Some of my threads do continue for quite awhile. This one really began with a series of articles and data from NASA showing that we might be have an Ice Age coming - this thread got truly huge and I need to start a new one for 2016.


There is a new post today - added to this rather large thread people come from all over the world to state the facts about "global warming." Some of us have said although we may have some globally warming, we may have a small Ice Age in the United States and Europe because of the dilution of the Gulf Stream by melting ice which carries warm from the south and and heats the continents in the Atlantic. There are a number of sites bitterly ripping apart those stating this as opposed to global warming. Did humankind with its miserable pollution mess up the climate of the world and are we soon to experience drought and many places becoming deserts. Time to bring out the current facts - not those advance by oil companies and special interests. What is the real news and real situation? 

Medclinician

http://avianflutalk.com/coming-of-the-ice-age-2015_topic33424.html

It has been more than 6 months since I posted this and earlier over years have been predicting an Ice Age as opposed to global warming. It is the melting of the Ice caps and also glaciers that will dilute the main stream which warms North America which could bring about a mini-Ice Age. We are already in the midst of one as it is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

The new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat. It draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone.

Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645, according to the results presented by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

The model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022.

During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

'In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun,' said Zharkova. 

'Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. 

'We predict that this will lead to the properties of a 'Maunder minimum''

You raise an interesting point here Medclincian...    Any unbiased pracactly thinking person looking at climate has to assume that the Sun is the reason for climate change.    Scientists have retorted though that there isn't a significant enough change in the suns energy to explain climate changes.   To some extent this is true but it is way to simple.

This brings me to a question I asked on the other thread "what greenhouse gas has the most profound effect on our environment".  Most people are shocked to learn that it isn't CO2 or Methane.   It is water vapor.   Let me explain why this matters.

While the total energy output from the sun doesn't change much, its electromagnetic/radiological profile does change significantly.   This interacts with the magnetosphere of the earth.  Research is suggesting that this can have a profound effect on cloud formation on earth.

If you don't believe me about H2O as a green house gas. have you ever noticed that cloudy nights tend to be much warmer than clear nights?   When it is humid it never cools off at night.
(I am sorry my post is a bit off topic for this board... but not this subject)

Jacksdad that was a sharp response but I can take it.   When it comes to climate I am truly an open minded skeptic.   I like exploring alternative views.  I am not competently sure what my personal views exactly are.

The reason I am so skeptical about CO2 is that observational studies suggest that CO2 reacts to climate change... it  doesn't necessarily cause climate change.   Temps rise THEN CO2 levels go up.  Maybe this is because the geological record isn't as accurate we wish and we cant accurately time temp rises and CO2 rises.   However, if we are using an assumption of inaccuracy to prove our point, the whole argument falls apart.

ATLANTA, Aug. 3— Six American fighter planes and two bombers that crash-landed in Greenland in World War II have been found 46 years later buried under 260 feet of ice, searchers said today.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/04/us/world-war-ii-planes-found-in-greenland-in-ice-260-feet-deep.html

To pry climate clues out of the ice, scientists began to drill long cores out of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica in the late 1960s. By the time Alley and the GISP2 project finished in the early 1990s, they had pulled a nearly 2-mile-long core (3,053.44 meters) from the Greenland ice sheet, providing a record of at least the past 110,000 years. Even older records going back about 750,000 years have come out of Antarctica. Scientists have also taken cores from thick mountain glaciers in places such as the Andes Mountains in Peru and Bolivia, Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, and the Himalayas in Asia. 

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/

Doing the math

110,000(years)/46(years)= 2,360(years) x 260’ = 613,300’/10,560’(2 miles = 10,560 feet) = 6 miles.

Conclusion: Something is wrong with the methodology of measuring the ice cores.

Man’s theories are just that, they are not facts.

Several years ago - especially as we had two very bad winters with record lows - more data started coming in as to whether the "warming" as glaciers and icecaps melt would bring on an Ice Age.

This line of thinking can be more simply understood like this... Also the sun cycles and lower output would not help but accelerate the problem.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

While global warming is being officially ignored by the political arm of the Bush administration, and Al Gore's recent conference on the topic during one of the coldest days of recent years provided joke fodder for conservative talk show hosts, the citizens of Europe and the Pentagon are taking a new look at the greatest danger such climate change could produce for the northern hemisphere - a sudden shift into a new ice age. What they're finding is not at all comforting.

In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world.

Here's how it works.

If you look at a globe, you'll see that the latitude of much of Europe and Scandinavia is the same as that of Alaska and permafrost-locked parts of northern Canada and central Siberia. Yet Europe has a climate more similar to that of the United States than northern Canada or Siberia. Why?

It turns out that our warmth is the result of ocean currents that bring warm surface water up from the equator into northern regions that would otherwise be so cold that even in summer they'd be covered with ice. The current of greatest concern is often referred to as "The Great Conveyor Belt," which includes what we call the Gulf Stream.

The Great Conveyor Belt, while shaped by the Coriolis effect of the Earth's rotation, is mostly driven by the greater force created by differences in water temperatures and salinity. The North Atlantic Ocean is saltier and colder than the Pacific, the result of it being so much smaller and locked into place by the Northern and Southern American Hemispheres on the west and Europe and Africa on the east.

As a result, the warm water of the Great Conveyor Belt evaporates out of the North Atlantic leaving behind saltier waters, and the cold continental winds off the northern parts of North America cool the waters. Salty, cool waters settle to the bottom of the sea, most at a point a few hundred kilometers south of the southern tip of Greenland, producing a whirlpool of falling water that's 5 to 10 miles across. While the whirlpool rarely breaks the surface, during certain times of year it does produce an indentation and current in the ocean that can tilt ships and be seen from space (and may be what we see on the maps of ancient mariners).

This falling column of cold, salt-laden water pours itself to the bottom of the Atlantic, where it forms an undersea river forty times larger than all the rivers on land combined, flowing south down to and around the southern tip of Africa, where it finally reaches the Pacific. Amazingly, the water is so deep and so dense (because of its cold and salinity) that it often doesn't surface in the Pacific for as much as a thousand years after it first sank in the North Atlantic off the coast of Greenland.

Medclinician

Ok so here is my crack pot theory on global warming. I believe that global warming is exactly what needs to happen when it comes to God's plan for the earth. Yes I said God! Oh my gosh how dare I say that dirty word (to many not me).

Look I believe we are here by God's grace and love and he make sure we had oil so we could live and advance he made sure our earth has an atmosphere so we could live (the other planets don't have that ) he made sure we had water so we could live. So I believe He is in control not us.

Now if we are producing too much co2 He will help us realize a solution or not. God may have a plan may be that we need to be warm because our sun may put us into a bad cold spell and we need the heat to live.

I guess my trust in God may be naïve to many of you but I do Trust In God. I hope some of you will do the same.

Coincidence, right?




Of course, if we could just compare the data to all the other times over 20 billion tons of additional CO2 was pumped into the atmosphere annually. No wait....

Good post I agree flu mom

Deep Thinker - maybe they seem to follow the same curve because there really is a correlation between an increase in CO2 and global temperatures? Graphs and charts are meant to help us visualize patterns and relationships, so why would it be suspicious to scale a graph to do just that?

Welcome back to the Ice Age - it is possible - although we are in one - for a small one lasting 30 years to begin very soon.

Warm up - or  actually cooling down - beginning now with nasty weather moving into the Midwest and East Coast i.e. New York areas.

Yes, it is winter isn't it... this normal? No... wait - no it isn't - This is October and snow is hitting early. An truly nasty period with El Nino become the wicked witch of the Gulf Stream should be bring a nastier winter than has been seen in a long time. The melting of the ice caps and glaciers will push the waters back south or block them prevents them from warming North America and parts of Europe.
click on YouTube below video to see full size and on YouTube.



Medclinician

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/612369/SHOCK-CLAIM-World-is-on-brink-of-50-year-ICE-AGE-and-BRITAIN-will-bear-the-brunt

Crippling blizzards, snowstorms and sub-zero temperatures threaten a yearly dose of Arctic misery for the next FIFTY YEARS at least - and possibly decades more.

Climate experts warn a rare pattern of water cooling in the north Atlantic will trigger a chain reaction of events leading to a “fully-blown ice age”.

The say the UK is on alert for a “serious climate situation” with regular winter whiteouts pushing emergency services to the limit.

Medclinician

Johnray1 wrote: Medcliniclian, I agree with you.When enough of the ice and snow melts to lower the salinity of the Ocean enough and the Gulf Stream stops.-----I wonder how fast and how far south will the ice come to? I wonder how far south would be safe? Maybe FL? Johnray1

It would be good to get some solid numbers in here. At this point it not relevant whether natural climate variation or humankind did this with all of their nasty pollution emitting factories. Is there time to lower the emissions enough to stop this?

Medclinician

I do not see any indication for an "ice-age". But a lot of indication for "wierding of the weather" https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/global_weirding

http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/09/18/climate-hiatus-never-happened-new-stats?cmpid=ait-fb and 

Okay, what I talk about in the second half of this post has been suggested and not implemented. There must be huge money involved in the whole global warming thing and questioning whether we are headed for a period of warmer temps or cooler. Perhaps an Ice Age is pushing it a bit - but we do have a lot of data - especially showing the ice caps are at an all time low which may dilute the Gulf Stream and cause cooler rather than warmer temps in the U.S. and Europe.

As for a global Ice Age, it would be a bit to sort out the effects of a large super cool part of Canada and the U.S. from this messed up Gulf Stream.  It would seem whether warming or cooling, if human industry pouring filth into the sky is the cause - both theories would support aggressive efforts to cap the emissions around the globe.

I am seeing sites which label the whole coming Ice Age thing as some malevolent conspiracy backed by people intentionally trying to alarm the world for some sort of personal gain. This is ludicrous. In a time where the media and accurate information about anything is hard to find, it is matter of research to simply find out the truth. No money to be made by us little data miners just looking for answers.

Not writing a book to make money by scaring people here. There will be no "The Ice Age Cometh" from jbm or any other author name I have. This not political, I receive no current grants or money or even work for anyone associated with power.

There is (my term) in the box (as opposed to out of the box) science that regurgitates the same foundation-less  spin year after year. Recently I put up a bit of science on how there are sun cycles and when the sun is not putting out as much energy as it should, we could get another ice age.  It does get complicated in whether our climate is based on CO2 or water vapor. There are factors we are not even aware of ... i.e. magnetic fields or natural cycles which are beyond our current science.

The fact that some Mastodons and perhaps even dinosaurs were flash frozen means in some points in our history climate change occurred in minutes not centuries. Last year I was reporting about a lake in Europe that froze so fast the fish were encased in ice unable to swim away.

So - let's hope free speech doesn't get labeled insidious and someone starts passing laws against it. That would be a sorry day for America.

Medclinician

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sen-whitehouse-d-ri-suggests-using-rico-laws-global-warming-skeptics_963007.html

That's right -- a sitting U.S. Senator is suggesting using RICO laws should be applied to global warming skeptics. Courts have been defining RICO down for some time and in ways that aren't particularly helpful. In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled RICO statutes could be applied to pro-life activists on the grounds that interstate commerce can be affected even when the organization being targeted doesn't have economic motives. 

Obviously, there's a lot of money hanging in the balance with regard to energy policy. But when does coordinating "a wide range of activities, including political lobbying, contributions to political candidates, and a large number of communication and media efforts" go from basic First Amendment expression to racketeering? The tobacco analogy is inappropriate in regards to how direct the link between smoking and cancer is. Even among those who do agree that global warming is a problem, there's a tremendously wide variety of opinions about the practical effects. Who gets to decide whether someone is "downplaying the role of carbon emissions in climate change" relative to the consensus? If message coordination and lobbying on controversial scientific and political issues can be declared racketeering because the people funding such efforts have a financial interest in a predetermined outcome, we're just going to have to outlaw everything that goes on in Washington, D.C.

Medclinician

Satori wrote: if an ice age is coming it may want to get here a little sooner because THE ICE IS MELTING There is a melt event beginning to happen in Greenland http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/28/1441491/-There-is-a-melt-event-beginning-to-happen-in-Greenland

It is this melting that will cause a dilution of the Gulf Stream as cold waters move to the south further blocking the movement of warming water to the north. Perhaps this will not bring on a global ice age, but it could definitely result in dramatic cooling in North America and parts of Europe.

Medclinician

NASA Debunks Global Warming: Ice Sheets Growing

Scientists confirm their fears about West Antarctica — that it’s inherently unstable

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/02/scientists-confirm-their-fears-about-west-antarctica-that-its-inherently-unstable/

I wish the idiot that first coined the term "global warming" had kept it to himself. "Climate change" is what we're looking at, and any hint of somewhere getting colder automatically brings out the naysayers and deniers. It's a global warming trend that will change weather patterns resulting in changes in localized temperatures, rainfall, wind patterns, etc. It's describes what we're seeing, and I don't understand why people are so determined to deny it in the face of measurable data, especially given the dire consequences to the ecosystem and ourselves. The sea levels are rising, Greenland is melting, glaciers around the world are disappearing, CO2 levels are increasing, each year is hotter than the last - all things we can see and quantify.
I've posted this before because people seem to have trouble getting their heads around the fact that the thin envelopes of gas and liquid clinging to our planet is not as big as we might believe. The blue sphere is all the water on Earth, and the pink one represents the atmosphere. Dumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into both can only bring about change.

Antarctica Is Gaining Ice. Here’s Why That’s Not Actually Good News

http://www.newsweek.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-heres-why-thats-not-actually-good-news-389904

NASA found a way to track ocean currents from space. What they saw is troubling

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/04/nasa-can-now-detect-worrying-ocean-circulation-changes-from-space/