From Global Warming To Ice Age
by Big Dog on Jan 11, 2010 at 05:52 Political
Scientists are now predicting that we might suffer a mini ice age of 20 to 30 years. This prediction changes the assertions that we have to act now to keep the seas from rising and the Earth from melting or any of the other apocalyptic stuff spewed by the global warming drones.
According to scientists who believe in global warming and who are on board with all the Al Gore hokey stuff, we might be in for an ice age before we get back to serious global warming.
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.
This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics. Daily Mail UK
I guess if you can no longer hide the decline you need to embrace it. The world is very cold this month and was very cold last month. The last decade is reported to be the warmest on record (our records do not go back very far) but this new decade is starting off as a very cold one and if we get into an ice age of 20 or 30 years then we will have a climate and not just weather. We will have cold and not global warming.
Then the true deniers, those who deny the Earth warms and cools in cycles and that the warmer periods are generally the most productive in history, will be screeching about global cooling and the new ice age heading our way.
Al Gore will open a chain of SUV dealerships so we can all increase our carbon footprints and stop the world from freezing.
But wait. According to Al and his drones we have increased our carbon footprint. We have allegedly put more carbon in the atmosphere than there has been at any other time (not true) and the scientists could not hide the decline and are now predicting a mini ice age.
So does carbon cause warming or cooling? It is hard to keep track of because Al said we would get warmer because of it and these other fellows are saying that we will have an ice age despite it.
It is all so confusing and unpredictable.
Perhaps that is why we call it nature.
Either way humans will be here in the next decade and the decades after that and we will not be dying of the heat. No matter what happens it is not worth the money that it will cost to do cap and trade or to impose other rules regarding this issue.
In other words, let nature take its course.
I know liberals think they elected a messiah but how arrogant must they be to believe we have the ability to change the climate in any meaningful way?
Hmmm, Mars got warmer when the Earth did. That would tend to take away the man made aspect to all this. But what do the Earth and Mars have in common?
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: al gore, climate, decline, denier, global warming, ice age, lies
You can’t help but write easily refutable global warming denier talking points, can you?
Global warming on Mars has very little evidence to support it. The sun is not the primary cause of warming on either planet.
For those deniers who make illogical, easily refutable arguments I say that I wish you would do better. For those deniers actually making decent, logical arguments I say I hope you are correct.
How do you refute something when your theory has yet to be proved. The phony hockey stick graph, the hidden decline…
Refute it with science. You should try it sometime.
Bigd: “How do you refute something when your theory has yet to be proved.”>>
DAR
Actually, in science, you try to disprove something. If you cannot, that is very much in it’s favor. If you actually had a good argument (and you don’t) against the mountain of science showing GW, you should use that, rather than all of this recycled junk.
Bigd: The phony hockey stick graph,…>>
DAR
If you want to speak intelligently about the “hockey stick” graph then best to get a little informed about it rather than regurgitate all of the false, outdated and discredited information you have gleaned from your denier friends who apparently don’t know how to check things either.
Start here:
Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick”
And note, this happened in June of 2006, so you’re 3 1/2 years behind the curve:
NRC Exonerates “Hockey Stick” Graph, Ending “Mann-Hunt” by Two Canadian Skeptics”
These two Canadian clowns: “Stephen McIntyre, a statistician and part-time consultant in Toronto to minerals industries, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph in Ontario” made so much noise about the hockey stick that an investigation was done. They lost. The hockey stick won.
Beating the living crap out of GW deniers with the hockey stick is a bit of a specialty, just so ya know.
D.
——————
“The term “Hockey Stick” was coined by the former head of NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Jerry Mahlman, to describe the pattern common to numerous proxy and model-based estimates of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature changes over the past millennium. This pattern includes a long-term cooling trend from the so-called “Medieval Warm Period” (broadly speaking, the 10th-mid 14th centuries) through the “Little Ice Age” (broadly speaking, the mid 15th-19th centuries), followed by a rapid warming during the 20th century that culminates in anomalous late 20th century warmth (Figure 1). Numerous myths regarding the “hockey stick” can be found on various non-peer reviewed websites and other non-scientific venues.” –ibid
So this computer model that gives a hockey stick no matter what data is put in is OK?
Gotcha.
Nope, not buying in. P T Barnum talked about you guys.
We do have time to see. And I am not willing to spend all the money they want to spend for rubbish and less than a degree of change.
I am doing my part on the methane front by eating cows. You should chase Adam with a hockey stick (graph) and beat him, he is a vegan and is not helping.
Bigd: “So this computer model that gives a hockey stick no matter what data is put in is OK?”>>
DAR
No, that’s false. Read, learn. Learn something new. You are just repeating lies you’ve heard. Note, from hockey stick myth #4 referenced above:
“The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick have now been further discredited in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, in a paper to appear in the American Meteorological Society journal, “Journal of Climate” by Rutherford and colleagues (2004) [and by yet another paper by an independent set of authors that is currently “under review”…]. Rutherford et al (2004) demonstrate nearly identical results to those of MBH98 [hockeystick graph], using the same proxy dataset as Mann et al (1998) but addressing the issues of infilled/missing data raised by Mcintyre and McKitrick, and using an alternative climate field reconstruction (CFR) methodology that does not represent any proxy data networks by PCA at all.”
All roasted to a crisp here.
And after careful review by an independent scientific body, the result:
“Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate
The New York Times, June 22, 2006
WASHINGTON, June 22 — A controversial paper asserting that recent warming in the Northern Hemisphere was probably unrivaled for 1,000 years was endorsed today, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation’s pre-eminent scientific body.”
All graphs look like hockey sticks now, because we are hotter than any time in a 1,000 years and most of that increase has spiked in the last few decades. We live on the blade of the hockey stick.
D.
—————–
* every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992
* the ten hottest years on record occurred in the last 15
* every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976
* the 20 hottest years on record occurred in the last 25
* every year since 1956 has been warmer than 1956
* every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917
How do you know any of this when they destroyed the data. it cannot be duplicated and they hid the decline because they had to make it work? Their statements in their emails
> Scientists are now predicting that we might suffer a mini ice age of 20 to 30 years.
Drivel. Utter and complete idiotic drivel.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/10/climate-change-uk-big-freeze
How does anyone base an assumption on the data available? Oh yeah the “hockey stick” graph! The earth is how old? Has went through how many warming and cooling ages? Global Warming is a hoax. Those whom have bought into Al Gore’s scam offer the same arguments. Which as stated above is “Drivel. Utter and complete idiotic drivel”
Notice how ANY change in their predictions is “to their advantage”- meaning that any change in weather they say, “supports” Global Warming- excuse me- “Climate Change”- which is idiocy attempted to be turned to policy.
Only a liberal who completely and utterly parrots the party line here- that is to say, anyone who has had a logic lobotomy, would keep yammering the Goracle’s spew.
Because what we really need is Blake lecturing us on logic…
Obviously you do- otherwise you would drop all this “warming” drivel, and wise up.
It’s not brain surgery here.
When I die, I want to be buried in a Polar Bear pelt- there’s plenty of them- they won’t miss one.
I would go with the Harp seal, but they aren’t snuggly enough, and I am entitled to the pelt, because “I am good enough, smart enough, and darn it, people like me.”
The scientists in Bigd’s, very silly, UK article:
“Like Prof Latif, Prof Tsonis is not a climate change ‘denier’. There is, he said, a measure of additional ‘background’ warming due to human activity and greenhouse gases that runs across the MDO cycles.”
Boring.
Oh, and I dealt with this distortion regarding Latif back in September the last time you floated it. See below.
D.
——————
Bigd: Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz Institute… acknowledged that the Earth has been cooling and is likely to continue that trend for the next couple of decades>>
DAR
Let’s check that. Note:
“It’s pretty clear though that Fred Pearce took Mojib’s words out of context and that is unfortunate. If New Scientist is supposed to be reputable, they should post a correction.
I like the way Mojib wrapped it up in saying: “I’m definitely not one of the skeptics, okay, and if my name was not ‘Mojib Latif’, my name would be ‘Global Warming’.”
His concerns with what the press might do with his words was not unfounded.”
LINK
Latif showed the 20th century variability around a rising trend, and noted that it could happen that temperatures cooled for a decade or even two, and if that happened, people would say global warming had stopped. He did not predict that this would happen over the next decade or two as the article suggests. His comment on needing to “ask the nasty questions ourselves” was in the context of addressing model biases, not in the context of a decadal cooling.
Latif felt the jury was still out as to the relative contribution of internal decadal variability to the recent warming. He went on to discuss the NAO as one of the important internal modes of the climate system exhibiting low-frequency variability. Putting two and two together, Pearce got “NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades”.
In short, in his presentation Latif did suggest — in passing, and very off-hand — that as much as two decades of cooling could happen despite underlying AGW. That would probably upset a few bets. He did not predict “that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans” and that the cooling would be down to changes in the NAO. Nor did he mention that the NAO was moving into a “colder phase”. If anything, his speech was about the difficulties attending such predictions and the need to improve our abilities to make them.” –ibid
It is a distortion when it disagrees with you.
I just knew Adam and Darrel would have all the answers to Big Dogs article. (sarc) Drivel just absolute drivel to quote from above.
Every major world scientific body that deals with climate change published a consensus statement that global warming is real and humans are contributing to it. That’s OK though. The Cons call it a fraud and a hoax, or a world wide conspiracy. Let a couple of scientists say there’s an ice age coming and that is of course solid as a rock and a major refutation of global warming. Oh what fun it must be to live in a world so void of rational thought…
Nope, you miss the point. Not solid as a rock only contradictory and indicative of the reality that the climate changes on a regular basis. This has been a debate for over a century. We have not melted yet and we have not frozen to death (though some folks are now).
Faux News has also reported this. In fact, it looks like they sourced it straight out of the Daily Mail article you link, OneBigDog, and it turns out the Daily Mail article is so horribly wrong that even Faux had to print a correction.
By the way, OneBigDog, you could have found at least one of the errors in the DM article yourself, had you bothered to look at the NSIDC site. You like to preen as though you are someone who should be regarded as a source of wisdom and enlightenment but you don’t bother to check your sources when they agree with your prejudices. Are you just lazy? Or did you look and you’re actually dishonest? Or did you look, fail to realize the truth and you’re just stupid?
Charlie: “…just lazy? Or did you look and you’re actually dishonest? Or did you look, fail to realize the truth and you’re just stupid?”>>
DAR
Ah, the eternal question.
Or am I just right.
Stupid, not by a long shot. Lazy, not even close, dishonest, not in any way shape or form.
But keep trying, I am sure you will never come up with some name that I have not been called by better people but you keep trying.
I don’t know- perhaps Charlie’s pelt might do- no, I don’t want to spend eternity in a hypocrite’s skin- forget it.
The premise behind your source has now been ripped to shreds. Another batch of lies from the global warming deniers. Surprise!
Good job.
I wonder if Bigd will make a correction. That’s what an honest person would do.
D.
—————
“…falsehood-filled Daily Mail article on global cooling that utterly misquotes, misrepresents work of Mojib Latif and NSIDC”
I have to wait and see before I make a correction. Right now it is freezing out and the ice age appears to be here.
Global warming is a hoax.
Morons.
I guess the rule is quickly report any denier garbage right away, but wait and see when it comes to admitting you were duped again. I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to issue any said correction.
“Right now it is freezing out and the ice age appears to be here”
No duh. It’s winter:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100127_TemperatureFinal.pdf
By the way, there’s a few fabulous pictures of what a real winter is like in that report.
You have to love a piece that starts out saying its cold, compared to what our recent memory and then descibes climate over the past 130 years and explains why a certain period of time is the best baseline when going back tens of thousands of years gives more accurate pictures of the cyclic nature of the planet.
So rephrase the question. Its warm but compared to what, our recent memory?
Well yes, the past 130 years or so. How about the past ten thousand or the past 500,000? How does it look then?
The context in which Hansen writes is in answer to current Denialist BS, which is focussed on the fact that it’s cold outside. Check your Denialist BS buddies’s sites and count the posts that involve references to current weather conditions.
The “Medieval Warm Period” and BS about “Climate Optimums” of warmer temps are just that… BS.
Further, the principal concern among biologists with respect to climate change isn’t the fact of climate change… they’re fully on board with that idea, it’s one of the things that drives evolution… it’s the pace of change. A period of rapid, sustained increase in temps is going to disrupt the environment and drive species into extinction faster than we can adapt.
Insects and other forms that breed rapidly (like bacteria) will be better able to keep pace with change than the species we generally find more useful and friendly.
Of course, there’s the purely practical concerns that increasing the temps of America’s breadbasket by 2degC or so might make it much more difficult to grow our cereal crops and the possibility that this would disrupt weather patterns enough to make entirely impossible to grow things.
Balanced against that is the possibility that desert areas might develop more fertility but it seems that the pace of desertification is faster than the conversion of desert to arable land.
I am waiting because Vlad Putin has chimed in and I know how much liberals love the man and how Obama will do whatever he wants.
Putin is worried about the cooling so I need to see what he has to say.
Hey Charlie, go back real far in time and explain high CO2 levels and high temperatures in cycles. Don’t concentrate on a short period.
We are seeing this hoax unravel before our eyes.