History channel presents "little ice age"

[konradv]

I am pretty sure the fact it started before the CO2 rise should be pretty evident, given the Little Ice age was between 1550 and 1850. A good bit of time BEFORE the Industrial Revolution.

How does that prove your thesis? Indutrial Revolution begins in the late 1700s. By 1850 Little Ice Age ends. Sure sounds like we have a plausible Industrialization --> Warming timeline here.

LOL, you seriously want to try and make the claim that a less than a hundred years of increased CO2 (nothing like we have today) caused the end of the little Ice Age? Stop being an idiot junior...

Regardless, it certainly doesn't prove anything about your position, which is what I was really doing in the first place. Back to the drawing board, pops.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

LOL, you algorians cracke me up... If they were airing a show about Global Warming you would be praising their honesty and integrity...

Oh, right, this argument has already de-evolved for you into a "if this happened, this is what you would think about it."

I had forgotten that righties were expert hypothetical event predictors, to the point they can even predict how people would feel and think.

No thanks. Now go watch the Ghosts and Aliens channel and believe everything they tell you.

 

[Wicked Jester]

LOL, you algorians cracke me up... If they were airing a show about Global Warming you would be praising their honesty and integrity...

Oh, right, this argument has already de-evolved for you into a "if this happened, this is what you would think about it."

I had forgotten that righties were expert hypothetical event predictors, to the point they can even predict how people would feel and think.

No thanks. Now go watch the Ghosts and Aliens channel and believe everything they tell you.

No thanks.....I prefer real scientific data, as opposed to the Junk Science and "computer models" that Algore's Junk Scientists use......After all, those scientists all have a major financial dog in the fight, unlike the following:

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Man, Algore and his merry band of Junk Scientists lead the sheep along with leashes.

 

[syrenn]

It seems the History channel has went climate skeptic..

They are airing a show soon called "Little Ice Age: Big Chill" where they talk in depth on the effects and a little on the possible causes of the little ice age. This could be a very "inconvenient" bit of truth for some of the pseudo-science being touted by the IPCC and Al Gore's documentary.

By the way Mr.Gore and the IPCC tell the tale of climate one would think the little ice age was a normal period and the Medieval warming period didn't exist. Should be interesting to see how the al gore faithful will try and twist this to their benefit...

hot
warm
cold
warm
hot.
warm
cold

It has always been that way...and always will.

If you study chaos theory (which actually started out because of meteorology, FYI) you'd realize that it's way WEIRDER than that.

But the climate of this rock defintiely changes with or without mankind's intervention on THAT we certainly agree.

And contrary to what some of the Global Warming theorists often tell you, the changes in Climate that this world has already gone through are not ALWAYS slow, either.

A brief period, for example of serious volcanic or techtonic activity can change the world from a tropical clime to a ball of miles thick ice in almost no time (geologically speaking) at all.


While typically world's climate changes over a long period, it can change in a DAY.

Mankind is now and always has been hanging from a slender thread, folks.

Oh i agree. That is why the warmers...are so damn funny. They ignore the reality of earth.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The little ice age was a fact as well as the climate cycles that follow the solar cycles...That is not what we're talking about at all as the tsi peaked in 1955, but lets just say that
-there was a little ice age
-midevil warm period
-modern warm period that we're now within

The little ice age was near -1.2c cooler then today...

What the warmers are questioning is why the warming after 1955? Of course the mid evil warm period could of been warmer then today.

The question to this I'm surely clueless on. Could be some other factor that is natural or maybe the warmers can explain how the co2 warm the planet against the first and second law of thermodynamics. Fourier idea of only the net flow of the air doesn't hold up very good. You can cool a object, but then the air is going from hotter to cooler as the law states, but the surface of the earth is by far warmer then the Atmosphere, which decreases with height. The troposphere decreases, but stratosphere does the opposite, but we're not talking about any other layer besides the bottom part we living within.

Maybe the oceans are putting out heat still into the Atmosphere from the peak...Maybe there is a lag time of about 40 years???

 

[gslack]

Pretty easy. The industrial revolution began in 1760, the LIA ended in 1850. The Maunder Minimum, the cause of the LIA, had it's last major dip just before 1850.

Maunder Minimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you have the beginning of the burning of fossil fuels and the end of the Maunder Minimum close together. The earth warmed. And continued to warm, as the solar activity increased until about 1950. It has decreased since then, but the earth has been warming at a much faster rate in the last 60 years. Warming with a decrease in solar activity.

Of course, you could try to find some science to prove that the GHGs from fossil fuels has had no effect on the increase in temperature, but the search would be futile. Science as in peer reviewed journals, not the meanderings of an obese drugged out radio jock.

So you are claiming that the 90 years of overlap caused the warming?

Quit posturing already, you know thats BS...

 

[gslack]

We all know that periodically the climate has changed in the world.

We also know why the climate has changed and we know that different events can effect the climate.

What we do NOT as yet KNOW, (but certainly some of us suspect) is that mankind's industrial pollution is now causing the climate to change.

Just because the climate changed due to non-manmade events, does not mean that mankind's activities might not also be able to change our climate.

Life itself has changed the world's atmosphere many times and the climate changed as a result of LIFE the chemical composition of the atmosphere.

Ok then why don't you stop the people from your side... ..

You presume I have a side.

I am a philosopher, amigo.

The only side I am taking is the side of truth IF I can ascertain what the TRUTH is.

A careful reading of my post (something you clearly haven't done) would lead you to understand that I do not CLAIM to know the truth regarding this issue.

FWIW I seriously doubt anybody KNOWS the truth.

Really? A philosopher? You already picked what you believe to be truth in your own statements here. You defend the warmers position at every turn and have done so since I have been here. You usually assume every counter argument on this subject to be false.

Seriously editec....

 

[gslack]

How does that prove your thesis? Indutrial Revolution begins in the late 1700s. By 1850 Little Ice Age ends. Sure sounds like we have a plausible Industrialization --> Warming timeline here.

LOL, you seriously want to try and make the claim that a less than a hundred years of increased CO2 (nothing like we have today) caused the end of the little Ice Age? Stop being an idiot junior...

Regardless, it certainly doesn't prove anything about your position, which is what I was really doing in the first place. Back to the drawing board, pops.

I responded to YOUR claim dumbass.. My position was my opinion of what the upcoming show on history channel may cause. Jesus junior lay off the crack already...

 

[gslack]

LOL, you algorians cracke me up... If they were airing a show about Global Warming you would be praising their honesty and integrity...

Oh, right, this argument has already de-evolved for you into a "if this happened, this is what you would think about it."

I had forgotten that righties were expert hypothetical event predictors, to the point they can even predict how people would feel and think.

No thanks. Now go watch the Ghosts and Aliens channel and believe everything they tell you.

LOL thats a yes.... Busted..LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

We all know that periodically the climate has changed in the world.

We also know why the climate has changed and we know that different events can effect the climate.

What we do NOT as yet KNOW, (but certainly some of us suspect) is that mankind's industrial pollution is now causing the climate to change.

Just because the climate changed due to non-manmade events, does not mean that mankind's activities might not also be able to change our climate.

Life itself has changed the world's atmosphere many times and the climate changed as a result of LIFE the chemical composition of the atmosphere.

During the Caroniferous, both temperature and CO2 were much higher than today and then both reduced to levels similar to today while the level of oxygen rose to a very high level.

Insects the size Futons crawled around giving rise to the Orkin-iferous period during which they were systematically killed off.

Okay, I made that period up.

The reason the insects got to be so large was that in the very oxygen rich air they could take in enough oxygen to support their limbs. Today, they cannot so their size is limited.

The atmosphere changes and we can have some effect on it, but the world operates the way it does and if we cause enough aggravation the world will simply shuck us off as it did with the big bugs. However, as happened with the big bugs, things might just change around us to the way things have been for the majority of the world's history and we will suffocate in the poisenous air.

The way things are right now is an anomoly compared to the way things usually are around here.

Planetary Temperature and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

That is correct. But your article acts as if a rapid return to a high CO2 level would be without side effects. No matter what the beginning level of GHGs, when there has been a very rapid increase, there has been a period of extinction. Also, we have 7 billion people dependent on agriculture which is dependent on stable weather. A rapid increase in GHGs destabalizes the weather, according to the past geological records.

Methane catastrophe

 

[FactFinder]

History Channnel:

Very entertaining!

 

[Old Rocks]

The little ice age was a fact as well as the climate cycles that follow the solar cycles...That is not what we're talking about at all as the tsi peaked in 1955, but lets just say that
-there was a little ice age
-midevil warm period
-modern warm period that we're now within

The little ice age was near -1.2c cooler then today...

What the warmers are questioning is why the warming after 1955? Of course the mid evil warm period could of been warmer then today.

The question to this I'm surely clueless on. Could be some other factor that is natural or maybe the warmers can explain how the co2 warm the planet against the first and second law of thermodynamics. Fourier idea of only the net flow of the air doesn't hold up very good. You can cool a object, but then the air is going from hotter to cooler as the law states, but the surface of the earth is by far warmer then the Atmosphere, which decreases with height. The troposphere decreases, but stratosphere does the opposite, but we're not talking about any other layer besides the bottom part we living within.

Maybe the oceans are putting out heat still into the Atmosphere from the peak...Maybe there is a lag time of about 40 years???

Mathew, if the idea that GHGs violated the laws of physics were valid, the Physicists in Societies like the American Institute of Physics, and the Royal Society would have pointed it out long ago, before even Arrnhenius did his computations.

 

[FactFinder]

The little ice age was a fact as well as the climate cycles that follow the solar cycles...That is not what we're talking about at all as the tsi peaked in 1955, but lets just say that
-there was a little ice age
-midevil warm period
-modern warm period that we're now within

The little ice age was near -1.2c cooler then today...

What the warmers are questioning is why the warming after 1955? Of course the mid evil warm period could of been warmer then today.

The question to this I'm surely clueless on. Could be some other factor that is natural or maybe the warmers can explain how the co2 warm the planet against the first and second law of thermodynamics. Fourier idea of only the net flow of the air doesn't hold up very good. You can cool a object, but then the air is going from hotter to cooler as the law states, but the surface of the earth is by far warmer then the Atmosphere, which decreases with height. The troposphere decreases, but stratosphere does the opposite, but we're not talking about any other layer besides the bottom part we living within.

Maybe the oceans are putting out heat still into the Atmosphere from the peak...Maybe there is a lag time of about 40 years???

Mathew, if the idea that GHGs violated the laws of physics were valid, the Physicists in Societies like the American Institute of Physics, and the Royal Society would have pointed it out long ago, before even Arrnhenius did his computations.

Yep, those guys got it all together.

 

[Old Rocks]

In this case the History Channel is taking research done by several astronomers - with no political/climate change axe to grind I might add - and revealing it to anyone wanting to consider the data beyond the hysteria.

CLICK HERE for a complete history of the scientific studies that lead to the discovery of the Little Ice Age coming out of the studies of astronomers beginning with astronomers Walter Maunder in the 19th century. This was all in place by 1983, preceding the current rage about GW.
The Maunder Minimum is named after the first astonomer to collect data regarding solar activity viz sunspots.

The only thing you missed is that the 'current' rage concerning GW was started in 1858 with Tyndall's observations of the obsorption bands of various GHGs, including water vapor. In 1896, Arrnhenius quantified the data, and made some pretty good predictions concerning the warming.

 

[FactFinder]

In this case the History Channel is taking research done by several astronomers - with no political/climate change axe to grind I might add - and revealing it to anyone wanting to consider the data beyond the hysteria.

CLICK HERE for a complete history of the scientific studies that lead to the discovery of the Little Ice Age coming out of the studies of astronomers beginning with astronomers Walter Maunder in the 19th century. This was all in place by 1983, preceding the current rage about GW.
The Maunder Minimum is named after the first astonomer to collect data regarding solar activity viz sunspots.

The only thing you missed is that the 'current' rage concerning GW was started in 1858 with Tyndall's observations of the obsorption bands of various GHGs, including water vapor. In 1896, Arrnhenius quantified the data, and made some pretty good predictions concerning the warming.

Was that 'Absorption" bands? Seems he missed a few spots. Was he concentrating just on Texas?

 

[Old Rocks]

Remote Sensing : Feature Articles

 

[American Horse]

In this case the History Channel is taking research done by several astronomers - with no political/climate change axe to grind I might add - and revealing it to anyone wanting to consider the data beyond the hysteria.

CLICK HERE for a complete history of the scientific studies that lead to the discovery of the Little Ice Age coming out of the studies of astronomers beginning with astronomers Walter Maunder in the 19th century. This was all in place by 1983, preceding the current rage about GW.
The Maunder Minimum is named after the first astonomer to collect data regarding solar activity viz sunspots.

The only thing you missed is that the 'current' rage concerning GW was started in 1858 with Tyndall's observations of the obsorption bands of various GHGs, including water vapor. In 1896, Arrnhenius quantified the data, and made some pretty good predictions concerning the warming.

The most recent rage preceding the current one was "the coming ice age" and global cooling; to be a "rage" the public must be taken by it.

 

[gslack]

Oldsocks, will make one statement or claim, and when it blows up in his face he will immediatley go to another. He will say something ignorant and absolute, and when he is called on it he changes it to something else.... Pathetic...

 

[FactFinder]

Remote Sensing : Feature Articles

What does that article have to do with Tyndall's observations or Arrnhenius?

 

[Old Rocks]

In this case the History Channel is taking research done by several astronomers - with no political/climate change axe to grind I might add - and revealing it to anyone wanting to consider the data beyond the hysteria.

CLICK HERE for a complete history of the scientific studies that lead to the discovery of the Little Ice Age coming out of the studies of astronomers beginning with astronomers Walter Maunder in the 19th century. This was all in place by 1983, preceding the current rage about GW.
The Maunder Minimum is named after the first astonomer to collect data regarding solar activity viz sunspots.

The only thing you missed is that the 'current' rage concerning GW was started in 1858 with Tyndall's observations of the obsorption bands of various GHGs, including water vapor. In 1896, Arrnhenius quantified the data, and made some pretty good predictions concerning the warming.

The most recent rage preceding the current one was "the coming ice age" and global cooling; to be a "rage" the public must be taken by it.

Did not happen. For gods sake, look up the data.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.