Prepare Yourselves for the Coming Mini Ice Age!

[JakeStarkey]

Yeah, so much hype over fractional changes in the temperatures, both pro and anti Anthropic Global Warming bullshit.

But it looks like there is data on a coming solar minimum the likes of which we have not seen in a century.

So what will the Warmistas blame the cold on? Trump manipulating NASA?

roflmao

Solar Update June 2017–the sun is slumping and headed even lower

So what will the Warmistas blame the cold on?

You do realize that notwithstanding the impact(s) of solar activity, global warming could well trigger an ice age.

The heart of the global warming issue isn't that the Earth is warming. The crux is the rate at which it is doing so -- as contrasted with the rate in years long gone whence humanity had little to no material impact on the rate at which the Earth cyclically warmed and cooled and what might be done to attenuate humanity's impact on the rate of warming.

Additionally, given the frequency of the Sun's going from solar maximum to minimum and back again -- by the linked article's content, about eight to ten years -- I'm not convinced the solar cycle plays a controlling role on the periodic fluctuations in Earth's progression from ice age to warm period and back again, which we clearly observe has historically spanned millennia for each "peak and valley."

You do realize that the argument for global warming causing an ice age is a little hard to swallow, right? If it's true the that GW is warming due to anthropogenic causes then it's difficult to believe that it could cause a mini-ice age. We've been increasing the amount of CO2 over the past century at a significant rate, which begs the question of why the GW isn't always going up if it's all artificial. Which in turn leads tot he conclusion by many that GW isn't entirely anthropogenic, that there are in fact natural causes such as solar activity. Which in turn leads to the question of how much is man-caused and how much isn't, AND what can we do about it.

So - when I read that MIT tells us the Paris Agreement would only reduce GW by two tenths of a % by 2100 and not even that if some countries don't hit their commitments, and then I find out the US would have to pay quit a bit of our money to other countries for that barely negligible result, well it sorta becomes a very hard sell.

Your Alt Right talking points go nowhere with your Alt Right facts.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

We have had only a couple of only fairly hot days so far this year in the San Francisco Bay Area. Every day has been nice and cool, and I am still wearing mostly the same amount of clothes I wore two months ago.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You do realize that notwithstanding the impact(s) of solar activity, global warming could well trigger an ice age.

This is part of the problem with AGW theory in that it predicts all possible outcomes and is thus not capable of being tested; it is correct no matter what happens and is thus not really science.

The heart of the global warming issue isn't that the Earth is warming. The crux is the rate at which it is doing so -- as contrasted with the rate in years long gone whence humanity had little to no material impact on the rate at which the Earth cyclically warmed and cooled and what might be done to attenuate humanity's impact on the rate of warming.

Our global temperature set only goes back a couple of centuries so there is no context for comparing rates of change.

We can say however that the rates of change have not been nearly as fast as almost any of the climate models that AGW advocates use to 'prove'
that AGW is real.

Additionally, given the frequency of the Sun's going from solar maximum to minimum and back again -- by the linked article's content, about eight to ten years -- I'm not convinced the solar cycle plays a controlling role on the periodic fluctuations in Earth's progression from ice age to warm period and back again, which we clearly observe has historically spanned millennia for each "peak and valley."

The solar change is based on larger cycles than the short ten to eleven year cycles. There are apparently larger cycles that stretch over decades and even centuries.

AGW theory in that it predicts all possible outcomes and is thus not capable of being tested

First of all, let's be clear. AGW is not a scientific theory. AGW is an attestation of humanity's impact on natural processes (specifically climatological processes), not delineation of those processes and how they operate. Thus, AGW is not a scientific theory, which, by definition, is a set of statements, principles and laws that explains "how things work." For example, the Theory of Evolution describes not what causes evolution to happen as it does, but rather it explains how evolution happens and what one can expect to observe as a result of evolution "doing its thing."

It is not at all so that AGW has not met the test of falsifiability. On the contrary, falsifiability sits at the heart of why so many climate and other scientists and rational thinkers accept the verity of AGW.

From "The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know we’re not wrong?"

• "In the early 20th century, Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius predicted that increasing carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels would lead to global warming, and by the mid century, a number of other scientists, including G.S. Callendar, Roger Revelle, and Han Suess, concluded that the effect might soon be quite noticeable, leading to see level rise and other global changes....[Indeed,] Svante Arrhenius and Guy Callendar predicted global warming before anyone ever built a global circulation model (or even had a digital computer)" (See also: CO2, the greenhouse effect and global warming: from the pioneering work of Arrhenius and Callendar to today's Earth System Models)
  
• In 1965, Revelle and his colleagues wrote, “By the year 2000, the increase in atmospheric CO2 …may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked change in climate, and will almost certainly cause significant changes in the temperature and other properties of the stratosphere.”
  
• "Should one believe that the correlation between increased CO2 and increased temperature is just a weird coincidence? If there were no theoretical reason to relate them, and if Arrhenius and Callendar and Suess and Revelle had not predicted that all this would all happen, then one might well conclude that rising CO2 and rising temperature were merely coincidental. But we have every reason to believe that there is a causal connection, and no good reason to believe that it is a coincidence. Indeed, the only reason we might think otherwise is wishful thinking: that this is just a natural cycle in which humans have played no role, and global warming will go away on its own in due course.
  
  And that sums up the problem. Denying that global warming is real is precisely that: denial. It is denial that humans have become geological agents, changing the most basic physical processes of our Earth. For centuries, scientists thought that Earth processes were so large and powerful that nothing we could do would change them. This was a basic tenet of geological science: that human chronologies were insignificant in comparison with the vastness of geological time; that human activities were insignificant in comparison with the force of geological processes. And once, perhaps, they were. But no more. There are now so many of us cutting down so many trees and burning so many billions of tons of fossil fuels that we have, indeed, become geological agents. We have changed the chemistry of our atmosphere, causing sea level to rise, ice to melt, and the climate to change. There is no reason to think otherwise, except denial.
  

This is part of the problem with AGW theory in that it predicts all possible outcomes and is thus not capable of being tested; it is correct no matter what happens and is thus not really science.

In light of the great similarity between your remarks and those of Betsy Gorisch, along with the apparent popularity of the website containing her thoughts among self-described "thoughtful" conservatives, I cannot help but think you've latched onto, perhaps even actively sought, commentary from one of the handful of climate science deniers who've availed themselves of the Internet to make their views known beyond the realm of people who happen to personally know them.

Interestingly, the woman states she is a professional geologist, yet when I search for published works by her, I find none. Don't get me wrong, professionals don't publish nearly as much as do academic, public and private sector researchers; however, at some point early to midway through a distinguished career, they publish something of note -- one or two articles discussed at a professional symposium or conference, an editorial, a book, "something" -- that received enough critical notice, if not acclaim, that one could find. Doing so is part of what defines the difference between "having a distinguished career" and "merely having a career that adequately, perhaps more than adequately, paid the bills." I'm not deriding anyone for being the later type of professional, but being the former is what it takes for one to be among those whose points of view matter and are worth considering as being germane to the body of knowledge and understanding in a given discipline.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yeah, so much hype over fractional changes in the temperatures, both pro and anti Anthropic Global Warming bullshit.

But it looks like there is data on a coming solar minimum the likes of which we have not seen in a century.

So what will the Warmistas blame the cold on? Trump manipulating NASA?

roflmao

Solar Update June 2017–the sun is slumping and headed even lower

So what will the Warmistas blame the cold on?

You do realize that notwithstanding the impact(s) of solar activity, global warming could well trigger an ice age.

The heart of the global warming issue isn't that the Earth is warming. The crux is the rate at which it is doing so -- as contrasted with the rate in years long gone whence humanity had little to no material impact on the rate at which the Earth cyclically warmed and cooled and what might be done to attenuate humanity's impact on the rate of warming.

Additionally, given the frequency of the Sun's going from solar maximum to minimum and back again -- by the linked article's content, about eight to ten years -- I'm not convinced the solar cycle plays a controlling role on the periodic fluctuations in Earth's progression from ice age to warm period and back again, which we clearly observe has historically spanned millennia for each "peak and valley."

You do realize that the argument for global warming causing an ice age is a little hard to swallow, right? If it's true the that GW is warming due to anthropogenic causes then it's difficult to believe that it could cause a mini-ice age. We've been increasing the amount of CO2 over the past century at a significant rate, which begs the question of why the GW isn't always going up if it's all artificial. Which in turn leads tot he conclusion by many that GW isn't entirely anthropogenic, that there are in fact natural causes such as solar activity. Which in turn leads to the question of how much is man-caused and how much isn't, AND what can we do about it.

So - when I read that MIT tells us the Paris Agreement would only reduce GW by two tenths of a % by 2100 and not even that if some countries don't hit their commitments, and then I find out the US would have to pay quit a bit of our money to other countries for that barely negligible result, well it sorta becomes a very hard sell.

Would you correct the typos (?) in the first paragraph of your reply. Try as I might to "work around" them, I find myself not being certain of much about what you've written. One thing I'm not uncertain about is that as you've written it, begging the question is not at all what was going on. Perhaps when you correct the typos I'll see the applicability of that assertion, if not in general, at least contextually as it appears in your remarks.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yeah, so much hype over fractional changes in the temperatures, both pro and anti Anthropic Global Warming bullshit.

But it looks like there is data on a coming solar minimum the likes of which we have not seen in a century.

So what will the Warmistas blame the cold on? Trump manipulating NASA?

roflmao

Solar Update June 2017–the sun is slumping and headed even lower

So what will the Warmistas blame the cold on?

You do realize that notwithstanding the impact(s) of solar activity, global warming could well trigger an ice age.

The heart of the global warming issue isn't that the Earth is warming. The crux is the rate at which it is doing so -- as contrasted with the rate in years long gone whence humanity had little to no material impact on the rate at which the Earth cyclically warmed and cooled and what might be done to attenuate humanity's impact on the rate of warming.

Additionally, given the frequency of the Sun's going from solar maximum to minimum and back again -- by the linked article's content, about eight to ten years -- I'm not convinced the solar cycle plays a controlling role on the periodic fluctuations in Earth's progression from ice age to warm period and back again, which we clearly observe has historically spanned millennia for each "peak and valley."

You do realize that the argument for global warming causing an ice age is a little hard to swallow, right? If it's true the that GW is warming due to anthropogenic causes then it's difficult to believe that it could cause a mini-ice age. We've been increasing the amount of CO2 over the past century at a significant rate, which begs the question of why the GW isn't always going up if it's all artificial. Which in turn leads tot he conclusion by many that GW isn't entirely anthropogenic, that there are in fact natural causes such as solar activity. Which in turn leads to the question of how much is man-caused and how much isn't, AND what can we do about it.

So - when I read that MIT tells us the Paris Agreement would only reduce GW by two tenths of a % by 2100 and not even that if some countries don't hit their commitments, and then I find out the US would have to pay quit a bit of our money to other countries for that barely negligible result, well it sorta becomes a very hard sell.

Your Alt Right talking points go nowhere with your Alt Right facts.

Good on you for understanding what points he was making. I am not at all certain of just what the member was trying to communicate.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yeah, so much hype over fractional changes in the temperatures, both pro and anti Anthropic Global Warming bullshit.

But it looks like there is data on a coming solar minimum the likes of which we have not seen in a century.

So what will the Warmistas blame the cold on? Trump manipulating NASA?

roflmao

Solar Update June 2017–the sun is slumping and headed even lower

So what will the Warmistas blame the cold on?

You do realize that notwithstanding the impact(s) of solar activity, global warming could well trigger an ice age.

The heart of the global warming issue isn't that the Earth is warming. The crux is the rate at which it is doing so -- as contrasted with the rate in years long gone whence humanity had little to no material impact on the rate at which the Earth cyclically warmed and cooled and what might be done to attenuate humanity's impact on the rate of warming.

Additionally, given the frequency of the Sun's going from solar maximum to minimum and back again -- by the linked article's content, about eight to ten years -- I'm not convinced the solar cycle plays a controlling role on the periodic fluctuations in Earth's progression from ice age to warm period and back again, which we clearly observe has historically spanned millennia for each "peak and valley."

You do realize that the argument for global warming causing an ice age is a little hard to swallow, right? If it's true the that GW is warming due to anthropogenic causes then it's difficult to believe that it could cause a mini-ice age. We've been increasing the amount of CO2 over the past century at a significant rate, which begs the question of why the GW isn't always going up if it's all artificial. Which in turn leads tot he conclusion by many that GW isn't entirely anthropogenic, that there are in fact natural causes such as solar activity. Which in turn leads to the question of how much is man-caused and how much isn't, AND what can we do about it.

So - when I read that MIT tells us the Paris Agreement would only reduce GW by two tenths of a % by 2100 and not even that if some countries don't hit their commitments, and then I find out the US would have to pay quit a bit of our money to other countries for that barely negligible result, well it sorta becomes a very hard sell.

Your Alt Right talking points go nowhere with your Alt Right facts.

Good on you for understanding what points he was making. I am not at all certain of just what the member was trying to communicate.

You give Starkey too much credit as he was likely merely posting the approved talking points he hit with a dart.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Try a little history. Your climate bullshit began with a coming ice age at the very first Earth Day in DC. I was there.

Try not to lie. There was no climate scientist there predicting an ice age. There was an "ecologist", and you're pretending it was a climate scientist.

I don't give a rat's ass who it was. It was part of the presentation of various proffered elements of the fantasy that has morphed twice over the last 47 years.

So, after the HolyIceAge fails to arrive, again, what will your excuses be? Will deniers ever give up their worship of the HolyIceAge?

I am expecting no ice age from the evidence presented. Climate change is a given. Climate changes through cycles quite naturally. The evidence given for an anthropogenic cause is thin at best.

You people are free to play Henny Penny to your heart's content. Just don't expect buyers from outside the realm of dementia.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yeah, so much hype over fractional changes in the temperatures, both pro and anti Anthropic Global Warming bullshit.

But it looks like there is data on a coming solar minimum the likes of which we have not seen in a century.

So what will the Warmistas blame the cold on? Trump manipulating NASA?

roflmao

Solar Update June 2017–the sun is slumping and headed even lower

Well now, 2009 was a low point for solar activity, and, maybe, this minimum will be even lower. So, will the forcing from the minimum be stronger than the forcing from the GHGs? Let us look at what happened in 2009.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2017_v6-1.jpg

Well now, the average dipped to -0.1, but in 2010, was up to 0.3. Looks like the minimum had minimal effect. And the solar minimum is almost where it was in 2009, and May was 0.45. Looks like you fellows really don't research what you post to any extent.

 

[Old Rocks]

The sun is in mimima. It is going to get very cold. The left doesn't believe in science. It has its own leftist science.

OK, asshole, put numbers on that. This year, next year, or a thousand years from now?

 

[Old Rocks]

Yeah, so much hype over fractional changes in the temperatures, both pro and anti Anthropic Global Warming bullshit.

But it looks like there is data on a coming solar minimum the likes of which we have not seen in a century.

So what will the Warmistas blame the cold on? Trump manipulating NASA?

roflmao

Solar Update June 2017–the sun is slumping and headed even lower

View attachment 131541

DELINGPOLE: 'Global Warming' Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017 - Breitbart

Breibart and WUWT, why not the National Enquirer and Weekly Globe, also. Same credibility.

 

[Old Rocks]

Some deniers here deny that their fellow deniers are constantly declaring that their cult's HolyIceAge will arrive any day now. So, thanks for another thread that I can refer back to.

You deniers have been saying this HolyIceAge will arrive anydaynow for 40 years running, yet that HolyIceAge never gets here. Instead, it just keeps warming strongly. What makes this time different? Just when will you be able to pull the HolyIceAge out of your hat?

Try a little history. Your climate bullshit began with a coming ice age at the very first Earth Day in DC. I was there.

And you are a Goddamned liar.

A new paper exposing the myth of 70s global cooling
Over time, William Connelly has been steadily documenting 70s research predicting global cooling. It's a rich resource but as he admits, could be more accessible. Now he has collaborated with Thomas Peterson and John Fleck to publish The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, due to be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper.

What 1970s science said about global cooling

 

[Old Rocks]

JimBowie, 1958

This is part of the problem with AGW theory in that it predicts all possible outcomes and is thus not capable of being tested; it is correct no matter what happens and is thus not really science.

What ******* bullshit. The theory is very simple. As we add GHGs to the atmosphere, it will warm. Not evenly, there will be places that, for a while, will cool. And other places, like the Arctic, that warm at a rate much higher than the rest of the planet.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yeah, so much hype over fractional changes in the temperatures, both pro and anti Anthropic Global Warming bullshit.

But it looks like there is data on a coming solar minimum the likes of which we have not seen in a century.

So what will the Warmistas blame the cold on? Trump manipulating NASA?

roflmao

Solar Update June 2017–the sun is slumping and headed even lower

We need to get UnrealDave on here, he is the solar expert!

He can tell us all about the solar minimum and how we people affect our climate more than the Sun!

The Sun which without, we wouldn't even have any weather! Any plants! And life on the Earth!

But I'm prepared:

I've been letting the Freon out of cars for years to build up more damage to the ozone and let more sunlight in.

And I only drive old cars badly out of tune to put out a thick black smoke.

I'm doing my part to hold the temp of the Earth up As high as possible as long as I can, what about you?

Well now, that is the level of intellect we have come to expect from your posts. There will be no cooling from the solar minimum. It will continue to warm, and the next El Nino will establish new records.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The sun is in mimima. It is going to get very cold. The left doesn't believe in science. It has its own leftist science.

OK, asshole, put numbers on that. This year, next year, or a thousand years from now?

Right now! The sun has been going into a minimum for at least two years. There is skiing on California mountains right now. It's cold enough to create man made snow and keep it. Mammoth resort expects skiing on the 4th of July.

The minimums run in 11 year cycles. A minimum is going on now. We know that and can see the reduction in sunspot activity.

Scientists expect that we are now going into a Grand Minimum. This happens very seldom. In Maunder's Minimum the river Thames froze over. If they are correct, the sunspot activity, is leading to a Grand Minimum it is going to get very, very cold,

Sun’s magnetic field during the grand minimum is in fact at its maximum

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Yeah, so much hype over fractional changes in the temperatures, both pro and anti Anthropic Global Warming bullshit.

But it looks like there is data on a coming solar minimum the likes of which we have not seen in a century.

So what will the Warmistas blame the cold on? Trump manipulating NASA?

roflmao

Solar Update June 2017–the sun is slumping and headed even lower

We need to get UnrealDave on here, he is the solar expert!

He can tell us all about the solar minimum and how we people affect our climate more than the Sun!

The Sun which without, we wouldn't even have any weather! Any plants! And life on the Earth!

But I'm prepared:

I've been letting the Freon out of cars for years to build up more damage to the ozone and let more sunlight in.

And I only drive old cars badly out of tune to put out a thick black smoke.

I'm doing my part to hold the temp of the Earth up As high as possible as long as I can, what about you?

Well now, that is the level of intellect we have come to expect from your posts. There will be no cooling from the solar minimum. It will continue to warm, and the next El Nino will establish new records.

It is cooling which is why there has been a reduction in hurricanes and those that form are weak.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yeah, so much hype over fractional changes in the temperatures, both pro and anti Anthropic Global Warming bullshit.

But it looks like there is data on a coming solar minimum the likes of which we have not seen in a century.

So what will the Warmistas blame the cold on? Trump manipulating NASA?

roflmao

Solar Update June 2017–the sun is slumping and headed even lower

So what will the Warmistas blame the cold on?

You do realize that notwithstanding the impact(s) of solar activity, global warming could well trigger an ice age.

The heart of the global warming issue isn't that the Earth is warming. The crux is the rate at which it is doing so -- as contrasted with the rate in years long gone whence humanity had little to no material impact on the rate at which the Earth cyclically warmed and cooled and what might be done to attenuate humanity's impact on the rate of warming.

Additionally, given the frequency of the Sun's going from solar maximum to minimum and back again -- by the linked article's content, about eight to ten years -- I'm not convinced the solar cycle plays a controlling role on the periodic fluctuations in Earth's progression from ice age to warm period and back again, which we clearly observe has historically spanned millennia for each "peak and valley."

You do realize that the argument for global warming causing an ice age is a little hard to swallow, right? If it's true the that GW is warming due to anthropogenic causes then it's difficult to believe that it could cause a mini-ice age. We've been increasing the amount of CO2 over the past century at a significant rate, which begs the question of why the GW isn't always going up if it's all artificial. Which in turn leads tot he conclusion by many that GW isn't entirely anthropogenic, that there are in fact natural causes such as solar activity. Which in turn leads to the question of how much is man-caused and how much isn't, AND what can we do about it.

So - when I read that MIT tells us the Paris Agreement would only reduce GW by two tenths of a % by 2100 and not even that if some countries don't hit their commitments, and then I find out the US would have to pay quit a bit of our money to other countries for that barely negligible result, well it sorta becomes a very hard sell.

Your Alt Right talking points go nowhere with your Alt Right facts.

Good on you for understanding what points he was making. I am not at all certain of just what the member was trying to communicate.

You give Starkey too much credit as he was likely merely posting the approved talking points he hit with a dart.

Maybe, LOL....I don't know. I just know I didn't follow what the other member wrote; thus I asked for a clarification.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Some deniers here deny that their fellow deniers are constantly declaring that their cult's HolyIceAge will arrive any day now. So, thanks for another thread that I can refer back to.

You deniers have been saying this HolyIceAge will arrive anydaynow for 40 years running, yet that HolyIceAge never gets here. Instead, it just keeps warming strongly. What makes this time different? Just when will you be able to pull the HolyIceAge out of your hat?

Try a little history. Your climate bullshit began with a coming ice age at the very first Earth Day in DC. I was there.

And you are a Goddamned liar.

Nope. Whether there was scientific evidence to support the claim or not, the claim was made at the time and for several years thereafter.

I was there. Your spindle awaits, have at it.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Yep, the mini ice age is here.

Sure a lot warmer than I thought it would be.

Mid 70's in South Carolina today. Much cooler than normal.

The high temperature here today in Los Altos and Mountain View, CA, was only 73°F.

National Weather Service

 

[JakeStarkey]

Los Altos, California - Average Temperature - Current and ...

temperature.weatherdb.com/.../Los-Altos-California
Los Altos, California Average Temperature. ... The average temperature for Los Altos is 56.5°F, 1.95°F higher than the nationwide average (54.55°F), ...

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Yep, the mini ice age is here.

Sure a lot warmer than I thought it would be.

It's June.

The water in the pool is still cold.