Prominent European Scientists: "100 year mini-ice age upon us!"

[Billy_Bob]

I posted in another thread the 3-5 deg C drop in ocean temps in the Hudson bay straights and Labrador basin.

IN a discussion board this morning we discussed the change in flow and the change in temperature.

The flow has reversed and has become very cold. This changes the dynamics in the polar region and the last time this was noted in the paleo-record was the beginning of the little ice age.

With this flow change the arctic is now in a full scale cool down as warm Atlantic water is no longer warming the arctic. The shift is already becoming undeniable. The shift in ocean currents brings the DWCR near the surface. Cooling of the Northern hemisphere is now unstoppable.

 

[Billy_Bob]

we are seeing cooling temperatures in the last decade s0n!!. Guess you missed that little point!

Missed it because it is NOT true, child. 8 of the last 10 years are in the top 10 warmest years.

The last eight years is not even comparable to the RWP, MEWP, or any other warm period in paleo history.. Your fear-mongering is noted and dismissed as propaganda.

You don't know that because all you have is local PROXY data which is essentially worthless on a global scale

The data shows combined data of over 500 years to create the level of warming. this means the spike in warming was over 500 years in length. Your 60 year blip wouldn't even register on that scale.

 

[edthecynic]

we are seeing cooling temperatures in the last decade s0n!!. Guess you missed that little point!

Missed it because it is NOT true, child. 8 of the last 10 years are in the top 10 warmest years.

The last eight years is not even comparable to the RWP, MEWP, or any other warm period in paleo history.. Your fear-mongering is noted and dismissed as propaganda.

You don't know that because all you have is local PROXY data which is essentially worthless on a global scale

The data shows combined data of over 500 years to create the level of warming. this means the spike in warming was over 500 years in length. Your 60 year blip wouldn't even register on that scale.

It is still local proxy data, not direct instrument measurements across the globe.

 

[Mudda]

Oooooooops.............not good news for those disposed to the rigged narrative on the "decided science".

"Zharkova, of Northumbria University, made the predictions by studying new mathematical models for solar activity.

She claims her models can predict the solar cycle with 97% accuracy, leaving little margin for error.

The Met Office has previously told Daily Star Online that a new mini-ice age is a “worst case scenario”, adding that while temperatures are likely to dip, it will do little to offset man-made global warming".

George Feulner, of the Potsdam Institute on Climate Change Research, agrees with this view, adding: “The expected decrease in global temperature would be 0.1 degrees Celsius at most, compared to about 1.3 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times by the year 2030.”




http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/611671/ice-age-britain-freeze-climate-change-weather

Real interesting stuff on whats happening with the sun ( the religions says it has nothing to do with the climate btw ).



This is seriously going to suck. Winters here in the northeast recently have sucked........bitter cold and big-ass snow. Guess I will be considering a snowblower for the first time in my life.

From your post: "it will do little to offset man-made global warming"

You lose douchebag.

 

[skookerasbil]

Oooooooops.............not good news for those disposed to the rigged narrative on the "decided science".

"Zharkova, of Northumbria University, made the predictions by studying new mathematical models for solar activity.

She claims her models can predict the solar cycle with 97% accuracy, leaving little margin for error.

The Met Office has previously told Daily Star Online that a new mini-ice age is a “worst case scenario”, adding that while temperatures are likely to dip, it will do little to offset man-made global warming".

George Feulner, of the Potsdam Institute on Climate Change Research, agrees with this view, adding: “The expected decrease in global temperature would be 0.1 degrees Celsius at most, compared to about 1.3 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times by the year 2030.”




http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/611671/ice-age-britain-freeze-climate-change-weather

Real interesting stuff on whats happening with the sun ( the religions says it has nothing to do with the climate btw ).



This is seriously going to suck. Winters here in the northeast recently have sucked........bitter cold and big-ass snow. Guess I will be considering a snowblower for the first time in my life.

From your post: "it will do little to offset man-made global warming"

You lose douchebag.

Yep.........that 100 year ice age should really impress the public when politicians try to roll out carbon tax schemes to push renewable energy!! Its really worked well the last 20 years!!Now the folks are going to have to budget for snow removal equipment and nut sack warmers every winter! That's should really improve the effectiveness of the AWG established narrative. More evidence that the members of the religion possess the political IQ of a small soap dish.

Here in New York, it has been freezing the past week.........its the standard joke on line at the local 7-11! Mid-May and people still walking around in winter parka's. Mid-******* May! In the old- days, people on Long Island have already been to the beach once or twice. Only members of the religion don't think the people are saying, "What the ****?"


95 out of every 100 people get their perceptions on this shit when they walk out their front door..........they'll pay attention to the AGW k00ks when they see water skiing in Minnesota for 3 weeks in mid-January. Not a moment sooner.

 

[Billy_Bob]

we are seeing cooling temperatures in the last decade s0n!!. Guess you missed that little point!

Missed it because it is NOT true, child. 8 of the last 10 years are in the top 10 warmest years.

The last eight years is not even comparable to the RWP, MEWP, or any other warm period in paleo history.. Your fear-mongering is noted and dismissed as propaganda.

You don't know that because all you have is local PROXY data which is essentially worthless on a global scale

The data shows combined data of over 500 years to create the level of warming. this means the spike in warming was over 500 years in length. Your 60 year blip wouldn't even register on that scale.

It is still local proxy data, not direct instrument measurements across the globe.

LOL..

You really do not have a damn clue..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Oooooooops.............not good news for those disposed to the rigged narrative on the "decided science".

"Zharkova, of Northumbria University, made the predictions by studying new mathematical models for solar activity.

She claims her models can predict the solar cycle with 97% accuracy, leaving little margin for error.

The Met Office has previously told Daily Star Online that a new mini-ice age is a “worst case scenario”, adding that while temperatures are likely to dip, it will do little to offset man-made global warming".

George Feulner, of the Potsdam Institute on Climate Change Research, agrees with this view, adding: “The expected decrease in global temperature would be 0.1 degrees Celsius at most, compared to about 1.3 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times by the year 2030.”




http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/611671/ice-age-britain-freeze-climate-change-weather

Real interesting stuff on whats happening with the sun ( the religions says it has nothing to do with the climate btw ).



This is seriously going to suck. Winters here in the northeast recently have sucked........bitter cold and big-ass snow. Guess I will be considering a snowblower for the first time in my life.

From your post: "it will do little to offset man-made global warming"

You lose douchebag.

Yep.........that 100 year ice age should really impress the public when politicians try to roll out carbon tax schemes to push renewable energy!! Its really worked well the last 20 years!!Now the folks are going to have to budget for snow removal equipment and nut sack warmers every winter! That's should really improve the effectiveness of the AWG established narrative. More evidence that the members of the religion possess the political IQ of a small soap dish.

Here in New York, it has been freezing the past week.........its the standard joke on line at the local 7-11! Mid-May and people still walking around in winter parka's. Mid-******* May! In the old- days, people on Long Island have already been to the beach once or twice. Only members of the religion don't think the people are saying, "What the ****?"


95 out of every 100 people get their perceptions on this shit when they walk out their front door..........they'll pay attention to the AGW k00ks when they see water skiing in Minnesota for 3 weeks in mid-January. Not a moment sooner.

LOL

We have snow coming wed/thur/fri.. To the valley floor.. 30 deg F BELOW NORMAL.

 

[edthecynic]

Missed it because it is NOT true, child. 8 of the last 10 years are in the top 10 warmest years.

The last eight years is not even comparable to the RWP, MEWP, or any other warm period in paleo history.. Your fear-mongering is noted and dismissed as propaganda.

You don't know that because all you have is local PROXY data which is essentially worthless on a global scale

The data shows combined data of over 500 years to create the level of warming. this means the spike in warming was over 500 years in length. Your 60 year blip wouldn't even register on that scale.

It is still local proxy data, not direct instrument measurements across the globe.

LOL..

You really do not have a damn clue..

Speak for yourself!
Taking the Earth's Temperature

Statistical studies suggest that a system of 50 to 100 reasonably distributed temperature stations around the globe would be sufficient to reproduce an accurate representation of most localized temperature anomalies and to account for isolated effects such as urban heat islands. Various statistical techniques can then be applied to produce a single figure representing a fairly reliable globally-averaged temperature. Much as opinion polls rely on sampling and margins of error, climate scientists make statistical claims about the validity of their global temperature figure, saying that they know with 95 percent certainty that we have enough sensors and that they are widely-enough distributed around the planet so as not to allow for thermal anomalies that would result in a global average differing by more than 0.04 degrees Celsius.

This is the level of accuracy claimed with today’s distribution of sensors and analysis techniques. Such a system of sensors with similar capabilities has been reliably and consistently in place for roughly 150 years, allowing scientists to obtain a value for global temperature based on direct measurements back to the mid-nineteenth century, though with a slightly larger uncertainty of about 0.1 degrees Celsius.

Discussions about global climate change, however, involve claims about the Earth’s temperature going back much further than 150 years. To know anything about global temperature prior to the spread of thermometers, we have to rely on proxy indicators — sources of data that are not direct measurements of temperature but that correlate with temperature changes. There are several proxy techniques used by climate researchers, varying widely in usefulness.

snip/

In the end, it is clear that each of these proxies provides useful data — data that suggest that the warming observed in the twentieth century is unusual. But there are important caveats to keep in mind. First, inherent in each proxy technique are sources of uncertainty that limit its usefulness — and this uncertainty becomes more pronounced the further back in time we attempt to peer. Keeping that uncertainty in mind, responsible scientists must be guarded in making claims about the Earth’s past temperature, especially knowing that claims about our planet’s temperature history are connected to policy proposals under discussion.

Moreover, even if proxy techniques provided temperature information with no uncertainty, we would still have an insufficient number of geographically dispersed sources to make claims about past globally-averaged temperatures with anything approaching the confidence we have in today’s sensors.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The last eight years is not even comparable to the RWP, MEWP, or any other warm period in paleo history.. Your fear-mongering is noted and dismissed as propaganda.

You don't know that because all you have is local PROXY data which is essentially worthless on a global scale

The data shows combined data of over 500 years to create the level of warming. this means the spike in warming was over 500 years in length. Your 60 year blip wouldn't even register on that scale.

It is still local proxy data, not direct instrument measurements across the globe.

LOL..

You really do not have a damn clue..

Speak for yourself!
Taking the Earth's Temperature

Statistical studies suggest that a system of 50 to 100 reasonably distributed temperature stations around the globe would be sufficient to reproduce an accurate representation of most localized temperature anomalies and to account for isolated effects such as urban heat islands. Various statistical techniques can then be applied to produce a single figure representing a fairly reliable globally-averaged temperature. Much as opinion polls rely on sampling and margins of error, climate scientists make statistical claims about the validity of their global temperature figure, saying that they know with 95 percent certainty that we have enough sensors and that they are widely-enough distributed around the planet so as not to allow for thermal anomalies that would result in a global average differing by more than 0.04 degrees Celsius.

This is the level of accuracy claimed with today’s distribution of sensors and analysis techniques. Such a system of sensors with similar capabilities has been reliably and consistently in place for roughly 150 years, allowing scientists to obtain a value for global temperature based on direct measurements back to the mid-nineteenth century, though with a slightly larger uncertainty of about 0.1 degrees Celsius.

Discussions about global climate change, however, involve claims about the Earth’s temperature going back much further than 150 years. To know anything about global temperature prior to the spread of thermometers, we have to rely on proxy indicators — sources of data that are not direct measurements of temperature but that correlate with temperature changes. There are several proxy techniques used by climate researchers, varying widely in usefulness.

snip/

In the end, it is clear that each of these proxies provides useful data — data that suggest that the warming observed in the twentieth century is unusual. But there are important caveats to keep in mind. First, inherent in each proxy technique are sources of uncertainty that limit its usefulness — and this uncertainty becomes more pronounced the further back in time we attempt to peer. Keeping that uncertainty in mind, responsible scientists must be guarded in making claims about the Earth’s past temperature, especially knowing that claims about our planet’s temperature history are connected to policy proposals under discussion.

Moreover, even if proxy techniques provided temperature information with no uncertainty, we would still have an insufficient number of geographically dispersed sources to make claims about past globally-averaged temperatures with anything approaching the confidence we have in today’s sensors.

Such a system of sensors with similar capabilities has been reliably and consistently in place for roughly 150 years,



LMFAO...if you believe tha you will believe anything.




.

 

[edthecynic]

You don't know that because all you have is local PROXY data which is essentially worthless on a global scale

The data shows combined data of over 500 years to create the level of warming. this means the spike in warming was over 500 years in length. Your 60 year blip wouldn't even register on that scale.

It is still local proxy data, not direct instrument measurements across the globe.

LOL..

You really do not have a damn clue..

Speak for yourself!
Taking the Earth's Temperature

Statistical studies suggest that a system of 50 to 100 reasonably distributed temperature stations around the globe would be sufficient to reproduce an accurate representation of most localized temperature anomalies and to account for isolated effects such as urban heat islands. Various statistical techniques can then be applied to produce a single figure representing a fairly reliable globally-averaged temperature. Much as opinion polls rely on sampling and margins of error, climate scientists make statistical claims about the validity of their global temperature figure, saying that they know with 95 percent certainty that we have enough sensors and that they are widely-enough distributed around the planet so as not to allow for thermal anomalies that would result in a global average differing by more than 0.04 degrees Celsius.

This is the level of accuracy claimed with today’s distribution of sensors and analysis techniques. Such a system of sensors with similar capabilities has been reliably and consistently in place for roughly 150 years, allowing scientists to obtain a value for global temperature based on direct measurements back to the mid-nineteenth century, though with a slightly larger uncertainty of about 0.1 degrees Celsius.

Discussions about global climate change, however, involve claims about the Earth’s temperature going back much further than 150 years. To know anything about global temperature prior to the spread of thermometers, we have to rely on proxy indicators — sources of data that are not direct measurements of temperature but that correlate with temperature changes. There are several proxy techniques used by climate researchers, varying widely in usefulness.

snip/

In the end, it is clear that each of these proxies provides useful data — data that suggest that the warming observed in the twentieth century is unusual. But there are important caveats to keep in mind. First, inherent in each proxy technique are sources of uncertainty that limit its usefulness — and this uncertainty becomes more pronounced the further back in time we attempt to peer. Keeping that uncertainty in mind, responsible scientists must be guarded in making claims about the Earth’s past temperature, especially knowing that claims about our planet’s temperature history are connected to policy proposals under discussion.

Moreover, even if proxy techniques provided temperature information with no uncertainty, we would still have an insufficient number of geographically dispersed sources to make claims about past globally-averaged temperatures with anything approaching the confidence we have in today’s sensors.

Such a system of sensors with similar capabilities has been reliably and consistently in place for roughly 150 years,
LMFAO...if you believe tha you will believe anything.

If you believe that proxies are more accurate than direct instrument measurement then you are the most gullible fool in the universe.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The data shows combined data of over 500 years to create the level of warming. this means the spike in warming was over 500 years in length. Your 60 year blip wouldn't even register on that scale.

It is still local proxy data, not direct instrument measurements across the globe.

LOL..

You really do not have a damn clue..

Speak for yourself!
Taking the Earth's Temperature

Statistical studies suggest that a system of 50 to 100 reasonably distributed temperature stations around the globe would be sufficient to reproduce an accurate representation of most localized temperature anomalies and to account for isolated effects such as urban heat islands. Various statistical techniques can then be applied to produce a single figure representing a fairly reliable globally-averaged temperature. Much as opinion polls rely on sampling and margins of error, climate scientists make statistical claims about the validity of their global temperature figure, saying that they know with 95 percent certainty that we have enough sensors and that they are widely-enough distributed around the planet so as not to allow for thermal anomalies that would result in a global average differing by more than 0.04 degrees Celsius.

This is the level of accuracy claimed with today’s distribution of sensors and analysis techniques. Such a system of sensors with similar capabilities has been reliably and consistently in place for roughly 150 years, allowing scientists to obtain a value for global temperature based on direct measurements back to the mid-nineteenth century, though with a slightly larger uncertainty of about 0.1 degrees Celsius.

Discussions about global climate change, however, involve claims about the Earth’s temperature going back much further than 150 years. To know anything about global temperature prior to the spread of thermometers, we have to rely on proxy indicators — sources of data that are not direct measurements of temperature but that correlate with temperature changes. There are several proxy techniques used by climate researchers, varying widely in usefulness.

snip/

In the end, it is clear that each of these proxies provides useful data — data that suggest that the warming observed in the twentieth century is unusual. But there are important caveats to keep in mind. First, inherent in each proxy technique are sources of uncertainty that limit its usefulness — and this uncertainty becomes more pronounced the further back in time we attempt to peer. Keeping that uncertainty in mind, responsible scientists must be guarded in making claims about the Earth’s past temperature, especially knowing that claims about our planet’s temperature history are connected to policy proposals under discussion.

Moreover, even if proxy techniques provided temperature information with no uncertainty, we would still have an insufficient number of geographically dispersed sources to make claims about past globally-averaged temperatures with anything approaching the confidence we have in today’s sensors.

Such a system of sensors with similar capabilities has been reliably and consistently in place for roughly 150 years,
LMFAO...if you believe tha you will believe anything.

If you believe that proxies are more accurate than direct instrument measurement then you are the most gullible fool in the universe.

Don't ask a question with a question, so in your world you think people reading and recording thermometers 150 years ago is accurate as digital today?

When did they start recording temperatures in say Alaska, South Africa, Egypt, Iran, Vietnam?

When did they start recording ocean temperatures all across the oceans and not just some shipping lanes?

To say what you said is a big fat joke.



.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Arguing against the green house effect is retarded. End of discussion.

 

[edthecynic]

It is still local proxy data, not direct instrument measurements across the globe.

LOL..

You really do not have a damn clue..

Speak for yourself!
Taking the Earth's Temperature

Statistical studies suggest that a system of 50 to 100 reasonably distributed temperature stations around the globe would be sufficient to reproduce an accurate representation of most localized temperature anomalies and to account for isolated effects such as urban heat islands. Various statistical techniques can then be applied to produce a single figure representing a fairly reliable globally-averaged temperature. Much as opinion polls rely on sampling and margins of error, climate scientists make statistical claims about the validity of their global temperature figure, saying that they know with 95 percent certainty that we have enough sensors and that they are widely-enough distributed around the planet so as not to allow for thermal anomalies that would result in a global average differing by more than 0.04 degrees Celsius.

This is the level of accuracy claimed with today’s distribution of sensors and analysis techniques. Such a system of sensors with similar capabilities has been reliably and consistently in place for roughly 150 years, allowing scientists to obtain a value for global temperature based on direct measurements back to the mid-nineteenth century, though with a slightly larger uncertainty of about 0.1 degrees Celsius.

Discussions about global climate change, however, involve claims about the Earth’s temperature going back much further than 150 years. To know anything about global temperature prior to the spread of thermometers, we have to rely on proxy indicators — sources of data that are not direct measurements of temperature but that correlate with temperature changes. There are several proxy techniques used by climate researchers, varying widely in usefulness.

snip/

In the end, it is clear that each of these proxies provides useful data — data that suggest that the warming observed in the twentieth century is unusual. But there are important caveats to keep in mind. First, inherent in each proxy technique are sources of uncertainty that limit its usefulness — and this uncertainty becomes more pronounced the further back in time we attempt to peer. Keeping that uncertainty in mind, responsible scientists must be guarded in making claims about the Earth’s past temperature, especially knowing that claims about our planet’s temperature history are connected to policy proposals under discussion.

Moreover, even if proxy techniques provided temperature information with no uncertainty, we would still have an insufficient number of geographically dispersed sources to make claims about past globally-averaged temperatures with anything approaching the confidence we have in today’s sensors.

Such a system of sensors with similar capabilities has been reliably and consistently in place for roughly 150 years,
LMFAO...if you believe tha you will believe anything.

If you believe that proxies are more accurate than direct instrument measurement then you are the most gullible fool in the universe.

Don't ask a question with a question, so in your world you think people reading and recording thermometers 150 years ago is accurate as digital today?

You seem to have a trouble with language!
And you obviously didn't bother to read the link I posted, or even the pull quotes I posted, which pointed out that currently instrument anomaly data has an accuracy of 0.04 degrees Celsius, while having a larger uncertainty of about 0.1 degrees Celsius 150 years ago. There is no proxy data even remotely close to an uncertainty of about 0.1 degrees Celsius.

 

[skookerasbil]

lol......this thread has become an exercise in group navel gazing.........discussion of 0.1 degree's Celsius.

ok

 

[Mudda]

Oooooooops.............not good news for those disposed to the rigged narrative on the "decided science".

"Zharkova, of Northumbria University, made the predictions by studying new mathematical models for solar activity.

She claims her models can predict the solar cycle with 97% accuracy, leaving little margin for error.

The Met Office has previously told Daily Star Online that a new mini-ice age is a “worst case scenario”, adding that while temperatures are likely to dip, it will do little to offset man-made global warming".

George Feulner, of the Potsdam Institute on Climate Change Research, agrees with this view, adding: “The expected decrease in global temperature would be 0.1 degrees Celsius at most, compared to about 1.3 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times by the year 2030.”




http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/611671/ice-age-britain-freeze-climate-change-weather

Real interesting stuff on whats happening with the sun ( the religions says it has nothing to do with the climate btw ).



This is seriously going to suck. Winters here in the northeast recently have sucked........bitter cold and big-ass snow. Guess I will be considering a snowblower for the first time in my life.

From your post: "it will do little to offset man-made global warming"

You lose douchebag.

Yep.........that 100 year ice age should really impress the public when politicians try to roll out carbon tax schemes to push renewable energy!! Its really worked well the last 20 years!!Now the folks are going to have to budget for snow removal equipment and nut sack warmers every winter! That's should really improve the effectiveness of the AWG established narrative. More evidence that the members of the religion possess the political IQ of a small soap dish.

Here in New York, it has been freezing the past week.........its the standard joke on line at the local 7-11! Mid-May and people still walking around in winter parka's. Mid-******* May! In the old- days, people on Long Island have already been to the beach once or twice. Only members of the religion don't think the people are saying, "What the ****?"


95 out of every 100 people get their perceptions on this shit when they walk out their front door..........they'll pay attention to the AGW k00ks when they see water skiing in Minnesota for 3 weeks in mid-January. Not a moment sooner.

LOL

We have snow coming wed/thur/fri.. To the valley floor.. 30 deg F BELOW NORMAL.

Local anomalies aren't a trend. Now you know.

 

[edthecynic]

Here in New York, it has been freezing the past week.........its the standard joke on line at the local 7-11! Mid-May and people still walking around in winter parka's. Mid-******* May! In the old- days, people on Long Island have already been to the beach once or twice.

And they are predicting a record 90 degrees this Thursday in NYC, so are you ready to go skinny-dipping on Fire Island?

 

[SSDD]

The far right make shit up and make a post about it. lol

Talking about making shit up.....I am still waiting for one of you warmers to post a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....You all claim that such evidence exists in abundance, but for some reason, none of you have managed to post a single piece of such evidence...and I have been asking for over 2 decades now...

When do you suppose you guys will stop claiming that it exists and simply admit, at long last that it doesn't?

 

[SSDD]

Oooooooops.............not good news for those disposed to the rigged narrative on the "decided science".

"Zharkova, of Northumbria University, made the predictions by studying new mathematical models for solar activity.

She claims her models can predict the solar cycle with 97% accuracy, leaving little margin for error.

The Met Office has previously told Daily Star Online that a new mini-ice age is a “worst case scenario”, adding that while temperatures are likely to dip, it will do little to offset man-made global warming".

George Feulner, of the Potsdam Institute on Climate Change Research, agrees with this view, adding: “The expected decrease in global temperature would be 0.1 degrees Celsius at most, compared to about 1.3 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times by the year 2030.”




http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/611671/ice-age-britain-freeze-climate-change-weather

Real interesting stuff on whats happening with the sun ( the religions says it has nothing to do with the climate btw ).



This is seriously going to suck. Winters here in the northeast recently have sucked........bitter cold and big-ass snow. Guess I will be considering a snowblower for the first time in my life.

How does this explain the current global warming, melting of the polar ice caps, and rising sea levels ???

Normally the definition of ice age is more ice, not less ???

Actually, the definition of Ice Age is the presence of large ice sheets at one or both poles...at present large ice sheets exists at both poles...therefore we are living in an ice age...

Ice at one or both poles on earth, however, is the anomaly...not the norm...so I can't understand why you warmers want the earth to continue to exist in an ice age which is clearly not the ideal conditions for life on this planet.

 

[SSDD]

nobody cares about 1/4 of a degree........and like the European scientists speak about in their research,( and the alarmists dismiss outright ).........the sun matters.


duh

Do you care about glacier shrinkage at all ??

Since glaciers are not the norm on this planet, why are you worried about keeping them?