2030 youtube channel has a charts and data showing record breaking colds for every chart you put up so as i said before i dont wanna get into this chart contest and you put up a chart showing less than 1' heating in 200 years that ends 5 years ago. why is it getting noticeably colder when the global warming industry keeps insisting it getting hotter?

[up2u2]

well than WHY did we just have a polar vortex in 2014, because this thing you said before:

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.

Turned out to be bullshit per the IPCC Senate hearings, keep in mind the AGW skeptics tend see the ipcc as biased, so when EVEN IT calls out this stuff as bullshit.. then its bullshit ALSO the Adapt 2030 youtube channel has a charts and data showing record breaking colds for every chart you put up so as i said before i dont wanna get into this chart contest and you put up a chart showing less than 1' heating in 200 years that ends 5 years ago. why is it getting noticeably colder when the global warming industry keeps insisting it getting hotter?

USA Senate is not a scientific institution. I doubt they will be releasing and publishing any peer reviewed scientific research on GW / CC anytime soon. In fact a can pretty much guarantee it. lol

I cannot fathom where you are getting this 'when it is getting noticeably colder' from.

Here is NOAA's latest global Surface Temperature map for July 2015:

Do you live in that little square? That's about the only place it is 'noticeably colder'

Seems to me you are looking at that little square thinking uh oh another Ice Age on the way.

Here is the latest NASA / GISS surface temperature graph:

Not getting any colder there.

Here is the UK Met Office Global surface temperature anomaly for the last 30 years up till March 2015

Nope not getting colder there.

Here is Berkeley Earth 30 year Surface temperature anomaly

Damn it's all bloody red again!!!!

Edited August 29, 2015 by up2u2

[up2u2]

the wife has been at me over the years to take her to the snow

so i can save money by telling her to wait

i live in cm will that be ok?

Nope your forecast in northern Thailand is heat and floods. Better book a trip to Norway in Winter I think. lol sorry mate

[opalred]

is my area in cm going into global warming

other places going ice age

where can i live in the middle?

[up2u2]

is my area in cm going into global warming

other places going ice age

where can i live in the middle?

Even the Poles are struggling to remain in an Ice Age. No Ice Age happening around Earth anytime soon. Mostly hot and getting hotter.

Somewhere in the middle? Lets have a look. Upper central latitudes of America or how about lower east latitudes of Australia. Hold on what about Central Africa around Niger Chad south of Algeria? showing a little cooling there.

Not a great deal to choose from I'm afraid.

[mogandave]

Can you graph % of CO2 with the line graph above?

Edited August 29, 2015 by mogandave

[movieplay]

He keeps posting the same graphs over and over again, like the one that shows less than 1' of warmer between 1880-2010

so AGAIN if anyone wanna see a myraid of data and graphs that show cooling you can see this youtube channel:

adapt2030 and other scientists with all sorts of data, i don't post this raw data here because i'll let real scientists make their presentations..

I cannot fathom where you are getting this 'when it is getting noticeably colder' from.

Well gee that would be the 2014 polar vortex and like the other noticeably cold events like what they are discussing on the youtube, the August snow in Calgary etc. If there is so much 'global warming' WHY is it cold? I would think after so many decades of global warming Canada would actually have a summer by now..

USA Senate is not a scientific institution. I doubt they will be releasing and publishing any peer reviewed scientific research on GW / CC anytime soon.

The Senate was being briefed by the IPCC,Again This scientist Roger Pielke from the IPCC said that this type of thing:

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.

is bullshit!, he presented a series of ipcc charts that show this is bullshit, the mainstream 97% whatever is that this is NOT TRUE, THERE IS NOT AN INCREASE IN EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS , that's how it was presented to the senate, you'll remember that earlier in this thread you conceded that it was getting cold but you claimed this 'global warming leads to 'extremes' that turned out to be bullshit.. now your saying that its actually not getting cold because you posted a graph. BUT SEE the other global cooling guy has graphs and broken cold records.

why was there a polar vortex last year if it wasn't caused by the solar minimums?

The bigger question, if we're at the end of a 10,000 inter-glacial WHY would ANYONE be worried about 'global warming'? especially since we're still not as warm as previous times in the last 10,000 years.. This is what they had right in the 70's and 80's, the problem will always be too cold not too hot, and is the 'warmist' position really that we're not going to have a MIA this time because we polluted the world with co2 and that has 'tamed' the environment so we will no longer have mini-ice ages..

[arunsakda]

"From the scientific point of view it is now very likely that there will be again another Ice Age, quite soon, in the world, that we shall have the north part of the world all frozen like it used to be, and we're beginning to have natural disasters, from the scientists' study it seems likely that we should soon begin to have these great changes in the earth's climate so people will not be able to live where they have, and the oceans will rise, and many cities will be flooded, like London, and Calcutta, and so on. These things, they say, will happen, according to scientific theory, in about forty years at the most, but maybe even quicker." - J.G. Bennet

Apparently Robert Fripp recorded this intro to the following song at a talk by Bennet at Sherbourne House, Gloucester about 40 year ago. It never made sense to me though why if we are to have another ice age why the oceans would rise?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys4KicQnhP0

Edited August 29, 2015 by arunsakda

[up2u2]

Can you graph % of CO2 with the line graph above?

Berkeley Earth

NOAA / NCDC

[up2u2]

He keeps posting the same graphs over and over again, like the one that shows less than 1' of warmer between 1880-2010

so AGAIN if anyone wanna see a myraid of data and graphs that show cooling you can see this youtube channel:

adapt2030 and other scientists with all sorts of data, i don't post this raw data here because i'll let real scientists make their presentations..

I cannot fathom where you are getting this 'when it is getting noticeably colder' from.

Well gee that would be the 2014 polar vortex and like the other noticeably cold events like what they are discussing on the youtube, the August snow in Calgary etc. If there is so much 'global warming' WHY is it cold? I would think after so many decades of global warming Canada would actually have a summer by now..

USA Senate is not a scientific institution. I doubt they will be releasing and publishing any peer reviewed scientific research on GW / CC anytime soon.

The Senate was being briefed by the IPCC,Again This scientist Roger Pielke from the IPCC said that this type of thing:

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.

is bullshit!, he presented a series of ipcc charts that show this is bullshit, the mainstream 97% whatever is that this is NOT TRUE, THERE IS NOT AN INCREASE IN EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS , that's how it was presented to the senate, you'll remember that earlier in this thread you conceded that it was getting cold but you claimed this 'global warming leads to 'extremes' that turned out to be bullshit.. now your saying that its actually not getting cold because you posted a graph. BUT SEE the other global cooling guy has graphs and broken cold records.

why was there a polar vortex last year if it wasn't caused by the solar minimums?

The bigger question, if we're at the end of a 10,000 inter-glacial WHY would ANYONE be worried about 'global warming'? especially since we're still not as warm as previous times in the last 10,000 years.. This is what they had right in the 70's and 80's, the problem will always be too cold not too hot, and is the 'warmist' position really that we're not going to have a MIA this time because we polluted the world with co2 and that has 'tamed' the environment so we will no longer have mini-ice ages..

Well that isn't true movieplay. I have not posted UK Met data before nor had I posted Berkeley Earth graphic before. The NASA / GISS data will be updated 2016 after the last 2015 data comes thru. NOAA does give a monthly report of global temperatures.

The Adapt 2030 video is fundamentally flawed. Arctic snow and sea ice extent is cyclic. During Winter months (winter Maxima) it snows and the sea ice extent increases during summer months (Summer Minima) the sea ice extent decreases. He is conveniently 'cherry picking' a couple of years snow fall data during the Winter maxima and misrepresenting it.

The rate of change in Arctic sea ice is measured at the September minima. It is currently receding by -13.3% per decade.

NASA Earth's Vital Signs

You are basically looking at this graphic seeing the small 'below record cold region' and saying an Ice Age is coming. Sorry but absolutely NO scientific institution agrees with that conclusion.

The Earth is heating up not cooling down and as feulner_rahmstorf_2010 shows throwing in your Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum will have only a slight effect on GW

Just the same as you attempted to link the Frost Fairs with the Maunder Minimum it simply did not occur during the Maunder Minimum in fact it occurred totally without a Solar Minimum. Also there was a warming period that occurred right on top of the Sporer Minimum

The 2014 Polar Vortex had nothing to do with a Solar Minimum. Where is the evidence that it did.

[canuckamuck]

@Up2 Your arctic sea ice chart is out of date and does not show the ice recovery. We all know there was a warming so we lost some sea ice, completely normal. But now that the ice is coming back you will have trouble to fit that in with continued warming.

That July 2015 chart graphical representation of earth is very misleading as they do not specify how much temperature variation will take a segment from blue to red.

NOAA doesn't remind us that the numbers they use are so small that they are under their own degree of accuracy for temperature reporting. Not to mention the significance of one months data is only useful for the sake of novelty.

Deceptive temperature record claims

Warmest month announcements have no scientific basis

By Tom Harris - - Sunday, August 23, 2015

The U.S. government is at it again, hyping meaningless records in a parameter that does not exist in order to frighten us about something that doesn’t matter.

NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced this week that according to their calculations, July 2015 was the hottest month since instrumental records began in 1880. NOAA says that the record was set by eight one-hundredths of a degree Celsius over that set in July 1998. NASA calculates that July 2015 beat what they assert was the previous warmest month (July 2011) by two one-hundredths of a degree.

But government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics. NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set. NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set.

http://www.washingto...temperature-re/

The third chart has now been posted for the third time by you. I think it represents a crystal ball or some other type of voodoo science. The red and blue lines are predictions at best. the black line does not represent the last 20 years were temperatures have stalled.

Your fourth chart does not prove anything re polar vortex and solar minimums. The period between the medieval maximum and the modern maximum is a cool period in which I can see on your chart list three solar minimums. Right in the center of this period is the first frost fair. Which comes in a cooling period.

Now I don't know what you consider the significance of the frost fair, because you don't state it. But I assume you are implying that the FFF was also a point in time where unusual amounts of cooling were first noticed. If you consider the life span of people in those days, 30 to 50 years, you will see that it makes sense that this period was the coldest point that any of these people had lived through, obviously seeing early ice was a significant event to them. This is 30 years after a temperature spike and it had been 70 years since the last time things were that cold; so out of living memory. The frost fair wold have been insignificant in history had the cooling stopped and the frost went away. But by 1700 they were in the heart of the Maunder minimum and the LIA. It was the cold temperatures from these dates that made the Frost fair a significant part of climate history.

Anyhow, this was 400 years ago and people really weren't aware of their place in global temperature records. So pleases stop using this Frost fair as some kind of smoking gun against the obvious correlation that solar activity modulates global temperature, It is ridiculous to think the sun is not the primary factor in earths climate.

Edited August 30, 2015 by canuckamuck

[cumgranosalum]

in short - no it isn't; this is a theory based only on certain astronomical aspects by someone who has already said she doesn't believe in global climate change.

the report made great media but has bee roundly criticised by the scientific community.

[cumgranosalum]

Your arctic sea ice chart is out of date and does not show the ice recovery.' - here we go again....there is no "recovery" it is a change...... - the "recovery" concept is concerned with area of sae covered...not the depth on ice or the changes in salinity resulting.

[canuckamuck]

in short - no it isn't; this is a theory based only on certain astronomical aspects by someone who has already said she doesn't believe in global climate change.

the report made great media but has bee roundly criticised by the scientific community.

Who is the she in your statement?

Are you saying that the activity of the sun is unrelated to climate change?

[canuckamuck]

Your arctic sea ice chart is out of date and does not show the ice recovery.' - here we go again....there is no "recovery" it is a change...... - the "recovery" concept is concerned with area of sae covered...not the depth on ice or the changes in salinity resulting.

There is more ice coverage, new ice is thinner than old ice, it takes a while to become thick ice.

Or are you claiming that despite the fact that the ice is covering more square kilometers, it is at the same time getting thinner. If this is your point please show evidence.

[up2u2]

@Up2 Your arctic sea ice chart is out of date and does not show the ice recovery. We all know there was a warming so we lost some sea ice, completely normal. But now that the ice is coming back you will have trouble to fit that in with continued warming.

That July 2015 chart graphical representation of earth is very misleading as they do not specify how much temperature variation will take a segment from blue to red.

NOAA doesn't remind us that the numbers they use are so small that they are under their own degree of accuracy for temperature reporting. Not to mention the significance of one months data is only useful for the sake of novelty.

The third chart has now been posted for the third time by you. I think it represents a crystal ball or some other type of voodoo science. The red and blue lines are predictions at best. the black line does not represent the last 20 years were temperatures have stalled.

Your fourth chart does not prove anything re polar vortex and solar minimums. The period between the medieval maximum and the modern maximum is a cool period in which I can see on your chart list three solar minimums. Right in the center of this period is the first frost fair. Which comes in a cooling period.

Now I don't know what you consider the significance of the frost fair, because you don't state it. But I assume you are implying that the FFF was also signifies a point in time where unusual amounts of cooling were first noticed. If you consider the life span of people in those days, 30 to 50 years, you will see that it makes sense that this period was the coldest point that any of these people had lived through, obviously seeing early ice was a significant event to them. This is 30 years after a temperature spike and it had been 70 years since the last time things were that cold; so out of living memory. The frost fair wold have been insignificant in history had the cooling stopped and the frost went away. But by 1700 they were in the heart of the Maunder minimum and the LIA. It was the cold temperatures from these dates that made the FFF a significant part of climate history.

Anyhow, this was 400 years ago and people really weren't aware of their place in global temperature records. So pleases stop using this Frost fair as some kind of smoking gun against the obvious correlation that solar activity modulates global temperature, It is ridiculous to think the sun is not the primary factor in earths climate.

Arctic sea ice extent is cyclic. It is not recovering. Between the Winter Maxima and the Summer Minima the Arctic sea ice is loosing 13.3% per decade so it is not recovering it is declining. The graph is up to date as to the sea ice extent minimum Sept 2014. The next update will be around Dec 2015 when the data is in from the Sept 2015 minimum data is gathered.

The July 2015 chart is the temperature percentiles.

Why wouldn't NOAA be able to compare monthly temperature Anomaly trends once the data for each month is in? It is actually calculated for each state if you visit their website.

Absolutely, it Models what influence a Grand Solar Minimum will have on GW. .2 of a degree. You are welcome to present any peer reviewed scientific study that shows a Grand Solar Minimum will reverse GW. There has been no 'pause' / 'hiatus' in GW over the past 20 years.

The fourth graphic has nothing to do with the 2014 Polar Vortex. Why would it?

The first recorded Frost Fair comes right at the height of a Solar Increase. A warming period occurs right at the bottom of the Sporer Solar Minimum. The facts simply do not align with your view that Solar Minimums create Cold events. It is the reverse of what you are portraying.

[cumgranosalum]

in short - no it isn't; this is a theory based only on certain astronomical aspects by someone who has already said she doesn't believe in global climate change.

the report made great media but has bee roundly criticised by the scientific community.

Who is the she in your statement?

Are you saying that the activity of the sun is unrelated to climate change?

I think this kind of sums up your knowledge of the subject - she is the mathematician who put forward the theory

No-one has suggested that solar activity isn't related to climate change - it including Maunders etc has been factored in already.

you need to learn how to separate media hype from the actual science.

Edited August 30, 2015 by cumgranosalum

[juice777]

What will this do to house prices in London?

[canuckamuck]

@Up2 Your arctic sea ice chart is out of date and does not show the ice recovery. We all know there was a warming so we lost some sea ice, completely normal. But now that the ice is coming back you will have trouble to fit that in with continued warming.

That July 2015 chart graphical representation of earth is very misleading as they do not specify how much temperature variation will take a segment from blue to red.

NOAA doesn't remind us that the numbers they use are so small that they are under their own degree of accuracy for temperature reporting. Not to mention the significance of one months data is only useful for the sake of novelty.

The third chart has now been posted for the third time by you. I think it represents a crystal ball or some other type of voodoo science. The red and blue lines are predictions at best. the black line does not represent the last 20 years were temperatures have stalled.

Your fourth chart does not prove anything re polar vortex and solar minimums. The period between the medieval maximum and the modern maximum is a cool period in which I can see on your chart list three solar minimums. Right in the center of this period is the first frost fair. Which comes in a cooling period.

Now I don't know what you consider the significance of the frost fair, because you don't state it. But I assume you are implying that the FFF was also signifies a point in time where unusual amounts of cooling were first noticed. If you consider the life span of people in those days, 30 to 50 years, you will see that it makes sense that this period was the coldest point that any of these people had lived through, obviously seeing early ice was a significant event to them. This is 30 years after a temperature spike and it had been 70 years since the last time things were that cold; so out of living memory. The frost fair wold have been insignificant in history had the cooling stopped and the frost went away. But by 1700 they were in the heart of the Maunder minimum and the LIA. It was the cold temperatures from these dates that made the FFF a significant part of climate history.

Anyhow, this was 400 years ago and people really weren't aware of their place in global temperature records. So pleases stop using this Frost fair as some kind of smoking gun against the obvious correlation that solar activity modulates global temperature, It is ridiculous to think the sun is not the primary factor in earths climate.

Arctic sea ice extent is cyclic. It is not recovering. Between the Winter Maxima and the Summer Minima the Arctic sea ice is loosing 13.3% per decade so it is not recovering it is declining. The graph is up to date as to the sea ice extent minimum Sept 2014. The next update will be around Dec 2015 when the data is in from the Sept 2015 minimum data is gathered.

The July 2015 chart is the temperature percentiles.

Why wouldn't NOAA be able to compare monthly temperature Anomaly trends once the data for each month is in? It is actually calculated for each state if you visit their website.

Absolutely, it Models what influence a Grand Solar Minimum will have on GW. .2 of a degree. You are welcome to present any peer reviewed scientific study that shows a Grand Solar Minimum will reverse GW. There has been no 'pause' / 'hiatus' in GW over the past 20 years.

The fourth graphic has nothing to do with the 2014 Polar Vortex. Why would it?

A_A_FrostFair_4.jpg

The first recorded Frost Fair comes right at the height of a Solar Increase. A warming period occurs right at the bottom of the Sporer Solar Minimum. The facts simply do not align with your view that Solar Minimums create Cold events. It is the reverse of what you are portraying.

I guess you can post sea ice data after September than and see. But if you are doing a decade by decade analysis then you will have to wait until 2017 because 2007 was a significant year for ice loss.

I already posted a link debunking the NOAA's claims of hottest whatever based on increases so small that even their own standards declare them statistically insignificant based on their own degree of uncertainty. The red and blue dots are theater for the useful idiots.

The FFF is bang in the middle of a 600 year cool period.

[canuckamuck]

in short - no it isn't; this is a theory based only on certain astronomical aspects by someone who has already said she doesn't believe in global climate change.

the report made great media but has bee roundly criticised by the scientific community.

Who is the she in your statement?

Are you saying that the activity of the sun is unrelated to climate change?

I think this kind of sums up your knowledge of the subject - she is the mathematician who put forward the theory

No-one has suggested that solar activity isn't related to climate change - it including Maunders etc has been factored in already.

you need to learn how to separate media hype from the actual science.

It only sums up your assumptions and your inability to be clear.

I am not referring to any study in particular. I am arguing the points brought up in recent posts. Why is it that you don't know this persons name?

Uh you know, the lady who wrote the thing, duh.

[movieplay]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPNgX_T1wKI

5:08-> Brian Fagan "The Little Ice Age was a period of much more extreme volatility in climate than of constant cold. A Period of very volatile climactic shifts."

15:39-> Richard Sager "It wasn't just the mean was a little colder, there were alot of significant extremes."

That's exactly what I said before, a MIA does not mean you no longer have hot, it doesn't mean you don't have summer, it just means you have extreme colds and erratic shifts to cold.. HMMM lets see could that be like .. perhaps a ploar votrex that plunges into the middle of america, bringing temps to extreme lows like -20' or maybe like.. lets see a sudden unexpected August snow in Calgary. or the the dozen other unusually extreme cold conditions that the adapt2030 channel talks about?? you dont think?

Also what I said earlier is we are only 1% into this thing, a time when you would just be expecting to get a hint of the coming MIA, but rather it is coming harder than anticipated (IMO) I think especially when the current el nino ends there will be more and more of these cold extremes, that eventually freeze rivers, raise food prices due to crop failures etc.

AND up2u2 never answer my question-that since the A. Global Warming did not cause the 2014 polar vortex by creating 'extreme weather conditions', as that theory was burst-ed by the IPCC itself in testimony to the senate.. Then what did? If the world is hotting up so much than why the extreme colds. The its cold because its hot gimmick is dead on this thread.

[Catoni]

Yep there it is again, its getting colder because its getting hotter, but the hotter is the problem, more grant money please..

Different scientists have different perspectives on what is causing the cold weather, the global warming industry likes to say it's co2 emissions and oh by the way they sell co2 emission reduction technology.

You can spin it anyway you want but the fact is the winters will continue to get colder. start earlier and end later, and you will still have these rivers and seas freezing especially when we get into the 2030's just like they did last time we had solar minimums, human caused warming will not offset these cold spells and then one day in the future, after the Maunder Minimum ends in the 2060's and the sun returns to solar maximums those severe cold spells will end assuming the solar maximums continue like they did from 1850 up until now and then the people in the future will call this era a 'mini-ice age'.

I understand it can be very confusing but with GLOBAL Warming you need to view the Earth GLOBALLY. I can fully understand during the Winter of 2014 Americans in the Central and East of USA up to their nether regions in snow and ice thinking "Global warming? someone's having a lend of me". I'd probably be thinking the same. It simply would not make sense. What you are seeing is 'WEATHER' if you want to witness Global Warming you have to look at Earth in its entirety not just Weather in one localised region like the USA.

NASA / Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) is the leading authority on Global Warming / Climate Change analysis.

Here is a snapshot of Earth during the Winter of 2014:

A_A_PolarVortex.jpg

Photo by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center

So you can see GLOBALLY the Earth is heating up like a boiled egg but you have this localised excursion of freezing cold air escaping from the Arctic. Normally this doesn't occur as the balanced heat from the equator keeps the icy cold air contained in the Polar Region. Global Warming creates hotspots and destabilises the Polar Region and the side of least resistance collapses and the icy air escapes. Now it passes over cold 'dry air' Canada without a great deal of impact but when it hits the warm humid air in the US it turns it into trillions of tons of snow and ice.

Look at poor old California while this is going on, baking to a crisp in a 1000 year record breaking drought. America is really getting whacked hard with the fallout from GW / CC.

Now overall US winters are getting milder not colder. So it isn't 'spin' but I do accept it is a perceived dichotomy.

It is so important not to conflate unrelated issues. The Earth is NOT in a Grand Solar Minimum similar to the Maunder Minimum and causing the Polar Vortex in Central and East Coast of USA. There is no link at all. What the Astronomers are suggesting is that Earth could be heading for a Solar Minimum similar to the Maunder Minimum BUT and it is a BIG BUT it will have little to no effect on GW / CC as shown using research by Feulner and Rahmstorf 2010 and combining the Maunder Minimum AND the Dalton Minimum it will have no effect whatsover with increasing Global temperatures:

A_A_FrostFair_3.jpg

There is NO connection between the Maunder Minimum and the 'River Thames Frost Fairs' (Also the Thames River does not flow through Central and East Coast USA).

A_A_FrostFair.jpg

I am at a loss how a Frost Fair on a frozen Thames River can be attributed to a Maunder Solar Minimum that occurred 37 years AFTER the first recorded Frost Fair.

The Mini Ice Age was caused by Volcanic eruptions and was restricted to a small regional area and did not effect Earth GLOBALLY.

I apologise for the length of the reply. For BM'ers who may be, quite rightly, scratching their heads a little on GW and massive snow storms I hope that helps by way of an explanation as to what is occurring and why.

Wow ! The red colour on that globe sure looks scary and hot....

Oh... wait..... it shows only in the 50's and 60's F. But it sure is a nice graphic to raise a bit of alarm in people that don't know any better.