Ice Age Coming

[Craig-OmahaWX]

By looking at many charts we peaked at our Inter Glacial period in 1998 and have been falling ever since. Jan 07-08 cooled so much it wiped out 100 years of warming. Anyone that cant figure this out by looking at a chart must be stupid. Its stupid to think that the cycle will end just because humans are not here!

Great blog;

Climatic Earth - The Truth

[tommy5x]

Quote by: Craig-OmahaWX By looking at many charts we peaked at our Inter Glacial period in 1998 and have been falling ever since. Jan 07-08 cooled so much it wiped out 100 years of warming. Anyone that cant figure this out by looking at a chart must be stupid. Its stupid to think that the cycle will end just because humans are not here! Great blog; Climatic Earth - The Truth

The cycle occurs because the Sun has hot/cold phases, and various other environmental factors, such as greenhouse gas levels, ground surface (colours, textures) etc.

Just because there was a small period of cooling, don't think it's a guaranteed constant, don't forget that weather is really just cause and effect in a huge convection current. There will always be anomalies.

[minorwork]

Released from the American Physical Society (APS) is the following: APS Physics | FPS | Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered Christopher Monckton has begun the debate (at least at the APS) on the science of IPCC conclusions and their classification as to worthiness of political policy-making. Towards the end, there is a section titled "debate" and after that "conclusion" that is more in my pay grade for initial reading.

The debate is now open. Heard enough from the computers? Monckton challenges the IPCC on

Radiative forcing ΔF;
The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and
The feedback multiplier ƒ.

[minorwork]

When will the sunspots come back? A little late but still well within past cycle starts. Don't the spots heat up the globe a bit?

Was one purpose of ancient observatories to predict celestial events and thus gain power and cause fear in the masses when eclipses would happen? Sacrifices to the gods will bring back the sun scam. I wonder if Al Bore is courting the same gods? The mass hysteria he has created so far would, perhaps, overcome any doubters that dare to show heating related to the sun.

[Clarence]

@ craig

people aren't stupid just because they don't understand your piece to the puzzle


@minorwork.

I can see you've imagined the star-gazing and deep-speculating people of history, at the moment of discovery, wondering what might be. even the ancient scentists were able to make historical charts based on the heating and cooling of the earth. They made a correlation between the spots and certain changes.

I don't know nothin bout the spots, but...given the effect of a full moon on the tides of our hearts, I can understand the spots. So can you imagine, so could they. Those ancient observers. But, things have always been taken for granted. While there may be definite factors induced by these spots ( or any environmental change for that matter), we humans have more to do with our fate than any of the other variables, combined.

[minorwork]

Quote by: Clarence @minorwork. ... we humans have more to do with our fate than any of the other variables, combined.

You talking about atomics and fast food? Humans be most capable, certainly, and complex. Nature more so.

[Clarence]

we ride nature like a kite on the breeze or a surfer on a wave. We can even control this variable. Like chemicals sprinkled on a storm front. Like man-made explosions on a fault line. Granted, there are things we cannot change.

What do you find to be imminent?

[minorwork]

Quote by: Clarence What do you find to be imminent?

In the late '70s I wanted my chute to open. Now, my death. Earth wise I'd be feared of the sky fallin' Apophis style. The near miss asteroid. At least test our capability to alter such as might destroy humanity. Again.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: minorwork Released from the American Physical Society (APS) is the following: APS Physics | FPS | Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered Christopher Monckton has begun the debate (at least at the APS) on the science of IPCC conclusions and their classification as to worthiness of political policy-making. Towards the end, there is a section titled "debate" and after that "conclusion" that is more in my pay grade for initial reading. The debate is now open. Heard enough from the computers? Monckton challenges the IPCC on Radiative forcing ΔF; The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and The feedback multiplier ƒ.

His letter is an opinion, it has not been peer reviewed and the APS has expressly stated that his opinion does not match those of the APS itself.

[Charlatan]

When you speak of an ice age coming, you probably mean that the world will start cooling down considerably for a number of years resulting in a very cold time. What if the world cools just by about ten degrees, then stops and starts heating up again? That would bring balance to the world if you ask me, so let's look at this ice age versus global warming.

The build up of gasses in our air means that the world will still become a bit hotter, but we are talking about natural phenomenon. When the world changes temperature is does so because of closeness to the sun and things happening in the sun. Because we recieve our heat from the sun, it is responsible for all heat we feel - if there was no sun there would be no heat and we would find our temperatures falling below zero globally, eventually becoming like pluto. So when the sun combusts at a higher temperature, likewise all the planets will be warmer. Let's take a fire, because that is what the sun is after all, does it become hotter and cooler during it's blaze? At what points does it do this? I have not studied chemical fire so I don't know, but if you did you could find the point when the chemical fire will cool down before picking up again, and then find a reference for how this chemical fire will perform throughout the ages.

The sun plays a bigger role in our temperature than gasses in our atmosphere. The pollution however does make the planet hotter. When gasses fight for supremecy - hot air rises - air eventually cools down, so pollution should come back to us. The pollution itself is thicker air than the air we find ourselves surrounded by, and the thicker something is the lower it will sink, so our pollution will come back to us at ground level eventually, amplifying hot conditions, as thicker air keeps heat in, so this factor of pollution will make the world hotter than it would normally be, but not to such a degree as the heating from the sun.

[Craig-OmahaWX]

All of you are media brainwashed.

Read this latest story;

Climatic Earth - The Truth

[minorwork]

Quote by: Pooeypants His letter is an opinion, it has not been peer reviewed and the APS has expressly stated that his opinion does not match those of the APS itself.

Absolutely, an opinion that analyses the science of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers .
It is interesting that the APS would release the paper before peer review. It would seem that the debate is on. Monckton has pointed to parameters that have been "forced" into the computer programs. He questions the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 as my read of the paper. Also of note is the lack of empirical evidence by the use of proxies for a direct temperature reading, for example, wind speed as an indirect measure of temperature. (My example)

The Summary for Policymakers in IPCC (2007) says – “The CO2radiative forcing increased by 20% in the last 10 years (1995-2005).” Natural or anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere induces a “radiative forcing” ΔF, defined by IPCC (2001: ch.6.1) asa change in net (down minus up) radiant-energy flux at the tropopause in response to a perturbation. Aggregate forcing is natural (pre-1750) plus anthropogenic-era (post-1750) forcing. At 1990, aggregate forcing from CO2 concentration was ~27 W m–2 (Kiehl&Trenberth, 1997). From 1995-2005, CO2 concentration rose 5%, from 360 to 378 W m–2, with a consequent increase in aggregate forcing (from Eqn. 3 below) of ~0.26 W m–2, or <1%. That is one-twentieth of the value stated by the IPCC. The absence of any definition of “radiative forcing” in the 2007 Summary led many to believe that the aggregate (as opposed to anthropogenic) effect of CO2 on TS had increased by 20% in 10 years. The IPCC – despite requests for correction – retained this confusing statement in its report. Such solecisms throughout the IPCC’s assessment reports (including the insertion, after the scientists had completed their final draft, of a table in which four decimal points had been right-shifted so as to multiply tenfold the observed contribution of ice-sheets and glaciers to sea-level rise), combined with a heavy reliance upon computer models unskilled even in short-term projection, with initial values of key variables unmeasurable and unknown, with advancement of multiple, untestable, non-Popper-falsifiable theories, with a quantitative assignment of unduly high statistical confidence levels to non-quantitative statements that are ineluctably subject to very large uncertainties, and, above all, with the now-prolonged failure of TS to rise as predicted (Figures 1, 2), raise questions about the reliability and hence policy-relevance of the IPCC’s central projections. Dr. RajendraPachauri, chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has recently said that the IPCC’s evaluation of climate sensitivity must now be revisited. This paper is a respectful contribution to that re-examination.

[Craig-OmahaWX]

IPCC is a group of people in the government. Do you really want to trust the Government for Weather PRedictions?

[minorwork]

Quote by: Craig-OmahaWX IPCC is a group of people in the government. Do you really want to trust the Government for Weather PRedictions?

The United Nations, by its nature, works to be the ruling government of the planet. Any agenda that will promote such is fair game. I really expected them to try to unite the world behind an anti-asteroid campaign or extra terrestrial invader. But climate change it is.

H.L. Mencken has said a bit about the subject:

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. No politician has ever got elected by telling the truth. It just doesn’t work to tell the masses that you are going to do as bad a job as your predecessor, and that you can’t simultaneously lower taxes while increasing quality of services. Think of it as natural selection. There are truthful politicians out there, but the liars get selected over the truth tellers. It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: minorwork Absolutely, an opinion that analyses the science of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers . It is interesting that the APS would release the paper before peer review.

Ergo, before peer review it does not qualify as a scientific paper. However, scientists are entitled to their opinion and therefore, why shouldn't it be printed? That would only affirm the allegations that the research is biased one way or that organisations will only hear one side.

[minorwork]

Quote by: Pooeypants Ergo, before peer review it does not qualify as a scientific paper. However, scientists are entitled to their opinion and therefore, why shouldn't it be printed? That would only affirm the allegations that the research is biased one way or that organisations will only hear one side.

The paper's that do survive peer review get started this way. Even though not specifically agreeing with the Monckton "opinion" piece, by letting it be released under APS auspices seems to indicate more than a mere acknowledgement of submittance. That is where I may be in error as I can't read the minds of the editors at the APS. I don't think they would have done the same to an Intelligent Design "opinion" of the IPCC science.

Monckton's science will live or die on its own merits.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: minorwork The paper's that do survive peer review get started this way. Even though not specifically agreeing with the Monckton "opinion" piece, by letting it be released under APS auspices seems to indicate more than a mere acknowledgement of submittance. That is where I may be in error as I can't read the minds of the editors at the APS. I don't think they would have done the same to an Intelligent Design "opinion" of the IPCC science. Monckton's science will live or die on its own merits.

Well, issuing a statement immediately after its release to say that they re-affirm their original statement on AGW and that the author's opinion does not reflect those of the APS kind of tells you what their thought might have gone through their head.

[minorwork]

Quote by: Pooeypants Well, issuing a statement immediately after its release to say that they re-affirm their original statement on AGW and that the author's opinion does not reflect those of the APS kind of tells you what their thought might have gone through their head.

The disclaimer maintains the integrity of the APS, certainly.

I object to the religious-like appeal to authority which demands a passive agreement. When I asked if the presenters of An Inconvenient Truth would measure the CO2 in the room of the lecture hall I got only looks. Believe, don't question is the mantra. My problem is that I see red flags when I am talked down to. My mental blocks in the way again.

[Thanatos]

Arctic ice continues to thin - earth - 02 August 2008 - New Scientist Environment

SANTA is skating on very thin ice. In 2007 the sea ice at the North Pole was at its thinnest since records began. Christian Haas of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany, and his team estimated the thickness of late summer ice at the North Pole in 2001, 2004 and 2007. They found that the ice was on average 1.3 metres thick at the end of the summer in 2007. By contrast, its depth was 2.3 metres in 2001 and 2.6 metres in 2004. "In 2007 the ice was 1.3 metres thick on average, compared with 2.6 metres in 2004" The team went to the North Pole aboard the German icebreaker RFV Polarstern in August and September of 2001, 2004 and 2007. While there, they used helicopter-borne instruments to determine the thickness of large swathes of ice by measuring its conductivity (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2008GL034457). Previously, glaciologists had measured ice thickness in spots by placing instruments directly on the ice. Records from 1991 show that the summer ice that year was 3.1 metres thick. While the ice at the North Pole used to be thick "old" ice, much of it now is thinner first-year ice, which has had only a single winter to grow. Earlier studies had already shown that the extent of Arctic sea ice reached its lowest level in 2007, 23 per cent below the previous minimum set in 2005. Taken together, the studies suggest that the Arctic could soon be ice-free during summer.

[minorwork]

Large changes in temperature due to the Gulf Stream conditions can happen quickly. Proxy records of ice core analysis shows this. Still, this is not like taking the measurements directly. I wonder if human activity can steer the larger swings. Since there is no indication of men doing this in the past, I do not see it yet.