Mini-Ice Age Coming?

[arunsakda]

Of course, right-wing ideologues only oppose science when it contradicts their pre-conceived notions of reality. Take for example the Texas Christian conservative Engineer who otherwise competent insists the universe is only 6000 years old .Rejection of climate science is only a reaction to fanciful slippery slopes and losses of certain freedoms they fear, compulsively. Of course nobody wants to pay more "taxes" or relinquish control to governments or other actors such as the UN. Even if it means trashing the Earth that gives all life and a future for their offsprings. The problem is nobody is talking of any such thing, and these reactionaries are in actuality at best paranoids and worst borderline wack jobs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkfss

Edited September 2, 2015 by arunsakda

[movieplay]

i don't know but im not doomsday about it, i think there is adequate food production for survival but like initially it will probably mean more famine in africa from higher food prices.. but policymakers appear to be ignoring and are just dealing with it as it continues in its early stage..

..and im not one of those rightwing people, i drive and e85 car and i like less emissions from and antismog point of view and non renuable resource conservation, and more nuclear power because its the only anti co2 tech that works..

So let us say one is convinced the overwhelming consensus is absolutely 180 degrees wrong. Sea levels are dropping, glaciers are growing, global temperatures on average are decreasing and we are indeed moving into an ice age due to Mauder minimum induced global cooling. What should individuals and societies do to prepare and adjust for such an eventuality?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkfss

[GanDoonToonPet]

If you are going to claim your on the side of science, don't use a chart that intentionally exaggerates the trend. I made some modifications to tell a more balanced story.

Purple: The graph simply labels the 2 data points which are record highs & lows. There is nothing wrong with that as the mean is shown, labelled as such on the graph & detailed in the notes below; hardly misleading.

Green: Here's a question for you. How many years worth of data do you need to calculate an 11 year mean? Answer that then you'll realise why the mean curve stops where it does.

Orange: I'm going to assume you just put that in there for a laugh.

[movieplay]

oh yeah! the 'scientist' from skepticalscience are Back! so did you ever complete your bachlorette in photography? can you come take picturess of me a barbell at the zoo?

give it at rest even your graph shows temperature following the solar cycle, look at the begining part of thegraph for fuks sake and the other graph that shows the lowest lows of the MIA, around the MM. now you think thats suddenly gonna chage because co2, and the global warming industrry bullshit..

love the way that other bachlorette in the homemaking arts up2u2 is still claiming to be a superior intellect to those guys with the phds. and calling them 'discredited' and frauds, and i dont care that their retired , their still way more credible then the horticulture retards at ss thats for fuken sure

the frauds are you,btw you get to continue posting on my thread while i cannot post on your blog,

Edited September 3, 2015 by movieplay

[canuckamuck]

If you are going to claim your on the side of science, don't use a chart that intentionally exaggerates the trend. I made some modifications to tell a more balanced story.

Purple: The graph simply labels the 2 data points which are record highs & lows. There is nothing wrong with that as the mean is shown, labelled as such on the graph & detailed in the notes below; hardly misleading.

Green: Here's a question for you. How many years worth of data do you need to calculate an 11 year mean? Answer that then you'll realise why the mean curve stops where it does.

Orange: I'm going to assume you just put that in there for a laugh.

Purple is there to exaggerate. why not use the opposite extremes of solar activity and temperature? Because although as significant as the opposite choice is, it would not suit the agenda.

Green: Considering that chart appears to end in 2010. and we now have had 5 more years to see that the solar activity and temperature will not diverge in an unpredictable way, I feel the green (being just a rough average) is very likely to be correct. Mind you as I am not submitting it for peer review, we will likely never know.

Orange: Since the alarmist industry routinely makes predictions like 2-5 degrees temperature rise by the end of the decade, with nothing to back it up but a computer model that is programmed to say that. I don't see why I should be discouraged to make my own prediction.

Edited September 3, 2015 by canuckamuck

[up2u2]

If you are going to claim your on the side of science, don't use a chart that intentionally exaggerates the trend. I made some modifications to tell a more balanced story.

Purple: The graph simply labels the 2 data points which are record highs & lows. There is nothing wrong with that as the mean is shown, labelled as such on the graph & detailed in the notes below; hardly misleading.

Green: Here's a question for you. How many years worth of data do you need to calculate an 11 year mean? Answer that then you'll realise why the mean curve stops where it does.

Orange: I'm going to assume you just put that in there for a laugh.

Gan the reason I pointed out the low TSI mean on that graph is when I read '100 year minimum' the thick blue line doesn't drop below the start point but you have to see the feint blue line to see it drops below. As you say the graph has to stop for the 11 year interval data to arrive.

I certainly wouldn't arbitrarily extend a graph and post it as canuck seems to have done unless I had correctly and accurately recalculated the 'up to date' data.

[up2u2]

If you are going to claim your on the side of science, don't use a chart that intentionally exaggerates the trend. I made some modifications to tell a more balanced story.

Purple: The graph simply labels the 2 data points which are record highs & lows. There is nothing wrong with that as the mean is shown, labelled as such on the graph & detailed in the notes below; hardly misleading.

Green: Here's a question for you. How many years worth of data do you need to calculate an 11 year mean? Answer that then you'll realise why the mean curve stops where it does.

Orange: I'm going to assume you just put that in there for a laugh.

Purple is there to exaggerate. why not use the opposite extremes of solar activity and temperature? Because although as significant as the opposite choice is, it would not suit the agenda.

Green: Considering that chart appears to end in 2010. and we now have had 5 more years to see that the solar activity and temperature will not diverge in an unpredictable way, I feel the green (being just a rough average) is very likely to be correct. Mind you as I am not submitting it for peer review, we will likely never know.

Orange: Since the alarmist industry routinely makes predictions like 2-5 degrees temperature rise by the end of the decade, with nothing to back it up but a computer model that is programmed to say that. I don't see why I should be discouraged to make my own prediction.

You can extend the graph if you wish canuck but use the correct methodology :annual Global temperature change with 11 year moving average of temperature against annual Total Solar Irradiance with 11 year moving average. The data is available from NASA / GISS and PMOD websites. You will have to do your own calculations though and then extend the graph accurately.

Seems you have just extended the graph with some squiggly lines to conform to your agenda? Funny that. If you are going to engage in science 'being just a rough average' kinda doesn't cut it in the real world.

Which 'alarmists' exactly are routinely predicting 2-5 degrees warming in 5 years and what computer model are you referring too?

[movieplay]

I just noticed something about the ice-age scare video posted on post #91.. it was actually made later than I thought,.."Florida citrus crops used to freeze 1 time every decade on the average [start horror movie scarry sound here] BUT now they have frozen 4 out of the last 5 years from 1980-1985".. apparently this film was made in 1987-88 (right about the time Margarett Thatcher was founding the global warming industry)

what my point? well we know now that the earth had went into a warming trend at about 1980, as the PDO index shifted to warm, BUT they were still getting these record colds, that sounds a little similar to what's going on now in reverse, that cooling, warming trends can lag behind things like the pdo index & the solar cycles.. and isn't that what SS's {now corrected disputed} graph is showing? And like i said earlier, notice how it's always Climate Change now and not GW writing seems to be on the wall guys

Now the implications of this are alarming, it shows that up2u2 could lose his 0.85 C temperature increase over a 135 year period

That chart that shows the earth warmed by less than 1' since the 1880's is EVERYTHING to up2u2, it hangs over his bed and he prays to it every night, it's his requisite picture on his desk, it's the center of his world, if he looses it he may hurt himself or others..

We must stage an intervention NOW with the whole crew from SS, i'll arrive wearing jeans and sandals and that paint blot tshirt, with my hemp backpack packed with self help and yoga books, Barabar Winkler will arrive with one of her furry friends from the zoo, first we'll debate how keeping the fury friend in bondage is cruel, then we'll impress upon up2u2 that we're there for him in this difficult time, perhaps there is an alternative Global warming Climate Change graph that he can center his life around, we'll get thru this buddy, just hang in there, start your day everyday in the lotus position and breath, i'll be your sponsor, you can call me anytime your feeling destructive.. just remember if you do some thing rash and hurt yourself, you could die, AND THEN your body will decompose and release EVEN MORE co2 into the atmosphere! (That should keep him from offing himself until our next meeting.

Edited September 3, 2015 by movieplay

[up2u2]

oh yeah! the 'scientist' from skepticalscience are Back! so did you ever complete your bachlorette in photography? can you come take picturess of me a barbell at the zoo?

give it at rest even your graph shows temperature following the solar cycle, look at the begining part of thegraph for fuks sake and the other graph that shows the lowest lows of the MIA, around the MM. now you think thats suddenly gonna chage because co2, and the global warming industrry bullshit..

love the way that other bachlorette in the homemaking arts up2u2 is still claiming to be a superior intellect to those guys with the phds. and calling them 'discredited' and frauds, and i dont care that their retired , their still way more credible then the horticulture retards at ss thats for fuken sure

the frauds are you,btw you get to continue posting on my thread while i cannot post on your blog,

'movieplay' you got a bit of a WWF Smack down on the Skeptical Science website but that is to be expected mate. They deal with peer reviewed scientific research not 'sciency kinda guff' on a youtube channel like adapt2030. If you take the time to understand the basic science on GW / CC and have something that looks a little confusing and ask a question they are more than willing to assist or refer you to where you can do further research on the issue.

If you can see correlation showing causation on the Temperature / Irradiation graph you need glasses lol

"the lowest lows of the MIA, around the MM. now you think thats suddenly gonna chage because co2"

YES!!! definitely.

As you can see:

Also the MIA and MM only affected a very small region on the planet, small regions of Europe and Northern America. It didn't have a GLOBAL effect.

Also there has been peer reviewed scientific research "Feulner and Rahmstorf 2010" that demonstrates a Grand Solar Minimum far larger than a MM would have a very slight effect on GLOBAL temperatures:

Now you can show all the photos of Snow you like but the problem is the science simply does not agree with your view.

You are welcome to show where the science is fraudulent. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

[canuckamuck]

If you are going to claim your on the side of science, don't use a chart that intentionally exaggerates the trend. I made some modifications to tell a more balanced story.

Purple: The graph simply labels the 2 data points which are record highs & lows. There is nothing wrong with that as the mean is shown, labelled as such on the graph & detailed in the notes below; hardly misleading.

Green: Here's a question for you. How many years worth of data do you need to calculate an 11 year mean? Answer that then you'll realise why the mean curve stops where it does.

Orange: I'm going to assume you just put that in there for a laugh.

Purple is there to exaggerate. why not use the opposite extremes of solar activity and temperature? Because although as significant as the opposite choice is, it would not suit the agenda.

Green: Considering that chart appears to end in 2010. and we now have had 5 more years to see that the solar activity and temperature will not diverge in an unpredictable way, I feel the green (being just a rough average) is very likely to be correct. Mind you as I am not submitting it for peer review, we will likely never know.

Orange: Since the alarmist industry routinely makes predictions like 2-5 degrees temperature rise by the end of the decade, with nothing to back it up but a computer model that is programmed to say that. I don't see why I should be discouraged to make my own prediction.

You can extend the graph if you wish canuck but use the correct methodology :annual Global temperature change with 11 year moving average of temperature against annual Total Solar Irradiance with 11 year moving average. The data is available from NASA / GISS and PMOD websites. You will have to do your own calculations though and then extend the graph accurately.

Seems you have just extended the graph with some squiggly lines to conform to your agenda? Funny that. If you are going to engage in science 'being just a rough average' kinda doesn't cut it in the real world.

Which 'alarmists' exactly are routinely predicting 2-5 degrees warming in 5 years and what computer model are you referring too?

In my post I meant to say century, not decade. I'll own that gaff.

Lots of alarmists are on about massive rise in global temperature. I believe they refer to it as global warming. You may have heard of it.

I am not going to defend my graph I simply pointed out the bias towards the alarmism which in my opinion was dishonest in the position of the purple lines. If I was trying to re-plot the graph with serious intent, do you think I would have used the obvious scribbles I did. This is me scribbling on someone else's graph to show their bias nothing more. No science was used in the process. I simply observed a minor con and called attention to it.

[movieplay]

it doesn't surprise me that MIA or BIA will always affect Europe and east coast US more, that's normal, look at the glacial maximums, when the earth gets colder, it gets more cold in area's where the glaciers expand.. and from the 1600s most of the reliable climate data would be from europe and n.america.. but it doesn't mean that other parts of the world didn't also get cold during the MIA, it's just that europe and north east us got more cold

[up2u2]

In my post I meant to say century, not decade. I'll own that gaff.

Lots of alarmists are on about massive rise in global temperature. I believe they refer to it as global warming. You may have heard of it.

I am not going to defend my graph I simply pointed out the bias towards the alarmism which in my opinion was dishonest in the position of the purple lines. If I was trying to re-plot the graph with serious intent, do you think I would have used the obvious scribbles I did. This is me scribbling on someone else's graph to show their bias nothing more. No science was used in the process. I simply observed a minor con and called attention to it.

I cannot comment on 'alarmists' as I don't know who you are referring to or what comments they have made on global temperatures.

The term Global Warming is used by Climate Scientists to describe the warming effect caused by Greenhouse gases that elevate Global Temperatures. The same gases can also cause Global Cooling depending on their atmospheric concentrations.

The graph simply demonstrates that as Global Temperatures have increased the amount of radiation from the Sun has decreased. In itself the graph cannot be accused of being biased or alarmist it simply graphically shows the facts of the data.

If you want to disagree with the facts of the graph you need to question the data and the methodology. If you want to extend the graph you should collect the data and use the same methodology.

The data is freely available to download and you can use climate4you to construct your graph. If you think the graph is biased or being alarmist construct your own graph using the data and demonstrate the evidence your opinion is based on.

Scribbles are just that scribbles.

"No science was used in the process" You didn't have to tell me that it was quite evident.

[up2u2]

it doesn't surprise me that MIA or BIA will always affect Europe and east coast US more, that's normal, look at the glacial maximums, when the earth gets colder, it gets more cold in area's where the glaciers expand.. and from the 1600s most of the reliable climate data would be from europe and n.america.. but it doesn't mean that other parts of the world didn't also get cold during the MIA, it's just that europe and north east us got more cold

Correct and Feulner and Rahmstorf 2010 sets out what the effect of a Grand Solar Minimum will have on Global Temperatures. Very little.

I think your Ice Age theory has run out of gas and parked up in the 'break down' lane movieplayer lol

Below is a video from Peter Sinclair "Climate Denier Crock of the Week. It specifically shows how Solar Activity is NOT causing GW and also shows how that so called documentary deceived you 'The Great Climate Change Swindle"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20#t=27

[movieplay]

You always take the argument in a circle, making the same comment that was already retorted; the way i defined MIA using the scientists definitions i provided earlier(not gonna keep wasting my time digging up the same posts), and my own definition we are already in it, the cold events posted and the record colds, 2014 vortex, the deep summer snows and frosts in hawaii, calgary, China.. none of that is normal, we just had a very cold winter and odd colds in the summer, i realize you have some charts that show average warming but AGAIN that's not the data i'm looking at, more looking at extreme cold anomalies as that what defines the historic term Mini-Ice Age.. it's not an exact thing, it's a subjective term from a historical perspective.. considering these are ongoing i'm just looking to the future at THIS point we just had extreme colds in the previous winter, AND then snows in the summer and you keep knocking that whatever, we'll see what the next 5 years chart data brings but more than that im looking at blizzards, extreme freezes, crop failures.. So however you wanna define MIA, the definition i provided and the events i posted show that we are in it now, if you wanna define a MIA differently then go ahead..

before i comment on what peter sinclair is saying, havn't watched what you posted yet but i watched another one of his videos where he was attacking one of the scientists in the TGGWS film, why does he have to launch these lame attacks against prominent scientists saying they are working for the tobacco industry etc. this is bullshit, peter sinclair clearly works for the global warming industry, they are after government largess, they say they need more money to save the world, then guys like Al gore make $100s of millions off this co2 business, i mean cut the bullshit, your shit stinks even more, and debate the science.. ', if you sling mud then the other guy will sling back.. the professionals in the TGGWS film seem much more credible than this peter sinclair. or the shadowing bloggers like you, who don't tell you they are scientists but they claim to have this superior knowledge of science you discredit yourselves by that approach, just try to make your case.. and do you have a debate with between these guys, that would be something to watch, the only thing i find on youtube is one where the guy that's supposed to argue your side runs away.. kind like the way you ran away when i tried to post on your blog.. its easy to make a 1 sided youtube video.. but i read the stuff on the ss website, i listen to the opposing viewpoint, all you got is debate between scientists, but you can't handle that

Edited September 3, 2015 by movieplay

[anon4546543]

If anyone has ever wondered why most people are not engaged in the debate on climate, you idiots have just confirmed it. Not a debate, more a personal attack. There seems to be creditable information that we need to cut down on pollution, plant more trees, protect the life in the seas and learn to promote this.

[movieplay]

ok i took a deep breath, im ok now, sorry its just you keep doin it to me..

Edited September 3, 2015 by movieplay

[ricklev]

Peer reviewed science. What crap! That just means that some socialist scientist sucking off the the government tit and bowing down to the global warming cabal rubber stamps some idea that another corrupt scientist thought up while taking his morning piss. Peer reviewed! Means nothing!

Just kidding. I don't think a lot of people really understand what peer reviewed science is.

[movieplay]

well why can't these dumbasses get a real scientist with some credentials to back their view, since its so 'peer reviewed'..why does this pottery major make a scientific presentation with,data and graphs, i mean they trashed this guy on the thread when I never even referenced him, but at least he's a Phd and and was a real research scientists ..a senior researcher at nasa etc.

[up2u2]

well why can't these dumbasses get a real scientist with some credentials to back their view, since its so 'peer reviewed'..why does this pottery major make a scientific presentation with,data and graphs, i mean they trashed this guy on the thread when I never even referenced him, but at least he's a Phd and and was a real research scientists ..a senior researcher at nasa etc.

You cannot be serious Roy Spencer? You could run a 1000 page thread on all the rubbish this guy has posted on his blog. He is no longer involved in scientific research, has not worked for NASA in a long time and never will again, he is a failed scientists who now describes himself as a commentator. He runs a Climate Denier bloggsite funded by Big oil, coal and gas industry. He couldn't get the Satellite temperature data correct at Huntsville it was consistently wrong. This went on for years until a guy called Mears came along and finally corrected Spencer's errors. Mears et al 2003 and Mears et al 2005

Mear's now heads up Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and is considered the world authority of satellite data analysis. Bit of a science rock star is Mears. Roy Spencer is just a washed up old former scientist being paid by the coal oil and gas to promote Climate Denial.

The milli second you mention Spencer your credibility goes right out the window.

'movieplay' you don't seem to know much about the background of the people you are citing to prosecute your misinformation on your Ice Age theory.

Oh big mistake Friis Christiansen should come off your list he definitely doesn't support your Ice Age theory. He does research on solar activity that demonstrates you are not correct.

[up2u2]

well why can't these dumbasses get a real scientist with some credentials to back their view, since its so 'peer reviewed'..why does this pottery major make a scientific presentation with,data and graphs, i mean they trashed this guy on the thread when I never even referenced him, but at least he's a Phd and and was a real research scientists ..a senior researcher at nasa etc.

You cannot be serious Roy Spencer? You could run a 1000 page thread on all the rubbish this guy has posted on his blog. He is no longer involved in scientific research, has not worked for NASA in a long time and never will again, he is a failed scientists who now describes himself as a commentator. He runs a Climate Denier bloggsite funded by Big oil, coal and gas industry. He couldn't get the Satellite temperature data correct at Huntsville it was consistently wrong. This went on for years until a guy called Mears came along and finally corrected Spencer's errors. Mears et al 2003 and Mears et al 2005

Mear's now heads up Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and is considered the world authority of satellite data analysis. Bit of a science rock star is Mears. Roy Spencer is just a washed up old former scientist being paid by the coal oil and gas to promote Climate Denial.

The milli second you mention Spencer your credibility goes right out the window.

'movieplay' you don't seem to know much about the background of the people you are citing to prosecute your misinformation on your Ice Age theory.

Oh big mistake Friis Christiansen should come off your list he definitely doesn't support your Ice Age theory. He does research on solar activity that demonstrates you are not correct. It was actually his research that your Climate Denier video misrepresented by stopping when the Solar Activity went down. He wasn't to happy about that.

[movieplay]

yea well i know your background you pottery class reject, your background 0, just like all the other fine arts retards at ss that claim to understand advanced science and climate modeling, RS may not Hawking, but i'll take a science phd over a bs in oil painting any day.

Big Oil makes big profits, they don't need to lobby the government for largess, ss is a lobby site for the global warming industry so stop acting like your so holier than thou, we will see what happens in the next few years as far as climate,especially after the elnino ends

[up2u2]

You always take the argument in a circle, making the same comment that was already retorted; the way i defined MIA using the scientists definitions i provided earlier(not gonna keep wasting my time digging up the same posts), and my own definition we are already in it, the cold events posted and the record colds, 2014 vortex, the deep summer snows and frosts in hawaii, calgary, China.. none of that is normal, we just had a very cold winter and odd colds in the summer, i realize you have some charts that show average warming but AGAIN that's not the data i'm looking at, more looking at extreme cold anomalies as that what defines the historic term Mini-Ice Age.. it's not an exact thing, it's a subjective term from a historical perspective.. considering these are ongoing i'm just looking to the future at THIS point we just had extreme colds in the previous winter, AND then snows in the summer and you keep knocking that whatever, we'll see what the next 5 years chart data brings but more than that im looking at blizzards, extreme freezes, crop failures.. So however you wanna define MIA, the definition i provided and the events i posted show that we are in it now, if you wanna define a MIA differently then go ahead..

before i comment on what peter sinclair is saying, havn't watched what you posted yet but i watched another one of his videos where he was attacking one of the scientists in the TGGWS film, why does he have to launch these lame attacks against prominent scientists saying they are working for the tobacco industry etc. this is bullshit, peter sinclair clearly works for the global warming industry, they are after government largess, they say they need more money to save the world, then guys like Al gore make $100s of millions off this co2 business, i mean cut the bullshit, your shit stinks even more, and debate the science.. ', if you sling mud then the other guy will sling back.. the professionals in the TGGWS film seem much more credible than this peter sinclair. or the shadowing bloggers like you, who don't tell you they are scientists but they claim to have this superior knowledge of science you discredit yourselves by that approach, just try to make your case.. and do you have a debate with between these guys, that would be something to watch, the only thing i find on youtube is one where the guy that's supposed to argue your side runs away.. kind like the way you ran away when i tried to post on your blog.. its easy to make a 1 sided youtube video.. but i read the stuff on the ss website, i listen to the opposing viewpoint, all you got is debate between scientists, but you can't handle that

Other than a few photos of snow and some very old Climate Denier propaganda bloggs you really haven't quoted or addressed any of the peer reviewed research on GW / CC. I think you are well read on the non science and Climate Denier propaganda but you seem to have little knowledge on the actual peer reviewed science on GW / CC. Seriously, you should have really picked up on the Arctic Winter snow that all melts over summer and you should really be aware on the science that while temperatures have risen Solar Intensity has dropped and also you should know that Feulner and Rahmstorf 2010 totally rejects your Ice Age theory and worst of all you should know ALL the data shows Globally the Earth is warming not cooling and if you disagree with this present your data, also here is what Richard Lindzen said about his attempted peer reviewed Paper, (Lindzen and Choi 2009 & 2011)and I quote:

"some stupid mistakes...It was just embarrassing." (Lindzen's own words)

These included but not limited to:

Flaw No.1 Comparing Tropical Apples with Global Oranges

Contravening previous peer reviewed research:

Murphy et al 2010

Chung et al 2010

Flaw No.2 Assuming Short-Term Local Feedbacks are Representative of Long-Term Global Feedbacks and Cherrypicking Noisy Data

Contravening peer reviewed research

Trenberth et al 2010

Flaw No.3 Insufficiently Clear Methodology

ALL research shows Climate sensitivity on doubling of CO2 shows +2 - 4.5^OC not 'less than 1^OC

Flaw No.4 Failing to Address Contradictory Research (This is what you do 'movieplay')

Contradicting peer reviewed science

Chung et al 2010

Flaw No.5 Cloud Causality

Contravening peer reviewed research

Dessler 2011

LC11 Overhyped and Under-Supported

To be honest it's just embarrassing.

[up2u2]

yea well i know your background you pottery class reject, your background 0, just like all the other fine arts retards at ss that claim to understand advanced science and climate modeling, RS may not Hawking, but i'll take a science phd over a bs in oil painting any day.

Big Oil makes big profits, they don't need to lobby the government for largess, ss is a lobby site for the global warming industry so stop acting like your so holier than thou, we will see what happens in the next few years as far as climate,especially after the elnino ends

How DARE!!! you attempt to besmirch my pottery acumen. I will have you know in Elementary School 1965 I was awarded a gold star by Ms Magilacutty for my clay, abstract interpretation of the mythical creature the Flobgobblin. In fact, and further to wit, I believe her exact words were "I do declare, without any doubt, a young Gaudi in the making"

I demand you retract your scurrilous remarks!

[up2u2]

ok i took a deep breath, im ok now, sorry its just you keep doin it to me..

I feel your pain 'movieplay' actual peer reviewed scientific facts can be a real bitch when it blows all your Climate Denial 'sciency' guff away.

Just one thing with your snow photos depicting how "Earth is in the grips of an Ice Age and the World is cooling" milarky. Why not try some more contrasting photos rather than just doom and gloom stuff that depresses everyone.

How about:

Polar Bear cubs seek protection from the frosty Ice Age paralysing the Earth

Penguin Chick struggles to survive harsh Ice Age as Global temperatures plummet

Seal pup stranded in snow as Ice Age threatens extinction of Seal colonies.

Provided a person doesn't realise ALL the scientific evidence rejects the slightest plausibility the Earth is going into an Ice Age and that ALL the scientific evidence shows clearly the Earth is warming not cooling your in the clear mate

[arunsakda]

I've always had a soft spot in me heart for Walruses. There are 35000 hauled out on land this year because there is no sea ice in the Chukchi. It is stressful for them causing increased mortality and undernourishment. I hope the ice age comes soon for their sake.

https://www.thedodo.com/these-35000-walruses-are-suffe-745151223.html

Edited September 4, 2015 by arunsakda

[arunsakda]

Poor buggers mobbed up like that. would not do this before the summer sea ice largely.

Maybe they can rest on Obama's Oil rigs that will be coming soon.

[up2u2]

I've always had a soft spot in me heart for Walruses. There are 35000 hauled out on land this year because there is no sea ice in the Chukchi. It is stressful for them causing increased mortality and undernourishment. I hope the ice age comes soon for their sake.

https://www.thedodo.com/these-35000-walruses-are-suffe-745151223.html

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1441369486.076494.jpg

Thanks arun very distressing to see these extraordinary animals suffering like this.

The peak body for Polar Sea Ice is the Polar Science Center they are a research facility connected to Washington University. The specific department for this particular region is the "Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modelling and Assimilation System" (PIOMAS). Their modelling is based on research by Zhang and Rothrock 2003.

The current situation:

So you can see the Walrus are currently at the very bottom of the Summer (Sept) Sea Ice Minimum. The Sea Ice doesn't start the Winter Cycle till around October and peaks at the Winter Maximum around March thru April 2016.

This is a crucial time for the Walrus population. Now is the time they have their pups and they have to feed them up to strength to survive Winter. Events like this could decimate the population very quickly.

I don't know if ocean currents can quickly change or winds shift to push some existing Sea Ice their way in the short term or if they are stranded till December where Sea Ice will start to build.

I have to admit I do get very frustrated with blogsites like adapt2030 who intentionally misrepresent the science and attempt to show Sea Ice recovering spectacularly using the Winter Maximum ignoring the fact that all that Sea Ice melts during the Summer Minimum. Just blatant deceitful misinformation. Explain to the thousands of dead Walrus pups they are in the grips of an Ice Age. It is just shameful to spread this misinformation.

Thought you might like this video by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Pacific walrus research program. You are right arun what an absolutely extraordinary animal the Walrus is. Just amazing close up vision of these wonderful animals. I hope help comes soon for them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF-aNYhCr8k

Edited September 4, 2015 by up2u2

[cumgranosalum]

Peer reviewed science. What crap! That just means that some socialist scientist sucking off the the government tit and bowing down to the global warming cabal rubber stamps some idea that another corrupt scientist thought up while taking his morning piss. Peer reviewed! Means nothing!

Just kidding. I don't think a lot of people really understand what peer reviewed science is.

... And possibly the most risible post of the thread.... This contributor admitting that he/she has no idea of what peer review means.

[up2u2]

arun you got me intrigued by these beautiful Walrus animals I just had to find out more about them. The Walrus mothers actually hug their calves and they don't let them stray too far when they are little. They seem to be a little like us. Well they are Mammals so they procreate similar to humans.

Peter Sinclair has done an update on a 'Crock of the Week' video. Have to confess it is a little distressing seeing reports of young Walrus calves lost at Sea but that's GW and its effects.

[movieplay]

This from 2013:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/

Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday

sea ice 'baffles' scientists.. yea right, im sure its baffling scientists

Edited September 5, 2015 by movieplay